gehringer_2

Pickup Ramsey and you'd have 3 of the top 5.

according to this source, the Tigers TV ratings rating vary around 7.5-9.0 https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/07/tv-ratings-tigers-down-on-fs-detroit-also-mlbespn-nbcsn/

I'm going to try a little back of the envelop finance: As per SB Nation, local revenue is 20% of the MLBs $10.9 B in media rev- so call it $2B. For lack of any other data lets cut it 30 ways - that something on the order or $70M/yr per team in local rev. The AHL subscription costs $65 for a season - lets assume they have good marketing data to support that price point. So the Tigers would have to sell a million subscriptions at that price to regenerate the gross income loss and they still have to produce the broadcasts out of that - but let's say the local ad revenue is a wash with actual broadcast costs. Is that feasible? IDK, but for certain I doubt the Wings, Pistons and Tigers could eash sell a million $70 subsriptions in our market...

HolyS.

Could. But what they could do in the sense what can be done techinically or logistically I don't think is so much the problem, it's how do the teams get paid? Right now Bally collects money from cable operators, some money from direct subscriptions, plus ad revenue, and then pays the team out of that income for the broadcast rights. It's that 1st part that is going away and probably not coming back. I have to think it's the organization of the money end that is going to be harder to figure out than who carries the games via what media.

you start getting into the accident scale effect. At one end you have car accidents that kill thousands but don't much scare anyone (their their small scale gives us a false sense of control?), at the other end you have nuclear power accidents, that have killed very few people but people tend to be scared shitless about because the potential worst case is so huge. Trains are really big - big train accidents have terrible scale (Lac Megantic) so they are pretty far up the fear scale.

any reason a streaming service has to run a full schedule? You live stream when there is a game, then you go dark......well, drop to a static web page...

One of the reasons there were a lot people that changed their mind early on was that certain sequences in the virus were the same as some lab sequences - that intitally seemed to be good evidence for a lab origin hypothesis. But then as more data came in, those sequences were found in other wild types, which kicked the legs out of that one and other factors not so favorable to lab origin gained greater weight. So there have been a lot of people whose ideas have gone back and forth as data evolved. That is how Science is supposed to work after all - best theory to fit the data as we know it today - and maybe tomorrow that is different. But the sample gathering ended some time ago and these various intelligence forays are mostly reprocessing the same old data as opposed to being able to add to it. That can be useful but clearly their need to qualify their own conclusions as 'weak' means nobody found any smoking guns. in the end, whether the virus jumped from a live animal or a petri dish has political implications but not really scientific ones. Virus research isn't going to/can't stop. And if the virus jumped in a lab it's only because risks that were already well understood weren't properly addressed. If that can be shown to have happened that's good for supporting better enforcement of reseach protocols, but it's not new science.

The good evidence is genotype evidence, and the Chinese didn't let enough of that be collected, or if they collected it aren't saying what they have. There are pretty good ways way to trace the evolution of a virus IF you have the data. If the data had been collected (or released?) the probability of an unambigous answer would have been pretty good. The fact that everyone is reduced to speculation is the result of a lack sufficient hard evidence. Different groups and can slice and dice their insufficent data sets to make any kind of 'weak' conclusions the like, does not increase what we actually know. When it comes to 'weak' conclusions, anyone's are about as good as anyone else's.

No, I think I believe I said right at the get go I didn't have a problem with his carriers dumping him. And your exposition on the commerical aspect is spot on, but it's maybe at a level one tier lower. Premise: SA said objectionable stuff->conclusion:the Plain dealer takes these justifiable actions. All sound. I'm always more insterested in how the premise "SA said objectional stuff" gets formulated as an accepted premise and by who. Granted these are purely general considerations - that once abstracted no longer bear on this case and it's not pearl clutching about it, it's just my tendency to want to abstract to the ideas that these cases make me think about. I guess in a sense my direct 'argument' such as it is would be with Rob's post. It suggests our judgments are all or should be ad hoc. While I understand Situation Ethics, I suspect that in reality they are not even if we think they are. There are probably some kind of rules we are working from whether we are concious of them or not.

that seems a pointless sentiment. My interest/enjoyment in the team doesn't follow the payroll. In fact I think it has to be more frustration to be a Ranger's fan and imagine the $$ going up in smoke as that team loses games.

Not at all nothing we can do. We can work to make sure there is more accountabilty and proper oversight. But that is always a *process*. There is no 'one and done' solution to this kind of stuff, which is what the politictians and pundits are always interested in.

I don't think the WSJ reported actually moves the needle on the debate much. There is not enough data to support any conclusion, so everyone just shades toward the explanation they like most for their own reasons. Researchers won't accept that is was a reseach accident without proof as that is critical of reseasrch, and the political types won't accept it wasn't the result of some activity by a foreign power they are critical of without proof. And there is no 'proof' because the Chinese have made sure there won't be proof, probably because the Chinese don't want to have to deal with the fallout from either answer.

You know how this kind of facility starts out as one thing, may morph into another. The same could have been at any US University. You build a bio reseach facility - then the you take on new areas of research. Where are you going to put them? Where the facilities already are - otherwise you can't afford it. Plus you need trained personnel, maybe you are joined to an academic institution - none of that stuff is going to be found out in the sticks in any country. The problem is that people get sloppy about safeguards because good protocols can be a pain to follow. The need to do the research on how diseases jump species is real enough - the devil is in the details. Part of the problem in China is that it's too easy for people who want to raise objections to things being done wrong to get railroaded out of the way. Hell you and I both know that happens too much here even given that our systems are supposedly 'open'. In China if there is political pressure to get ahead in some area of study, good luck. And it's not like the Chinese were completely off the resevation in proposing to do 'Gain of function' reseach. IIRC correctly researchers at Wuhan participate in same grant and approval processes at NIH and have had various US partners in their work there.

I don't shed any tears for Adams. I do worry generally about how and where and limits when it comes to thought-policing. This case may be fairly clear cut, but at some level it is important to understand why dumping on Adams might be more OK than dumping on someone else in the next case.

Unfortunate mismatch between the specie's evolutionary time scale and it's ability to mess up the planet. 🌎💤

also part of the broader phenomenon of not wanting to know how the sausage is made. Just give me my 21st century lifestyle and let me pretend it all happens by magic.

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.