gehringer_2

Getting back to Pujols for a second, what helped make Albert so extraordinary was his ability to stay on field. He averaged 140games/yr over 22 yrs. That puts him in rare company in the modern game. You wonder with how hard guys train and play today if careers like that, which have always been rare, just get rarer. It makes you think about Mike Trout, who probably won't hit many or any of the milestones that looked in easy reach for him a few years ago. Lots of guys in that boat today.

If I were a GM I think I'd come at low value/high value from the question of what positions require extra-ordinary players vs where can I elevate team play with scheme and discipline. Obviously it a continuum, but near one end I'd put QBs and near the other maybe LBs

There are two thing are work here that are separable. RBs have short shelf lives, other than the rare outlier it's a young man's position, so you can argue correctly that picking one doesn't return the long term value of QB or OLineman who can play for 12+ yrs. But that's a very different argument from whether you can't still put a better offense on the field with a premium running back. Looked at from that angle, you may have to resign yourself to picking a good one more often if want to put the optimum offense on the field.

Absolutely. I get a little irritated when you see a poll reported as "1500 likely voters" and the error bar is ususally given the binomial uncertainty for the sample size. That's BS because the sample population is not random, it was balanced out of a larger raw number by the pollster and no-one is giving an error bar on the accuracy of the sample selection. That's where the rubber meets the road in today's environment.

This is the key. The signal has to be in the available data - if it's not reliably there, no amount analysis is going to help. Learning how to survey America without landlines is still in the Blind men encountering the elephant phase.

he is still the youngest player on the roster.

Of course the key is being given the choice. You do generally have to have something interesting to say to keep getting that choice. What gave people an interest in what he had to say was the belief that what he said was informed by reliable data analysis. Lose that and IDK how long anyone cares what he has to say! Conventionally at least, what validates most pundits is experience working inside the system, e.g. ex-elected official or having worked inside the system as campaign or admin/Congressional staff or a long time political journalist. Without numbers validation Nate lacks any of that.

I guess it's based on the view in vogue that running backs are all pretty much interchangeable because all the running game has to do is make short yardage and the OLine can make a hole for anyone. I tend to think that view is already becoming passe - a number of teams - and good teams (Lions/49ers) have elevated the running game to a bigger part of their overall offense and as more follow suit (the NFL has always been a follow the winner league) I think the perception of positional value will follow. There is always some cycling/recycling of what works on offense in the NFL.

Theoretically, an umpire can stop the game and demand the ushers eject a fan - under threat of forfeit, assuming the ump can identify the perp. Can't say as I've ever seen it happen.

Maeda turning in a good start is pretty huge. Having all 5 starters show than *can* pitch well is the prerequisite to being able to hope they *will* all pitch well.

with both side 95% in, 50K more voted on the Dem side - sort of meh. Biden netted 140K more votes than Trump.

I missed the Seattle aspect - thought you were just referencing the era in general.

but the polls.....

Didn't root hard enough. Twins won it in a walk off single. Sox at 3 - 20.

Am I following this? Two con-competitive primaries and nearly 50% more Dems showed up to vote? What else was on the ballot?

Don't most trials only run 3hrs in the morning and 3 in the afternoon? That leaves 10hr for him stay in shape.....

What's Billy Corgan doing?

It's really sad Big Bob never got to strut his stuff on a better team. I remember watching him go against the best centers of his era and mostly outplaying them, but it never made much difference because the rest of the team was ...meh.

Well, Frank Thomas scared the **** out of me as an opposing fan so if other fans remember Miggy that way, it's still something. 😟

Those great Oiler teams were sort of different. IIRC, in terms of defense, guys like Coffey over committed a lot and actually gave up breakaways fairly often, but Fuhr was really good - esp against guys one-on-one so it never seemed to hurt them much, and if they gave something up they'd come back and outscore you anyway.

This is interesting because I've read that Goff's coach at Cal came to give Goff complete freedom to make all the calls at the line because he was best QB he had ever coached at reading the field. Pretty clear how a guy might come to dislike a coach who didn't trust him to do what he knew he could and vice versa a coach not like a player who maybe couldn't hide that he resented his 'coaching'/'interference'!

I did sort of like what Hunter said about he'd rather throw out the manager than the wrong player.

no doubt it's a fault - a blot on his resume for sure. But If it works out for Lions I don't care if people keep thinking McVay is a genius or not 🤷‍♂️

don't remember the view being particular bad at the metrodome (always a matter of what seats you have!) but yes it was dumpy, the sound was both deafening and completely unintelligible, and the bounce in the outfield made the game a joke. But it was convenient as the SO was working across the street.

TBF, McVay has had enough success that he's shown he's not chopped liver either. Sometimes two particular people just don't work together and they are both better off to part company. Win-Win.