gehringer_2

We are seeing that the pitching could be very good and they can catch the ball well enough but with all the young hitters the run scoring could be anything from terrible to average. If they get average, they can be a good team, but so far this spring it's hard to have a lot of confidence that are going to get close to average. Several regulars that haven't shown much so far have 2 more weeks to get their act together.

I just watched the Tigers game. Am not going to lose the buzz from Jackson Jobe's debut to flip over to the rest of this one. 2nd year in a row the team has collapsed at about this time of year. Very different circumstances but same result.

You can't deny the quality of a lot of Bacon's work, but that kind of post is waste of time.

It does work. The knock has been that for some folks, it not only reduces the enjoyment of eating, it reduces the enjoyment of everything else as well.

Bergman didn't play against LHP, but Evans actually had 111 PA against them in '84. TBH, Evans didn't do all that much in '84, '85-'87 were his better years for the Tigs. But in '84 his OPS was 10 pts higher against LHP than RHP. Only one HR off a lefty though....

well, command for one inning is not proof of starting level command, but OTOH, if he's not walking people after half a dozen starts in Toledo there would be no point to keeping him there other than that a trade to move a starter hadn't been completed.

Ditto. When the original LOTTO game came out, I would buy a $1 ticket if the pot got over a certain value - $7M or something, because the stats said the odds had actually moved the game into the player's favor. But that didn't go on too long before they increased the complexity of the game enough to remove that possibility.

LOL - Hit'em where it hurts!

I'm generally not a fan of the libertarian concept that we don't need regulation, we only need liability because with most types of products the damage is long since done before anyone gets to court and monetary damages don't help the victim much. But ironically, I think media is a place where simply increasing liability and letting juries make decisions about when claims are reasonably supported is at least a step in the right direction. A court that was moving left overreacted in the Civil Rights era out of fear that MSM media would be afraid to expose racism, but in this era the unintended consequence of protecting scurrilous/irresponsible media I believe is the more pressing problem.

The recent layout design for the Web version if WaPo seems to be set up to force you to scroll by blocking a lot of primary coverages well down the page. I'm guessing these layouts are more marketing dept driven than editorial choices. The concept of 'front page' may be getting somewhat obsolete for a web publication

Note that Greg Sargent just left WaPo. Maybe dissatisfaction with their stance or their dissatisfaction with his views being part of the reason?

NYT is screwed up editorial wise, but it's more than that I think. Part of it is the way the economics works. Putting stories about Trump on page one doesn't really help them sell more copies of the NYT because there are few NYT readers you can tell anything about Trump worse than they already know. 'We' (in the general society sense) may want the NYT - being the closest thing in the US to a 'Newspaper of Record' to be leading the charge, but the economic model for newspapers today is that they get diddly squat economically for being quoted in secondary and esp internet sources. If they were getting paid better for being the voice we'd like them to be, that might give them some concrete motivation to get past some of the stupidity they apply to their political coverage. The wider left may want the NYT to carry the water as the standard bearer, but how many are actually paying for a subscription? In the end those are the only people that can matter to the Times - or any any other commercial media outlet. Another symptom of Americans wanting things for free that are not free.

I think society has been slow to recognize how completely the landscape has changed. Our traditional understanding of needing a 1st amendment to protect the ability of people to speak needs updating to a recognition that in the current world, the greater problem is not being denied access to add to the infosphere, is the need to protect it from a level of pollution so deep that the public cannot becoming accurate informed by it. I'm not sure how you get there, but it's an issue the US needs to start thinking about more seriously. I think dumping the 'actual malice' requirements for public figures (which is actually everyone in a viral internet age) to enforce slander/libel would be one place to start. The rest of world seems to function without that level of (over)protection for public falsehoods.

Dingell's recent update says the vote was to require that the service reorganize with US ownership of the US service as opposed to banning the type of service per se.

the video is reversed Left/Right (mirrored). Is that part of her shtick or just an accident?

Well, we hope so, but it's continually depressing to see how willing most of the MSM remains to normalize his behavior.

This. Insane but true.

Not when Holmes does the picking....

I guess we knew Debrincat and Kane are not the kind of two way players that Larkin is, but you would still have thought that the infusion of talent just on an overall basis would have made more difference in their dependence on him. I guess not.

That's part of the system. Trump talks to his own people through channels the mainstream largely ignores, so he can be as inflammatory/crazy uncle as he want to be to keep them charged up and it flies under the radar to the larger public he'd just as soon only holds the image of him from 'the Apprentice'. There is almost a parallel to the way that ME leaders have one public stance pronounced in English for consumption of the West and quite another in Arabic to their own masses.

good point. This franchise needs a rescue team like Sheila's. But Sheila was smart enough to know that - Gores? Prolly not so much.

We have been talking about how people who don't follow politics view Trump - the Dems just got a freebie they couldn't have bought for $100M. DJT showing himself to be churlish and childish and dismissed as another perp waiting for sentencing in front an audience of tens of millions would who no more likely ever see one of Trump's posts than the man in the moon.

Could be fundraising for sure. None of us see the details of what the ath dept is putting together for NIL for the future. What kind of planning is going on for the end of NCAA football conference organization as we know it? Maybe the admin loves all he is doing there. (or maybe not - but we don't know) So you have financial management, facilities construction and management (which there is and has been a lot of under Manuel. So there could be any number of check boxes on his performance review. If you take a long view, coaches come and go, do well and not so well, rise spectacularly and fall just as badly at all programs. You just aren't going to hire that many Red Berensons in one lifetime who show up, do nothing but win, and get to retirement with everyone still loving them. Harbaugh's tenure was a roller coaster, Howard looked like the real deal for a while, now not so much - so they will likely move on. It would have been poor form to fire a guy convalescing from major health issues when he was busting his butt to get back to this program to try to run it. The fans get wrapped up in the day to day and season by season results, but it's a long term operation. If they had had a short leash on Harbaugh he'd have been fired after 2020 and they likely miss the Natty. Heck if Harbaugh had played his NFL Hamlet act when Bo was the AD, Bo certainly would have fired him and we'd be in year 3 of rebuilding with a PJ Fleck. So sure, too much deliberation is bad, fast decisions aren't guaranteed either.

why is she backwards?

NYT finally got around to the story today. This was the strongest headline they could come up with "Britt Tells Misleading Border Story in State of the Union Response" and their story pretty much dropped Britt as a topic 1/3 or so of the way, pivoting to pick up Jacinto-Romero's story, which would have been fine in a stand alone companion piece but as it stood simply amounted to more glossing over/ignoring GOP lying. Journalism wise, give the Times a point for actually tracking down and interviewing J-R for their story. They also did cite "independent journalist" Katz as original source.