- 04:52 PM
- 11/21/09
Gorman also was involved in another close call, the double play that ended the bottom of the seventh ... The umpires reviewed the video on that play and said they got it right.
That's scary (and a surprise that NY paper just let that slide). Here I was joining the complaints about the call against Utley - but to my eye, the Howard "line drive" was even more of a blown call. For 6 umps to stand behind it, still after replay? Wow. These jokers are making me rethink my stance against instant replay.
posted by littleLebowski at 01:22 PM on October 30
The jury agreed with them, and now the entire bat industry has to assess whether it's doing enough to avoid similar litigation.
And, Alfred Dreyfus wept again.
posted by littleLebowski at 01:14 PM on October 30
fair enough, rcade As I said in my original post, I'm not sure which set of folks I was more angry with, the plaintiff or the jury. The jury is up there. It shouldn't take a lawsuit for this kind of safety assessment to take place - should've happened before now or, at minimum, immediately after this kid's death before even the threat of a lawsuit. Regardless, I still contend that the ends don't justify the means here - there was no legal wrongdoing by the batmaker, so punishing them to hopefully enact review at an industry level is still "misguided" in my book.
cripes, can we give the McDonalds thing a rest? I'm truly sorry I brought it up. Delete it, please! It was NOT a "debate strategy". It was mild, admittedly slightly questionable, but recognizable lead-in to a much more important conversation. Man, sometimes, this site (myself included) has the ability, equivalent to my 18-month old, to focus on the bigger picture.
posted by littleLebowski at 01:03 PM on October 30
and when I say I'm surprised that someone has a different opinion ... I'm simply truly surprised about this one ... that's NOT me passing judgement on what anyone should believe or their level of intelligence
posted by littleLebowski at 12:31 PM on October 30
You're referencing the same McDonalds-related link I gave you credit for in my first post. I referenced the McDonalds case because right or wrong and irrespective of your personal opinion and conclusion of the facts presented in your article - the McDonalds case is often held up as the epitomy of frivolous lawsuits.
The topic of aluminum bat safety is absolutely NOT frivolous ... but a lawsuit (and judgement) against a single bat manufacturer are, at least in my opinion. From the information at hand, the batmaker did nothing illegal, outside of published standards and did not participate in any kind of cover-up regarding misdeeds, misinformation or the issues in play. I definitely don't question the validity and need for review of aluminum bats at every level of play. But, the quote by the mother "We just hoped we could get the truth out for more people to see." got my blood particularly boiling. Your boy is playing ball at the Legion level, so presumably for pushing 10 years and you're justifying a lawsuit against a single bat manufacturer by claiming that folks don't know that balls are hit hard sometimes? This just comes across as a horribly-enabled ploy of (at best) "well, somebody should pay for my boy bein' dead".
So, the family of someone who tragically dies when a ball hit from a wood bat hits their child has the right to sue because 1) a ball hit off of a wood bat is significantly more dangerous than a ball hit off a Nerf bat and 2) we actually didn't know that, so someone from the wood bat company should've been at the field passing out fliers or should've put a label on the bat.
I'm not minimizing the tragedy here or the need for review of safety standards, but a lawsuit is supposed to penalize someone of wrongdoing. I'm honestly shocked any regular member of this site sees the legitimacy of this lawsuit. But, we've all got our opinions.
posted by littleLebowski at 12:26 PM on October 30
I'm with you, rcade. I liked how they replayed the Howard short-hop about 15 times and the Utley-out-at-first once ... on their way to commercial. I thought he was safe, also - but it was an infinitely tighter call than Howard's scoop.
posted by littleLebowski at 12:02 PM on October 30
Awesome. This is way better than the McDonalds coffee lawsuit (that I think rcade shared some interesting insight into a couple weeks ago).
I find myself in a situation where, if I had known about this kid's tragic death, I would've had extreme sorrow for his family ... until they brought the suit against the bat company. Being a semi-recent first-time dad, I don't like spending even 1 second thinking about what life would be after losing a child, but this is vindictive, frivolous, misguided, evil profitization (ugh, totally blanking on the word I want to use "to unnecessarily take advantage of misfortune)
If they would've proven that the bat was outside of standards and the bat company was either knowledgeable or negligent about that, then I'd have a different opinion and would commend them on their legal victory. But, I'm currently deciding which/who is worse - the initiation of the lawsuit, the 8-12 numbskulls that awarded this, or a legal system that could allow such a joke to even make it to a courtroom (the latter is hard to hold blame but ... well, again, UGH)
(if I typed faster, I wouldn't have simply been repeating what lab said, oh well ... but I'll be damned if I'm deleting it now!)
posted by littleLebowski at 11:50 AM on October 30
This opens the door to a topic I consider interesting. If this belongs in the lockerroom (or not on the site at all), please forgive me.
But personally, I think that critique of a comment (or of the poster making the comment) should incorporate the member's overall body of work within SpoFi. Not that anyone needs the almighty littleLebowski's support, but I've said that in other threads about BoK, our estranged Crafty Sousepaw, and now THX (only because he's an obvious part of this thread). I consider THX a quality contributor to the site - with consistently effective humor while also being topical and blunt. Therefore, if THX says the same thing (that may be mildly lockerroomish but not blatantly over the line) as a newbie or a longtime rabble-rouser, then I think THX deserves some latitude, considering his overall quality contributions. In general, am I off-base in that member and their specific comments can/should be evaluated differently?
More on topic - I've chatted briefly with Mrs. Lebowski about this issue. She doesn't know Phillips from a hill o' beans but agrees that the "level of attractiveness" of the fling-ee is otherwise topical. There are much more serious aspects to this, but it's within reason to look at the psyche of this ... a seemingly decent-looking guy messing around with an ordinary-looking woman, while he already has (from all accounts I've heard) an very good-looking wife. Physical attraction likely played a part in bringing Steve and the missus together in the first place, so how did that same "emotion" play into the affair? Anyway, my sympathies go out to Phillips' wife and family - no sympathies at all to Steve or the fling-ee. I'm not going to call her names, but I think her looks are reasonably part of the discussion, and she absolutely doesn't strike me as a victim here. I think we're allowed to ask "what was he thinking?" without being considered neanderthals. On the flip-side, do all of us think less of our significant others if they making an otherwise innocent observation that someone else is attractive?
posted by littleLebowski at 03:04 PM on October 22
As for computerized balls and strikes, I want nothing to do with it. (EnglishSpin put it pretty much perfectly) Similarly, why not implant sensors into the hands of offensive linemen in football (USA) - if they clench their hands too tightly, then computer chips in the sensors can detect that the linemen must be holding their opponent. Then, lights embedded into the player's helmet send a beam of yellow light streaming into the sky from his head, the equivalent of a yellow flag being thrown at the player. Then, magnets inside the ball and under the turf yank the ball out of whatever player happens to be holding it, drag the ball to 10 yards back from the spot of the foul and the clock is automatically restarted.
Wait ... crap ... this is starting to sound kinda groovy ... Anyway, NO to this computerized stuff. There are things in nearly every sport that are just never going to be fail-safe, unless we go to ridiculous extremes, and I think balls-and-strikes and determining whether a player was absolutely, 100%, definitely tagged before his foot/hand touched the base are a couple instances that fall into that. We can improve the quality of the umpiring and try to strive for consistency in strike zones, but slight variances are part of the sport (and to preempt a typical counter-argument ... unlike racial segregation or safety measures, this "part of the sport" is something I'm convinced is fine as-is).
And ... I think the money involved took the romance out of baseball (and most sports at least in the US) a while back. Then, computerized or not, umpire mistakes or not, why are you watching the game or concerned about the topic?
posted by littleLebowski at 09:36 AM on October 20
Seriously, wtf?! I saw this a couple days ago and tried to ignore it, but what kind of jackass coach comes out and says he's "confident" with the situation. Even if he's 100% positive that he and the organization will be cleared of any wrongdoing, how can you dismiss this so flippantly? Davis (and Massaquoi) were about the only promising pieces (in terms of a future) of this team at this moment, something like this happens to the kid, and all you're worried about is that you don't think the NFL back office is going to be too pissed?! At what point, after how many years of misery, is OK for a fan to jump ship?
posted by littleLebowski at 12:23 PM on October 14
C'mon - back-to-back FPPs about the Browns? Enough with the Browns-bashing! They're a class organization, run by the most knowledgeable and uncontroversial staff. They make quality personnel decisions and draft picks year-in and year-out, and are always "this close" to a Super Bowl run.
/goes back to chugging the pain-go-bye-bye juice and daydreams of Brian Sipe and Sam Rutigliano.
posted by littleLebowski at 12:15 PM on October 14
Beautiful! Ask and ye shall receive (if I knew how to link to a specific post inside another thread, I would - ie, my post in yesterday's huddle).
I wish Edwards the best ... oh, who am I kidding - never liked 'im, never wanted 'im, and his one good season did nothing to change that. Ba-bye, knucklehead. I like what the Jets are doing, so good luck to them with regards to this, and he's obviously got skills, but I firmly believe Cleveland is a better team without him (of course, "better" is not hard to accomplish given their current state of affairs).
posted by littleLebowski at 09:58 AM on October 07
What does this have to do with Lebron anyway?
The key to the story, as in the article, is that the guy Braylon Edwards supposedly punched is a buddy of Lebron's. Lebron being in the story at all is the point of the post. His comments give the hint that there is more history between the two and makes this otherwise barely-a-news-story into something slightly bigger ... just surprised that one of the biggest stars on the planet goes out of his way to comment on someone from an entirely different sport who's star (whatever was there to begin with) is fading fast.
posted by littleLebowski at 12:47 PM on October 06
This is what happens when an Ohio football team drafts a college player from Michigan. As if the Browns don't have enough trouble in general and specifically with Braylon, his mouth, and his hands-of-stone. Friend of Lebron's or not, I wouldn't have expected such a harsh comment from him - makes me wonder if Edwards is an even bigger jackass than Browns fans even thought.
posted by littleLebowski at 12:18 PM on October 06
rcade : I'm tired of being told that because I'm not offended by X, I'm not allowed to be offended by Y.
BI : And I'm tired of words being put in my mouth that I never even said.
BI : Your choice to not purchase Nike products because Vick is being endorsed by them is your right but just don't overlook where these products are being made in the 1st place.
I'm confused. rcade doesn't need me fighting his battles for him, but you have a knack for this and I'm trying to understand. If you're saying "DON'T forget where these are made" ... isn't that essentially telling someone what and why they have to be offended? You're right - you don't need anyone putting words in your mouth - you're double-speaking on your own just fine.
ie - what fatty said
posted by littleLebowski at 11:02 AM on October 01
That's reading comprehension; taking the word "or" and interpreting it as "both". Brilliant.
a) The point still stands. Some folks are clamoring that any positive judgement of Favre must wait until the end of the season, which will most surely prove out that he can't hack it (the italics are me acknowledging slight exaggeration, but I stand by the point). On the flip-side, Kolb was provided as an example of where he has already made one or more of peers expendable - although that suggestion is based on a ridiculously short period of time.
b) Maybe revisit your "brilliant reading comprehension". By saying either Vick or McNabb can be traded, by definition, "both" are trade-able - not necessarily at the same time, but "both" still applies. ie : "LittleLebowski or dfleming might be asshats" ... that statement does not mean that asshattedness is mutually exclusive to only one of us; therefore ... "LittleLebowski and dfleming might both be asshats" is an entirely legitimate alternative. Not a perfect analogy - just a weak attempt at comedy and levity. Personally, I don't think either are being asshats, just discussing, but I don't think my reading comprehension is at issue, relative to the Favre-bashing.
posted by littleLebowski at 08:54 AM on September 29
The NFL season, coaches like to say, is not a sprint but a marathon.
Favre's success/failure will be judged on an entire season, not 3 games.
Yet, in another thread on this site, Kolb's glorious 1.5-game performance has people claiming that both Vick and McNabb are trade-bait.
I don't have a dog in this hunt and I'm not trying to speak for Atheist, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the amount and tone of Favre-bashing is/has been disproportionate to the slack or praise given other players, when you compare his performance to others of equal length this season.
posted by littleLebowski at 03:34 PM on September 28
I had someone describe the mourning process like this to me:
When someone you love passes, it leaves a hole right in the middle of your heart and soul. Time doesn't make the hole go away. All it does it move it a bit from the middle.
I'd love it if I never had reason to use this in the future. But chances are, I will, and when that happens, sorry THX, I'm going to steal this. Great comment
posted by littleLebowski at 03:35 PM on September 25
Give the honor to the other team, don't take it yourself.
Hmm, excellent take, dviking (good example of why I like SpoFi) I still slightly disagree. I mean, would there be a snowball's chance in hell that we'd hear about the tragedy that fell upon the losing team, if it wasn't for Morgan's actions? I'm not saying he was intentionally trying to get headlines for himself or the losing team. But, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt that this was his way of honoring the other team. The fact that his actions resulted in some of the attention being given to him doesn't automatically diminish the fact that the intent was to focus the attention and respect to the other team. And again, this wasn't your normal, simple, overmatched blowout situation. I personally think that his kneeling is reflective of this being a moderate whooping that was partially due to a very sad situation. I wish I had a "long story short" mode, but I guess I'm saying that I can totally see merit in what you're saying, but on this one, I'll just choose to keep it as a feel-good story.
posted by littleLebowski at 03:31 PM on September 25
FWIW, although I don't take too much exception with rcade's thought, I'm with ampto on that one. It's not like Cave City's coach said "oh man, you're freakin' awesome, hell ya you can play for us". It sounds like this second chance was entirely contingent on following a strict set of guidelines for Morgan's football, academic and personal behaviors. I don't think that's a "rules don't matter" approach ... I think it's a "I care about people, but I'm holding you accountable" approach.
(But, I'm not proud of myself for having a morbid curiosity of what the kid did while at his previous school.) (how do you guys get the tiny text to show up?)
posted by littleLebowski at 02:11 PM on September 25
I don't get it. What is so noble about burning the whole team for 80 yards and then taking a knee.
I get what you're saying a little bit. But, I think what Morgan did can be split into two "phases", with noble intent and execution all around.
Like it's been suggested on this site before in similar discussions, it's actually more offensive to play half-assed than it is to play all-out, even though the result might be hard to stomach. In a normal situation, there's a middle ground of still playing hard but reigning in the "method" (ie, lay off the deep passes or all-out blitzes when way ahead).
But, this was hardly the normal blow-out situation. What Morgan did was to return the kick as diligently as he ever would ... so, that's kudos #1. But, when the play was no longer in any doubt, ONLY after the play was no longer in doubt, and with only seconds left in the overall game time (as I understood it), he kneeled out of respect for the lost soul and losing team ... so that's kudos #2 - if nothing else, it demonstrated his team's condolences and kept the score from appearing ridiculously lopsided to the casual observer in the newspaper the next day. Also, I think that his entire team was yelling at him to not score - it's not like he was the only one with this train of thought. If I was a kid on the receiving end of that play, I would've been 30 yards behind the play, thinking "man, that kid's good and ... oh hey, that's cool".
posted by littleLebowski at 01:30 PM on September 25
... but you don't shoot, would you consider that stealing or just call it a loss considering you didn't shoot?
What a bad addition to the analogy. The mere existence of a gun in your analogy is the same as the mere existence of a P, 1B, C on the diamond. That doesn't translate to any actual action. Defensive indifference involves none of those players paying slightest bit of attention to the runner ... that is equivalent to you having your gun on your porch but locked in a gun case, the barrel propped open showing that there was nothing in the chamber and inviting me up to the porch to let me know "this gun doesn't even work, go ahead and take what's under that sign". So, to answer your question, I don't think either of us would consider that stealing, and I doubt you'd even consider that a "loss", since you're essentially inviting me to take it - which is exactly what a defensive team is inviting you to do to second base when they play off the runner.
And to hal's point, the outcome of the situation has absolutely nothing to do with the ruling of the steal/indifference. In fact, many "defensive indifference" calls come into play in the exact opposite of your thrilling Mariners/Indians situation ... most "defensive indifference" is when the team that is leading is in the field and is leading by such an amount that they aren't at all concerned with a single baserunner. So, the losing team takes the opportunity to "have" an extra base, but because of the defensive/leading team's indifference, that is certainly not a "steal" in my book. So, the rulebook isn't attempting to get at how important that extra base might've been, it's providing a provision to look at that exact, fleeting moment in time and how did the players account for that situation.
posted by littleLebowski at 12:38 PM on September 24
The Impact of One Ohio School District's Decision To Cut Sports
Wow, that's tough all around.
Couldn't this have been it's own FPP?
I live in the heart of this school district and my wife went to the Grove City high school focused on in the article. If SpoFi folks are interested in a FPP post on this, I'll do that with a couple local articles. There's a ton at play here - it's not like levies are abnormal and I'm in favor of it passing, but the school board has approached this ridiculously poorly (ie, as mentioned in the article, the unprecedented act of canceling extra-curricular activities, without even offering a pay-to-play option).
posted by littleLebowski at 01:08 PM on September 18
sgtcook ... It was the Browns who tried him out. I'm equally surprised, considering the length of stints by folks like Dorsey, Krenzel and others. You'd think he'd be a serviceable backup, if nothing else. But, with the entire league passing on him essentially twice (both in the draft and as an undrafted free agent), I guess that should tell me somethin'.
posted by littleLebowski at 11:45 AM on July 20
/having a hard time swallowing take care, Tyson family
.
posted by littleLebowski at 11:57 AM on May 28
At the foundation, the truly technical problems are regarding a poorly written rule and an umpire(s) who didn't know how to enforce the rule. However, unlike others here defending the coach by saying "rules are rules", I think the issue would stop there ONLY only if it had been the umpire who took it upon themselves to apply the rule. Then, you could simply shrug and say "although it might've been nice for the ump to turn the other cheek, but he was just doing his job."
But the situation turns sour when the opposing coach intervenes. She throws common sense and sportsmanship out the window when she decides to bellyache about the high-fives. Common sense = regardless of "rules are rules", the high-fiving had absolutely no bearing on the game. Sportsmanship = "I know the rule, and I'm going to use it to my advantage. And since apparently noone else is aware, I'm going to lie about it (via omitting the part of the rule that isn't in my favor)." If she wanted to go so far as to warn the umps and the "offending" team after the game was official, "Hey, I didn't say anything before, but did ya know that you actually broke the rules back there" - I would've still considered the coach a bit of a sourpuss, but at least that would've gotten her point across.
The rule needs re-worked, yes. And, the ump deserves some blame. But for her part in relaying only part of the rule, this coach should be ashamed and shunned.
posted by littleLebowski at 12:54 PM on May 07
Let me rephrase, bob ... If I found out that my Dad died doing what he loved,which he apparently loved more than he loved me ...
Not attacking you, I see what you're saying ... but, I'm just sayin' ...
posted by littleLebowski at 08:18 AM on May 01
And the hits keep coming (not FOR the Nats, unfortunately for their win/loss column). What a public relations debacle. Clearly Nationals' management has been pretty clueless on this up 'til now. Maybe this will wake them up to their insane handling of this.
posted by littleLebowski at 11:09 AM on April 21
Bo, this isn't intended to be condescending and please take it with a grain of salt - but, just walk away from this one. You're too high-quality of a poster. I haven't commented here in a while partially because I can't check the posts often, and when I do, you consistently have already posted my exact thoughts, better than I could've verbalized. I think I know what you're driving at here, but it was too easily misinterpreted (no fault on anyone's part, imho) and got off on the wrong foot and there may not be any salvaging your point.
Anyway, whatever the physical punishment, this Gallo character deserves to be treated as the menace to society that he's repeatedly proven that he is. More importantly, Adenhart's family deserve our prayers.
posted by littleLebowski at 01:23 PM on April 10
I've read "never say never" about his (Leclaire) possible return late this season.
The word around here has been he would likely be available for playoffs (if applicable). But, it definitely turned into a "Leclaire who?" situation around here, with the way Mason has played. Glad to see him land somewhere - hope it works well for him.
posted by littleLebowski at 11:41 AM on March 05
I've run hills before in team practice, so some grueling drills are not unheard of or criminal. And, I can understand the Navy SEAL mentality, which I'm guessing is partially imposed because more individuals "try out" for that unit than can be accepted, so this kind of extreme pressure weeds out one or more of the unfit ("unfit" relative to others also trying to become a SEAL). But, is anyone able to explain to me the effin' mentality of doing this to high school kids (or even professionals)? This wasn't a drill to ONLY build stamina. What positive result comes from running the team until someone quits (anyone ... not a particularly weak someone, mind you, who the coach is targeting ... just anyone)? I was with bdaddy - originally thinking, "wow, this is really horrible for the kid's family - why take legal action and make things worse for the school, community and coach?" But, to run this drill with the express purpose of debilitating the players into quitting, and then keep the drill going after one kid collapses is beyond stupid (clearly, quitting the DRILL wasn't enough for this idiot coach - he needed someone to quit the TEAM). I feel for the coach's family. They're caught up in the coach's machismo, which in part (like Hal's #3 above) needs to be revisited as a society. And, I also still feel horribly for the kids family. But, as others have stated, my sympathy for the father only goes so far. For pete's sake, the father of a girl's soccer team complained to the school about the ridiculousness of the football team's practice, before the kid died. So, an otherwise uninvolved parent had enough sense to speak up, but the dads and grandpas watching their boys go through this couldn't think to say anything? Here's my long-winded punchline : There was clear intent to do harm here. Granted, I'm sure the coach wasn't looking for someone to die. But, there was clear intent, I'm going to make someone so miserable that they quit. Stupid, irresponsible, and even criminally negligent aren't strong enough words for this kind of behavior.
posted by littleLebowski at 07:34 AM on January 27
Definitely happy to see the final score, but man, there were pockets of each day where it was literally the best golf I've ever seen, by players on both sides - to the extent that I couldn't have complained if the Europeans pulled it out. Quality stuff and praise deserved for everyone involved.
posted by littleLebowski at 10:58 PM on September 22
I'm torn, lbb. Part of me says that acknowledging those things are such simple and brief ways of acknowledging our respect for what we have as individuals and as a country, then why not. But, I definitely see the logic that overuse reduces their impact - maybe even generates apathy or even mild forms of contempt.
posted by littleLebowski at 04:36 PM on September 18
What do you mean, "I don't think I said any such thing"? I copied "fake patriotism" from your post.
Regardless, funny enough, I'm fairly close to your and cjets' sentiments, but you just seem to be carrying it to an extreme that I disagree with. If all we were talking about was "chose not to sing the National Anthem, that's their right. I personally would not agree with them. But I would not think that their claim is completely without merit either." or "whether he stands for the Anthem or not. ... I'd just appreciate the same respect for Americans who choose to express that some other way.", I'd be done talking and I'd actually defend that stance. But Howard didn't simply choose not to sing - he chose to go the extra step of foul-mouthingly disrespect the anthem. THAT'S the part of this that some people here seem to be praising him for and is what I take exception. Again, don't say the Pledge or sing the Anthem - fine. Live and let live. Badmouth the flag, Pledge or Anthem simply as something you think is stupid - fine (freedom of speech). But "live and let live" no longer applies. My freedom of speech now kicks in and you're going to hear about how wrong I think you are.
posted by littleLebowski at 03:13 PM on September 18
Crap - did I miss the "preview comment" button or something? sorry.
Anyway, meant to add to the middle of my rant : I'm with Howard. I hate all forms of forced shows of fake patriotism. Exsqueeze me, but who the F are you to tell me that my patriotism is fake? I love folks that are confident enough in their omnipotence to instruct me on what is and is not patriotic. I agree with the Constitution and voting points you make, but don't tell me that because I happen to value the pledge of allegiance and national anthem, that I'm fake. something I think rcade said that these things are meaningless if they are compelled. I agree to an extent - I don't do those things because I am forced (has someone in this group had a gun put to their head to sing?) - I do these things because I personally value them. If you want to me explain to me why you don't participate, that's fine, but don't consider me a lemming because I choose to do so.
And cjets, you've missed some earlier points. There are things that this country should be ashamed of, and still should to this day. But, the national anthem, other than having been written a long time ago, is not mentioned in any part of your dissertation and the song makes no reference in support of slavery or anything else that is "less than great" about this country.
I value and would argue to the ends of the earth for your (not pointing at anyone in this thread, other than Josh Howard) free speech ... and my free speech, which I'll choose to use to turn around and point out why you're being a jackass for being so disrespectful (again, don't sing if you don't want, I won't say anything, but don't go out of your way to bash it, either).
posted by littleLebowski at 01:58 PM on September 18
Wow, this thread isn't going the way I expected when I opened it. I figured a few people would be praising Howard for standing up for what he believes in (which I doubt he even knows what he believes in), and few people calling for his head, and the rest just kinda shaking their head. But, a surprisingly and IMHO disappointingly large number of people are actually siding with him and using this as an opportunity to
The flag, national anthem, and pledge of allegiance are not just objects as some of you would like us to believe - they are representations of what it means to be an American - just like voting, Free Speech, and learning our history. I'm not happy with several things about this country, but I damn well am not going to disparage a significant sign of respect for this country to demonstrate that. I don't like everything that my parents have ever done, but they're by-in-large vary good people, so I don't walk up to people who are giving their parents a hug and tell them "you fuckin' wimp - my parents should just leave me the hell alone."
It's a matter of respect. If you don't want to participate then don't. And, if you feel so negatively toward this country as to go to the extra step, then you truly should find another place to reside, and don't hold it against me if I have a few choice words for you on the way out.
posted by littleLebowski at 01:44 PM on September 18
Some decent points, brain. But, I'm not afraid of what might really be necessary. I just don't believe that firing Tressel is what IS necessary ... yet. Having said that - the play-calling was awful. And, when you're only apparent half-time adjustment is to stop alternating QBs - the ONE thing that was actually giving the team a little rhythm - definitely a head-scratcher. But more than all that, the individual play on the field was embarassing. Alex Boone is a supposed senior leader and quasi-All American. He played about the worst game I've ever seen by a o-lineman. Boeckman, who I've never liked, looked like a deer-in-headlights during warmups. And, I hate to say this cuz I love the kid, but I'm afraid Laurinaitis might be overrated. He has some games where he's all over the place - but other games, it's hard to find him making plays. Back to Tressel though, if we don't see a significant shift in style of play after getting Pryor established in the offense (even if that is next year), then he will have wasted one of the nation's top recruits, and THEN you'll be hearing more rumblings about Tressel specifically.
Augh, I typed that in about 90 seconds ... little pent-up angst, ya think?!
posted by littleLebowski at 03:53 PM on September 17
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read on this before that rant. But, here are a couple tidbits from published sources that might've relieved you of your angst.
"European captain Sam Torrance did last month (Sep 2002, set up the course to favor his team) at The Belfry - narrowing the fairways in the long driving zone, slowing the greens and moving the tee on the short par 4 10th hole to discourage players from trying to drive the green."
"But when they teed it up at The K Club, the U.S. team found that European captain Ian Woosnam had tinkered with the course setup. The greens were slow, and the fairways looked like bowling lanes in the spots where Woods and the long knockers normally hit their tee shots. The fairways were 8 yards wide on many holes. 'I spent a great deal of time trying to set it up what we felt was best for our team,' Woosnam said."
Do you still consider it cheating when the captain publicly announces in advance the course set-up changes he is making, in accord with what is common in the Ryder cup preparation for both teams? Do you and/or the world hate all of the countries that the Europeans hail from because the captains of their teams routinely do this same thing?
posted by littleLebowski at 08:41 AM on September 17
And that second paragraph could have been worded better...
Nah, YYM - that second paragraph was worded beautifully ... for someone who is bitter that their team is really horrible and is jumping on the opportunity to revel in their rival's loss (to a completely unrelated team). And, comparing the Lions to UM is an insult to the Lions.
Just semi-messing with ya. OSU was pathetic. Fans can only hope that USC makes everyone look that bad (which is entirely likely) and that OSU isn't as bad as they looked (which doesn't excuse another horrible performance on the biggest stages). Something has to change - I'm not referring to coaching personnel, but rather some overall strategy and player personnel.
posted by littleLebowski at 03:12 PM on September 16
I guess drastic measures are necessary if the U.S. wants to compete these days.
These are hardly drastic measures. The captain of the home team having an active role in the layout of the course has been pretty routine in recent memory. Woosnam openly talked about his tinkering of the course for the 06 Ryder Cup, to take away the US advantage of distance off the tee.
The part of the article that discusses what Zinger is actually doing to the course is interesting. But, it's mildly sensationalistic in how it comes across that what he's doing is so maverick. And, I don't think the changes are all that "far out".
Not sure I like , regardless of which team is doing it. But, I'm not sure there is a solution to it. Guess it's part of home-field advantage - at least that inherently alternates each time.
posted by littleLebowski at 02:55 PM on September 16
I'll apologize, lbb. Although I considered some of the initial responses to BoKnows' original post to be condescending (can't hear above his axe-grinding, surprise that his heart hadn't given way to the evils of the world), I shouldn't have fallen prey to the very thing I was railing against. But, I don't live in a glass house - I wouldn't have posted if I didn't welcome and expect reaction and feedback. Your recent posts have been much more in line with, what I view, to be your normal quality style. So, although my sentiment remains - that posters here deserve a certain level respect from others, especially considering the history of that poster's posts, and I feel many of us unnecessarily get our "undergarments in a bunch" when a nerve is touched (myself included) ... I apologize for crossing that line myself. On topic, on one hand, because of the debacle this led to (including some of this thread, my post included), I'd love for everyone involved to be sentenced to a noogie, including the source. But when a story gets broken and it turns out to be some major revelation, the journalist gets the credit for great investigative journalism ... when the story falls on its face, the journalist can bitch and moan all they want to their source, but it should be the journalist and editor that face the consequences.
posted by littleLebowski at 01:50 PM on May 19
Do what you want, yerfatma ... and Venice, point taken. yerfatma, I actually wasn't even including your first response in my rant (which was a rant, I admit) - your post was pointed, but didn't come across particularly nasty. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and I'm far from being qualified to "police" this site. I'm merely suggesting that some folks consider the target and content of some of their attacks. I was just surprised - I falsely assumed that others felt like I, that BoKnows was a pretty quality and respectful poster, and the subsequent level of seething hatred towards his post was disproportionate to his history on this site.
posted by littleLebowski at 12:02 PM on May 19
It was such a baseless and insipid point to begin with ... "insipid" ... hmm, maybe reference your own post and lbb's I'll apologize immediately for calling this out, but it's getting frustrating watching/reading a vocal minority of posters occasionally get their undergarments in a bunch on a topic and make attacks, which lack any objectivity or sense of respect. I don't have a dog in the Sypgate fight, and I don't know BoKnows or anyone else here from adam. But, I do know that BoKnows is a consistently very strong poster (as are lbb and others), who posted an alternative theory to all the belaboring that the Pats have been mistreated. Maybe he could've spelled out his admittedly no-proof-behind-it scenario, but it certainly didn't deserve the venom it received. Venom that seemed to be justified by "those who followed the case in some detail ..." ... This wasn't a simple misunderstanding by the Pats. Didn't other news outlets that also followed the story in some detail report that the commissioner's office sent out a very clear reminder of the intent and focus of the regulation. Good lord, the tiniest part of you can't admit that your precious team may have f'ed up?! No feasibility of you staying loyal to your team but disagreeing with what they did ... or at the very least not ridiculing anyone who doesn't feel the same way as you? BoKnows doesn't need me coming to his defense, and I value this site overall. But I expect a little more dignity from posters on here who are clear to hold themselves and this site in such high regard (see : any time a newbie comes in with a horrible post).
posted by littleLebowski at 11:08 AM on May 19
Great post, NoMich - thanks This is ridiculously cool. I help coach a U10 team and I can't begin to imagine how bonkers the guys would go if this happened to them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this gets "paid forward" by someone in attendance or who has read about it. Again, great post - this kind of thing is why I'm a SpoFi member.
posted by littleLebowski at 11:51 AM on April 08
I didn't expect to see a post about this, but I commented to my wife right at the moment - like him or not (which I don't), I really wish this was one occasion that people could hold it in. You don't have to cheer, but he was there for nothing but baseball, so no need to boo. I also thought it was cool what the Nationals did on his coat. I'm not a huge fan of our commander-in-chief going by simply "dubya", but did you you notice on the right breast of his coat, the middle initial W was the Nationals logo? Didn't exactly take Einstein to dream that up, but I thought it was clever.
posted by littleLebowski at 11:19 AM on April 01
Great anecdote, Qatarian. Best wishes to Knight. He certainly had his faults, like all of us, and there are certainly other legitimate "good" ways to coach without using his style. But, the highest compliment I can think to provide is that I would've had my kid play for him, without question.
posted by littleLebowski at 06:02 AM on February 05
but I wish that Romeo Crennel up there in Cleveland would've gotten more consideration Yeah, I'm surprised Crennel didn't get a single vote, but as a Browns fan, I think the team sometimes won despite Crennel. I'm still not sold, and maybe neither are the voters.
posted by littleLebowski at 10:41 PM on January 03
I'm with Familyman on this one. On one hand, I'm pretty much over the whole taping "scandal" (even though the "aw, gee, but everyone does it" argument is ridiculous). But, on the other hand, I'm not sure the ringleader of it all should get extra positive recognition. It's kind-of like the Merriman situation last year ... for the most part, it's water-under-the-bridge, but there's no way he should have been considered for Pro Bowl or Def Player honors. I have no desire to hold their "crimes" over their heads beyond the year in which they occurred, but it just feels like there should be tangible punishment (which I recognize they've paid) but also an ethical "and we're not going to give you any personal awards just for this year". Furthermore, while an undefeated season wasn't predicted by folks, it's not like the Pats were considered washed-up and not supposed to win their division. It seems like there are several coaches (like the ones who got the other votes) who are equally deserving - McCarthy, Gruden and maybe DelRio all strike me as coaches whose teams performed differentially better than expectations, morseo than the Patriots.
posted by littleLebowski at 10:38 PM on January 03
I don't care whether Schilling's clause is idiotic or unnecessary - even if that were deemed factually true, there's only one entity that could be called the "idiot" - Red Sox management/ownership that agreed to it (and even then, you'd have to consider that in a vacuum, without regard to what ownership may have decided to be a "greater good" in getting a deal done). This stance by the BBWAA wreaks of laziness. Posnanski's pleas to understand the conflict of interest tells me one thing - the BBWAA has no desire to hold its members accountable for their decisions. If Schilling has a great year and is deserving to be among the serious contenders for the Cy Young, then this is a non-issue. If Schilling has a bad year and some writer pens him in (regardless of whether $1m is at stake, but especially so), then that writer needs to be taken to task. Stating, "what's to keep Schilling and me from exchanging $200,000 for a vote ...", he's admitted that not only can writers not be trusted but that their "governing body" has no inclination to police their own. Nice way of convincing people that "BBWAA is part of the reason ... these are still the most respected and talked-about honors in American sports." Thanks for the chuckle.
posted by littleLebowski at 11:03 AM on December 06
That's a good excerpt, chico, and I'm not arguing many of the points within. I'm just saying that it's my humble opinion to disagree with your contention that the Bonds indictment is the onset of more problems. I look at it as a bell curve, the peak of which is the maximum amount of attention, negative publicity, overall crap associated with baseball and steroids. I certainly don't think that Bonds being indicted makes that chart fall of the cliff and everything else will magically go away. I just feel that we're finally on the downslope of the peak - still close to that peak, but at least on the downslope towards some sense of normalcy.
posted by littleLebowski at 11:15 AM on November 16
And that's just Barry. This whole dance is going to be repeated for every player they have anything on, which could number into the hundreds. posted by chicobangs at 11:55 PM CST on November 15 The only flaw with that, chico is that THIS is just about only Barry. As has been pointed out repeatedly here, the indictment is about perjury and obstruction. So, unless your hundreds of other players have lied under oath, then this won't carry on and on, encompassing other players. I've been on both sides of the "bonds-hating fence". I dislike him tremendously, but this has been a witch-hunt. I think he's been bad for baseball, but he's only a part of a bigger problem. But, I think that the reason that I don't consider this a bad day is because this shouldn't have any additional negative impact on baseball. If anything, it might make casual observers take the stance of "wow, baseball has really gone after this guy, it was really too much ... but, now look, it turns out that they were kinda right and he really is a douche for reasons other than just taking steroids."
posted by littleLebowski at 09:58 AM on November 16
My alma mater, Miami University ... ... simply lowered the perception of the class of the school. Not possible, tahoe ... I kid, I KID (says the Bobcat grad) On point, funny take on this. But, as a semi-Indians fan (Reds fan, but don't mind seeing the other Ohio team do well), I've wondered how long Chief Wahoo can last. I've not been appalled by it, but I can't fault someone who is (as long as they are truly offended, not just trying to take some activist stance). Is there any true middle-ground here? Would the people that currently get offended still be offended if the team kept the Indians name and made their logo simply the feather? How upset would Cleveland fans be over losing essentially just a cartoon character? But I guess the problem is that the team still wouldn't have much of a mascot (but could take a page from the Reds - just a Mr. Baseball running around).
posted by littleLebowski at 10:35 AM on October 22
How quickly people forget about games that happened in the first week of the season. I think the logic behind "biggest upset ever" is simply due to math - the largest point spread where the straight-up win went to the underdog. Even without the point-spread math, I think a point could be made that this is bigger than Mich/AppSt. Stanford is probably not regarded much better than AppSt was, and this USC loss had a larger impact to the landscape of the BCS.
posted by littleLebowski at 03:07 PM on October 08
boceph, if you are still here, seeing how the rest of this thread goes ... if pointing out a complete misstatement, done so by you only to try to better get your own point across rather than the facts, is considered "self-important" ... well then, color me pompous. Plus, I wasn't necessarily referring to you with regards to the rest of my comment (such thinking on your part, that might be a little self-important). But, hey, at least you didn't resort to personal attacks and do something like calling me and everyone else an idiot. Too bad, other than being factually misguided, your first post was decently written, and I was under the impression we were allowed to disagree with each other. So, good luck in the rest of your endeavors. As for Belichick, not being Joe Personality isn't the issue for me (although categorizing someone like that seems to indicate that he just has no personality - Belichick has a personality, just a pretty bad one - but that's my opinion and not the point). The overriding issue to me, that plenty of people seem to be willing to blindly use in his defense - regardless of his fashion sense and personality and even moreso regardless of his own or his team's success - he broke a very clear and well-known (amongst NFL personnel) rule. I'm extremely tired of the "other people have done it" and "who knows how much it actually helped". He broke a rule - he should pay for it - he is paying for it - but forgive me if I don't feel like suffering through the "Goodell is a dictator" and the "Patriots will still kick everyone's asses" nonsense.
posted by littleLebowski at 09:30 AM on September 20
What really happened here is that the commisioner drew his own personal line in the sand of what he felt was 'going too far' and Belicheck crossed it. Actually, what happened here is that your first comment on this site was a pretty poor one. Factually, what happened here is that a coach/team blatantly (and clumsily) violated a very clear rule that was in place well before the current commissioner took his position. What is irrelevant here is how many other coaches/teams might be doing this and to what degree it helps them. As for the dismantling of the Chargers and how stupid any of us who are disgusted by this are supposed to feel if the Pats go undefeated ... very bad logic and ethics to discount right-vs-wrong based upon Win/Loss columns.
posted by littleLebowski at 07:18 PM on September 18
I don't have a preference for Troy or Braun, but good lord that article was painful to read. Is Bernie at all respected? Because that came across to me as one of the worst-written articles I've ever read (ie - on preview, what yerfatma said)
posted by littleLebowski at 11:25 AM on September 10
Great link - going in my favorites. That Antoine Walker 3-pointer quote seems similar to one from Woody Hayes ... When asked why he went for a 2-point conversion despite already beating Michigan by 34 - "Because I couldn't go for three." Thanks again, YYM
posted by littleLebowski at 12:58 PM on August 23
thanks jg ... at least I was prepared enough to have an embroidered SpoFi towel at my desk, to handle these soda-sprayed-onto-keyboard situations
posted by littleLebowski at 02:13 PM on August 02
Aluminum Bat Maker Liable in Baseball Player's Death
What are the solutions to that problem, and how would the anti-lawsuit people achieve that solution?
Great question. Ideally, as I hinted at before, it's in the hands of the key parties involved :
BAT COMPANIES - collusion in this instance would be a good thing ... "look, ALL of our bats are dangerous, let's agree to scale them back" ... or even just have 1 bat company stand out and take this path - could be a gamble competitively, but could it possibly induce the public to "reward" that company with purchases and then other bat companies would be inclined to follow. But, there's obviously a marketplace competitiveness issue here.
LEAGUES - Creating stricter guidelines for what equipment can be used. But, if the league ends up being comparatively "dull" compared to a neighboring league, has the "moral" league just shot itself in the foot by losing members to other leagues?
(god forbid) GOVERNMENT - I agree that Congress can multitask and can take on more than just healthcare and wars. But, if a review of the BCS or steroids is justified, isn't this a worthy cause? Wouldn't a consistent set of guidelines at a higher level relieve the competitiveness concerns of companies and leagues?
But, that's an IDEAL state. Maybe a lawsuit ends up being the most direct route to a solution. But, I still think the target of the lawsuit is incorrect, here. And, maybe just the threat of a lawsuit could make one of the above "ideal" things get rolling?
bperk, I see your point about the potential for some lawsuits leading to us to be safer. And, I'm less surprised that there's disagreement on this issue than I was a few minutes ago (some interesting comments). But I think labels on bats or coffee cups have absolutely zero impact to the end result. Is a kind/parent buying a bat going to see the label on the first bat they pick up and say "Um, let's find a different bat." - then when they see the label on every bat thereafter - are they going to decide to play a different sport?
This still goes back to the fact that I believe a lawsuit should hold someone responsible for actual criminal wrongdoing. I think there's a fix to this without unfairly punishing a company that was following the rules (ie, go after the rulemakers).