XZero771679666304

Awesome. I hate Milwaukee, the city is a POS. Their fans are annoying and unrealistic. However, once Fielder, Braun, and Hart leave for better money they'll be back to worthless for another 18 seasons until they scrounge a winning season again. Then their fans will be back... Diehard Brewer fans are just as clueless as casual Cub fans. They think every minor leaguer they have will be an All-Star, and rarely follow the other teams in the division. :rotfl: Are you laughing or crying? You'll be good for a few years, but you have to know Fielder, Braun and Hart are all history once they reach free agency, and probably before. That's why I don't hate the Brewers. They'll never sustain success like the Cardinals.

Do we hold a tiebreaker with PSU? They have IU and UW left so it will probably be a tie at 6-12. By my understanding we would, but I could be wrong. We split the head-to-head. Then it goes to record against the top teams. We each went 0-2 against Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana and each went 1-1 against MSU. We went 1-1 against Ohio State while they went 0-1. We went 0-1 against Minnesota while they went 0-2. Wow, that tiebreaker sucks, but Ill take it if means we get another shot at Illinois. Fine with me. In these hard times, beating Iowa takes some of the edge off.

That came with a small set of similar Ryno cards. I picked those up, jeez, like 16 years ago.

Dude don't you know anything about baseball. CFs hit leadoff unless there is a skinny, fast, black dude at another position (very rare). Gotta have a guy that can handle the bat (i.e. sac bunt, hit and run, makes productive outs) batting 2nd. Gotta give that fast dude a chance to run. Corner OF and IF are the 3-6 spots, and mostly interchangeable. C is 7th. SS is 8th. These are both defense-first positions, so the offense you get from them is a bonus. Defense wins championships and you gotta be strong up the middle. hahahaha that is good. Today's starting lineup: 1. Dickerson CF (right) 2. Hopper DH (handles bad, right) 3. Griffey RF (right) 4. Dunn LF (right) 5. Keppinger (right) 6. Hatteberg 1B (right) 7. Valentin C (right) 8. Castro SS (right) 9. A. Phillips 2B That is scary. scary good. Welcome to the world of predictable idiocy that Cubs fans lived in for 4 years. The man has a formula, and he will stick to it.

Players are just being babies. Cole Hamels is doing the same thing in Philly. But if I'm the Brewers, I'm not paying a lot more than I have to for a player who will be gone as soon as he hits free agency. He'll get enough when he's arbitration eligible anyway.

okay that is gross. mayonnaise or nothing on tuna. I love mustard, but mustard in tuna? Eeeww. Tuna+Mayo+Dill+onions+dill relish+Old Bay+pepper = good. Oh, and Grey Poupon is spectacular.

That's really it. As long as those things are intact (I would include the bleachers, but since they were just renovated, I don't see it being an issue), and any renovation is congruous, the rest doesn't matter. The grandstands/bathrooms/concourse are not charming, they suck. Seeing that the bleachers were just renovated and the field replaced, we aren't going to see a new stadium in the near future. So significant improvements are going to have to be made.

Yeah, no one went to Bears games for the ambiance of Soldier Field.

balsamic ftw

I love Wrigley, but at some point the grandstand will have to be rebuilt, and I have no problem with it. In fact, the sooner the better. That is so long as the rebuild is congruous, and in the same mold as the old grandstand. I love history as well, but it is simply unrealistic to expect Wrigley to remain as it is. It is an old, decaying hulk that needs serious help. Calling it "destroying history" is a bit melodramatic, IMO. If they treat Wrigley like they treated another Historical landmark in this city, Soldier Field, it is destroying history. Otherwise it would not have been a historical landmark in the first place. I love Wrigley Field and I personally would rather have a new stadium build not in wrigleyville than alter Wrigley so much where it is unrecognizable. That is my personal preference. I believe Wrigley is one of the defining factors of this city. It is one of those things that the city prides itself on. I understand they have to renovate the stadium. I just don't want it to be unrecognizable. My feeling is if you are going to make it unrecognizable why not just build an entirely new stadium, somwhere else. If you wanted something completely different why not actually do it. Of course the Cubs want to stay in Wrigleyville and the Bears wanted to stay on the lake shore. I have a strong feeling that if/when they do rebuild the grandstand, it won't look like they landed a spacecraft, a la Soldier. I'm sure it will strongly resemble Wrigley as it is now. Either way, I would rather have an updated Wrigley where it is now rather than off in the 'burbs. Half of Wrigley's charm is the location.

I love Wrigley, but at some point the grandstand will have to be rebuilt, and I have no problem with it. In fact, the sooner the better. That is so long as the rebuild is congruous, and in the same mold as the old grandstand. I love history as well, but it is simply unrealistic to expect Wrigley to remain as it is. It is an old, decaying hulk that needs serious help. Calling it "destroying history" is a bit melodramatic, IMO.

Yeah, that lineup would be really top heavy.

That's the thing that separates Lou from Dusty: The ability to recognize something isn't working, and the willingness to change it.

Personally, I wouldn't mind those red jerseies, as long as it is for SPRING TRAINGING ONLY. And the Cub with the Bear in the symbol should be blue and not red, for it to look better. That jersey is an abomination, and would only be acceptable in a fire.

Kermit? Phenomenal. But frogs aren't vegetarian.

People here at UNM are afraid IU is going to come after Alford, but I try and assure them that probably won't happen.

+1 Plus, I like not looking all yellow and protein deprived. all of the morningstar/boca meat substitutes have just as much protein, if not more than regular meat. it's also has considerably less amounts of fat as by-product. not to mention all of the raw veggies, nuts, fruit proteins, beans and grains eaten by vegetarians, but your are probably right, all vegetarians look yellow and protein deprived. keep making excuses for eating delicious bacon. bacon for president! oh, and prince is fat Yeah, most of the meat substitutes have more than enough protein, and taste good when properly spiced, or covered with cheese. I love steak, chicken and bacon far too much to become a vegetarian, but I suppose I could if I had to. However, I would rather die than become a vegan. There's no way I could give up cheese. And though I am sure there are exceptions, vegans are some of the most sickly people I have ever seen, and I see a lot of them around here.

I love the walking bear. I thought the old one played right into the loveable losers thing. Plus the walking bear just looks better.

I remember Giants fans telling me how bad Dusty was just after the Cubs hired him, and how I blew them off. Oh, how little I knew. Man, it is nice to see him working his magic for a division rival. Too bad it isn't the Crew, Astros or Cards.

I liked the blues at first, but they got old in a hurry. I only have one blue jersey (unless you count my 80's style Sandberg), and that is a Sosa I bought just after the 98' season, with the Harry and Hey Hey patches.

Sprinters lean forward all the time right at the finish line. Why do they do that if it doesn't help them hit the tape slightly sooner? There is a difference between leaning forward into the tape and practically bending over to dive, which is why I said that if the base were at chest-waist level instead of ground level, things would be different. If you dove in a manner that didn't terribly disturb the running motion (the trajectory a runner would take if he/she turned their finish line lean into a dive), you would end up airborne and falling on the bag rather than pushing into it, which would again cost time. But again, the injury issue makes this whole discussion kind of superfluous. Either way, I am done with it.

Yeah, I read it, and I don't buy it. The whole conservation of momentum thing is true, but as far as it applies to a baserunner, it would only work if said baserunner was being propelled by something other than his stride, something independent of his legs' ability to maintain consistent motion. What your bit fails to address is that the center of mass will slow down as you prepare to dive because the act of rotating the body forward impedes the legs ability to maintain stride, resulting in deceleration. Try running 100 meters. Then run 100 meters, but bend forward for even just a couple of steps during. I'll bet you get a slower time. For someone who plays a lot, running through the bag at full stride is not difficult, because he /she would have have gotten it down through repetition. Now if you had to use time to alter your stride so that it hits the bag right, that would be a factor. But I doubt most players on most plays have to do that. Once you position your body to dive, you have stopped running. Maybe if the base was at chest-waist level, reaching out would allow you to touch it sooner. But you have to break stride to begin to dive forward, and that results in deceleration. Not because of the position of the body relative to the ground, but because it simply gets in the way of running. Granted this only takes a fraction of a second, but that is enough, IMO. Perhaps is there were some way to instantaneously launch into a dive without transitional deceleration, it would work, but obviously that is impossible. This has nothing to do with friction or the ground. I know what your argument is, and while it is great in theory, I just don't think it holds up in practical application because there are variables involved that aren't taken into account, and are hard to quantify. If you get out of the box well and hit the right stride, I don't think there is any way diving gets you to the bag more quickly than flat out sprinting. It really seems not only counterintuitive, but illogical. That is may argument for against the theory. The argument against the practice is easy. It's horrible on your body, and even if there were a time advantage, it would be so minuscule that it wouldn't nearly be worth it. And as far as the flat earth thing goes, I don't think there is anything wrong with implying old convention and perception (sliding into first is faster = earth is flat) is now amusingly out of place in a more enlightened time. The analogy may have been hyperbolic, but it made sense. That is unless you were implying that your theory was ahead of it's time, and you = Galileo, which would make it an issue of perspective.

I really can't believe people are still debating this. Better slide into first so you can use the time you save to get to your Flat Earth Society meeting early.

Ha! There was even a hot tub involved (albeit indirectly).