gehringer_2

the funny thing with the Tigers is that the team K rate was 24% (BTW-Baez was 25%, so he hardly stood out). That's bad but not really that bad. The killer for the Tigers with respect to the K zone is that as a team they only walked 6%. As team they can certainly improve their K rate- but from 24 to 20% would be pretty decent and that is only a 20% change. What they *really* need to improve is their walk rate, which they could easily increase by 30-40% Of course it's the same thing - They are trying to put too many hard to hit pitches into play which means they are foregoing walks and making outs, but they did put more pitches into play as opposed to just swinging and missing than I thought they might have.

This seems on odd move to make. They know the games are going to be 1/2 shorter on average, I would have thought they would have let that ride to see how fans responded before moving start times as well. Maybe they have marketing data that says folks wanted the end a full hour earlier....

16 run game played yesterday in less than 3 hrs (2:46).

yeah - Sheila Ford may be proving she is not WCF but I would still think that given the team's close association with the blue oval, as an org the Lion's remain more character issue sensitive than the average franchise. And I think having people like Chris Speilman in the inner circle only reinforces the Ford family's predisposition.

absolutely things have always been unacceptable, but there is almost an inversion today. In time past I think you were much more likely to be overtly discriminated against for your lifestyle than for your political beliefs - though I will freely admit up-front that the anti-communist purges of the 50's stand in contradiction to that. None-the-less, today I still think the general trends of those lines are reversing - at least on the progressive or liberal side of the ledger.

just to complete the thought: I think there is a deeper phenomenon at work here. During the Civil Rights era we came to a recognition that the Civil War had been fought and Slavery ended, but that as a whole government, and particularly but not exclusively southern State governments hadn't been forced to purge race consciousness from the law. The Civil Right era was all about that fight. And it was fairly successful in removing de jure racial policies from the books in the US. But during the C.R. era, I think you still would have found that most 'progressive' people agreed with Voltaire, believing we certainly had to bend the State to impartiality, that it was still not the role of 'authority', State, secular or otherwise, to tell individual people what to believe. I believe the operative assumption was that we would simply wait for the racist generation to die off and somehow racism would be gone in the next. But here we are a lot more than a generation later and we look out and see that the removal of de-jure racial policies hasn't actually fixed the concentration of poverty and social capital deficits in America's Black community. I think this realization is now driving toward the view that we do have to coerce people into what we want them to believe and that we have to use more forms of social/economic pressure to achieve that. And that would be why right now Voltaire's simplicity seems quaintly anachronistic. Now in point of fact, I'm personally not so sure that the CR movement really did succeed to the degree it believes it did in removing institutional bias, and thus not very confident that the logic I just described is sound. I'm also skeptical that you can coerce people into more socially acceptable views via the kinds of social pressures we now bring to bear.

I guess the assumption going in was that while the 1st generation of users might have these 'transitional' issues learning how to keep their private selves private again, that the generations coming up behind them would have it figured out, but I think the availability of SM to adolesecents and their unfinished comprehension of risk and future consequence is too hopeless a combination to ever get everyone out the other side safely..... It's just interesting how far we've shifted in my lifetime from the simplicity of Volaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.", which was once pretty commonly accepted as the 'enlightened view', to our present complexities.

I don't have any argument with a paper that decides not to carry him, but it just goes back to the eternal question of how much do you care that a person is a jerk if they produce a useful work product? Now obviously it's not likely society actually suffers any loss if Dilbert isn't in the local rag, but I'm still interested in the more general question. So what if a heart surgeon has politically incorrect opinions? Does the hospital withdraw his OR priviledges if he makes a racist post on twitter? I can imagine UM medical almost certainly would. Is that 'statement' worth taking a life saving doctor off the surgical line? Extreme case - obviously for the sake of the example. The 'U' would argue he can go practice somewhere else, but that's sort of a specious logic because if everyone followed their example he clearly couldn't. And making an ethical 'statement' that only cost society nothing if you know others won't follow your example seems like a self-righteous and not very honorable kind of virtue signalling.

I think if you are on social media you have to have that understanding, but I think as a practical matter most people on social media still don't actually process it intellectually that way. Now I think you can make a fair argument that being a person intimately familiar with publishing as a matter of profession, he in particular should know better. But that doesn't mean people don't still fall into the trap/error/mistake/whatever.

According to this recent study, games costs have roughly doubled in real term since the '60s 'golden age'. That's actually less than I would have guessed. https://thehustle.co/americas-favorite-family-outings-are-increasingly-out-of-reach/

Interesting point, but my guess is probably not. It's not like the play clock goes longer in basketball or football or players take longer to serve in Tennis when the game is on the line. The delays in baseball are actually tension breakers anyway aren't they? A guy steps back to do his gloves or a pitchers goes through the signs repeatedly. It's the pitch you anticipate, so I'm not sure that cutting out things that only break the progression to the pitch will lower the overal game tension or not.....

IDK, it's a weird place we are in. It's not like the transgression was in 'Dilbert', is was 'on his own time' as we use to say. Would you fire the carpenter framing your house if he said what Adams did on day while he was taking a break, or would you just do what once was pretty standard procedure for anything anyone said in any unofficial capacity and chalk it up to "It's a free country" ? That's the bizarre thing about social media - there was a time when it was considered a democratic discipline to allow people the range of their private opinions. But Social Media as blown up that old consensus in a weird way. On one hand we can't resist treating social media as private discussion but then also treat it as public profession with public consequence both simultaneously.

LOL - I think something had gone wrong on my end - I got double feeds all the way through the game, and when I did listen I could pick up that the 2nd commercial was for Baltimore - so somehow my browser was playing one game stream but both commercial streams.

Having worked in the oil and chemical biz, I could give you plenty of that evidence 1st person. The people on the inside sort of work under a shared mass delusion that they are providing an indispensable service that justifies the social cost, even while taking that judgment unto themselves by concealing facts rather than allowing the society at large to make that decision for itself. (It's not about our profits.....really.....[not]) In the abstract, one must admit that given a oncoming calamity like global warming it would not be irrational for society to judge lithium battery chemistry, or for that matter nuclear power, to be acceptable risks, in the same way we have judged the necessity of personal mobility to be worth the dangers of automobiles. But a society where such decisions are reached in cool analytical deliberation with the Sun shining on the full set of facts is sadly.....utopian.

Parker Meadows the tying run at the plate! ...But not to be.

this team can't catch a break.

Gameday running two commericals at the same time on the last couple of breaks. Total nonsense of course. Will theybhave have to refund both sponsors' money?

The announcers should end up liking it. That's about 15-30min less material they need to be ready with for every game.

Oliver may be right in all respects but it's not an argument the league is going to let him win, so all he is likely to get for his efforts is a harder time for his team.

Harris is a genius -- so far.

and to be fair, some things about any given technology are going to be unknowable until they are actually rolled out into more common use. You can stress test and simulate all you want, all of which is good, but you still never know for sure if you've closed all the potential knowledge gaps until you find out you haven't. Learning curves are real.

QFT

Someone gave me this a long time ago - 50th birthday maybe? My all time fav..

I'd go long in which ever sport apparel maker hits the market with zippered batting gloves first.

This isn't the first time Adams has landed on the 'wrong' side. But I think Adams is easy to misread because Dilbert *appears* to be an anti-capitalist character, but I think Adams actually comes at it more the Ayn Rand direction - it's only the incompetence that bothers him.