javy knows my name

He probably doesn't, but since he's the manager of a losing team the large assumption will lean towards the scenario that makes him look least intelligent. But, what part of his short tenure makes anyone think he is an intelligent manager? Not his W-L record this year, as any other answer would just be falling for the trap that question sets to open the can of worms I'd rather leave miles away from me. It must be his excellent management of the bullpen. Maybe it's his flawless lineup construction. His ability to keep peace in the clubhouse?

Really? Really?!

This is what I would do: Girl - "Oh I'm just kind of skank (teeheehee), what do you do?" Dolis/Clevenger - "I'm a professional baseball player." Girl - "Like OOOOOMG! Baseball players are like soooooo cute!" *gobble, slobber, swallow* You seem to have a lot of respect for women.

Jesus, I thought this would die. I misspoke. They RUN the radio on a 7 second delay from the live action so that it syncs with the tv, which is, naturally, behind the radio. When I was watching, the radio was still ahead of the Fox broadcast, which has already been mentioned. Of course the radio wouldn't run slower than the TV. That makes no [expletive] sense and I think that's what [expletive] is arguing with no one about.

Oh, absolutely. This really proves just how much the media blew this out of proportion. On another note, I think I got a little more out of the documentary than someone who lived in Chicago at the time of the series. I wasn't privy to the minutiae of Bartman's life immediately following (no local Chicago news), so I learned A LOT about Bartman from this thing. Hell, I had no idea he had friends with him who ditched him once he got out onto the concourse.

I may have mentioned it here before, but I used to play on a suburban softball team with him. From about 2005-2007 he was our pitcher. Just as everyone who speaks about him says, he is a quiet, unassuming guy. Very nice, likable, and without question a huge Cub fan. Throughout my time knowing him, we spoke of the Cubs frequently, and he was always informed and current with his knowledge of the team. Not once did I broach the topic of game 6, and I'm glad I didn't. In our time in the league, I think just one opponent realized who he was, but I don't believe they ever said anything about it to him. This is simply unbelievable to me. I thought he was in the witness protection program or some [expletive].

I don't know about now but back then national broadcasts had a delay. I used to watch a lot of sports with the radio on but not the national broadcasts and it was because of this. That game absolutely, 100% had a radio delay. We gave up on Steve Lyons after about 3 outs and let Ronnie give us 5 second spoilers for the remainder of the game.

Now you insult the guy's baseball acumen?! Too far, Rocket.

If it had come from anyone else, I would be sure I'd misread that.

1) I love 30 for 30 2) I wanted to see all the new footage of Bartman from the stands and stuff. Not mad. And the interview with the security lady was pretty touching. This one had a good amount of heart when all was said and done.

Hahaha noooo way will I ever watch that game again. I will try the documentary, if for no other reason than because I love 30 for 30

SUPER LIKE

Just like Communism Do you realize that you're ruining the joke by explaining it? GET ON WITH IT!

If that's the case as far the developmental staff only using stats, Marmol and Wells wouldve been released as no hit catchers and Lake would not have made it past Peoria. This is why Ping doesn't count.

I'm back in. Holy semantical gymnastics! His answer is right there, in black and white. But yes, when you completely divorce his answer from the context and make a ton of assumptions independent of the text, yes, he COULD mean something else by it. You're normally literal to a fault. Now you're reaching God knows where and completely ignoring the textual evidence in front of you because YOU believe that a scout should know these things. Well you know what? I believe our development team should use a computer to compile stats on our minor leaguers rather than a pencil and paper. This organization isn't chock full of people who know what we think they should know or do what we think they should do. The organization in general, and Hughes in particular, has given us no reason to believe this isn't what he actually thinks. The text gives us no reason to believe this isn't what he actually thinks. Good gracious.

I just read the whole thing. Every other post had me laughing out loud.

I'm out.

The Hellicksons of the world are few and far between. He was a college junior on the mound when he was junior in HS as far as how he pitched. Yeah, SSR beat me. When the BPA is a high school kid with upper-level college polish and ridiculous upside, yeah, I'll be taking him with my pick. EDIT: And spending a lot to sign him away from his college commitment

If you were a scouting director of a smaller market club, would you draft a HS pitcher in the 1st? With all things being equal, probably not. They are, on average, going to cost more to sign away from a college commitment and take more resources to develop. They are also more likely to bust than a polished college kid. It doesn't seem like a good gamble. On the flip side, as a small market team, it's almost easier to gamble on that end of spending than it is to gamble on free agency. Have to go for high reward projects internally if you're not going to be able to afford high reward FAs and you ever plan to compete. That's a good point. Pitchers are just so volatile that I would do my damndest to minimize the risk in making that pick. Picking a guy who already has some polish out of school AND presumably costs a little less to sign are two things you can kind of control when deciding on a pick.

If you were a scouting director of a smaller market club, would you draft a HS pitcher in the 1st? With all things being equal, probably not. They are, on average, going to cost more to sign away from a college commitment and take more resources to develop. They are also more likely to bust than a polished college kid. It doesn't seem like a good gamble.

Thanks, Gary. What was said: VOROS McCRACKEN: The lower-revenue teams are in a bit of a bind when it comes to high school prospects because they are more of an unknown. It becomes difficult for a team that's not bringing in that much in terms of revenue to take a big-money chance . . . GARY HUGHES: Why are they an unknown? I don't understand. Because of the data? What it meant: "I don't understand why you believe high school prospects that can be evaluated through scouting are an unknown. They're not unknown." What you heard: "I don't understand baseball." Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem. He didn't say that. That's your spin. I'm going to go ahead and continue to cling to the apparently bizarre notion that a lifelong professional scout grasps the difference between projecting HS prospects and college prospects. He doesn't agree that they're MORE of an unknown. Your context actually helps my argument. He doesn't think it is any harder to project (or any riskier to pay) high school players than college players. That is all there, and you are the only person who doesn't see it (Ping does not count).

Thanks, Gary. What was said: VOROS McCRACKEN: The lower-revenue teams are in a bit of a bind when it comes to high school prospects because they are more of an unknown. It becomes difficult for a team that's not bringing in that much in terms of revenue to take a big-money chance . . . GARY HUGHES: Why are they an unknown? I don't understand. Because of the data? What it meant: "I don't understand why you believe high school prospects that can be evaluated through scouting are an unknown. They're not unknown." What you heard: "I don't understand baseball." Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem.

This is just as laughable. They are loyal to their network, that's about it. If the Pac-12 had said OK to the LHN then there wouldn't be any more Big 12. Too rich. You screw over half the Southwest conference, and now leave the Big 12 to die, and have the gall to cast stones at Texas. Ooh, how did they screw over the SWC, I want to know. EDIT: Because I thought SMU screwed over the SWC by being SMU.

Holy wow! Two other votes for Bojangles!

Bojangles is sort of shitty, but I have good memories from there, so it makes me smile. It gets my vote because I am not from the south and thus don't know [expletive] about fried chicken.