Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Mets Insider: Mets could play in single-digit temperatures

Now where is my fully nucleationed copy of Doug Morris’ “Frigid Digit”?

Kind of like the Supreme Court on obscenity, the Mets will know it when they see it. Or feel it . There is no set criteria by Major League Baseball for it being too cold to play a baseball game, Sandy Alderson said Saturday, before the Mets played the Twins in 36-degree weather.

“Twenty-eight, 26, I don’t know where you draw the line,” the general manager said. “Nine would seem to qualify.”

Alderson was referring to a forecast of a low temperature of nine degrees for a Wednesday night game in Denver. He said he has had conversations about that with MLB, but there has been no cutoff for when it is too cold to play. “I’ve asked that question and I don’t think there is an objective bright line,” Alderson said.

As the Mets came off the field after their 16-5 win over the Twins Friday night in 32-degree weather, Terry Collins said it was pretty bitter. “Shaking their hands, their hands were ice cold,” the manager said of his players.

Looking ahead, Collins could only laugh at the forecast in Denver. “If we are playing and it’s nine degrees outside, we’re going to have to have a little investigation. The field is really going to have to be heated.

“Again, we’ll have to wait until Wednesday. I’ve played a lot of cold baseball, but I’ve never played in nine-degree weather.”

Repoz Posted: April 14, 2013 at 07:48 AM | 164 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mets, rockies

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: April 14, 2013 at 08:35 AM (#4413588)
101 reasons why Minneapolis is a ########, #32: It's snowed every day for the last five.
   2. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: April 14, 2013 at 08:43 AM (#4413590)
Geez. Why don't they build a dome in Minnesota?
   3. Joey B. is being stalked by a (Gonfa) loon Posted: April 14, 2013 at 10:06 AM (#4413609)
Where's my "global warming"? Oh wait, I'm sorry, I meant "climate change".
   4. PreservedFish Posted: April 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM (#4413613)
Good one Joey! Take that science!!
   5. depletion Posted: April 14, 2013 at 10:28 AM (#4413619)
1) Polypropylene long underwear + balaclava. Thin gore-tex shirt and shorts under uniform.
2) Tape a large woolen mitt to the back of the baseball glove or front of jersey to hide throwing hand in while in the field.
3) Vaseline or lotion in thick layer on face.
   6. bobm Posted: April 14, 2013 at 11:03 AM (#4413634)
Mets In Outsider: Mets could play in single-digit temperatures


FTFY

   7. Perry Posted: April 14, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4413642)
Friend of mine who has a season-ticket share offered me a spare for Tuesday in Denver. I said yes even though I knew the forecast, 'cuz it's 3rd row behind the visitors' dugout and I couldn't resist that. It's been a typical spring here, alternating between 60s-70s and blizzards. I went to a Phils-Rox playoff game here in '09 and it was 28 at game time, but at least it was dry.
   8. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 14, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4413660)
Where's my "global warming"? Oh wait, I'm sorry, I meant "climate change".


Melting Arctic sea ice has led to instability in the jet stream, leading to extreme cold temperatures in the northern U.S. and Siberia, and unseasonably warm temperatures in Greenland.
   9. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: April 14, 2013 at 11:50 AM (#4413661)
Don't bother SdeB, some people already know everything about everything.
   10. Joey B. is being stalked by a (Gonfa) loon Posted: April 14, 2013 at 12:24 PM (#4413700)
Give it up. You guys are throwing piles of doody against the wall desperately hoping that one of them will eventually stick, and more and more people are getting wise to it every day.
   11. Tom Nawrocki Posted: April 14, 2013 at 12:34 PM (#4413711)
It's too bad they didn't play here this weekend. Temps in the 50s and 60s, and mostly sunny. Like Perry says, the weather in Denver is wildly variable this time of year.
   12. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: April 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4413716)
Give it up. You guys are throwing piles of doody against the wall desperately hoping that one of them will eventually stick, and more and more people are getting wise to it every day.


You may be right (probably not, but possible). But citing one day's temperature in one location as evidence of anything is beyond stupid. I was skiing in western Colorado a couple of weeks ago, and it was in the mid 70's. About as far above normal as Denver is forecast to be below normal. So there!
   13. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4413732)
Sometimes I think Joey B. is just a troll and doesn't believe any of his hate-filled and/or moronic blatherings. But can you be a troll when you show no evidence of a sense of humor?
   14. Bowling Baseball Fan Posted: April 14, 2013 at 01:03 PM (#4413742)
He would fit right in at the PBA Forum. The Miscellaneous section on that forum was created for political ranting. Its troll gold.
   15. formerly dp Posted: April 14, 2013 at 01:14 PM (#4413751)
Dammit, sometimes before logging in I can see Joey's posts. That was unfun.
   16. Spahn Insane Posted: April 14, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4413753)
Sometimes I think Joey B. is just a troll and doesn't believe any of his hate-filled and/or moronic blatherings. But can you be a troll when you show no evidence of a sense of humor?

No, he's not a troll; he's an honest to goodness buffoon.

Seriously, is there a weaker argument anyplace than "It's snowing in Denver in April, therefore global warming is a hoax"? (Actually, there is--it's "It's snowing in January in Chicago, therefore global warming is a hoax," which can be found in the comments of many a Tribune article during the winter months. But I digress.) A year ago March, it reached 87 degrees in Chicago (among several consecutive 80s). That doesn't prove global warming's legit any more than Denver's forecasted 9 degrees proves it's a hoax, but you'd think folks would know better than to argue from one isolated data point among millions.
   17. Tom Nawrocki Posted: April 14, 2013 at 01:25 PM (#4413757)
Sometimes I think Joey B. is just a troll and doesn't believe any of his hate-filled and/or moronic blatherings.


You must not know very many Republicans.
   18. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: April 14, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4413759)
Sometimes I think Joey B. is just a troll and doesn't believe any of his hate-filled and/or moronic blatherings.

You must not know very many Republicans.


....aaaaand we're off...!!

In other news, disagreeing with global warming is now considered "hate". You have been warned!
   19. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 14, 2013 at 01:31 PM (#4413763)
I said "and/or". This wasn't one of his hate-filled statements, those are usually baseball-related. This was one of his moronic statements.
   20. Tom Nawrocki Posted: April 14, 2013 at 02:31 PM (#4413810)
....aaaaand we're off...!!


We were off when Joey injected politics into the thread way back in Post 3. Can't understand why that didn't elicit any of your snark.
   21. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: April 14, 2013 at 03:02 PM (#4413855)
I said "and/or". This wasn't one of his hate-filled statements, those are usually baseball-related. This was one of his moronic statements.


It's not the hate or whatever that bothers me, it's the relentless bitterness. Joey's comments often just kind of bum me out. He seems unhappy. Cheer up, dude!
   22. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 14, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4413864)
Yeah, what #21 said. At least Sam is gleeful when being an #######.

And #2, I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR YEARS! One of the few nice things about the Metrodome was that once you got inside it wasn't ####### snowing anymore.
   23. RJ in TO Posted: April 14, 2013 at 03:35 PM (#4413886)
One of the few nice things about the Metrodome was that once you got inside it wasn't ####### snowing anymore.

This is also a nice thing about the SkyDome/Rogers Centre.
   24. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 14, 2013 at 04:50 PM (#4413962)
I don't know what the wind-chill was for this April 1983 Orioles game, but according to the Farmers' Almanac website, the temperature was in the high 30's that evening and the wind was gusting up to 40MPH. And until the O's got 2 home runs in the bottom of the 8th to break up a 2-2 tie, it looked like it was going extra innings.

The only saving grace is that everyone wanted to get the hell out of there, and the game was played in just over 2 hours. I can't even begin to imagine how Charlie Hough ever got his knuckler over the plate in those conditions, but he somehow managed to walk only 3 batters.

EDIT: Okay, the wind chill only turned out to be about 25, but many a witch's tit was frozen that night.
   25. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: April 14, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4413995)
Life is really going to suck after the Twins ditch Gardenhire in the middle of 2014 and then two years later play the Cubs in an all-blizzard World Series.
   26. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: April 14, 2013 at 05:17 PM (#4413997)
One of the few nice things about the Metrodome was that once you got inside it wasn't ####### snowing anymore.

Says who?
   27. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: April 14, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4414004)
You may be right (probably not, but possible). But citing one day's temperature in one location as evidence of anything is beyond stupid.

Agreed. Now please go repeat that to Mayor Mike.
   28. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 14, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4414019)
Now please go repeat that to Mayor Mike.

Did Mayor Mike say "Oops! Google Chrome could not find http"? I'll agree that global warming might not have anything to do with that.
   29. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 14, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4414020)
i thought alderson was above being a whiner
   30. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 14, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4414024)
Sometimes I think Joey B. is just a troll and doesn't believe any of his hate-filled and/or moronic blatherings.


Hate-filled?
   31. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 14, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4414028)
Seriously, is there a weaker argument anyplace than "It's snowing in Denver in April, therefore global warming is a hoax"?


No. Then again, let's remember the trajectory that got us here: it was liberals who first staked claim to the moronic "Oh, it's 77 degrees in Boston in April - global warming!" type arguments.

Along with "Hey, I've never seen no snow here before in all of my 40 years of existence on this 4-billion-years-old planet. Global warming!"

Along with the switching of the name to "climate change," which basically gave the game away.
   32. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: April 14, 2013 at 05:41 PM (#4414029)
Thanks, Andy. Here you go.
   33. Gotham Dave Posted: April 14, 2013 at 05:47 PM (#4414038)
No. Then again, let's remember the trajectory that got us here: it was liberals who first staked claim to the moronic "Oh, it's 77 degrees in Boston in April - global warming!" type arguments.
No. All people are capable of being stupid and I'm sure that people on the left and right were able to come up with that stupid argument on their own, without copying the other side.

Seriously, "Nuh uh you did it first!"? Grow the #### up, Ray.
   34. cardsfanboy Posted: April 14, 2013 at 05:50 PM (#4414042)
No. Then again, let's remember the trajectory that got us here: it was liberals who first staked claim to the moronic "Oh, it's 77 degrees in Boston in April - global warming!" type arguments.


not really.... the it's snowing, so global warming must not be happening has been a mantra for years from the deniers(saying liberals or conservatives is incorrect...there are several conservative who aren't stupid and recognize the fact of global warming) what the liberals were saying about the temp in April was 1. a joke at the silliness of the deniers argument and 2. more often they were pointing out the number of record temps as a whole for the day/month/year as part of a growing trend over the past 20 years, along with pointing out that the extreme weather of the past few years were predicted by the global warming crowd.
   35. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 14, 2013 at 05:57 PM (#4414049)
what the liberals were saying about the temp in April was 1. a joke at the silliness of the deniers argument


Ah, so it was a joke. Uh-huh.

along with pointing out that the extreme weather of the past few years were predicted by the global warming crowd.


Of course it was. "Climate change" predicts all.

(Not that the weather was "extreme," but when all weather or climates are considered bad by definition, does it really matter?)
   36. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: April 14, 2013 at 06:56 PM (#4414082)
Joey is an idiot. That said, I could go back to as recently as November and find about a billion comments saying how Sandy was the terrifying culmination of global warming. I remember getting pretty annoyed at the time having conversations with intelligent friends who said as much and getting annoyed reading such comments here. Most people on both sides of any issue don't understand SSS, and even many that do have a tendency to disregard that understanding when it suits them.
   37. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 14, 2013 at 07:18 PM (#4414090)
Also, the moron who posted the melting sea ice = more "instability" in the jet stream is citing highly controversial research, even among scientists. It's very hard to know what's caused the extreme flips of the article oscillation the last couple of winters, or even if an explanation is needed beyond, "luck".
   38. Publius Publicola Posted: April 14, 2013 at 08:36 PM (#4414123)
Most people on both sides of any issue don't understand SSS, and even many that do have a tendency to disregard that understanding when it suits them.


I remember Hannity on Fox (where else?) making a mocking remark about global warming a few years ago when we had that February snowstorm in DC. Of course, he didn't have any SME there to explain to him that a large snowstorm is actually a high energy event and that it would be more accurate to ascribe it to global warming than against it.

I think Hannity responded to criticism that he never has any expert on to explain things so he finally had one on. Who did he have on? You guessed it- the CEO of the Weather Channel.

Of course Hannity is about as science literate and impartial as Jenny McCarthy so...
   39. Publius Publicola Posted: April 14, 2013 at 08:42 PM (#4414126)
No. Then again, let's remember the trajectory that got us here: it was liberals who first staked claim to the moronic "Oh, it's 77 degrees in Boston in April - global warming!" type arguments.


Ray, NOAA claims 2012 is the hottest year on record, exceeding even the outlier year of 1998 by 1 degree:

According to NOAA scientists, the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. for 2012 was 55.3°F, which was 3.2°F above the 20th century average and 1.0°F above the previous record from 1998. The year consisted of the fourth warmest winter, a record warm spring, the second warmest summer, and a warmer-than-average autumn. Although the last four months of 2012 did not bring the same unusual warmth as the first 8 months of the year, the September through December temperatures were warm enough for 2012 to remain the record warmest year, by a wide margin.

Those crazy liberal scientists.
   40. Squash Posted: April 14, 2013 at 09:07 PM (#4414140)
the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. for 2012 was 55.3°F

55.3 degrees?! That's chilly! Call me back when the average temperature is a balmy 78, then we can talk.
   41. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 14, 2013 at 11:18 PM (#4414225)
....=but you'd think folks would know better than to argue from one isolated data point among millions.


Why? What on earth in all your time on this planet has suggested to you that a typical person knows better than this?

And that's even without referring to people like Joey and Ray who arrive at opinions without really looking at the evidence.

i thought alderson was above being a whiner


Having to report to Jeff Wilpon when you want to sign a FA for 750K will do that to you.
   42. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: April 15, 2013 at 12:01 AM (#4414238)
just to do a little cost-benefit analysis:

if republicans are right about global warming being a hoax and we adopt their ideas on how to combat it, the upside is...more drilling for oil.

if republicans are wrong about global warming being a hoax, but we adopt their ideas on how to combat it, the downside is...extinction.

if republicans are right about global warming being a hoax, but we adopt the environmentalists ideas of combating it, the downside is...hundreds of millions of dollars being funneled into scientific research.



even if you're a dyed in the wool dittohead, this seems to be a textbook example of pascal's wager.
   43. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 12:23 AM (#4414245)
if republicans are right about global warming being a hoax


It's not a "hoax." It's not a case of some James Bond type villain plotting this out in a war room somewhere, and it's not a "conspiracy" where a bunch of liberals get together in secret and decide that this junk is what they're going to try to sell to people. It's a case of people (1), at best, naively believing one theory over other more plausible ones, or (2) not really believing the one theory but pimping it anyway because the solution to the one theory - redistributing wealth to "solve" the "problem" - fits in nicely with their world view. (The "hide the decline" emails and such fit in with option (2).)


the downside is...extinction


Pure fear mongering.
   44. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 15, 2013 at 12:28 AM (#4414247)
just to do a little cost-benefit analysis:

if republicans are right about global warming being a hoax and we adopt their ideas on how to combat it, the upside is...more drilling for oil.

if republicans are wrong about global warming being a hoax, but we adopt their ideas on how to combat it, the downside is...extinction.


Pffft. There's plenty of profit to be made along the way! Besides, you're forgetting Jesus and rainbows at the end of it all for the righteous. The end of the world is a thing devoutly to be wished for by more than a few.
   45. Random Transaction Generator Posted: April 15, 2013 at 01:08 AM (#4414261)
It's not a "hoax." It's not a case of some James Bond type villain plotting this out in a war room somewhere, and it's not a "conspiracy" where a bunch of liberals get together in secret and decide that this junk is what they're going to try to sell to people. It's a case of people (1), at best, naively believing one theory over other more plausible ones, or (2) not really believing the one theory but pimping it anyway because the solution to the one theory - redistributing wealth


The Ray-Score for this post is 90.
   46. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 15, 2013 at 01:16 AM (#4414263)
It's a case of people (1), at best, naively believing one theory over other more plausible ones,...


That's from Ray, and it describes him to a T, actually. This from a man who fails to understand why people can't understand adjustable rate mortgages. Granted warming is more complicated, but the principle applies.

I would have thought Ray would have the science to be able to recognize scenarios whereby global warming (what is this 'climate change' tomfoolery? It ain't changing, it's warming) increases beyond our ability to control it. It's not difficult to grasp the science of filling the finite layer of a concentric sphere to the point where the heat retained exceeds our ability to dissipate that heat. It's not difficult to see how the Earth could end up with a climate more like that of Venus.

Giving the wealthy a significant stake in the profit to be made from slowing global warming is probably the most efficient way of getting them on board. Just ####### pay them to do the right things.
   47. Shazbot Posted: April 15, 2013 at 01:40 AM (#4414268)
Huh, sniped me. I was going to say 'Venus is like, right there, dude'. The concept that atmospheric changes (which you measure directly, and with undeniable immediancy) do not lead to climate changes, is absurd. It is not a matter of opinion that there is more than 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And stop kvetching about any decline. Several years of flat almost-record high temperatures do not mark a decline, just because each year didn't break the record. That sort of performance in baseball would be called 'consistancy'.
   48. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 15, 2013 at 01:43 AM (#4414270)
Hey! Wasn't this a Mets thread?

Harvey, Buck, Duda, and Murphy are carrying the team, but I think we're looking of a microcosm of the season to come. Good enough with Harvey and Niese and Gee, Wright, Davis and the MI to put up some wins, but not a solid enough club to put together real winning streaks or several 9-1 stretches, or any 19-8 months, and not solid enough to keep from going 1-9 and 2-8 a bunch of times when the handful of very good players slump.

Still and all, it's been a pleasant start.
   49. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 15, 2013 at 01:51 AM (#4414271)
The current Weather Channel forecast has a 15-degree low for Denver on Wednesday. No problem if it's just cold, tough it out. But looks like there could be some precip problems throughout the series, so maybe they'll get to play a doubleheader, too.
   50. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 01:55 AM (#4414273)
You know, I'm pretty sure I could write a Ray post for almost any subject. All I'd have to do is find the dumbest possible position to take, and then argue it with a sort of autistic lack of empathy and arrogance that can't be that hard to fake.

Joey, on the other hand, is just a colossal #######.
   51. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 15, 2013 at 02:45 AM (#4414277)
Ray seems to take what he understands as a given, and anyone who doesn't grasp what he does is an imbecile (or disingenuous) who deserves whatever punishment she receives, while his failing to understand something, even when he hasn't actually investigated the matter (as often becomes clear), is irrelevant, since he can apply general principles (liberals bad, want his money) and make decisions from there.

He's perhaps the least rational poster on the site. Doesn't make him a bad person, though.
   52. depletion Posted: April 15, 2013 at 07:01 AM (#4414284)
He's perhaps the least rational poster on the site.

I want that title back. If he gets in the ring with me NOTHING is going to stop me, McMahon!
   53. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 15, 2013 at 07:22 AM (#4414288)
I love 46 and 52. They're so earnest that they don't realize how silly they are. The downside of global warming is "extinction"? The cost of protecting against global warming is "hundreds of millions of dollars in scientific research"? "It's not difficult to see how the Earth could end up with a climate more like Venus".

Ok, let's get a few things clear. First off, there is no risk of our extinction from global warming. None. There's a risk we could extinguish ourselves with a nuclear war, or something like that, but that's true whether or not the Earth warms. If the global temperature rises, oh, I don't know, 5C, and sea level rises, say, 5 meters, this will suck immensely and lots of people will die, but its not remotely close to an extinction risk. There's lots of land to grow food in a warmer world, just not necessarily the same land we're using today. Put differently, natural climate changes just as large as what we anticipate with global warming have happened multiple times over the past 100,000 years, and modern man, with technologies such as "stick", "stones" and "animal hide", survived. I think we have a good shot at pulling it off today, don't you?

Second: we're not talking about funneling hundreds of millions to scientific research, something we do anyways. Rather, fossil fuel use essentially is directly proportional to economic activity. Research and investment can change the slope of that line over time, but, slowly. To make a dent in global warming requires reducing global economic activity significantly - by billions upon billions of dollars. And that's not money that goes to research, or goes to anything, really. It just never exists. The question, and it remains a difficult one, is whether the cost of achieving a meaningful, non-symbolic mitigation of global warming is worth the benefit. This remains unknown, because the cost of global warming is highly dependent upon the rate of warming and the regional effects of warming (no cost for rapid change in, say, Siberia, huge cost if it stops raining in the Great Plains), and rate and regional effects are much harder to predict than global end state.

Third: there is no risk of Earth turning into Venus. Among other things, this ignores the historical record and betrays a failure to appreciate geologic timescales. There have been natural events that approximate what we're doing now by releasing huge amounts of Carbon into the atmosphere. Most famously, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, which, as the name promises, lead to remarkable warming, forests dotting the arctic shores, etc. There were some extinctions, of course. And yet - no Venus. Nothing even vaguely Venetian. Why? Because unlike Venus, Earth has tectonics (probably because unlike Venus, we never got hot enough to lose our water to vapor and then to space, and water is necessary for plate tectonics to work because it changes the physical properties of rock in numerous ways). As long as you have tectonics and an active climate cycle, whatever we do to the atmosphere, on geologic timescales not particularly relevant to short-lived critters such as ourselves, is irrelevant. The carbon gets drawn down into sediment or consumed in weathering reactions, and one day subducted and, millions of years down the road, some sentient critter that replaces us will notice a freaky isotopic excursion in the carbonates from our era and wonder what in the hell happened. Probably right before the big Plutonium excursion that is even more puzzling. But the key point is, we're not endangering the Earth, and frankly, the only reason this seems like a big deal is because our timescales are too short for the Earth to do its thing and clean up our mess.
   54. formerly dp Posted: April 15, 2013 at 07:30 AM (#4414289)
Harvey, Buck, Duda, and Murphy are carrying the team, but I think we're looking of a microcosm of the season to come. Good enough with Harvey and Niese and Gee, Wright, Davis and the MI to put up some wins, but not a solid enough club to put together real winning streaks or several 9-1 stretches, or any 19-8 months, and not solid enough to keep from going 1-9 and 2-8 a bunch of times when the handful of very good players slump.
This is the reality of the team right now. Enjoy the good stretches while they last, but they're not really a cause for optimism about their prospects for the season, especially with the Braves and the Nats in the division.

The wildcard this year is the bullpen (bullpens tend to be wildcardy, but the Met assemblage is sort of extreme)-- and if the guys out there can put in some flukely seasons, the team will hang in games nicely.

In the OF, I find it odd that the Mets did not kick any tires on Casper Wells, and don't appear to be making any noise on Julio Burbon. Either would be at least as good of an option as Baxter/Cowgill/Byrd.
===
Ray would rather spend his time whining about an issue than learning about it-- that's true pretty generally, but especially WRT global warming/climate science. This won't change any time soon, because he's Ray, and he likes to complain.
   55. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 15, 2013 at 07:52 AM (#4414298)
"It's not difficult to see how the Earth could end up with a climate more like Venus".


It's weird to see you make up whatever #### you want, as though no one could compare your strange claims against a post above it.

Being you must be a very confusing proposition.
   56. Lassus Posted: April 15, 2013 at 08:06 AM (#4414310)
Harvey, Buck, Duda, and Murphy are carrying the team, but I think we're looking of a microcosm of the season to come. Good enough with Harvey and Niese and Gee, Wright, Davis and the MI to put up some wins

I had no idea Wright had no HR yet. An 800+ OPS, and that's about it.
   57. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: April 15, 2013 at 08:08 AM (#4414313)
I happen to believe that global warming is real, though I don't know how much humans are causing it. My main problem is with the people who are pushing it, who seem like a bunch of jerks.

Example: I was interviewing a young woman on the subject, and I brought up the East Anglia e-mails. It went something like this:

"So what about the e-mails?"
"Those e-mails were stolen!"
"But some of them suggest that scientists manipulated data."
"But they were stolen. Stealing is wrong!"
"What's your comment on what's in the e-mails themselves?"
(Long pause) "Would you like it if something broke into your house and stole your TV?"

And so on. And then there's the folks who refer to "Climate change denial" as if it were comparable to Holocaust denial. Yikes.

I'm guessing climate scientists know more about this subject than I do, and despite the political problems, they're probably right. But, man, do they ever need better PR.


   58. Publius Publicola Posted: April 15, 2013 at 08:12 AM (#4414315)
Ray seems to take what he understands as a given, and anyone who doesn't grasp what he does is an imbecile


What I like best about Ray is that he thinks he understands all kinds of things in which he has received no substantial training or experience better than the people who do it for their livelihood and have decades of hands-on experience and training. Like, he thinks he understands climate models better than the people who actually do them, and naively assumes that climate modelers do not consult with geophysicists in constructing and refining their models, and that their models do not get peer-reviewed and critiqued before publishing. In other words, he has no idea whatever how the science is being performed and is so unfamiliar with the field he would not even understand it if it were explained to him but still insists it is being done badly, and the publication and synthesis of observed data and geophysical phenomena constitutes "fear-mongering".
   59. formerly dp Posted: April 15, 2013 at 08:13 AM (#4414316)
I had no idea Wright had no HR yet. An 800+ OPS, and that's about it.
The Mets have homered in every game they've played so far. Makes it easy to avoid getting shut out. And very unexpected, especially considering Wright and Davis have hit 1 homer between them. Maybe this is the year Murphy turns into a very good hitter?
   60. Publius Publicola Posted: April 15, 2013 at 08:20 AM (#4414317)
Ray would rather spend his time whining about an issue than learning about it-- that's true pretty generally, but especially WRT global warming/climate science. This won't change any time soon, because he's Ray, and he likes to complain.


He's equally ignorant about the medical and regulatory issues surrounding steroids and the roots of the mortgage crisis.
   61. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 15, 2013 at 08:22 AM (#4414318)
@55 Should read: "It's weird to see you make up whatever #### you want by stripping out context".

Seriously, Liver, try good faith reading for comprehension. It'll shake your world. Since at least the 1960s Venus has been held up as a model of what can happen when greenhouse gases are trapped in an atmosphere, and it has been widely hypothesized that Venus once had an atmosphere much like Earth's.
   62. Publius Publicola Posted: April 15, 2013 at 08:26 AM (#4414320)
"But some of them suggest that scientists manipulated data."


No they don't. They were deliberately misinterpreted by the warming deniers to suggest the data was manipulated. The controversy was over the use of the term "trick", as in "the trick to hitting a breaking pitch is to pick up the spin of the ball early.". The deniers manipulated that to mean that the researcher was trying a genuine trick.

I'm guessing climate scientists know more about this subject than I do


Ummm, yeah..

But, man, do they ever need better PR.


What they need is for the American Petroleum Institute to stop its misinformation campaign so they can focus on their work instead of trying to correct the misunderstandings that the API creates and folks like you credulously absorb.

   63. Publius Publicola Posted: April 15, 2013 at 08:27 AM (#4414322)
and it has been widely hypothesized that Venus once had an atmosphere much like Earth's.


Flip that. Earth had one much like Venus.
   64. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: April 15, 2013 at 08:35 AM (#4414326)
What they need is for the American Petroleum Institute to stop its misinformation campaign so they can focus on their work instead of trying to correct the misunderstandings that the API creates and folks like you credulously absorb.

If one trade group (albeit a powerful one) can create so much doubt, what does it say about the whole thing to start with? If the science is so "settled", why do so many disagree?

"Warming deniers"? "Folks like you"? I'm agreeing with you, pal, but apparently I'm not agreeing enough. "You're either with us or against us", eh?

Like I said. Jerks.
   65. Publius Publicola Posted: April 15, 2013 at 08:59 AM (#4414332)
If one trade group (albeit a powerful one) can create so much doubt, what does it say about the whole thing to start with?


Look at what the American Tobacco Institute (which the API is modeled after, to a T) was able to accomplish for so long. It doesn't have anything to do with the strength of the data.

If the science is so "settled", why do so many disagree?
Hardly anyone with any credibility disagrees. The API buys some people with letters after their names to introduce doubt, and a lot of people fall for it. There are always science whores to be had. I've crossed paths with a few in my day.

I'm agreeing with you, pal, but apparently I'm not agreeing enough.


Well, you said above that the stolen emails "suggest that scientists manipulated data". That isn't true. That's what raised my hackles.

   66. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 15, 2013 at 09:05 AM (#4414335)
If the science is so "settled", why do so many disagree?
Well, to be blunt, how many people really understand even basic science?

and it has been widely hypothesized that Venus once had an atmosphere much like Earth's.

Flip that. Earth had one much like Venus.


Try this.

The biggest difference is that Venus was warmer than the Earth all along, and very probably did not have oceans comparable to our to serve as repositories for CO2. Not sure what your point is--are you arguing that at one time the Earth was as hot as Venus currently is?

I don't doubt it was, but that's prior to the time frame I'm discussing, where the greenhouse hypothesis imagines Venus cooled to create a climate not all that different from that of today's Earth, but the lack of oceans, a closer proximity to the Sun than Earth, and some atmospheric and other differences caused the atmosphere on Venus to heat and heat to the sulfurous delight it is today, with an atmosphere mostly of nitrogen and carbon dioxide.

I won't pretend there are no other credible hypotheses, or that the presence of oceans don't go a long way towards staving off the worst of some scenarios; but it's hardly necessary for the average temperature here to reach that of a typical sunny, 900 degree day on Venus. 130 will cook us quite nicely.

I was surprised, years ago, to read that if the Earth was knocked out of orbit and away from the sun that humanity could survive for millions of years, even out beyond Pluto, by burrowing ever closer to the Earth's core. We'd run out of, well, steam eventually, but still have a nice long stretch during which to figure out how to transmute into some form of life that can operate near absolute zero.

I don't believe there's a comparable way to survive a catastrophic increase in the average surface temperature; at least not survive for nearly as long as we could survive beyond the solar system.
   67. Publius Publicola Posted: April 15, 2013 at 09:11 AM (#4414338)
Not sure what your point is--are you arguing that at one time the Earth was as hot as Venus currently is?


A long time ago, yes. And it had an atmosphere devoid of O2.
   68. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 15, 2013 at 09:31 AM (#4414344)
@68: okay--you're going back a billion plus years. Got it.
   69. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 09:37 AM (#4414346)
if republicans are wrong about global warming being a hoax, but we adopt their ideas on how to combat it, the downside is...extinction.

Humans survived the ice ages without any technology, humans wouldn't go extinct.

And if humans did go extinct 500 years from now, who really cares? I'm literally unwilling to pay even $1 to reduce the chance that man is extinct 500 years from now from 3% to 2.9%.

The odds of a lunatic or fanatic with an A-Bomb causing nuclear war and human extinction have to be 1000 times higher than global warming. Why don't we divert all that global warming research money to controlling fissionable material, and effective missile defense?
   70. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM (#4414356)
The odds of a lunatic or fanatic with an A-Bomb causing nuclear war and human extinction have to be 1000 times higher than global warming. Why don't we divert all that global warming research money to controlling fissionable material, and effective missile defense?

Similarly, I wouldn't mind taking a fraction of the global warming alarmist money and spending it on meteor extinction event defense.
   71. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:03 AM (#4414361)
I am concerned about how man affects the environment, am willing to accept some economic loss to mitigate it, and fully endorse 'zop's 53.

And if humans did go extinct 500 years from now, who really cares? I'm literally unwilling to pay even $1 to reduce the chance that man is extinct 500 years from now from 3% to 2.9%.

If you were trying to provoke a reaction, it worked.
   72. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:11 AM (#4414368)
And if humans did go extinct 500 years from now, who really cares? I'm literally unwilling to pay even $1 to reduce the chance that man is extinct 500 years from now from 3% to 2.9%.

If you were trying to provoke a reaction, it worked.


My reaction was that the chance snapper's not a troll dropped from 3% to 2.9%.
   73. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:11 AM (#4414369)
And if humans did go extinct 500 years from now, who really cares? I'm literally unwilling to pay even $1 to reduce the chance that man is extinct 500 years from now from 3% to 2.9%.


Tell me again how and why you are a Christian? Aside from slavish devotion to church doctrine (the least important part IMO), I see absolutely nothing. Maybe it's just your adopted online persona, but I see very little about you that Jesus would approve of.
   74. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:13 AM (#4414371)
But those extinct humans would have their kingdom in heaven! A KINGDOM!
   75. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:15 AM (#4414373)
Similarly, I wouldn't mind taking a fraction of the global warming alarmist money and spending it on meteor extinction event defensehookers & blow.


Much better!
   76. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4414376)
Similarly, I wouldn't mind taking a fraction of the global warming alarmist money and spending it on meteor extinction event defensehookers & blow.

Much better!

Well yeah, I thought that was understood.
   77. depletion Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:26 AM (#4414378)
I love 46 and 52. They're so earnest that they don't realize how silly they are.

Huh? I was poking fun at post 51. I disagree with Ray and Joey's thoughts on CO2, but wish that people wouldn't pile on these guys and make it personal.
One interesting thing about atmospheric CO2: in the early '80's the geology dept at Columbia was starting to do research into "global warming", yet in the early 2000's there is still an open question as to where the carbon in the environmental carbon cycle is going. I think we should use less gas in our cars because air pollution is an unqualified bad thing. The bonus is less CO2 as it is probable, not definite, that global warming is due to human generated CO2.
   78. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4414380)
I didn't think he meant 52/you, depletion.
   79. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4414385)
Tell me again how and why you are a Christian? Aside from slavish devotion to church doctrine (the least important part IMO), I see absolutely nothing. Maybe it's just your adopted online persona, but I see very little about you that Jesus would approve of.

You apparently have only read the hippie dippie Jesus is your pal stuff. Read Revelation. Both from a theological and materialist perspective, we know the world will end, and humans will become extinct. It's only a question of when.

Jesus would say stop worrying about preserving your comfortable life tomorrow, and use those resources to help people suffering today.

   80. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4414388)
If you were trying to provoke a reaction, it worked.

I'm trying to get you to actually think about what you are proposing.

Your crowd wants to limit economic growth today out of speculation that at some point in the unknown future something really bad might happen.

There will be immediate real costs to any "anti-global warming" measures, and the brunt will be borne by the poor, who are struggling to get out of poverty, and need industrial development to do so. The only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions meaningfully is to stop the underdeveloped countries from developing. That will cause millions of deaths from poverty and disease.

On the other side, we have an unknown potential disaster with no estimates of odds or timing, and no idea whether any actions we take could possibly affect them.

You're proposing cutting off your nose because you might get skin cancer.
   81. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4414391)
Jesus would say stop worrying about preserving your comfortable life tomorrow, and use those resources to help people suffering today.


Yard sale at the Vatican!
   82. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4414393)
Jesus would say stop worrying about preserving your comfortable life tomorrow, and use those resources to help people suffering today.

Yard sale at the Vatican!


Those taxes will sure be a windfall for cash-strapped communities.
   83. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:50 AM (#4414396)
Jesus would say stop worrying about preserving your comfortable life tomorrow, and use those resources to help people suffering today.***


Hilarious, and not in a good way. Jesus would more likely say, instead, help the poor today who are suffering the horrors of pollution and bear the immediate and future brunt of global warming. Sacrifice some of your comfort now, snapper, to improve the lot of the poor and sick made only poorer and sicker by rising temperatures.

As usual you're simply making up whatever you feel like to support your... whimsical positions. No credible studies exist that show anything other than the poor are horribly ###### by global warming. Now, ten years from now, and in any time frame you care to choose.


***Well, as long as they don't use condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, yeah?

   84. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:56 AM (#4414404)
Hilarious, and not in a good way. Jesus would more likely say, instead, help the poor today who are suffering the horrors of pollution and bear the immediate and future brunt of global warming. Sacrifice some of your comfort now, snapper, to improve the lot of the poor and sick made only poorer and sicker by rising temperatures.

As usual you're simply making up whatever you feel like to support your... whimsical positions. No credible studies exist that show anything other than the poor are horribly ###### by global warming. Now, ten years from now, and in any time frame you care to choose.


Not one developing country is willing to limit their greenhouse emissions. They see it rightly as the West trying to stop them from doing exactly what we did to become wealthy.

I'm sure the poor countries would love to shut down all their polluting factories and go back to subsistence farming.
   85. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4414407)
Your crowd wants to limit economic growth today out of speculation that at some point in the unknown future something really bad might happen.

There will be immediate real costs to any "anti-global warming" measures, and the brunt will be borne by the poor, who are struggling to get out of poverty, and need industrial development to do so. The only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions meaningfully is to stop the underdeveloped countries from developing. That will cause millions of deaths from poverty and disease.

1. Be careful how you define 'my crowd' - there's some diverse viewpoints here (few would consider me an environmentalist, for one)... the commonality being disagreement with you.
2. I'm keenly aware that the poor will bear a lot of the burden here and that bothers me. OTOH, they will bear a lot of the burden of a failure to act as well (It sucks to be poor.) I think the rules for rich countries should be different than those poor countries face (and that this is more than fair - past pollution helped make/keep rich countries rich) and that market based solutions should be developed and utilized as possible. Yeah, I'm generalizing.
3. We all make tradeoffs between present and future all the time (I have a savings account and investments for a reason, rather than mlb.tv and traveling constantly). IMO, your discount rate suggests a selfishness I'm not comfortable with.
   86. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: April 15, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4414409)
You're proposing cutting off your nose because you might get skin cancer.


And you are proposing that putting on sunscreen is a waste of time and resources.
   87. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 11:04 AM (#4414414)
You're proposing cutting off your nose because you might get skin cancer.

And you are proposing that putting on sunscreen is a waste of time and resources.


Sunscreen is for nerds! Remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to kill everybody? Well we didn't do anything about it and we're all just fine today!
   88. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: April 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM (#4414416)
You apparently have only read the hippie dippie Jesus is your pal stuff. Read Revelation. Both from a theological and materialist perspective, we know the world will end, and humans will become extinct. It's only a question of when.


It's not this one issue. It's your entire outlook on life. Do you think Jesus would think it's proper to send a 14 year old to prison for life? Do you think Jesus would oppose condom use to prevent the spread of an epidemic that threatened millions? Do you think Jesus would oppose raising taxes on the rich and spending more money on education for the poor?
   89. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: April 15, 2013 at 11:07 AM (#4414418)
Sunscreen is for nerds! Remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to kill everybody? Well we didn't do anything about it and we're all just fine today!


Actually, we did do something about it. We banned CFSs, against visceral opposition, and that helped tremendously.
   90. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM (#4414420)
Sunscreen is for nerds! Remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to kill everybody? Well we didn't do anything about it and we're all just fine today!

Actually, we did do something about it. We banned CFSs, against visceral opposition, and that helped tremendously.


Did not!
   91. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM (#4414423)
Seriously, Liver, try good faith reading for comprehension. It'll shake your world. Since at least the 1960s Venus has been held up as a model of what can happen when greenhouse gases are trapped in an atmosphere, and it has been widely hypothesized that Venus once had an atmosphere much like Earth's.


It has been widely hypothesized, indeed. How long ago? Why did it change?

"Jack Carter", you're bullshitting. You've been caught bullshitting because you happened to post on a topic where there is a resident BBTF expert, with pretty degrees and a couple of publications and yada yada. It happens. You can go on posting on the 40 other topics where there isn't someone who used to do it for a living, and no one will be the wiser when you ########. But not on this topic.
   92. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM (#4414447)
One interesting thing about atmospheric CO2: in the early '80's the geology dept at Columbia was starting to do research into "global warming", yet in the early 2000's there is still an open question as to where the carbon in the environmental carbon cycle is going. I think we should use less gas in our cars because air pollution is an unqualified bad thing. The bonus is less CO2 as it is probable, not definite, that global warming is due to human generated CO2.


This isn't quite right. We have a pretty good idea of where the CO2 is going, but not a perfect idea. "Open question" is a bit strong - more like "we are continuing to refine our understanding". We're light years ahead of where we were when Wally Broecker was first banging the drum on this 30 years ago.
   93. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM (#4414454)
I'm just waiting for when I can take my rowboat from what used to be Jersey City out into the Hudson & touch the top of the Statue of Liberty's torch...
   94. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4414471)
If the solution were for the US to stop sending money to underdeveloped countries for foreign aid, or if the solution were to give rich people tax breaks of 50%, I wonder how many lefties would suddenly become Deniers.
   95. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: April 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4414472)
Aside from slavish devotion to church doctrine

Is there such a thing as non-slavish devotion? Is anybody here, say, kinda sorta devoted to the Red Sox?

There will be immediate real costs to any "anti-global warming" measures, and the brunt will be borne by the poor, who are struggling to get out of poverty, and need industrial development to do so. The only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions meaningfully is to stop the underdeveloped countries from developing. That will cause millions of deaths from poverty and disease.

That's the sticking point, I think. The "third world" contains desperately poor people run by largely authoritarian governments. They want what we've got it, and they're determined to get it, no matter what the EPA says.

So, if we can't go backwards, how about forwards? Can technology save us? (I tend to think that it can, but I wonder how much of that attitude is simply whistling past the graveyard...)
   96. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 15, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4414476)
Is there such a thing as non-slavish devotion? Is anybody here, say, kinda sorta devoted to the Red Sox?

I'd root for them in any World Series not involving the Nationals. Does that count?
   97. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM (#4414477)
That's the sticking point, I think. The "third world" contains desperately poor people run by largely authoritarian governments. They want what we've got it, and they're determined to get it, no matter what the EPA says.


It can be framed even more favorably to the third world position. Put simply, using fossil fuels is by far the most efficient way to industrialize/develop an economy. Why should devloping countries be forbidden from enjoying the same fossil-fuel driven growth that the developed world did?
   98. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 12:26 PM (#4414491)
Is anybody here, say, kinda sorta devoted to the Red Sox?


Actually, I guess that describes me. I don't follow any team in particular, but the closest I come is Boston, thanks mainly to having grown up liking several of their players. (Atlanta has elbowed its way into the picture the last few years, too, thanks mainly to geographic proximity, I guess.)
   99. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: April 15, 2013 at 12:27 PM (#4414492)
if the solution were to give rich people tax breaks of 50%


Prove to me that giving rich people a 50% tax cut will do anybody any good besides the rich people themselves, and I'm all for it. Hell, prove to me that it merely won't hurt anybody and I'm still on board.

And since foreign aid is mostly a boon to arms manufacturers, I'm sure most lefties are OK with eliminating that.
   100. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 15, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4414495)
It's not this one issue. It's your entire outlook on life. Do you think Jesus would think it's proper to send a 14 year old to prison for life? Do you think Jesus would oppose condom use to prevent the spread of an epidemic that threatened millions? Do you think Jesus would oppose raising taxes on the rich and spending more money on education for the poor?

I have no evidence one way or the other on how Jesus would view life imprisonment of a 14 y.o.

Jesus would tell the people spreading the epidemic to stop fornicating and committing adultery. Jesus never went for the easy solution.

Jesus was also silent on the appropriate levels of taxation and education funding.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding Christian teaching. Christ's teaching was never about trying to build a "perfect kingdom on earth", it was always about preparing oneself for the Kingdom of God.

No amount of public policy is a substitute for personal morality and personal charity. If you think there isn't enough money going to education for the poor, then your first step should be cutting a check to a poor school, or a scholarship fund for poor children. Your second should be trying to convince your friends to do likewise. I personally give several thousand dollars a year to Catholic schools serving poor neighborhoods.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER: Wednesday April 16, 2014
(106 - 2:46am, Apr 17)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(181 - 2:16am, Apr 17)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogNightengale: Pujols nears 500 home runs...and no one seems to care
(67 - 2:15am, Apr 17)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(240 - 1:55am, Apr 17)
Last: Booey

NewsblogVerducci: Overuse of young pitchers fueling MLB's Tommy John surgery problem
(43 - 12:51am, Apr 17)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogPaine: Advanced Stats Love Jackie Robinson
(8 - 12:50am, Apr 17)
Last: JE (Jason Epstein)

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(38 - 12:46am, Apr 17)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(95 - 11:42pm, Apr 16)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(132 - 10:55pm, Apr 16)
Last: zack

NewsblogExposition:The Jonah Keri Mega Q&A
(6 - 10:50pm, Apr 16)
Last: God

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(52 - 10:46pm, Apr 16)
Last: Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(60 - 10:30pm, Apr 16)
Last: I Helped Patrick McGoohan Escape

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1393 - 10:15pm, Apr 16)
Last: Publius Publicola

NewsblogAstros To Promote George Springer
(40 - 9:20pm, Apr 16)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogGothamist: Yankee Stadium Is Selling Nachos In A Helmet For $20
(72 - 9:04pm, Apr 16)
Last: puck

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.7925 seconds
52 querie(s) executed