chasfh

Implying that MLB teams have to go deeper into the population pool to find players for their teams so they have to play relatively worse players now than they did back then?

It’s probably matchup dependent, as in, Holton matches up better with the front half of the Cubs’ order so he gets the first time around; then Montero comes in for the back half of the order and gives the front of their order a different look for their second time through.

Followed by a loud out. Who comes in for the second?

Crap on a stick.

Because of how events are rapidly evolving, I now have an active hope that I do not die at the hands of someone who is opposed to my principles, ethics, morals, or beliefs.

Can’t win if you don’t put in the work beforehand.

Some teams have learned, I bet. I’m thinking we’re probably one by now.

In the last 125 seasons? Lol, so there was better ratio in 1886 or something? I think we can comfortably conclude “ever”.

Nineteen-sixty-one here. I have been categorized both as late Boomer and first-year X. However, I did learn late in life that we are both part of a subgeneration called “Generation Jones”, which differentiates our cohort of Boomers from the cohort of hippie Boomers who either protested or went to ‘Nam, neither of which characterized our experience.

Captions that only paraphrase movie or TV dialogue rather than transcribing it. They do that with Full Metal Jacket and they miss a lot of interesting turns of phrase that way.

What a great game for a national audience to get a good look at a really good team that is still flying under everyone’s radar even with the best record in baseball.

WIN! Where was this team when I was at Tuesday’s and Thursday’s games?

He is definitely the executive who implemented whatever system they have that identifies exactly the skills and makeup needed to win the way they want the game played, and then went out and exploited the hole in the marketplace to bring in affordable guys who can do it.

Not trying to take anything away from Carp because it was a great catch for him. I’m just saying a good fielder would have tracked the ball a little better and not have to fully extend to catch the ball.

Jahmai ****ing Jones!

That was exactly the kind of phenomenal catch a bad fielder would make!

There doesn’t have to be an actual strategy for this to be a purposeful distraction. A reaction in the moment is good enough to serve the same purpose.

Yes, but all of a sudden, it’s big news today.

Dingle All the Way: I’m open to the possibility that Dingler is the best blocking catcher we’ve seen since this kind of thing has been measured. | by Michael Baumann

All this feels like such old news, which I'm sure is part of the design to turn us into a fascist autocracy de jure as well as de facto.

Coincidentally, apropos of not this, I started rewatching Bridge of Spies, in which Tom Hanks plays a lawyer defending the Soviet spy Rudolf Abel, in which the US decided they needed to look like he was getting due process as part of their ideological war with the Soviets, but everybody up and down the chain just wanted it to be a pretext to railroad the spy without any real effort to defend him—all except Tom hanks, of course. While listening to the Hanks character wax poetic about how American justice was designed to be afforded to anyone regardless of background or citizenship, I kept thinking, man, that just sounds so naive these days.

The Apprentice was already a Top 10 show on NBC.

Sure he was.

No wonder he shows up so often on Maher as his idea of a reasonable Democrat. Same with Chris Cuomo and Gavin Newsom and John Avlon.

You would think he needs nothing, but Trump looks up to people who are richer and/or more powerful than he is. I know, who could be more powerful than the president of the United States? Well, who does Trump believe is more powerful than he?