chasfh

I don't think it's a case of the entire center-right media/pundit class not knowing how Republican elected officials will act, as much as they absolutely know privately, but they opine differently in public, because their team's ideological orthodoxy demands they do so. They can't say what they know is the truth before the fact because their media base won't stand for it, and there would be a price they would pay for it. But flip side, that's perfectly OK, because when reality arrives to proves their punditry was wrong, nobody on their team holds them accountable for it, mass amnesia sets in, they reset the past to fit the present, and they barrel on into the future to do it again and again.

This kind of thing has been said many times and in many ways, but here's another: Three of the four teams left won only 90 games during the regular season, and the fourth team won only 84. All five teams with more wins are no longer in the playoffs.

See, now even here he sounds reasonable, maybe because he's not calling people names or making vague threats or disparaging entire classes of people. The best outcome we can hope for is a crazy person who turns everyone off for the next year but doesn't actually accomplish anything substantial in his role.

He was the perfect guest host at the right time, since he could speak from a position of authority on the effects of terrorist attacks on the people left behind.

I might actually be much more worried if a hardcore red hat who does not have visible personality problems—someone who comes off looking statesman-like—were to get the Speakership and then could prosecute all these culture war items successfully and look reasonable doing it. Somebody like, I don’t know, Mike Rogers—a guy who gives lip service about working with Democrats while he votes to overturn the election, and calls for the impeachment of DAs prosecuting Trump, and opposes spending bills that contain “extreme socialist initiatives”, as if there were even such a thing. That’s the guy I would be much more worried about than Jim Jordan or even Steve Scalise.

Ever get back on your feet? 😉

I wonder whether skills for position players are more hard-coded and more difficult to unlock at the major league level than pitchers whose skill levels are at a similar percentile? For example, maybe it’s more likely for a 33rd-percentile-skilled pitcher to develop a wipeout pitch that makes him an All-Star for a while, than it is for a 33rd-percentile-skilled player to find the swing that makes him an All-Star? So maybe our current coaching staff is better at unlocking average pitchers? I don’t know, just spitballing here.

That was more Al Avila’s jam. The new guy might trade Turnbull for an outfielder with pop and command of the strike zone who also played third base in college. Can never have too many of those. 😏

I’m starting to wonder whether it wouldn’t be merely hilarious rather than existentially dangerous were Jim Jordan to become Speaker. His Speakership would not only further expose huge fault lines in that party, but his zealotry would be on full display all day every day and shine a bright light on the abject terribleness of the party, neither of which would do any favors for them come next November. Not that I believe the guy would be a completely harmless caged gorilla, but I could see a Congress under him mired in such inertia that we’d be essentially in the same spot we are today, rather than far, far worse by a year. The only pause I have is whether there is some way I’m not thinking of that he could use the office to legitimately destroy America, which I believe is his goal, but I’m having trouble coming up with one, outside of his arranging for the successful assassination of Biden and Harris and taking the presidency himself. Outside of that, could he as Speaker render so much destruction?

I don’t think the parents of soldiers would have the same pressuring effect on Putin as they would on an American president ex. Trump.

More likely Turnbull for somebody we’ve barely heard of.

Skubal ended the season showing flashes of being an ace, but he has not yet established himself as a bona fide ace, so that idea that we could trade him for something like a single-digit MLB position prospect (and plus?!) fetches a little far in my view.

The ship sailed on beat journalism being objective a long time ago. McCosky is almost the platonic ideal of a beat reporter, from the team’s and players’ points of view. He is very much on the team, and very much with The Guys. Only if a player veers into the practically criminal, such as domestic abuse, will we hear explicitly negative reporting surrounding the team or players. Otherwise, if we want to try to get a sense of what might really be going behind the veneer bring presented that the clubhouse is one big Get Along Gang, we have to try to read between the lines, especially the quotes. Beyond that, though, media consumers no longer have any expectation that beat journalism will even trade in investigation, revelation, and conflict, and today’s sports fan is generally sophisticated enough to understand that if a beat reporter steps across some line with a team or a player, that reporter will be gone. Remember Anthony Fenech? He tried to dip his toe into the water of revealing innocuous conversations the player wasn’t happy with, and all it cost him was access and then his beat.

If Malloy ends up starting for the Tigers at third base on March 28, either he’s had a defensive epiphany over the winter, or our plans at that position have gone very, very wrong.

I think JHM has a shot at OF.

An 83-win team in a four-division league has a much better chance to make the playoffs than an 83-win team in a 16-team table.

I'm not talking about rule of law as a theoretical concept. I am talking about actual laws on the books, and rules on the books.

Here's another thing: in small divisions, there's a chance an 83-win team like the 2006 Cardinals makes the playoffs, in which anything can happen. In a 16-team table, there's no chance for this, unless you go eight teams deep in the playoffs, which, then why even bother with 16-team tables if you're not trying to control for .500 teams making the playoffs in the first place? Bottom line, owners and players want more chances to make the playoffs and earn playoff money, not fewer chances.

True. What player would not care about playing on a 15th-place team?

Is there reporting that Riley is expected to be in the outfield on March 28? I don't know which is why I'm asking.

We are seeing what happens when ostrich-like people trust the integrity of our system to puny norms instead of beefy rules or laws.

I DVR the GN 10 o'clock news specifically and only to see his weather forecast.

Greene had Tommy John, so I don't think he's playing outfield this year. But if I'm wrong and he is, then Kerry Carpenter may be on the bubble.