RedRamage

I thinking more that there has to be a way for the team to see who's currently in the computer. Have a display in both dugouts that shows the name, picture, and measurements of the batter currently set in the machine. Shouldn't be too hard. You'd have to have someone who's job it was to plug in the appropriate player ID, but I shouldn't think that would be too hard of a job. Have the guy who's responsible to carrying the replay crap out to the umps when there's a challenge do it.

Regarding the first question, I tend to agree. It was left on the field, it's "discoverable." I don't think it's incumbent on the other team to look away if they spot useful information in the normal course of a game. There's no rule (written or otherwise) that if a pitcher start tipping his pitches that the other team should call time out and let the pitcher know. Regarding the second question, some of the information might be proprietary. Maybe the Jays have noticed something minor that other teams haven't picked up on yet. Even beyond that, there may be specific info on how the Jay are planning to exploit a specific data point. I suspect there would be specific information in there that isn't common knowledge league-wide.

I don't think it needs to be done in real time at all. Players get measured at the start of the year by the league and their strike zone is dictated by that measurement. Players aren't growing or shrinking in height through out the year, at least not significantly, so there's no need to reset every PA. I supposed it's possible players might try to cheat the system by wearing shoes with bigger soles in the game, but all that would be doing is moving the zone, not changing it's size. Your biggest potential issue is that the wrong player gets plugged into the computer. There would have to be some way of displaying a player identifier to the umps and teams so if a pinch hitter went in the teams can verify that the right batter is plugged into the computer for that AB.

I read at least one story that said the clocks were virtually, if not completely, in sync.

You can get a tester for that. I saw this one on Amazon for $7, but I'm sure there are cheaper ones as well as available at local hardware too of course. https://www.amazon.com/Receptacle-Tester-Klein-Tools-RT110/dp/B01AKX3AYE/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&keywords=electrical+outlet+tester&qid=1632751982&sr=8-7

My guess is that if the player hadn't willingly gone out of bounds he would have been pushed out and the end result would have been that he was at the scrum about the same time, and probably wouldn't have caused the play to be different. That said, a penalty is a penalty and he definitely DID go out of bounds on his own. I can say "probably wouldn't have..." all I want but who knows for sure? It was the right call. I don't know how much I'd call it "luck" for the Ravens, but I do suspect that had the roles been reversed people would be saying the Lions got a gift from the Ravens.

Not to put too much emphasis on a single game, but are we seeing the Lions version of what happened with the Tigers this season? A difference in attitude in the players... a better approach to each game? I suspect there's probably a lot of the Ravens overlooking the Lions that needs to be mixed in here too, but the players do seem to be trying hard the whole game long.

I have no words... no words at all. There's always something new with this team. Two freakin' seconds and it's not called.

Starts getting really good at 5:30.

I'm not that skill with making fancy Game Day Threads, so... you get what you pay for.

Part of me wishing it is his hip because the flip was just a stupid thing to do and I kinda like seeing athletes hurt themselves on stupid celebrations (I mean, as long as it's not Detroit athletes of course). The Gramatica injury is still my all time favorite.

I don't think you are legally allowed to say that about the Lions.

I dunno... My DVR choose to record ESPN2 last night instead of ESPN, so I was stuck with the Mannings. It was interesting, and I think I'd have really enjoyed it if it wasn't a game was particular interested in. But I felt like I missed some of the game while they were busy talking about other stuff.

If there's no Stud QB, do you try to trade back and pick up more picks? Obviously this means finding a partner who'd be willing to give up the picks and if there's no stud QB then it seems unlikely that there would be teams clamoring to move up.

I'm good with that. This will definitely add another interest level for the last handful of games from the Tigers. Given that we're facing the WhiteSox so many times (and yeah, I know we just won last night, but still...) and for the sake of come competition, I'll say the Lions finish fewer games under .500.

Ohh... now this will be a very interesting thing to watch. Are we measuring based on how many games they need to flip to get to .500? For example if the Tigers finish 77 and 85, is that 4 games under .500 cause if they turned 4 of those loses into wins they would've been at .500?

Well, the end result was pretty much what I assumed would happen, but they showed some life in the first half and it kinda got my hopes up. Ah well... I didn't expect a win. Way too many holes on talent-wise.

Well they're not wiping down the ball for the Lions like they did for the Packers, are they?

Well, at least the Tigers won.

My guess is that the janitor needed to vacuum the office and couldn't find an outlet so unplugged something important.

Ehhh.... can't say as I'm a fan of that look. Maybe it'll look better in the game but I dunno.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q-tDSe-0pI He looked okay... some rookie mistakes, some hard to tell if he was off target or the receivers weren't doing their job. Way too little sample size to force a reliable opinion, but interesting.