Sarcastic

BP projects Milwaukee to have a 65.6% chance of making the playoffs. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php On the Angel's chances at winning the division, BP thinks 95% is actually a little low. They put it at 98.5%.

That makes some sense. I'd still like to know how it wandered into baseball terminology, and if Brenly is the only person who uses it that way.

Over the last couple days Bob has repeated the phrase "sniffing the barn" a couple times in his color commentary. I've never heard this phrase before so I did a google search on [baseball "sniffing the barn"] and got two articles back from 2002 with a quote from, you guessed it, Bob Brenly which included that phrase. Does anyone have any idea where this originated or even a source quoting somebody else saying it? The really weird thing is I don't remember him ever saying it on the air until a few games ago.

Is anybody else in the Chicago area watching this on cable and getting static on every channel all of a sudden?

Should the others be penalized because they aren't replacing a black hole? And I'm not sure where you're getting the Soto numbers from. His OPS was .894 before the game today, and it will probably go down 7-8 points after today. A player who can put up great offensive numbers at a defensive position with few good hitters is definitely more valuable to the team than a player putting up great offensive numbers from a position played by better hitters. Not to take anything away from Ramirez or Lee, but playing as a catcher definitely makes Soto more valuable. Soto's OPS is actually higher than Lee's right now, and a bit below Ramirez's. I think I'd have to go with Soto for first half MVP. He's a huge improvement over what the Cubs put behind the plate last year.

I cannot believe Marmol was allowed to pitch so long in that trainwreck inning.

Since this is Harden's first start here, it almost has to be a let down.

Just got my first internship and assignment at 18. Woo. The best part is that now I can quit my other part time job.

What the hell is the bear in cap #3 doing?

The dead arm thing is based off of this quote from a bad outing Harden had last week on July 2nd: http://www.rotowire.com/roto_to_gnews.htm?ID=262110&sport=mlb

You can definitely give your opinion. I think we're in agreement now on everything but the injury, and we don't have any new info on that so... back to the game.

I bet it's broken. of course YOU do. It's a fastball right off the hand that is clutching a bat. That most likely will result in a broken bone from what I've seen. Just being honest. What exactly have you seen? An awful lot of situations just like this one that resulted in a broken bone, that's what I've seen. There's no point hiding our heads in the sand because of Cub bias. The man just took a fb off a part of the body that has very little protective flesh and a very hard object underneath. There's a strong possibility it's broken, that's all I'm saying. I amazed at how many people confuse this for wanting it to be broken, which I most definitely do NOT. I'm not saying that you want it to be broken. I'm not saying anything is or isn't broken, because I have no idea at this point. But unless you have some specific context for forecasting the extent of his injury, like significant medical experience, your predictions are probably not much more unbiased or accurate than anyone else's here. If you do have some significant experience with diagnosing or treating sports injuries or in any other related field of medicine, I'm sure everyone would like to hear your insights. Otherwise, it's fine to make predictions, whether you are professionally certified to do so or not. But your predictions aren't necessarily less biased or more accurate.

I bet it's broken. of course YOU do. It's a fastball right off the hand that is clutching a bat. That most likely will result in a broken bone from what I've seen. Just being honest. What exactly have you seen? I have no idea how serious the injury may or may not be. Although Soriano going to the hospital to get x-rays doesn't sound good.

I don't think he was intentionally hit. Soriano wouldn't have been hit at all if he hadn't thrown his hand up and towards the plate as he was turning away. It wasn't even close to his face until it bounced off his hand.

I'm not sure I quite fit in this poll, but I'm a student considering journalism as a career. I didn't want to do get a pre-professional degree for undergrad, so if I do go into journalism, I may end up getting a masters degree after I graduate. Considering the limited job opportunities and pay in the field of reporting though, I'm not sure that's where I'll end up. I'd rather do something I enjoy and make less than do something I hate just for the money, but I have no idea whether I'll be able to get a half-decent job even if I get an advanced degree in journalism.

I don't get what Howry's problem is. His strikeout rate hasn't gone down much, he's not walking many people, but he's just giving up way more hits and homeruns this year than he has while he's been with the Cubs.

I'm guessing they just had predetermined that they were going to use the word pink in every possible headline today because of Mother's Day, and they were running out of ways to say it. I doubt the people who write those headlines are capable of any humor beyond crappy headline puns.

How do you get up early to watch a game that starts at 1:20 central time? Even in California, that's not the crack of dawn.

What're the PCs at right now?

I'm in agreement. I don't understand why there needs to be a some kind of line when we are and aren't offended by racism. These shirts were totally out of line and more than just vaguely or slightly racist. Why is this any less signifigant than anything else? 1) You both misunderstood my point. I didn't say people couldn't or shouldn't be offended, just that exaggerated outrage in relatively insignificant cases is not useful for the reason I've already stated, which brings me to: 2) This is less significant, than, say, voter suppression, because voter suppression limits people's actions because on race, which is unethical. This doesn't take away anyone's freedom of choice, it just bothers us. Making a big deal out of stupid things like this is for many people a way to feel good about your morality on race without confronting larger problems of race, and as a society we have been doing that for too long. You had me until paragraph three. The problem isn't making a big deal out of "insignificant" stuff. The problem is sort of like the "little boy who cried wolf". People get tired of hearing it, even if "it" happens to be true. Then the Fox News types can say, "oh he's pulling the race card". Although pulling the race card may be true because it needs to be pulled, the outrage for little things gives the idiot/racists cover. Right. I think we both mean more or less the same thing, that this sort of stuff gives cover to people who don't want to deal with larger issues.

I'm in agreement. I don't understand why there needs to be a some kind of line when we are and aren't offended by racism. These shirts were totally out of line and more than just vaguely or slightly racist. Why is this any less signifigant than anything else? 1) You both misunderstood my point. I didn't say people couldn't or shouldn't be offended, just that exaggerated outrage in relatively insignificant cases is not useful for the reason I've already stated, which brings me to: 2) This is less significant, than, say, voter suppression, because voter suppression limits people's actions because on race, which is unethical. This doesn't take away anyone's freedom of choice, it just bothers us. Making a big deal out of stupid things like this is for many people a way to feel good about your morality on race without confronting larger problems of race, and as a society we have been doing that for too long.

Not necessarily. I'm not sure I buy into the theory, but one of the well-publicized econ books lately pushed a story about fighting crime on the trains in NY. They said one of the critical elements in the plan was to eliminate graffiti. The theory was that the presence of the graffiti led to a perception that further abuses would be more easily tolerated. By visibly showing that even something as minor as graffiti wouldn't be tolerated, they created an atmosphere in which many fewer people would push the envelope. Crime did indeed go down, though many other factors could have been at play so it is dangerous to just assume a cause/effect relationship there. The point is that it might be possible to influence the more grievous forms of racism by focusing on the more public, easier to identify, though smaller and less significant forms of it. I don't think that crime and race are comparable there. The most damaging kinds of racism we have are not the results of conscious choices, they are the results of people going about their day as they normally do, unaware that some of the insitutions they participate in harm people of certain races. You can't stop racism by making people afraid to be racist, because they often don't believe that they are doing anything wrong in the first place.

I find this pretty stupid and unfunny, but I can think of things that are worse. I wish people would have a little more respect for other cultures and just not buy them, though. (Not aimed at snoodmonger) Not quite as unfunny as the shirts themselves are all the pompous or downright violent reactions provoked by them. Faux outrage is not awesome. I'm not crazy about real outrage either when it is a reaction to t-shirts. Where did I say there was nothing worse? I said it was indefensible. That's not an exaggeration. Want to know what really sucks? (Not aimed at sarcastic) Lame people who think they can ascertain "faux outrage" on a message board. I also don't care for people who are willing to casually brush aside blatantly offensive stuff. As for casually brushing it aside, what would you have me do? If I write out an angry post on an internet message board, am I helping anyone? They aren't hurting anybody, they are just being idiots, so I don't see the point in getting angry. If others want to, they are free to do so. I guess I take issue with this mentality. Your base argument is that it is somehow better to do nothing than to do something. Or, at the least, they are of equal value. I'm not going to sit here and pretend me (or anyone else) condemning racism on a message board is going to effect any great change. But it's certainly not hurting anyone. And it's possible it could help in a small way. For example, let's say someone here hadn't considered the implications of the shirt and was considering buying one. If he stumbled across this thread, maybe he thinks twice. More importantly, though, I think perhaps the most important thing one can do to combat racism and prejudice is to denounce it and denounce it vocally. Do some people take it too far? Maybe. Are some people guilty of faux outrage. I'm sure they are. But I'm willing to risk that because I think to ignore instances of prejudice is to come dangerously close to endorsing them. My base argument is not nothing is better than something, my base argument is something else is better than this. Denouncing every act of racism no matter how insignificant compared to the others makes people angry but doesn't change anything, and ignoring all racism won't make it go away on its own, as some hope. We all know that racism is more than just some celebrity's offensive remarks or slogans on a t-shirt, it is part of how we run our communities, and that's the dangerous racism. To actually accomplish any reduction in the effects of racism you need activism and a change in the way society works, as you see some of after the Civil War and the civil rights movement. Not that you necessarily have to go to the extremes of those time periods to accomplish change on race, but ranting about relatively trivial offenses is definitely not the most important thing you can do to fight racism.

i disagree. telling people that they shouldn't be offended by something clearly offensive and based upon an offensive stereotype is tantamount to telling black people that they cannot be victims of racism because it doesn't exist. I'm not even saying people can't be offended by this, just that expressions of outrage aren't useful on this, especially when they aren't genuine. Let's face it, when you are threatening violence against large numbers of people for wearing offensive t-shirts, you are putting on an act or you are imbalanced. Every time something offensive (though not always consequential) happens, people feel a need to take their reaction to extremes to demonstrate how much they are offended. When the story about the Yale art student hit, people wished she would be barren. Everytime some perverted criminal commits a horrendous act, people talk about sending him to jail to be repeatedly anally raped. This acting is not helpful. There is still damaging racism in our society. If you want to combat it, do that instead of making a big deal over an idiotic but ultimately unimportant racist t-shirt. i didn't say anything about people being offended to the point of violence. i didn't know that that was the case. in the case of threats of violence, i'd say those people are much more likely to be unbalanced than faking. you simply cannot tell people that they aren't offended by something. I'm not so much saying that people aren't offended as I am saying that their being offended is partly a result of feeling expected to be offended, and offended in a grand way. Threatening violence is sometimes just a way to up the ante and prove how offended you really are. And sometimes it is just a bad joke. I think people can genuinely be offended by this. It certainly is stupid. But expectations muddy the waters and blow inconsequential issues out of proportion, making it harder to talk reasonably about more consequential unspoken problems. Hence, the outrage over t-shirts not being useful. I don't know, this train of thought has gotten away from me.

More often than not people pointing to home/road splits aren't saying Player X plays better at home as much as the ballpark where he plays half of his games affects his statistics to the point the don't show his true performance. Examples would include Derrek Lee leaving Florida and coming to the Cubs, Greg Maddux leaving Chicago and going to LA and eventually San Diego, and yes the proposed Khalil Greene trade. That's a valid point, and you are correct there. But it seems that people still invoke home/road splits quite a bit in the context I was talking about earlier. I'm mostly interested in whether or not anyone can share any useful info on whether a player's home/road splits are meaningful after you've factored in park effects or if it is luck or some other factor.