mtutiger

And the wheels fall off.... my goodness

Chris McCoskey's guy coming in lol

Really good start on balance for Reese Olson... Would be nice if literally someone would provide a little offensive support

I'd be really upset if they overturned that.... bizarre play

CB Bucknor's zone is nuts today

I would imagine mostly 35-49 and 49-64.... he draws about 10 mil/day still

An interview with the Times probably has some effects indirectly (ie. coverage in other media, how journalists on cable cover / detail the interview, etc.), but in terms of direct contact, this is unironically true.

He did do an interview with The New Yorker around the SOTU, so it's not like hasn't done one with a legacy outlet recently. I think it's less about his abilities and more about the fact that he just doesn't like or care for The New York Times and doesn't want to give them the time. Whether it's the right posture or not is another matter... like Boehner said in his memoir, sometimes you gotta feed the alligators, and I agree with you that he'd probably be better off just doing it and letting the chips fall where they may.

Doesn't count, not the NYT

Yeah, that was my immediate thought, attendance will likely be higher than a typical game on account of the draft one would think

Part of the problem with political reporting, and it's certainly not exclusive to the NYT at this point although they are the biggest offender, is that it all feels outsourced to polling. The "shoeleather" stuff isn't actually being on the ground trying to find out what people are talking about, it's the paper hiring a polling outfit to do a poll, and then having the political folks do a large writeup on said poll and drawing sweeping conclusions. And then sending the reporters out into the field to interview folks on the basis of whatever the polling results are. Obviously old school political reporting can be informed by hard data, and certainly reporters shouldn't be drawing conclusions off of random interactions in the field, but often times it just seems like the data does all the driving and reporters just work backwards. And that really seems mailed in. 100%, it's all about the brand. I think it's a fair discussion to have as to whether Biden is out giving independent interviews enough, but the sense of entitlement that the Times demonstrates is off-putting regardless. Especially in a time when other publications in the industry who don't have the resources that the Times has are facing existential challenges

I disagree. The standard they hold themselves to is that of being the "Paper of Record"... the revelations in this piece were credible and likely well sourced, and they really cut against the brand that they have for years cultivated. Particularly when their reporters came out on social media in a defensive posture after this piece dropped, it was fait accompli that they would have to respond. Although I'm not sure the response is going to help a whole lot. None of this is existential obviously, but I'm sure for a lot of readers, it definitely clarified or confirmed some things that were pretty evident about their political coverage in recent years.

Quite a ratio for this one... and well deserved

Games 25 thru 45 for the 2003 Tigers below: Had themselves a nice 4 game winning streak after starting 3-25.... mostly at the expense of the O's

GOP lawmaker called out after claiming credit for projects she voted against Perfect example here...

On one hand, I still don't know that Biden has been out there engaging enough, but there is a strategy being employed that revolves around more exposure on local TV under the guise of meeting people where they are at. I don't know that I fully buy it, but that's part of what's going on. At some level, the friction is of a personal nature, but Biden's campaign and how it's allocating it's resources doesn't benefit the Times the way that other campaigns in the past have done, so it's making the Times' job tougher. Not a huge surprise that it's reflecting in their coverage, for better or worse. However, this is flying under the radar in what everyone else has said, but I think it's worth highlighting from the piece: I have to rant about this for as second.... This characterization of Sulzburger (from anonymous sources) is the sort of arrogant, elitist, condescending bull**** that people sort of hate about the media in general, particularly the coastal set. And at a time when the journalism AS A WHOLE is facing an existential crisis (ie. less and less local news sources, newspapers dying - something that many of their staff have spent time highlighting / virtue signaling about on Twitter as well), there's something really unseemly about seeing this sort of entitlement from one of the few profitable operations in America today. Like, who the hell do these people think they are? Do they think that ABC12 in Flint are incapable of practicing journalism or asking tough questions? If the last few years have taught me anything, I'd argue that local and smaller outlets are able to engage in and elicit revealing responses from politicians in ways that the big outlets never could or would.

I personally cannot wait for this upcoming series with the Royals, now that "Downriver Johnny" Schreiber is on the team.... what's the over/under on McCoskey mentions there?

McCoskey's Super Bowl. Starts now.

I sat down the 3rd base line the time I went, which meant craning one's neck at a 50 degree angle the entire game. At least in my experience.

I went there once when I was a kid, like 20 years ago.... I recall it being not a terrible place to watch a game insofar that the seating layout is more conducive to baseball than most stadiums like that (ie. domes). Which makes sense given that it was built in part to try to attract MLB relocation. But, aesthetically, it's just a cold, ugly looking place with little character. The Metrodome remains the worst place I've ever seen a game at.... Shea Stadium and Olympic Stadium are up there, but the Metrodome was an all-of-the-above mix of ugly and horrendous sightlines.

Happy Bleach Injection Anniversary Day to all who celebrate

No doubt.... there may be a whole-team approach about working counts / not swinging early (Cody talked about on his pod today), but man it's frustrating to see him let center-cut 93 mph fastballs go on by.

Dan and Bobby Scales mentioned it in the previous AB, but he let a couple of really nice looking pitches go by, only to strike out. Same thing this last AB.... one good looking fastball early in the count, ends up popping out on the fastball in on his hands

There's a team every year it seems at the beginning of the year could push the 1962 Mets/2003 Tigers territory.... the Sox will gather some wins, but the relative lack of depth combined with the lack of anything in their farm at the moment gives them the look of a 40-50 win outfit for sure. Real 2019 Tiger vibes

It's an interesting point.... I'm guessing Max isn't oblivious to the Wyatt Langford comparisons, or even just the general nature of this fanbase to bestow holy status on the draft pick that occurs immediately after the Tigers pick in any given first round. Ultimately don't know that it's constructive though.