chasfh

No proof, but …

So called creation of jobs.

Cruz misspelled “Trump” and “Pence”.

Trump would have been strong with Putin.

I presented a poster on this in Pittsburgh a few years ago where I showed that deadening the ball by just 1% to 2% could result in double digit percent decrease in homers.

This is so far nestled in between Invasion of Poland and Cuban Missile Crisis. 9/11 has turned out to be pretty much what I was filleted for saying about it at the time: a heinous criminal act blown way out of proportion, up to the level of state action, for political, military, and profit purposes. I think COVID is/was bigger than 9/11.

The Allies may not technically be a party to the conflict, but we are practically a party to it, which counts just as much. I don’t think Putin would ask for Trump to be part of the Allies negotiating team because I don’t think he’s going to ask to sue for peace in the first place. Such a concession would be the ultimate weakness. He either wins, or he loses. No in-between. But: as revolting or nauseating the thought is, in the spirit of what if, if Putin did demand to talk to Trump and agreed to stop the shelling in order to do so, which could save tens of thousands of civilians lives, the Allies, including Ukraine, would have to seriously consider that. After all, we’d be talking tens of thousands of lives saved here. And if they did meet and, in a charade pre-arranged between them, Putin agreed to permanent cessation of hostilities as a result of those talks, Trump could be considered a hero as a result, albeit controversially. And to the degree that people in this very forum believe it’s a foregone conclusion Trump will be elected in 2024 anyway, something like a successful Putin-Trump peace summit would cement his landslide election here at home. Ick.

Stipulating that we both agree that this is unlikely, why do you think it is unlikely? Do you think it’s because Putin would never think of it? Or do you think it’s because Putin wouldn’t want Trump involved in the talks?

Yeah, I’m not predicting that. Just a random thought to flew into my head last night as I reviewed pictures from Helsinki 2018.

Remember, Bunker doesn’t like Trump, tho

This would ring a little better if MJT didn’t believe her worst enemies are other Americans.

You can cheer for the death penalty for the worst of the worst, and no one will blame you, and many will attaboy you for it. OTOH, a death penalty that can be used on one is a death penalty that can be used on any. Word to the wise.

Pence was willfully ignorant of Trump’s worst impulses and behaviors, hoping against hope he could be talked into the mainstream Republican fold. All the mainstream Republicans were equally willfully ignorant, with the same hopes. Pence was in the position of not being able to publicly abandon that hope at any point because of his unique position, which I think is why he stayed silent until well after the end.

I think the difference is that Russia’s disinformation machine thrives in conditions of peace, during which their target market is not attuned to it. Disinformation is at its most insidious when it works on a mind at rest. A mind heightened by crisis is far less likely to fall for the bullshit.

Suppose Putin announces that he will agree to peace talks immediately only if Trump is involved in the talks as a lead representative on the Allied side, or else Russia continues to shell Ukrainian civilians with promises to up the ante to missiles and nukes. That’s a condition that would sorely tempt the Allies to agree to the demand, just to stop the killing. Putin’s goal would be to strengthen Trump’s position here at home to assure his election in 2024, after which Trump could create the conditions necessary for Putin to get Russia back up to better than previous full strengthen. That would be the plan, anyway. God, what a revolting idea.

I agree, although in Pence’s defense, he will be expelled from party-backed public speaking engagements if he does drop the T-bomb during these. So this might be as much as he can say at all.

I believe you did answer your own question. Fear of the home run is why pitchers put 100% into every pitch from pitch one of the ballgame, because every single batter in 2022 can take them out of the ballpark. So instead of trying to throw heat past most hitters on the regular, they twist their shoulders and elbows into ungodly contortions trying to get swing and miss. No wonder pitchers are wiped out by the time the 19th batter of the game steps to the plate, and also why they seem to be getting hurt in historically record numbers. How can this very necessary pitching approach not take a toll? Deaden the ball and pitchers won’t have to do that, except to the heart of the order. They can just serve up their four-seamers (and two-seamers, if those exist anymore) to down-the-order hitters and say here you go, hit it and get yourself out. Allow for this, and pitchers can go deeper into games, deeper into seasons, and even deeper into their careers. I can’t believe no one at Baseball hasn’t figured this out. I gotta believe they know this, but they prefer the current state of affairs because of (a) the desirability of the video highlight homer for their state media’s nightly marketing vid … er, recap show; and (2) the attractiveness of will-he-or-won’t-he-homer, which I wouldn’t doubt is the #1 prop bet being made at the books. I also wonder whether Baseball also prefers the parade of AAAA pitchers on rosters, since that increases the chances for home runs on mistake pitches, and also because fewer of them will get far enough in their careers to force owners to pay them good and proper before they retire.

This is, in part, what made Mariano Riviera, and really any other modern closer who could throw one devastating pitch even for a little while, so effective. Riviera was famous for throwing one and only pitch, basically, but no one could hit it because no one could ever dig in and get comfortable against it. No one ever faced Riviera more than six times in a single season, not even David Ortiz, and never twice in the same game. No wonder no one could hit him. Contrast that to Joe DiMaggio, who faced Bob Feller as many as 34 times in a single season, sometimes four or more times in a single game, and you can understand how he could figure out how to slash .342/.415/.643 against even Rapid Robert.

Well, I did say “let’s pretend”! 😝

I'm sympathetic to the potential problem of dramatically reducing offense if they deaden the ball. I do think it would have that immediate effect as long as players do not going to change their approach in response to the ball right away afterwards, which they wouldn't. That's basically 2014. If Baseball were going to seriously undertake deadening the ball to reduce homers/strikeouts and get more batted balls into the field of play—I don't think they would ever, but let's pretend—I was wondering about the idea of announcing a year in advance that this was going to happen. For example, announce on Opening Day 2023 that the new ball is going into effect for 2024. Give players an entire season to talk about it and get used to the idea. Then, after the season, send batches of the new ball to every player on every team's 40-man roster and encourage them to work with it during the winter. (Maybe even pay them a stipend for doing work in the offseason.) A lot of these guys have hitting and pitching cages in their neighborhoods or even at their McMansions. They can work with the new ball there. Then, during Spring Training, everyone would have six weeks of working and playing with the new ball exclusively, working out approaches to succeed with the it such as pitching to contact more, hitters spraying the ball more around the field, etc., so that by the time Opening Day comes around, they will be far more comfortable working with the new ball than if it were just sprung on them unannounced, as Baseball typically has done with changes to the ball. They could also put the ball in play in the minors immediately (and adjust the MLEs for analysis), so all the rookies coming in would have experience with it. Not everyone would come through such a change OK. Some players would lose their careers over it. But, then they would be replaced by players who do work well with the ball, some of whom would never make the majors under today's conditions. IOW, the game would adjust. It always does. I don't think there's any way to introduce a deadened ball without creating any friction at all, but this might be a way to do so with as little friction as possible.

Personally, I wouldn't enforce it at all. The shift was an organic solution to a particular opportunity, so I think there should be a similar opportunity created that would basically eliminate the need for the shift. That opportunity is deadening the ball.

Sometimes between pitches, too. On lots of shifts, players go into a dramatically different configuration for two-strike counts.

I just reviewed an article for the Fall BRJ about the effect of increased foul balls on additional time of game, and the author's conclusion was, basically none.