Electron Blue

From the looks of my MLB.tv multimedia guide, the 4:00 games are the only ones blacked out today. But consider the source. I'm looking at mine and not seeing any Blackout designation for any of the games . . . what are you seeing? Any why is this blacked out anyway? I assumed it was for Fox's exclusive baseball timeslot on Saturday afternoons . . . but they haven't even started showing games yet . . . and don't for awhile still(?) edit: and there's no mention on the cubs.com homepage of seeing the game on MLB.tv like there usually is, and they do have a link to listening to the gameday audio. So, not encouraging.

aka: this may be the first thread locking postponed due to weather.

will his pre-pitch OCD routine ever be the same?

I love how "All Star" is a meaningless term, but we can freely use terms like "Top Pitching Prospects" like it has any relevant meaning. It doesn't enhance your value any because you're the "top pitching prospect" in a minor league system void of pitching talent at the moment. lol, not a bad point. Not completely comparable though. As I think Tim mentioned, it is important to note that these are 3 of our top prospects since it is relative to our amount and depth of trading chips. Being a all-star on the other hand means nothing without looking at the stats (for at least that year) and if he was a "pity participant."

Easily my first thought. Well played :D

Something is plugging the drain(s)? oh good, it's just the outfield. i was afraid someone was clogging up the bases :dusty:

it's a play on words. try and keep up. oh cause i thought it was a new expansion team and i was like when did that happen :) I love you, IMB

haven't read the article yet, but . . . I love Len!

he's bunting the hell out of that ball!

Well you answered my question. I was going to ask if they were good friends. Got it confirmed that they indeed are good friends. More on this in the paper tomorrow. Millar returned volley, saying if Dempster hit him in the ribs, it means he was aiming low and away. :lol:

that's weird.

You just had to bring in Prior to this thread. :D

It will. I'm assuming you disagree because your little league baseball coach told you to "never slide into 1st". No, I'm disagreeing because it's absurd. How does sliding (which slows you down) get you somewhere faster than running at your fullest speed? Pretty much my opinion. Sliding is friction. Friction is reducing forward momentum. There are other factors, granted. But it's hard to get my head past this very basic truism.

It's called a hypothesis. Before each scientific experiment you should have a hypothesis on what you think the results will show. That is what I did, and my hypothesis was correct. It was not based on bias at all. "Experimenter's bias is the phenomenon in experimental science by which the outcome of an experiment tends to be biased towards a result expected by the human experimenter. The inability of a human being to remain completely objective is the ultimate source of this bias" (wiki link) - There's the term I was going for. Sure, a hypothesis is what you say it is. But when you have the hypothesis and the means of measurement are subject to being affected by bias . . . you can't be the one measuring.

Sorry i was off, I just looked back at the results. Running through was 4.425 secs, Sliding head first was 4.325 secs, and sliding feet first was 4.2 secs. So it was about .2-.3 secs faster from sliding feet to running. I'm guessing you hand-timed this? Yes, with a normal stop watch. There's def room for error. But I thought that sliding was faster before hand and I wasnt surprised with the results. I think the hand timing by me shouldnt be much of an error. So you had an opinion about the outcome before it happened and you were the one measuring the results. That's bad science. You may have had a control (good), but without objective measurement or some sort of "blind" test, your results are very skewed. And when the popular opinion is so well supported, the burden of proof is very heavy and entirely on you. I do appreciate the attempt to testing the strategy, though, I really do.

You're comparing multiple people who post similar opinions to you posting your's multiple times?

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person. I've never understood this. Is there really a connection between eating animals and enjoying their pain and death? That would be like Ultimate Fighting fans being okay with cannibalism . . . okay, now I'm using extreme example. But do you see that point? Honestly, there's a disconnect between animal death and meat-eating -- I know this. It's a neccesity that has evolved. We feel better about it having not seen the death or presided over it. I can see the problem with that. But you're bringing morals into it. I think it's nothing more than squeamishness. Saying people who disagree with you are going off on some "moral high ground" can be a pretty easy way to seem like you're right. (not saying you aren't; i just want debate -- and that's a bad argument tactic.) And the "pretty much all meat-eating americans" . . . what's that mean? How are you qualifying those who are logically reconciling this paradox and those who aren't? I'm not even talking about eating them. The point I'm getting at is that before they are killed in whichever manner they are, many live in deplorable, pain and suffering inducing conditions. I honestly don't see the real disconnect between that and cockfighting. Hell, I'd even venture to guess some of those roosters live way better lives (up until the fight at least) than the majority of animals that get to wander through our meat processing industry. So to judge the situation from the American cultural view ends up seeming a bit asinine. Why is it asinine to judge it from a cultural view? You brought morals into it . . . how are we to judge what's moral and immoral? And you may be right that the eating isn's the important part. It's the enjoyment of the suffering. A chicken that suffers is just that . . . an animal whose life sucks a bit more than the average animal, which lacks reason and any semblence of a meaningful existance (other than being eaten by an animal that is superior, a la food chain). A person that enjoys said suffering is far worse, and thus the point of the matter. It's irrelevant how enjoyable the lives of the roosters are in regards to other chickens unless your argument favors cockfighting for the animal's sake. My point has been that one animal dying versus another animal dying is not an equal outcome, if one served bloodlust and the other violence. So your problem is that people get enjoyment out of it? I'm not an idiot, so I know this issue doesn't actually affect me. But, yes, I'm personally annoyed that violence between animals, which is organized and instigated by humans, is seen as entertainment. That watching pain/destruction/death can be fun for someone. Kind of like hearing that a serial killer used to burn insects and kill small animals. Not all violence-enjoyers are on that level, of course, but that's generally what the "enjoyment" of such a thing is, isn't it? Not to sound rude, but isn't that a pretty clear issue someone could have with it?

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person. I've never understood this. Is there really a connection between eating animals and enjoying their pain and death? That would be like Ultimate Fighting fans being okay with cannibalism . . . okay, now I'm using extreme example. But do you see that point? Honestly, there's a disconnect between animal death and meat-eating -- I know this. It's a neccesity that has evolved. We feel better about it having not seen the death or presided over it. I can see the problem with that. But you're bringing morals into it. I think it's nothing more than squeamishness. Saying people who disagree with you are going off on some "moral high ground" can be a pretty easy way to seem like you're right. (not saying you aren't; i just want debate -- and that's a bad argument tactic.) And the "pretty much all meat-eating americans" . . . what's that mean? How are you qualifying those who are logically reconciling this paradox and those who aren't? I'm not even talking about eating them. The point I'm getting at is that before they are killed in whichever manner they are, many live in deplorable, pain and suffering inducing conditions. I honestly don't see the real disconnect between that and cockfighting. Hell, I'd even venture to guess some of those roosters live way better lives (up until the fight at least) than the majority of animals that get to wander through our meat processing industry. So to judge the situation from the American cultural view ends up seeming a bit asinine. Why is it asinine to judge it from a cultural view? You brought morals into it . . . how are we to judge what's moral and immoral? And you may be right that the eating isn's the important part. It's the enjoyment of the suffering. A chicken that suffers is just that . . . an animal whose life sucks a bit more than the average animal, which lacks reason and any semblence of a meaningful existance (other than being eaten by an animal that is superior, a la food chain). A person that enjoys said suffering is far worse, and thus the point of the matter. It's irrelevant how enjoyable the lives of the roosters are in regards to other chickens unless your argument favors cockfighting for the animal's sake. My point has been that one animal dying versus another animal dying is not an equal outcome, if one served bloodlust and the other violence.

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person. I've never understood this. Is there really a connection between eating animals and enjoying their pain and death? That would be like Ultimate Fighting fans being okay with cannibalism . . . okay, now I'm using extreme example. But do you see that point? Honestly, there's a disconnect between animal death and meat-eating -- I know this. It's a neccesity that has evolved. We feel better about it having not seen the death or presided over it. I can see the problem with that. But you're bringing morals into it. I think it's nothing more than squeamishness. Saying people who disagree with you are going off on some "moral high ground" can be a pretty easy way to seem like you're right. (not saying you aren't; i just want debate -- and that's a bad argument tactic.) And the "pretty much all meat-eating americans" . . . what's that mean? How are you qualifying those who are logically reconciling this paradox and those who aren't?

By that logic, you must be one of the board's best posters, with such freely stated hashness here. ;) It's just an interview, man, be entertained by it or move on. Dempster, IMO, is easily a better interview than 90% of athletes anyway.

My first thought was Ed Lynch . . . and I was actually more offended.

What do you mean? Jim hasn't done anything yet. There have enough conflicting rumors that we should have learned by now that we don't know for sure what the deal on the table is, or if there is one. So why criticize Jim before we know if he's done anything wrong?

He was just making sure Little Pedro won his match after all that training.

But it's not a figurehead position. He's the team president. Why on earth would they give him that much responsibility with such a poor front office background? Especially after they prized experience so highly in the selection of their GM :-k True points. I slightly misread the initial statement. I thought it was saying he would have a limited role . . . rather than actually criticizing the move :)

Even if it's just a figurehead position, good for him. Nolan Ryan was my first favorite player, as a very young baseball fan.