IlliniKrush

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2013 -> 04:11 PM) Just to point it out...if the new NTSB recommendation of 0.055 was followed, both of these cases would be right on the border of legal intoxication. If his math is correct, mine wouldn't be. I'd be at .005ish.

Office finale tonight. Read a nice article yesterday: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9277121/the-end-office

I do no more than a beer per hour, usually less, if I know I have to drive. Plus a cut off of about an hour before as well. So I guess if I'm going to be somewhere 5 hours, I can have 4 beers and no beer the last hour. According to your breakdown (and others I've read before), this is perfectly fine. But most of all, just go by feel and logic. I know when I've had a touch more than I should have, and I'm still nowhere near drunk. If that's the case, grab a ride, call someone, wait another hour or two, whatever.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ May 16, 2013 -> 12:07 PM) Those are two possibilities. Also, some people just do not let others drive their car. I'm one of them. I sure hope you aren't saying that if I was out with you, you were drunk and I was sober, you wouldn't let me drive your car, and instead you'd drive drunk.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 16, 2013 -> 12:22 PM) Witesoxfan, Im not ignoring the allure of a championship game. Im saying the following: 1) Championship games in football occur out doors, including the National Championship game and NFL playoff games 2) That weather, whether it is warm or cold, can impact a game. 3) And that if we believe that weather impacting a game is negative, we should remove all weather from a game. I personally like football and the elements. But I can see why some people would want football indoors. I just believe that if you want it indoors, all games should be indoors, not just a random few. The NFL is moving the exact opposite direction, in that they will have a Super Bowl in NY outdoors. And national championships and super bowls are in warm weather climates or domes, do you think that's a coincidence? Most people think the NY idea is ridiculous. They better pray the weather isn't awful. Who wants a super bowl in a snow storm? Well besides you of course. This could be the first and last time it happens, we'll see. You want to put everything indoors, go ahead, but you need new stadiums and more money. But when you can control the weather for such a meaningful game, you absolutely should.

Haha, right, that's the reason he uses a ball no one else uses.

Just keep putting pressure on Detroit's D, they turned it over way too much tonight when having to make quick decisions. I mean we already knew this, but good God do they ever miss a steady Lidstrom back there to eat up some minutes and beat the forecheck.

Entertaining fine, but it's not the best way to determine the best team. Controlling the weather allows the athletes to perform at a higher level. It's why fields are manicured like they are. I prefer better football over snow globe on TV. That's how I'd prefer a championship game to be played. Just me though.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 15, 2013 -> 04:04 PM) I dont know why indoor stadiums exist, I dont like indoor football. I prefer outdoor football because I think weather is part of the sport. Its a personal opinion, I just find it extremely hypocritical that Wisconsin (a team with an outdoor stadium) is saying they want an indoor championship game. They then will complain when other teams dont want to come to Camp Randall to play. You cant have it both ways, which is why I find Alvarez's comments puzzling. Wisconsin also doesn't play a bunch of home games in December. How many absolutely awful weather games have been there? What %? Probably not too high I'm guessing. Plus an average Wisconsin game, while yes, could have an impact on who gets to a championship game, etc, isn't THE championship game. I think that's the whole reason behind what he said. I don't want championship games to have more randomness in there than necessary due to weather. A snow bowl with 40mph wind championship would be stupid when it's something you can control. f***, Illinois could win that game.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 15, 2013 -> 03:57 PM) Krush...I know you have been an umpire before and I always wondered this...how can the ump even see the framing when you're behind the catcher? I mean it seems like it makes a huge difference from the pitcher's vantage point or the center field camera, but can umps really see a well-framed pitch when looking over the shoulder of the catcher? Good question, and yes you can. You can see more than you think you would be able to back there, but it's hard to describe until you've actually done it, and then you realize you see the majority of the catcher's arm in addition to the glove. You're lined up off center (we call it the slot, between the batter and the catcher's head/shoulder) and you see them catching it out front. You track the ball the entire way in with your eyes, but you're also watching it all the way in and watching how the catcher receives the ball. You absolutely see the glove and the ball going into the glove and any associated movement with the glove. When I said perception is reality, what I mean is this...and it's much easier to see at a HS level (obviously I'm not calling MLB games). Catchers can absolutely help "steal" pitches or cost their pitchers the marginal ones. Every umpire wants to call strikes. We're taught to call strikes. Coaches want strikes. So you're not looking to call it a ball, but catchers can make you do so on some. Take your pitch that's on the corner, or slightly off the corner. If a catcher can stick that (and let me say that framing doesn't mean pull...you don't take pitches and then move your glove towards the center of the plate. That's telling me you think it's a ball anyway and it's sloppy) then that can be a strike, and no coach is going to have an issue with it. It looked close enough to be a strike, catcher caught it like a strike. It was crisp. Now, if the catcher stabs at it, or carries it out of the zone, that's a ball. Why? Even if it was marginal and could have gone either way, he showed everyone in the park that it was a ball. He gave up on it. You call that a strike, and the perception is reality comes into play. Good luck explaining that to a coach as the catcher is making it look awful. Same thing on a low pitch. If you carry the ball all the way to the ground, it makes that pitch look worse than it may have been in reality. Umpires aren't taught just to call it where you think it came through the zone. You're calling the entire action of the pitch, if that makes sense. You don't reward terrible catching, but you will certainly reward solid catching. I love getting a solid catcher back there that will give you a great look at it and not hurt the perception to everyone else. Even at the HS level, coaches get it. I'll have a pitch that a coach thinks may have caught a corner, or the lower part, and as I ball it with a terrible reception of the pitch, he's telling the catcher hey, stick that, don't give up on it, etc and not barking at me. They get it. So it's definitely something that's taught, and can make a difference in a game. That's why that article was great. Hell, even if at the MLB level, where they are all better framers than HS catchers, it can be a subconscious thing. Guy's throwing 90mph fastball and everything about the pitch looked good, catcher stuck it...you think you saw a strike even if pitchfx says it was an inch off. Catcher pulls it and isn't "quiet" with it it makes it look bad, you think you saw a worse pitch than it actually was, ball...and the pitches they had in the article did a good job of showing it. I don't know if any of this makes sense, but there's my take on it.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ May 15, 2013 -> 01:39 PM) At the risk of sounding like an AT&T U-Verse commercial, "back in my day" you couldn't even listen to the first period of home games on the radio. They'd start the broadcast with the second. Brutal. QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 15, 2013 -> 02:45 PM) I heard he has a shoulder injury. if its really benching then it sucks because he is as good as gone then next season. Haven't heard that anywhere, I don't think it's the case but who knows.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 15, 2013 -> 02:15 PM) Why play any game outdoors then? 1 loss could be the difference between getting in the 4 team playoff. Don't know. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 15, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) It can rain any day of the year. It can be windy any day of the year. If we are saying that football is better when there is no weather, then football should be always played indoors. Otherwise I personally think that weather is part of the game and thus you win or lose based on the conditions of that day. Agreed, the play on the field is better indoors and on good surfaces, aka not Soldier Field s***. Weather's part of the game when you can't control it, sure. Ask yourself why indoor stadiums exist.

Long, but really good article on pitch-framing. Perception is reality when it comes to umpiring and calling pitches, and organizations are finally picking up on it and making it a focus. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/927575...e-molina-others

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ May 15, 2013 -> 11:19 AM) @TimSassone Stalberg out tonight, said Quenneville. #Blackhawks Stupid. Because he questioned his role or something, is the rumor. It doesn't make much sense. Plus you're breaking up a line that's been pretty consistent all year. He didn't have a great playoff series, I get that. Seems a little bit knee-jerky here. Though Bolland isn't a true #2 center, he's much closer to it than Handzus, who hasn't played well in the playoffs. And if he's not winning faceoffs, he's completely worthless. Or you leave that line alone, you can even have Bolland play on the 4th. Carcillo & Bollig in over Stalberg is silly. I could see the Hawks being down 1-0 tonight and by the middle of the 2nd period we'll see about 10 different line combinations.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 15, 2013 -> 10:16 AM) http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05...ampionship-game Pretty pathetic. Wisconsin has an outdoor stadium yet is complaining about weather? I'm with him. Let's not let weather affect a championship game when it's easy to control. Just like the super bowl.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 14, 2013 -> 05:18 PM) I can't believe we as fans put up with them not airing home games (save of course our precious Christmastime matchup against the Wings). F*cking brutal. I'm so glad that f***ing asshole is dead. The one time he came into his office while I was interning it was like Satan was strolling through. It's really something to explain to bandwagon jumpers that home games weren't on TV. Hell, even back in high school, if a Hawks game came up and they would ask what channel it's on or hey maybe I'll watch, I just had the "uh, it's a home game" response, which most people were just like, "OK and?" I spent many a nights doing homework with headphones plugged into the stereo downstairs. That was...normal. We became so used to it. Remember being excited when Fox would be able to grab a game in the spring? You'd stop your life to watch that game. OMG THIS IS THE BEST THING EVER, I CAN SEE THE UNITED CENTER ICE. SEASON RESERVATIONISTS FTW

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 14, 2013 -> 05:09 PM) I hate that your avatar beckons the days of Bill Wirtz. I'm going to come over to your house tomorrow night and ask for $20. Though I guess it should probably be a lot more with inflation.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 14, 2013 -> 05:03 PM) People far smarter than you say there's very little risk to this investment. If he shows no improvement it's still a deal. Yeah, most people are thinking "Do you think Rizzo will regret signing the deal a few years from now"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2013 -> 04:56 PM) Both. They aren't mutually exclusive, my stalker. QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 14, 2013 -> 04:57 PM) I don't think he's a stalker if he kinda sorta catches you posting like a goofball and doubling back on a statement made previously. It's the internet.

So which is it, it's scary since it's the playoffs and Detroit just beat the 3rd best team in hockey, or you're really looking forward to it because they went 4-0 against them?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 14, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) Just watch the video. Nuts. http://deadspin.com/russian-youth-hockey-f...ng-ru-504996351 Pretty crazy

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2013 -> 12:27 PM) I'm much more excited this year after we went 4-0 against them. 2 were in a shootout and 1 in OT. So let's not make it seem like we dominated them.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 14, 2013 -> 11:22 AM) Hawks f***ing Red Wings. The final chance to meet as opponents in the same conference. 2009 doesn't sting so bad as it was an obvious stepping stone to the Stanley Cup Championship the year following. 1995 is still a brutal memory for me as a then 12-year old frothing young Hawks fan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Stanley_...rn_Conference_3 Losing those games in OT absolutely built this young Hawks fan's hatred of the Red Wings as high as it would go. Two straight playoff series losses to the Colorado Avalanche in years to come would make me hate them ALMOST as much, but the Red Wings are number one. This series means a lot. Say what you will about them being a 7 seed. Say what you will about them actually being a great matchup for a team that likes to fly like the Blackhawks. This is Blackhawks/Red Wings. It f***ing starts tomorrow night. It will be loud, it will be feisty, it will be epic, and I hope it will be over in 5 games or less. These Wings have proven they don't want to go quietly. I can't really add much to what you said, perfect, and I think we're the same age so yeah. Edit: I can add something. DINO SUCKS

WEDNESDAY, May 15, 2013 7 p.m. DETROIT at Chicago NBCSN, CBC SATURDAY, May 18, 2013 12 p.m. DETROIT at Chicago NBC, CBC MONDAY, May 20, 2013 6:30 p.m. Chicago at DETROIT NBCSN, CBC THURSDAY, May 23, 2013 7 p.m. Chicago at DETROIT NBCSN, CBC *SATURDAY, May 25, 2013 TBD DETROIT at Chicago CBC *MONDAY, May 27, 2013 TBD Chicago at DETROIT CBC *WEDNESDAY, May 29, 2013 TBD DETROIT at Chicago CBC

QUOTE (gatnom @ May 13, 2013 -> 09:45 PM) Apparently, Wes Lunt is considering transferring to Southern Miss, Illinois, Louisville, Tennessee or Vanderbilt. Despite the fact that Illinois seems like [is] a bad fit on the surface, if his top priority is getting closer to home, you'd have to think Illinois has a pretty decent shot with a list like that... I'll believe it when I see it, though. If Monken was our HC maybe. I just don't see any way he'd come to Illinois.