gehringer_2

I think Olson is effectively the #2 starter now. Even if they open with Holton, the expectation for Olson is at 5IP +

I predict a falling out before 11/5. Trump can't stand anyone else in his limelight and Elon can't stand the dark.

Funny you should mention this as for the last two days the SO has been getting somebody's itinerary texts about airport arrivals etc, all from a wrong number. I hope there isn't a guy somewhere still waiting to be picked up! 🤷‍♀️

the 2.2 BB/9 is sort of the tell. It's what made me think of the Porcello comp because in RP's CY year he also put up an outlier to his usual walk rate. Take a pitcher with great stuff and give him an outlier low walk rate and you are going to get a great year. Now interestingly enough Gooden did hit that walk rate once again in '88 but clearly his stuff was down some from '85 judging by hits and Ks, so it was not as dominant a year - though still a pretty good one. on a related note, an incredibly low walk rate is a big piece of Skubal's dominance since last season, and to be honest, I don't expect him to be able to stay below 2 on a regular basis in the future either. Of course if we get some form of ABS all future BB/9 comparisons go out the window anyway.

If Milton ends up half a bad as predicted, will Johnson bring the House back, or might Biden call a special session over his objection? If even half the FLA GOP reps (there are 20) want a FEMA supplemental passed, that's enough to flip the House on the issue.

and he had Naylor struck out before he got his double.

still not as bad a replay miss as against KC.

Do or die for Berggren then?

This is true.

basically they are all adjusting their data to get the results they are willing to believe. This is close to the exact opposite of real data driven statisics! So bottom line the polls are just just the best guess of the pollsters as compared to the best guess of anyone else. That a survey was taken is reduced to just for show.

People in middle Europe had many relatively positive pre-nazi cultural antecedents they could claim re-connection to. I don't know much about the emergence of Japan from feudalism but I would guess in Japan there were fewer just by virtue of how closed Japan was for so long.

Bankrupting the Federal government to create a crisis that would result in reduction of entitlements that are too unpopular to pass by other means has been a keystone GOP objective for 40 years. It just is. It's just silly or some kind of fantasy to ignore it. The party has been perfectly clear about it. You raised concern about the deficit, that is the fact of the deficit. You can call it partisan if you like, but that's reality and reality is what it is.

here is your answer. Every time I start to think the NHL might be growing up, I see something like this that confirms they still have one skate firmly planted in the Neanderthal era. https://www.mlive.com/redwings/2024/10/red-wings-pleased-with-physical-response-to-roughhouse-tactics.html

strapping the bat to his left upper arm so he can't extend has to be an uncomfortable drill.

As much as it may be an insult to civility that Bout still breaths, I'm not sure it changes much that he's out. He's close enough to an official organ of Putin's kleptocracy whatever he is doing Putin would be having someone do in his absence.

Facts are facts. Why bother to address it when history shows so clearly that the going all the way back to Reagan, every GOP admin has blown up the deficit and every Dem admin has at worst had to fight a holding action in response. So there is no question to answer about the impact of your vote on the deficit - it's probably the least at doubt question the candidates could be asked.

I can see the next commercial: We're the Jones. We love our neighborhood, but the the people next door, they have this weird truck that we are afraid is going to blow up, and not only that, it smells -- its MUSKY! voiceover: Geico can't help you with your inept consumer neighbors, but we can save you hundreds on car insurance - well as long as your car isn't MUSKY like the Jones' neighbors!"

but even for that reason it's backward. None of those guys will ever play with Larkin. If you need to defend Larkin you need someone on the ice when *he* is, like Messier was to Gretzky or Shanahan to Yzerman. Watson will never see the ice on a line with Larkin so he is useless for that. If you need Larkin to have space there is one obvious answer, you play Ras with him. Blashill actually did go there occasionally IIRC, but Lalonde doesn't. Probably because they don't have enough center depth. Which reminds me that while Luke is on the downside now,I could never figure why they didn't find a way to keep Glendenning for a couple more years at the time.

I suppose in retrospect Hinch maybe played game 1 one step too clever. If he had just started Olson, who was ready, it's also a different script. We can't resist over analyzing it, even if on cool reflection we know that when a 92 win team goes against an 86 win team the difference in the win probability between them is too close to zero spend a lot energy trying to decide 'what went wrong.'

So it does seem the media is finally going hard at Trump over the FEMA lies, and that seems to have also catalyzed another round of GOP defections. It's hard to be anything but pessimistic anything can move the needle, but still I'll be watching to see if this is something that finally does.

I wonder sometimes if Yzerman looks back and feels he was brought up too early - even though he manifestly was not. It's true he may not have been a complete player when he came up, but he was still way too good a hockey player to be in the minors. Is Yzerman's stance that a player has to be 100% complete before he comes up? That's saying a player can't get better after he gets to the NHL and his own case denies the truth of that. I mean it's one thing if you think playing a rookie D in the playoffs is going to cost you a cup, but the Wings simply are not in that conversation that they need to be that conservative about guys making mistakes and learning on the job.

Agree to disagree a bit. He had 7 pretty good years - I guess one can argue semantics but I just wouldn't call that a 'might have been'. Even with the abuse issues he was a 'was'. Can't really know since we don't have modern data from that era but after 7 years his velo may have just started down which happens to a lot of guys irrespective of abuse issues. He certainly got himself into trouble, can't argue that, but I will leave teasing out chicken and egg between success, failure, frustration and substance abuse to you if you want to take that shot!

Still, he stayed the league for 15yrs. It's a natural view to look at guys who explode onto the scene but then fall back as 'might have beens' and sometimes it's certainly true. OTOH, sometimes it's just that a lucky season comes early in their career instead of later, when it's more likely to be dismissed as a fluke because by then there is a track record. The counter example would be Rick Porcello. Nobody calls RP a 'might have been' because of '2016 because it came out of the blue later in his career, but we might have called him that it he had had that season in 2009 or 2010 and then gone on to the same rest of the career he did.

A team isn't likely to go from a poor D to a great D in one off-season. The Lions are a good team, but in the end it's still likely to be injury attrition that will be the difference between which of the good teams survive to end up still standing after December.

Yeah, Landry was probably good enough to win in that day's NFL, but the Lions never built a complete team under WCF. At best it was a star player here and there but never a fundamentally sound or deep team.