chasfh

What's "Tix Tock"? Sounds like a Russian knockoff of this one Chinese app called Tik Tok. Am I close? 😉 I'm not as surprised that it took some time to gain any momentum as I am that it is gaining any momentum at all. As gravely as we here regard the attacks on democracy happening right in plain sight of our eyes, I still imagined that the vast majority of the American people not posting in this political forum, especially those not particularly engaged in politics, have no real clue what is happening. I imagined they are all too wrapped up in Tik Tok videos and sports betting and online shopping to pay much attention. As long as those three things are still available, who cares what the stupid government looks like? That's for punchable debate nerds to care about. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Hope so.

Your GREAT KING MAGA STATUS plus fifty bucks will get you a "classic" MAGA hat at Trumpstore.com.

There is no reasonable equivocation between Jared Kushner and Hunter Biden.

True though this may be, it also applies more to the taking of a firm pro-life position in the first place. But once someone does get there, they can't make any exceptions for it, because any exception makes their claim to being "pro-life" suspect at best, and a bald-faced lie at worst. If you're pro-life, you have to be pro-life all the way, no exceptions. I posted this argument on MTS years ago.

I'm a little surprised that this one did not make it into the thread earlier this week. I just saw this for the first time this morning: Not sure whether this is a one-off polling anomaly, or whether this could morph into a persistent trend going into November. Worth keeping an eye on.

Maybe Barnhart is a good quote for McCosky? Otherwise, looks like there some veteran backstop bias at work here. It's hard to get a fix on how much Barnhart may have contributed to pitchers improving so much this year, but it does fit an old school narrative quite nicely.

Semi-related to this, talking about your sports bets is the new talking about your fantasy teams.

Ever see this database where every out between 1952 and 2015 was analyzed? http://www.allmysportsteamssuck.com/2016/06/07/a-look-at-every-out-made-since-1952/ 9-3 resulting in a single out occur only 54 times, or less than once a year on average. Much more common is 9-3 in a double play, which happens about 15 times a year.

I too would have preferred Trevor Story over Javy Baez—Story was my #1 choice—but I also thought Baez was a nice consolation prize and would give us two years of up-and-down-but-ultimately-above-average production and then leave. We still might get a better year it of him next year yet, but it does seem like he might have taken his inevitable age-related step down.

To be fair, anyone who adamantly claims they are “pro-life” can’t really take any other position.

I wonder how Bunker is enjoying Biden’s latest run?

They always play the long game, so at some point this will happen. Maybe not next year, or the year after, or in five years or ten years or twenty years. But it will happen at some point. It took them fifty years to overturn Roe. The way they figure it, they got time.

It’s a projection to distract us from the actual crime family.

Fulmer and Ray were good prospects we got through Dombrowski, but that was the extent of it, although to your point, that's still better than Al managed. The only decent prospects he ever pried away from anyone was the Cubs, because they're terribly impatient at trading, too.

Do you think so? The way I remember it, Dombrowski was all about building teams up by trading off minor leaguers for major leagues, not tearing teams down by fire-saling big leaguers for prospects. I can't recall any trade in which he sent a good major leaguer in exchange for one or more prospects that were worth a darn.

I should probably modify my statement some: it's not that I wouldn't want Willi Castro on the team at all, ever again. I just don't want to have to hand him 400 or more at bats as an everyday starter. Make him your primary utility guy, limit him to 250 at bats across an entire season, and I could see him doing pretty well in that role for a first-division team.

Hey, fun fact about Willi Castro: He's at +2 DRS for right field, +1 DRS for left field, and he is flat (at zero) for Outs Above Average at all three outfield positions. Of course, he's also at -2 DRS for center field, so, good thing we don't need him there anymore. I don't want Willi on the team any more than you do, but hey—pretty wild, huh? Whoda thunk it?

Or you could just look at July 5 through August 4 and that would really make your point! 😅

"Struggles" doing a lotta work here given Paredes's slash line since August 5 is .250/.308/.396, good for a 107 wRC+ that, by itself, would be third-best on our team since then, behind only Willi (118 wRC+) and Victor (111 wRC+). If we were looking at WAR, Paredes would be tied for best with Willi at 0.3.

I thought it was government-supplied scholarships since private scholarships have a separate section, plus the data is pretty exact regarding disbursement by income levels.

I was starting to look into this a little, wondering whether an increase in students receiving grants and scholarships might somewhat offset dramatic increases in tuition. But this web page says that only 7% of students do so, so obviously not. I do notice on this page, however, that public grants and scholarships going to students at private colleges is substantially greater than those going to students at public colleges, and furthermore, the average grant/scholarship amount drop precipitously with family income at public schools, but not by nearly as much at private schools: This perplexes me. Can anyone with knowledge of this process help me understand why this is?

Thta’s because as far as Republican politicians are concerned the higher the ed, the fewer the votes. It’s gotta be why they keep trying to talk people into going to trade school instead of college. (Actually, you can do both by going to Ferris State.)