buddha

i was told it was the gambling companies that called the shots now, and that's why the game is slower, so people will have more time to gamble.

as some of us have said before, the length of games is almost exclusively the result of time between pitches. cut that down and the game times will be reduced to a more palatable level.

https://www.masslive.com/worcesterredsox/2022/04/woosox-notebook-new-pace-of-play-rules-cutting-down-game-times-but-how-are-they-affecting-the-players-on-the-field-saturdays-game-brought-multiple-violations-for-both-teams.html The fast pace might have something to do with the new minor-league rules that started to be strictly enforced across the minors on Friday. These include a pitch clock that gives pitchers 14 seconds between pitches with the bases empty and 18 seconds with runners on. Pitchers also risk automatic baserunner advancement if a third pick-off attempt or step-off within the same plate appearance is made without recording an out. data from across the minor leagues after Friday’s game showed a noticeable drop in game times. According to Baseball America, on their first day of enforcement, the new rules appeared to cut more than 25 minutes from the average game time. Baseball America notes that on Friday, the average game time for a nine-inning game was 2:38 and the median game time was 2:34. For the previous week of games, the average game time for a nine-inning game was 3:04 and the median game time was 2:59. That 3:04 average game time was right in line with last year’s pace, and was also the average game time for a Triple-A contest.

everything is according to god's plan.

the most unsurprising result of his "college career." was it a surprise that memphis did much better without him around?

lafreniere completely embarasses larkin and gets the rangers' 4th. for those of you who forgot this game was on, there is no reason to watch the replay. they were embarassed in every respect. they coule barely secure the puck at all. they had maybe one or two good scoring chances. it was reminiscent of two years ago.

another wide open shot in the slot on a shorthanded chance and gagner misses the net.

we cant even get the puck. outshot 20-4 so far.

i figured that was assumed.

yes, but what you do SHOWS what that destiny truly is! calvin was a weird sob.

zadina gets a free shot from the slot off the face off and....misses the net.

i dont buy it.

america has the harshest form of calvinist protestantism, lol. whatever your condition may be, it is up to you to get out of it and it is your individual responsibility to get out of it. that thinking has pros and cons. we choose to live with the cons.

i dont think democrats are "weak on crime" either. i do think a more traditional method of dealing with crime (more police, more arrests, more surveillance of communities where the crime occurs) would lead to a reduction in crime, but the side effects from that wouldnt be tolerable to me. as in, i think it would lead to more innocent people being harassed and incarcerated.

"red states are poorer" has a lot more to do with history (southern agricultural states) than current economic or educational policies. texas has the same economic and low educational state funding as other states and is booming. florida too. crime is mostly a local problem, imo. why certain areas have more crime than others has to do with local poverty, drug, and gang issues. i assume that's why a place like chicago has more murders than new york and LA combined (money and local gang policies) while a place like st. louis and new orleans have more per capita than chicago (much poorer with a longer sustained tradition of racism).

so i ask you again: what is your point in bringing uo the red state/blue state thing? are you trying to make a point about gun laws? about general safety? about crime? what is the point? or are you just trolling archie like usual?

o/u on panther goals? 6?

wait a second...you mean there might be a little more nuance to the issue than red state/blue state? lol.

so what is the point you are trying to make? are you saying democrats are better at controlling violent crime than republicans? also, you switched from violent crime to murder rate, but who is counting?

i would not say the rest of the democratic party doesnt care about the far left, did you watch the democratic presidential debates when the candidates fell all over themselves to take the furthest left position as possible, especially on issues that had a tangential relationship to race? now, i would agree with what i think is your general premise: the majority democratic voter rejected that view in a presidential election. on a local level, many of the politicians on the left who espoused "defund the police" rhetoric (which is really police reform rhetoric) won local elections.

i'll remember this argument the next time you fight with chas about the murder rate in chicago, lol. it's almost like you change your position depending on who you are arguing with....🤔 what is the point you are trying to make about red states/blue states? are you trying to say that democrats are better at dealing with violent crime than republicans?

bossy was probably the first hockey player name i remember. i remember the sports illustrated cover with him on it and i remember them winning all those cups in a row and i remember being mad at them for beating wayne gretzky (everyone liked gretzky back then). oh, i do remember hating billy smith.

wait a second....so youre saying spending $28 million a year on a center who does nothing but rebound isnt conducive to team building success????

the democratic party has made many sensible legislative push backs against things like oversentencing, harsh sentencing, police misconduct, the availability of guns, and racial profiling. there are necessary corrections that need to be made in how the american state policies its citizens. but there are consequences to many of those things, both politically and practically. politically, youre going to be on the hook when crime increases. the other party will blame your policies for it because you are "soft on crime." practically, you are likely to see an increase in crime because your policies are short term fixes to some problems (oversentencing) and not fixes to long term problems (jobs, poverty, illegal drug trade, retraining and incorporating ex cons back into society with jobs and a means to live). without better solutions to the long term problems, all you are doing is releasing criminals with no prospects back into society and some of them will go back to crime. so the crime rate goes up. the democrats should know that is coming. unfortunately, they will likely move back on many of their previous efforts because of it.

the far left of the democratic party has called for defunding the police. the calls were very loud during the riots after george floyd's death. after the surge in crime in many areas that followed those riots, the calls arent so loud anymore. in fact, since crime is now the republicans #1 issue, the democrats are scaling back their "see how many prisoners we can let go" rhetoric and jumping back into the "see all the people we arrest" rhetoric. that's what's happening here in chicago. i imagine its happening other places too. ive seen it in san francisco of all places.