Exile on Waveland

Yogi played for 35 minutes and Troy for 33 against IPFW. lulz This year is especially depressing. IU has a really good roster (and would be even better if Crean had control of the players) but the on-court product is no better. Purdue will crush IU this year.

Here's where I disagree, I guess. I take my keychain and wallet everywhere from games to work to dates and my headphones at the gym, airport or wherever. I typically only go all logo-ed out at a sporting event where that game is being played or broadcasted. you only wear cubs gear to games (or to watch them at bars or something)? Pretty much. I'm an adult.

Same here. Like, I mean, the kid is devastated. He's worn #13 and played SS ever since he started playing T-ball 5 years ago, and he's got Castro cards and posters all over his room, and he met Castro last year during ST. Damn, that sucks, sorry. I certainly don't have the emotional attachment to players I did as a child, but I'm still bummed to see Castro go (especially, for him, after the first taste of team success). But the trade makes a lot of sense, even more so in conjunction with yesterday's other move.

Same ... Indiana opens against Eastern Illinois on BTN Plus, which I won't be paying for.

Yeah, honestly, I think that's the best one can hope for as a fan, at this point.

you're kidding yourself if you don't think that they already have at least one or two in there Yeah ... professional athletes? I'm guessing it'd be lucky if the anti-gay animus wasn't over half.

I'd take the title in a heartbeat. I think it would be crazy not to, honestly.

find a way to break a curse, do whatever you have to. this team is capable of winning a world series. hey, remember in 2003 when we hadn't lost 3 in a row all year until the nlcs, just when we were about to make it to the series? anybody remember 1984? they can't get there, it cannot be explained. I think that they've only been to the NLCS 3 times in the 46 years its existed kinda explains it pretty well. 4 times. 0-5 in clinching games and 0-4 in the series themselves. doesn't count 69, either. cubs haven't been to a series since 45, the year of the curse. They've only played in 3 NLCS series. 1984, 1989, 2003, 2015.

Yup. I think this needs to be remembered. The tendency--and it's not wrong--will be to blame the offense because they only scored "x" amount of runs. Which will be true. But the pitching was also not good enough. You just can't keep falling behind--and falling behind immediately, not late on account of the offense failing.

Yea, because one [expletive] pitcher would have turned this whole series around. It wouldn't have hurt? But that complaint went out the window when every single SP acquired except Happ and Price were not good. We were in talks for Ross but SD wanted the moon for him Right. Maybe having a top-end pitcher last night leads to that top-end pitcher pitching top-end. Maybe not; but that certainly could have changed the series (and obviously then Hammel would not have started). Yeah. That's a lot of maybes. Or maybe we just still get our ass kicked. Yup. That's possible too. Surprisingly, I can't tell the future in this alternate time line. But neither can you. your counter-factual assertion is a "maybe" too--you just couched it as a certainty. It's not.

Yea, because one [expletive] pitcher would have turned this whole series around. It wouldn't have hurt? But that complaint went out the window when every single SP acquired except Happ and Price were not good. We were in talks for Ross but SD wanted the moon for him Right. Maybe having a top-end pitcher last night leads to that top-end pitcher pitching top-end. Maybe not; but that certainly could have changed the series (and obviously then Hammel would not have started).

The Cubs starters, bar two, are not good enough. Edit: Hendricks is fine, he just shouldn't be the third option in the NLCS.

My goodness.

Oh come on.

She really needs to stop calling players by their first name only.

I'd probably leave Hendricks in to complete his second time through the order...but no way a third.

That was...odd and unprofessional.

Wel, Dusty would know about blowing big series leads.

Here, anxious.

I would think any half way decent lawyer would be able to get their client off in these type of situations. And Kane can obviously afford good lawyers so he probably doesn't have anything to worry about. It's why so many rapists end up walking. Basically unless the victim is left a battered, shattered wreck from violent sex, it's ridiculously easy to convince a jury that it was "consensual enough." No. It's ridiculously easy to create "reasonable doubt". Which right now can be sold right now simply via the idea he used a condom or didn't bust his nut inside of her or on her. Look at how many comments here and on articles about there where people act like this completely exonerates him. THAT'S the uphill battle with prosecuting rape and sexual assault cases; unlike so many other criminal cases, the expectation of ironclad evidence vs. circumstantial evidence is skewed hugely to the former. Too many people are looking for any and every reason to dismiss it. So what happens when the rest of this investigation is released and it almost certainly shows that the rape kit showed that she had sex that evening. Then basically the difference before and after the info leak is that people assumed that he must have jizzed his mind out all over her? How does that exonerate him? I'm late to this ball game, but... This is a really good point. Harping on "circumstantial evidence" is a defense counsel trope (or trope for those that want to make a conviction/guilt seem less likely) that has very little meaning, in actuality, and is really an obfuscation of real-world/life practicalities. It's used, incorrectly, to sound like "bad" evidence; when it is no such thing. Almost everything is circumstantial evidence and circumstantial evidence can be very,very persuasive (and often times more convincing than "direct" testimony -- we all know about the issues with eye-witness testimony). "Circumstantial" should not be equated with "lesser" evidence; it merely means evidence that requires an inference to make the broader conclusion ("direct" requires no such inference). So: fingerprints at the scene are "circumstantial." DNA evidence is "circumstantial." As the saying goes, the infamous "smoking gun" is actually "circumstantial" evidence. The common example lawyers often give to jurors is that if you see rabbit tracks in the snow, that's "circumstantial" evidence that a rabbit ran through the snow. But guess what? If you see rabbit tracks in the snow, a rabbit ran through the [expletive] snow, you dunce, even if there's no "direct" evidence. This ties into a point made in the politics thread regarding the Richard Glossip murder (which I really want to comment on many, many things wrong with that post but not sure I have the energy -- I worked on that case, though not at the guilt phase, only the Eighth Amendment phase). Most murders are going to be based on "circumstantial" evidence considering the main witness has been killed (duh) and most murders, shockingly, aren't caught on tape.

Mets. It would only be fitting for the Cubs to have to go through the Cards and the Mets to get to the World Series. For 1969, for Victor [expletive] Diaz, and for Ronnie.

No. 11: all the dongs they generously gave up to the Cubs in the playoffs.

That was amazing. Can't wait until Saturday night for more dongs.

I'll even accept a lesser, non-dong, hit...

Cmon get just one hit Montero...