soccer10k

Somebody should let Jorge know that someone just compared him to Haaland. Huge W for him. Haha. I just meant the line rather than how Soler’s career went compared to Haaland’s current trajectory.

Cubs lose...

Counterpoint: I'd say anything about a city/team if they paid me $184M over 8 years. Joking aside, him buying a suite for Ross on the road for all of the 2016 season (or whatever it was) because of all Ross did for Heyward when he was a rookie made me think higher of both guys.

Watching Haaland destroy the EPL reminds me of when Soler hit 2 HR against the Cards in his third career game and Deshaies goes "there's not a higher league, Jorge". 14 goals in 8 games now. If he plays 25 league games this year he could get the record.

Immediately thought of this tweet. [tweet] [/tweet]My favorite thing today was looking at the week after this one's games and seeing ranked Kansas at unranked Oklahoma. Last time both were unranked I think was the end of the 2014 season when OU went 8-5 and Texas was 6-7. I didn’t check each year but OU hasn’t lost more than 2 games in a season since then so they were probably ranked every week after that.

Immediately thought of this tweet. [tweet] [/tweet]

Yep. Will be interesting to see how long he stays there before jumping to a bigger job.

[bbvideo=560,315] [/bbvideo] Thoughts on the red card? It's at the 9 minute mark of the video. I think first of all it was a dumb and unnecessary challenge to make at that spot in the field. No need for it. It was also more of a clumsy challenge than anything. I thought it was a borderline one where sometimes you see a yellow given and sometimes you see a red. My main issues was that the ref didn't even go over and take a second look at the monitor. A big decision like that, unless it's something super obvious, I think they need to take a second look. However I think if that same play happens against Spurs, I would be annoyed if it was just a yellow which tells me it should be a red.

I could if my employer was paying me $22M that year.

Dolphins need to be fined and lost draft picks for this. And the doctor who cleared him last week should be fired. It was absurd he returned last week and is absurd he played today. Of course the NFL probably won’t do anything because they don’t care.

The thing I'm worried about is the unintended consequences of robo-umps. I'm absolutely deaf ears on "the human element" but some pretty smart people have voiced some valid trepidations about jumping over to the automated strike zone in one fell swoop. - The super-imposed zones on TV aren't actually totally accurate, getting the actual calls takes a little bit of computer processing time - Umps don't actually call the rulebook zone. It's more oval than square, if we jump straight to the rulebook zone what does that do? Or do we want to codify a more practical zone? - Relatedly, the zone expands/contracts based on the count and the score. Does eliminating that all at once break anything? - Does completely eliminating framing do weird/undesirable horsefeathers to the catcher position? We definitely need to move towards automation. But I think an intermediate step is a good idea. Though I 1000% agree it needs to be fast. No sauntering over, putting a headset on, waiting 90 seconds, disseminating the info, etc. Just like flash something on the scoreboard or give the 2B an earpiece and appeal to him a la check swings or something. I don't watch tennis but my understanding is it's pretty quick and painless there? It will undoubtedly take some adjustment but look at tennis. It's not even a thing anymore. All the stuff you mentioned is not relevant. Tennis is also a stationary, two dimensional zone with clear in/out lines that you can see. It doesn’t adjust based on who is playing. The width of the zone in baseball is the same but the height is different for every batter. I’m firmly pro robo-umps but it is more complicated than tennis.

Dude has 295 1/3 IP in the majors and hadn't been called for a single balk before tonight. That's an ump show plain and simple and Bleier was remarkably restrained considering the circumstances. He should have come to a complete stop, flipped the ump the bird, and then thrown the next pitch.

B-R lists them as having 0 sacrifice bunts this year. Dodgers are second with only 3. Arizona leads with 28. Cubs have the 4th most with 19.

And they Lionsed it.

[tweet] [/tweet] WTF is this? First, it's 1st and goal not 4th and goal. What are you doing stretching the ball out for the end zone? Second, who the fuck tries to go over the top from the 3 yard line? That's a "ball inside the 1 yard line" move.

Kansas is 4-0. The last time Kansas won 4 games in a season was 2009. In the last 3 years, Kansas is a combined 5-28. If they can get one more conference win, it will be the first time since 2008 they've had more than 1 win in the Big 12.

Since June 1, Edwin Diaz has thrown 37 1/3 Edwin Diaz since June 1: 37 1/3 IP, 17 H, 3 R, 3 ER, 8 BB, 72 K, 0.72 ERA, .349 OPS (with a .309 BABIP) and a 0.06 FIP.

I understand running the clock down but I didn’t get why Arkansas didn’t just send the FG unit out there to save the timeout. Could have gotten the ball back with a stop with that second timeout. Now they won’t.

I would understand it more if the score was 42-42 and neither team could get a stop, though even then you still just get the ball in the end zone. But you allowed 217 yards total in the game! Trust your defense to not give up a TD in less than 40 seconds.

Weird that a game from August is still being talked about.

Baez 2016 vs. the Giants mention at the end!

[tweet] [/tweet] 2022 has the advantage at the 9 spot!

The ND one nearly had a crazy finish. Two different Cal players had a chance to come down with their Hail Mary.

Federer is the first guy I really remember watching play. Like I watched Sampras and Agassi sometimes in the 90's but I didn't really get into it until the early 2000's. I remember being at my grandparents house in 2001 and watching a 19 year old Federer knock off Sampras at Wimbledon when Sampras had won the last 4 titles and 7 of the last 8 there. Then two years later he gets his first major there after never having even made a major semi. And then it was on. He won 16 of the next 27 majors. Starting in Wimbledon 2004, he lost 9 times in majors. 6 of those were to Nadal, one to Djokovic, one to del Potro and one to Marat Safin From 2005 Wimbledon to 2010 Aussie Open he played in 19 majors. He won 12, lost in the final 6 times and lost in the semis once. Death, taxes and Federer in the final. You never knew who would come out of the bottom half. But you knew nobody was beating him in the top half. Any GOAT case for Federer starts with his consistency. -He made a record 10 consecutive major finals. Second best streak is 8 straight, also done by Federer. Djokovic's best was 6. Nadal's was 5. -He made a record 23 consecutive major semifinals. Second best streak is Djokovic at 14. Nadal's best streak is 7. -He made a record 36 consecutive major quarterfinals. Second best streak is Djokovic at 28. Nadal's best streak is 11. Djokovic and Nadal have more major titles. I've said this before but Nadal is way too one dimensional to me as far as the GOAT debate goes. Top-5 all time for sure. But we're picking nits here but you can't have 60% of your majors on one surface. Djokovic you could sell me on being better. He's got the same consistency as Federer as he's got between 81 and 86 wins at all four majors. Nadal has 112 at the French but his second most is only 76 at the Aussie Open. Federer's totals would be better (105, 102, 89, 73) if he hadn't stopped playing the French after 2015. But there is a part of me that truly believes Federer's greatness pushed Nadal and Djokovic to another level. Of course those two would have won a ton of majors because they're ridiculously good players who had the drive to keep getting better. But it's easier to maintain that drive when you're still chasing someone else. And personal preference but I always enjoyed watching Federer play more than I did Nadal and Djokovic. He was just so smooth out there on the court and it seemed effortless to him. Nadal was pure effort all the time. You could tell he was giving 100% on every single point. For both him and Djokovic, for a while they both seemed content to just get the ball back, wait for the other person to make an error and eventually wear down their opponent with their fitness and stamina. The 2012 Australian Open final between Djokovic and Nadal was a prime example. It went 5 sets and nearly 6 hours and I watched every second. It was a great match but also kind of boring. I also remember a Nadal-Verdasco match in Australia where both players just rallied back and forth. Nadal should have just been able to overwhelm Verdasco. But he was content to just sit back and rally knowing Verdasco would make more mistakes than he would. Nadal and Djokovic are both super slow players, the Pedro Baez's of tennis. I remember early Djokovic, the more tension was in a point, the more he would bounce the ball before his serve. Nadal was also a very meticulous player also who had his routine before every point. For both players, I could use the skip forward 30 second button after a point when they were serving and it would still leave a couple seconds before their next serve. Federer would just get a couple new balls and get ready to serve. Well, that was longer than I thought it was going to be when I started but boy did I love watching that dude play tennis.

I sign up for 2 months (normally 3 but the condensed group stage this year saves me money) and then cancel. Then I sign up for 3 months in the spring.