Texsox

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 07:52 PM) 8 men on in last 3 at bats for Shuck. He's made 3 weak outs on 3 pitches. QUOTE (Condor13 @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 07:52 PM) Seriously again, that's like 10 opportunities in the last 2 games with a man on 3 and less than 2 outs and we don't f***ing Cue the he's trying too hard music

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 06:53 PM) EAT THE HAT

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 07:09 PM) Ed Herrmann 1974 Wow, I wouldn't have guessed it. I don't remember that and that was during my studying everything on the back of a baseball card and reading every boxscore days

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 05:00 PM) David Schuster ‏@Schumouse 25m25 minutes ago Mark Buehrle is here at the ballpark tonight Nice he is still interested in baseball. How about Mark as the next Sox manager?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 07:11 PM) The signs I saw, basically said no swimming. At other resorts and parts of beaches, they said, no swimming and referenced gators. If I saw a sign that said no swimming, I wouldn't have an issue with my kid watching the water or even having a foot in the water, potentially. I mean the lake by my house says no swimming (little man made lake, nothing fancy), but ducks in the water and if my daughter stuck her hand in, I wouldn't care in the slightest. I wouldn't let her swim (and there are tons of other kids feeding ducks, etc). Not being from Florida, I could easily see where someone would be out of touch / not thinking of gators as it relates to the "no swimming" sign. They should have clearly stated, no swimming and beware of gators. I see a sign that says watch out for gators and my kids aren't anywhere near that water. Unfortunately that sign wasn't there (from the few pictures I saw at least). Well clearly you suck as a dad But I think you speak for 99% of the parents not from areas with gators.

I just bought some Philips Hue bulbs. I was able to connect and program them, including voice commands through my Amazon Alexa in about ten minutes. The routines I programmed seem to work. So far I like what I see.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 11:53 AM) Lmao what have I started?! All I did was innocently predict a 7 IP outing from Shields Which by the way I hope you had been drinking at the time . . . on Shields tab

I can only think of a few Sox catchers to play in the all-star game AJ, Fisk a few times, and Lollar for about a decade. Bears QBs and Sox catchers are about the same.

There are a lot of people living in those neighborhood who never are shot.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 02:03 PM) What I find particularly interesting is that I think you're generally right with the "scare the crap out of anyone" part, but your answer for the why is "more important to mock your opponents" and I think that's 100% as much being in denial as what you try to condemn. I think this is a complete failure to acknowledge the major driving force - actual economic grievances. The provinces that voted strongly for this, away from the financial center in London that has grown rapidly, are people who have had 5 years of 2 recessions followed by the Austerity program. They've had health benefits and jobs cut as the Conservative government cut its budget, and the only place that was growing at that time was a financial center/industry. Another good analysis. I don't think either party really "feels the pain" of the working poor and over worked middle class.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 01:47 PM) More important than what the guy actually stands for is why people are actually gravitating towards people like him, and even Bernie Sanders to a large extent. Hopefully people starting paying attention the "why" before it is too late here. This is the second time today the comparison was made between Bernie and Don. I believe it is a very good point.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 09:58 AM) If it was to protect smaller states they wouldn't have been awarded proportionally. It still protects them. Montana's population would just be absorbed into a bigger demographic. By awarding specific votes based on Montana only results it forces candidates to specifically try to win Montana instead of lumping them in with North Dakota, South Dakota, Why-oming, etc. It preserves the idea that these are states that are united.

QUOTE (CB2.0 @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 09:56 AM) No, I meant exactly what I said. That a line of 7 IP would be a miracle, and more than 5 IP would be "better than expected" (to the degree that I would "eat my hat"). In the end, he met expectations. So you did expect him to be pitching in the 6th inning. Excellent prediction! And as I said he exceeded mine. I would have been happy with 5 and 5 earned runs. Leaving with one and ultimately three was much better than I predicted. That sure does make me happy. And one reason so many Sox fans here are jumping on this you would rather be right than say that a player on the team that you are a fan of performed better than you expected. You would be happier if he really sucked than be happy that he did better than expected.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 09:31 AM) The electoral college was created -- to put it bluntly -- to protect the people from themselves. A bigger reason was to retain some power for the smaller states. Backed then states actually mattered. If we eliminate it then politicians could just concentrate on New York, California, Texas, and a few flyover states.

QUOTE (CB2.0 @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 09:18 AM) Well - I'm sorry you feel it confrontational for me to defend my position and what I actually said. That's not what I'm intending to do. I didn't dig up my own quote from 2 days ago and say, "Look at me....I was right!" That would be confrontational. Instead somebody else did that, they were wrong, and I'm just sticking up for myself. So you are saying you expected him to be pitching in the 6th inning and not getting any outs? Either way, would you agree he pitched better than you expected? And for the record this has been funny. I believe you predicted that 5 innings would be about the best he could do and you were right. The whole more than five debate is a slight distraction. I said I would be happy with 5 IP and 5 ER so I was wrong, but happily so.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 07:40 AM) I don't even know what that's in reference to Oops. Hillary and the Don both have issues. So they balance each other out and people are looking at the future and where each candidate wants to take the US.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 07:42 AM) Scottish leaders saying they'll take all possible steps to remain in the eu. Now this will be interesting.

QUOTE (CB2.0 @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 07:47 AM) Clearly now you are just trying to bait me. I gave you an honest response to your last question; we both know what you're trying to accomplish with this one. You misunderstood my original question and I clarified it. So that was an honest answer, just not to my question. There are a number of posters that just keep predicting everything sucks. That's easy. Broken records. Hahn sucks. Ventura sucks. All the players suck. The organization sucks. And when the team loses they type out the I told you sos. So try something harder. It's ok if you think that no player will have a good week. But I'm trying to show that predicting player performances is a lot harder than just everyone sucks.

QUOTE (CB2.0 @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 07:39 AM) No. The very definition of an "inning" is the recording of 3 outs. That he threw pitches in an inning and didn't record ANY outs (in fact - all he did was walk two people) does NOT constitute any measure of "+" innings. It's astounding you can't grasp this. A pitcher's job is to record outs while allowing a minimal of runs to score. That's all ANY pitchers job is. Shields recorded 15 outs - that's 5 INNINGS. No more, no less. That is how the game works. And in common speech when people predict that the pitcher won't work more than five innings we believe the person doesn't expect the pitcher to be pitching in the sixth inning. That's the common language aspect that others are pointing out. No matter what he did better than what you predicted. Maybe not eating your hat better, but you have to admit he did much better than you predicted.

QUOTE (CB2.0 @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 07:44 AM) I don't know if we have anybody that can fill that spot better, no. My problem with Shields from the beginning was that I didn't feel it was a deal we needed to do with lack of LH hitting, OF woes, C, RP injuries, and at the time...SS. So I guess in a way, you can say my prediction was that Latos/Danks would be at least as good (bad) as Shields. Ranaudo seems to be doing decently so far...maybe a few more starts under his belt and he can get a look. Anyone on the roster, any position, anybody going to be playing better next week?

Or the issues just balance each other.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 07:33 AM) But then our government literally does nothing. Im not sure that was the design either. Actually we continue to do what we should. Defend the country, deliver mail, fix roads, send out SS checks, enforce existing laws . . .

Stats or common speech? It really doesn't matter. We all know Shields did slightly better than you expected. You are correct that he hasn't been the inning eater from the start that we expected. Since you are doing so well predicting performances are there any players who you think will be doing better over the next two weeks? Or can you only predict players doing poorly?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 24, 2016 -> 07:27 AM) Except when you talk about nuclear weapons I don't see him as being *that* crazy.

One of the advantages Trump has is not having held public office. If we held his private business dealings to the same level of scrutiny as a public official I am certain we would find all sorts of issues.