Hairyducked Idiot

The optimal strategy in baseball is almost always throw the ball in a way that makes it hard to hit, and for the batter to try to hit as hard as possible and hope that it's not right at someone. People always wax philosophical about the strategic depth but really the sport is pretty much empty of actually relevant strategic decisions on a game to game basis. It's one of the least strategically deep sports I can think of.

Nothing lasts forever. My first thought when I saw the thread titled big news that tim had finally gotten bored and was going to stop fronting the bandwidth and hosting costs for our digital equivalent of the old men who drink coffee all morning at fast food restaurants. It's been going for almost 25 years now. At some point either the site was going to end, it would change drastically, or we start following Fred one at a time. What will be will be, not worth worrying over, so long as imb is never ever let into the insider's forum. Unless that already happened?

Is that where that's from? I still quote one of the playoff threads in I think 2007 where someone said "Why would something good happen when something bad could happen instead?"

katie pizza baby! best name in the business So... Was she into Kyle and he should have shot his shot? She had a boyfriend at the time too that she had met on World of Warcraft and then IRL. So she was definitely the type to be into me.

One time someone referenced something they had seen on my facebook page and I locked that horsefeathers down *so fast* would it worry you if i told you i knew the name of your editor in northd dakota? The sports editor, the main editor, or are you thinking of Katie Pizza? I don't even remember the actual editors' names. I just remember they both hated me. Most of my bosses forever have hated me because of what I now know is the autistic hyperfixation/burnout cycle. It's a little like manic-depressive. I get hyperfixated on my career, I do amazing work, give great interviews, talk myself into new and better jobs. A few months later I'm burnt out, the hyperfixation disappears, and I can literally barely drag myself in every day to click around on the computer screen and retype some press releases to avoid getting fired immediately. I always thought there was a vibe between me and Katie Pizza, but I was married at the time and would never press the issue. A few years later my then-wife cheated with a work buddy and I feel like I should get a re-do on that one.

I would rather trade further down and get more picks than waste a top-5 pick on a defensive player.

Have you SEEN the Twins postseason record lately? I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. I don’t know any of you well enough to hate you that much. Someone skimped on the due diligence. I'm a miserable floor boner who delights in suffering.

Da Bum photoshopped Soriano into the trail of tears. Da Bum ended IMB's friendship with sully over game of thrones spoilers sent to his work email Da Bum ran NSBBLOL Da Bum insisted that the Cubs should try Chris Coghlan at 2b and everybody mocked him for it but then a few months later they did

It’s the internet, you should not feel welcome None of us know each other, and that’s the best part. One time someone referenced something they had seen on my facebook page and I locked that horsefeathers down *so fast*

idgi and i'm not reading any of it, but obviously i have to post anyway. So we're all twins fans now? I'm down.

Wait really? I'm shook. Must be confused cuz of the cheese sauce and posts about drinking a gallon of apple juice to cut down his sugar intake. yeah the gravy is 100% for sure not da bum. it was some rando We should credit Bum with all the great stuff. Da Bum hand-timed a bunch of his friends running 90 feet and proved that diving into first is slightly faster.

Every board has its running jokes, please explain this one to the new guy. You're probably going to have to provide pillow gifts and a nacho cheese dispenser to get to the bottom of this one. For real, though, I'll leave it to someone with much better writing and summarization skills than I have to tell the tale. He's just another one of us weirdos who was just a little too weird and was sent packing for his transgressions. MFer took my job.

MLB should maximize amount of time spent consuming MLB content by instituting a reverse pitch clock and stretching the games to 4-5 hours

I've probably watched less than nine innings total in the last three years, and the pitch clock has me intrigued enough to plan to start watching again

yea, I mean justin fields was also thought about as being a pocket passer .... but he ALSO had amazing physical traits: https://thedraftnetwork.com/2021-nfl-draft-scouting-report-qb-justin-fields/ Kyle, I feel like you want to be right about something no one else was right about. I think it would give you a sense of accomplishment, a feeling of mental superiority. That's cool I guess...you be you as they say....but also accept that you really don't know much I promise you nothing on this board has ever given me a sense of accomplishment or pride. I'm appropriately ashamed at all times. Except maybe trolling imb.

It's worth noting that while the role of racism in sport scouting is 100% real and important to talk about, both QBs at the top of this draft class are black and are known for their pocket passer skills while having doubts about their physical traits.

Would it help if I linked you to three articles not actually backing up what I said but it kinda felt like they were generally supportive of me? It completely backs up what I said, it just doesn't say word for word what the horsefeathers you want it to say. And you know it, you're just being you. You said you hadn't heard it anywhere but Bears fans. I gave you Mel Kiper and you still disagree because that's what you do for the sake of doing it. The only way you can help me is if you stay the horsefeathers out of my comments. Don't quote me. Don't respond to me. Disagree all you want, and be publicly wrong on your own time. Hard pass. Just use your fuzzy reading skills to convince yourself that whatever I post is actually agreeing with you.

None of those links says Justin fields coming out of college was better than young. The first one says he's better now than Young is now, which isn't the same thing. The other two just say the bears should continue building around fields, which is even less close to the same thing. I understand that not everyone is going to have the same desire for literal interpretations that I do, but there's got to be a *little* more nuance than just assuming all pro-fields sentiments are completely equivalent. IDK if you have a hairy dick, but I can vouch for the 2nd part of your name. Would it help if I linked you to three articles not actually backing up what I said but it kinda felt like they were generally supportive of me?

You mostly get used to it, but it's always a little frustrating. The best explanation I've ever gotten is that neurotypicals speak in vibes. The actual words aren't important, they are just vehicles for the general feeling being conveyed. So to me, "Justin fields coming out of college was better than Bryce young coming out of college" is a completely different statement from, and this is the exact quote from the third link: "Mhmmm can’t make a statement like that. I’ll be shocked if Chicago don’t trade back or don’t go above and beyond to build around Justin!” But they both generally convey a pro-fields vibe, so to a lot of people, they are apparently functionally equivalent? Actually, if you go back and click through to Parson's actual tweet, he was specifically saying he *couldn't* say that fields is better than young, but he still thinks the bears should build around fields. So besides not being a draft expert, which is what we were talking about, it involved the player being quoted directly refusing to say the thing most draft experts are allegedly saying. But linking it and saying "lol due diligence" felt like a rebuttal, it had the vibe of a rebuttal,.so the actual words didn't matter.

Yeah, I'm sure you did your due diligence to actually look. https://dawindycity.com/2023/01/27/chicago-bears-news-draft-expert-fields-better-young/ https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/espn-analyst-doesnt-understand-bears-justin-fields-trade-talks https://clutchpoints.com/bears-news-micah-parsons-fires-back-at-justin-fields-bryce-young-debate None of those links says Justin fields coming out of college was better than young. The first one says he's better now than Young is now, which isn't the same thing. The other two just say the bears should continue building around fields, which is even less close to the same thing. I understand that not everyone is going to have the same desire for literal interpretations that I do, but there's got to be a *little* more nuance than just assuming all pro-fields sentiments are completely equivalent.

It's possible this is true, but I personally have not heard it from anyone but bears fans

They just need to build to his strengths. It's obnoxious that last year's roster was almost intentionally built to the exact opposite of what he needs. He needs excellent pass blocking tackles who can give him time to let plays develop the way he likes, and he needs receivers who create visible separation for him to throw to.

And here's the disconnect. I called the Orlovsky argument bad, and you're looking for "what it's supposed to prove" when I say that. There's no deeper meaning. There's no hidden agenda. It wasn't supposed to prove anything other than the bad argument was bad. "Fields might still be really good despite falling to no. 11 because NFL teams often misevaluate QBs in the draft" is a perfectly fine argument and I agree with it My biggest problem with your he dropped to 11th or whatever is that the current MVP of the league was the 10th pick in the draft and was the 3rd QB taken that year so that's as equally a nebulous and unscientific argument as you're criticizing other people for making. My argument for Fields is that he's shown potential and he has 2 years of development/improvement/knowledge under his belt that you'd be throwing away. I don't think I've seen any indication that any of the guys available this year are considered to be can't miss and/or better prospects than Fields was. I'm no scout but I'll believe the guys who are. I'm not saying fields is bad because he dropped to 11th. I'm disputing the constant assertion that he was 1b or that he would be the clear top pick in this draft year if he were eligible. Some posters have been pushing that Fields was a Manning-level prospect since draft day and I'm still waiting two years later for his first 250/2 td passing game. It's perfectly possible that fields is a hidden-ish gem like Mahomes, albeit that's probably a bit optimistic on ceiling. You wouldn't be throwing it away tho. You'd be trading it for value. I agree, I'm not a scout either. Scouting QBs is really hard. If the scouts say they like fields better than anyone in this draft, I'm totally fine with that. But it's definitely not crazy if they decide the other way.

And here's the disconnect. I called the Orlovsky argument bad, and you're looking for "what it's supposed to prove" when I say that. There's no deeper meaning. There's no hidden agenda. It wasn't supposed to prove anything other than the bad argument was bad. "Fields might still be really good despite falling to no. 11 because NFL teams often misevaluate QBs in the draft" is a perfectly fine argument and I agree with it

I just don't like bad arguments. Even when they're in support of a point i ultimately agree with. After 20 years and more, I accept that this is a trait that I don't share with many people. Ultimately, I would keep fields and trade down. But so many of the arguments in favor of it are *so bad*. And they're from smart people who would never make the same type of argument in different circumstances. They're working backwards from "I want to keep fields, so any argument I can come up with that points towards that must be a good argument." NFL teams don't adjust their draft boards based on unsourced reports from Dan Orlovsky Hometown fans don't more accurately rate their players than neutral observers. Fields doesn't exist in some quantum superposition of both being clearly better than the QBs in this draft and having significantly less trade value than the no. 1 pick that would be used on one of those QBs.