gehringer_2

I guess it depends what you look at. I pulled the current rosters a few years ago and at the time the age histogram for pitchers showed more proportionally more pitchers into the middle 30 than the histogram for hitters. That didn't look at performance, just rosters. Maybe teams are just more willing to keep older less effective pitchers around than hitters!

True enough for Hasek, not so much for Ozzie. Osgood appeared in 565 games for the Wings, Howard in 543.

looked like a completely different team from the flyers game. Raymond playing at another level. Thought Edvinsson, Johansson and Soderblom all played well. So the the Wings that much better or was Montreal just flat? Tune in Saturday for the next installment of "how high can the Wings fly!"

For me the thing is that I'm a lot less confident in all the supposed pitching depth we have. I see a lot of downside risks with a lot of the young guys that people seem to be assuming will just step up and dominate. I hope they will too but I don't see the credentials to persuade me to believe it.

and pitchers suffer slower age related decline than hitters. They have no requirement for millisecond reaction time. OTOH they are do get injured more so you have to evaluate the trade off on the years. The age related risk between a 27 and 30 hitter is probably greater than between a 27 and 30 yr old pitcher, but the basic injury risk over a any given contract length is going to be higher for all pitchers.

Or something. Losing the handle is one thing, but sometimes he tries passes that he should be able to see just aren't there - I have a harder time understanding how you fix that.

Lysenkoism come to America. What a country!

Imagine for just a minute what folding up FEMA would do to property values in hurricane areas. CA has the fires, but if CA gets serious they actually can do a lot to reduce their fire risk - but there is nothing the gulf states can do to stop the hurricanes from getting stronger as the atmospheric energy levels go up.

And the MAGA defense of Musk is tragically comic.

If push comes to shove, CA can afford it, Tx can afford it, how will all those other Red gulf coast states? Even FLA couldn't.

Keep up Tiger, it's not egg anymore, it's 'the large reproductive cell'.

yeah - it's curious. Even accepting his claim of Asperger's, which may make one 'socially awkward', there now seems to be some effort to conflate that into 'physically awkward' in Musk's defense when there is no such connection.

sadly, there is no such thing as 'personal' on the interwebs anymore.

well let's be precise. There is always downside risk that deflation becomes self amplifying, so the value in a small level of inflation is to give the Fed some downside travel on their target without triggering deflation. That's the one side that the 2% target comes from. On the other side, inflation at any level where it is actively felt by consumers will also set off a bad chain reaction of overbuying ahead of price increases and increasing long term interest rates choking off investment across the economy. The question again is were is the sweet spot. At 3% inflation, money losses 25% of it's value in 10yrs - that's pretty easily felt. At 2% is 18% of it value. At 1.5% it's 14%. That's getting to where people don't notice it much - so again, 0-2% is the range the Fed targets. It's not magic, and the people who say the targets are arbitrary are either just poorly informed or have an agenda for a different policy - for instance - support of inflation as a way to reduce the relative national debt. If you support tariffs that are going to drive up prices, you should support the Fed still tightening enough to keep the rate of inflation within target.

I would guess he's engaged and that's the date. Though I don't know why any fool would want to get married in the winter like I did (we had a blizzard 😱). But then again it's probably going to be in FLA.

Didn't see all the game either - about 2/3. Saw at least a few plays where he used his length to break up a rush, he carried the puck with a little success. Didn't get much of a feel for how he played on defense as I hadn't memorized his number and I always find the fox/bally/fanduel production style uses too many tight shots to get get any quick sense for whether all 5 people are where they should be on the ice. I was struck at how much the team as a whole seemed to be back in fall-back mode. Tarasenko in particular. There were multiple times he could have challenged a Flyer for a loose puck at the boards at half ice but just fell back instead. I just don't get that. Maybe you can tie him up and ruin the flow - even if he beats you to the puck and gets a pass off, you've hurried him and can finish your check and take him out of the flow of whatever rush is started. Has to be better than letting him just skate away and organize his offense. The last few year's Wing's teams have done this (well failed to!) more than any hockey team i've ever watched. To me it's the biggest reason they've been bad. They don't/won't compete.

Absolutely - as a practical matter, there is a level where it doesn't matter if something happened because a well intentioned person was wrong or because a sociopathic person planned it. What happened is what happened. And mea culpa, I knew in 1980 that Carter was a better intentioned person than some of the people around Reagan, but to me that didn't excuse his governing incompetence. It was a calculated risk that Reagan himself could be talked out of some of his ignorances (which in at least some cases he was). And to this day we have no way to know if Carter might eventually have seen the light on solving inflation without starting the US down the road to middle class destruction the way Reaganomics did. So sure, the world and all choices are grey to a great extent. It's just jarring so see the ethics of any person who at least tries to in some manner to do what they think is right compared to a sociopathic sadist like Trump.

People seem desperate for simple solutions, maybe the prevalence of short attention span media conditions them that way. And what's funny is that if you ask a Trump supporting Joe-sixpack plumber or carpenter working on a project in your house "why can't you just do it this way?" he'll immediately try to make you understand how things aren't so simple and it's more complicated to do it right. It's not like people don't understand and master complexity everyday. But we all seem to carry these myths with us that everyone else's job is simple - including the government's. Just "fix" immigration or make eggs cheap again with a wave of the hand....

Indeed. What does it say about his voters? That their panic about a 4th decimal place proportion of the population not living out conventional gender roles, or that a guy fixing their roof speaks Spanish, is so great that they throw away any consideration of law and orderly political process? So that's what they see in the mirror? What we have is a nation that has been telling itself false stories for so long they've become reality for enough people to elect a charlatan like Trump. Twice.

IOW, Trump doesn't delegate, he wants to make all the decisions himself, but since he was too ****ing lazy to actually look through the cases himself - this is the result. This is a fundamental reason this admin will be a **** show just like the last one, he doesn't understand, doesn't even know actually, what a president's job is. He thinks leading is making all the decisions, when leading an org as big as the US gov is putting enough good people in place to make all the decision that have to be made that one person can't possible make by themselves even if they wanted to ( and Trump doesn't have the discipline to get into the weeds anyway). At that task he is already a total failure with this appointments. People slammed Reagan not being hands on enough - but at least he understood he had to have people doing all the stuff that needed doing that he was not going to do himself, and he largely succeeded at that. Other than his buddy Meese he always had very strong set of direct reports (and even if Haig was a little nutty, he was effective).

don't agree with the moral calculus here. It's not Biden's fault that Trump is a moral midget. If Biden had a program in place that was in process and working, even if slowly, and that any reasonable person would have left in place, then it's not his fault for not planning on Trump's perfidy or that the voters would elect the moral midget. If you want someone to blame - blame Trump voters - THEY brought you this situation - it was their choices, not Biden's. This logic is sort of like an SoCal insurance company deciding to refuse fire claims by a merchant on the grounds he should have had a 1/2 off sale to move all his stock out of the store because he knew a fire in SoCal was always a possibility. You can't conflate someone doing the right thing at less than 100% effectiveness with someone doing the 100% the wrong thing. They are not the same. Or since this a is sports forum: In a down one basket ball game, how would you evaluate the guy that took a last shot and missed, to the guy that takes the in bound pass and hands the ball to the other team?

Probably a check. Make that almost certainly a check.

Video tape must have been one of the shortest lived massively adopted technologies ever - video tape and the floppy disc maybe.

That was one thing that always stood out to me about Cabrera in his prime years: he was a hitter good enough to be capable of hitting with either a power or an OBP/RBI approach and he changed his approach based on game situation as adroitly as any hitter I've been able to see a lot of.

Our mail was not delivered today. Two days in office and already government services hit the skids.