Hairyducked Idiot
-
Posts
39,504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Hairyducked Idiot
-
My 9-month-old thought that was hilarious.
-
Re: NHL (Blackhawks included) offseason thread
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Prizefight's topic in Other Sports
Is that going to be a problem? Or just a delay in the process. I'm guessing just a delay, but who knows? -
Re: NHL (Blackhawks included) offseason thread
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Prizefight's topic in Other Sports
The trade is reportedly on hold because Atlanta would have 51 players under contract and the limit is 50. -
But the reality is that MLS attendance is pretty solid, and TV coverage (for all soccer, not MLS specifically) is expanding and getting solid ratings. By pretty much any standard people want to use, soccer has arrived. It's just the remaining white people who don't like it don't want to admit it.
-
Link? ESPN cut away from that when it happened. They had it on Sportscenter while I was at the gym.
-
Finally saw the replay that showed the actual throw Howard made to begin the winning breakout. That was insane.
-
Re: NHL (Blackhawks included) offseason thread
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Prizefight's topic in Other Sports
HFBoards was generally convinced that the Blackhawks cap situation would mean they'd have to dump all these players for nothing (usually to the poster making the post's favorite team). The same boards are now crying that Atlanta bailed out the Blackhawks and got completely trade-robbed. I don't think it's that bad for Atlanta, but that's solid value for Chicago. Very happy, if it does go through. -
They need their goal differential vs. Ghana's to swing by at least two more. Maybe three.
-
\:D/
-
If by "conveniently neglecting" you mean acknowledging repeatedly, then you are correct. But just in case the first few times weren't enough, I'll say it again: The U.S. tying England significantly improved the U.S.'s chances of winning the group.
-
As I said before, take it up with Nate Silver, whose statistical models agreed with me at the time.
-
I was definitely wrong about Dempsey's goal. I've seen it a few more times and you guys are right.
-
Look, we can re-argue the same argument we had after the first game, in which I still feel perfectly comfortable that I was right. Or we can argue that the result sort of happening proved that the result wasn't unlikely, which we both know isn't true. Either way, I don't think you guys have any new arguments, so what's the point of going on about it? At the time, the U.S. getting a point against England did not significantly change their chances of advancement, which still almost entirely depended on the other two matches. Unless you have some new arguments, because the ones that have been made haven't swayed me, then it's probably best to let it go.
-
So even in a situation that was unlikely at the time (England goes into a scoring slump), it's 75% that they go through without the tie (50% of it's 1-0, 100% if it's 2-1). I stand by it: That tie was unlikely at the time to make a difference in advancement out of the group stage.
-
That's how it's written, but it's never called that way. Any doubt at all and they throw up the flag for some reason. It's a bad call, but nowhere near on the level of the Slovenian robbery.
-
Belgianian, I think.
-
I keep seeing that as well. In a spot where U.S. players had been blasting it off the mark all day, he calmly side-footed it straight into the net. Granted, the ball was sitting for him better than it had on some of the other chances.
-
If England had scored at the end to beat us 2-1, and all other results stay the same, we still move on. But if they lose 1-0? Also, if England wins that game, who knows how they play this game and who knows how Slovenia does here. Of course, anything could have happened differently. Maybe we play Slovenia better if we'd lost to England, too? Who knows. But England still would have needed a result to guarantee advancement today.
-
If England had scored at the end to beat us 2-1, and all other results stay the same, we still move on. But if they lose 1-0? Then there's a good chance they still move on. The tie didn't make the difference. And of course, even if it did, that doesn't change how likely it was or wasn't from the beginning. If the U.S. had won 2-0 today, would you guys expect me to be demanding "I was wrong's" from you? Of course not. The actual result doesn't change the odds at the time.
-
If England had scored at the end to beat us 2-1, and all other results stay the same, we still move on.
-
If form holds, I look forward to Kyle's my bad regarding the unimportance of the tie vs England. A potential matchup v Uruguay or South Korea to get to the semi's? Yes please. You won't be getting one, because I clearly and explicitly said that it didn't change their chances of advancement to the second round, not that it didn't improve their chances of getting a better draw if they did get in.
-
here's what I got, could be wrong: We only get Germany if they draw with Ghana and Serbia draws or loses against Australia. If Germany and Serbia win, we get Serbia. If Germany win and Serbia draws or loses against Australia, we get Ghana. Unless Australia wins by 800 goals or so, then we might get them.
-
Rematch with Ghana would be nice to solve some unfinished business.
-
Yes. England and U.S. have five points each and a +1 GD, but the U.S. scored four goals vs. England's two.
-
Algeria got a good chance that Howard had to save right on the line. He sprung a quick counter that turned into a 4-on-2. Someone (altidore or buddle?) got the ball right in front of the keeper and shot it straight into him, but the rebound came out a little and Donovan buried it.