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

Monday, May 07, 2018

The Yankees’ new Death Star is fully operational | Yahoo Sports

The latest to play hero in The Bronx is none other than new second baseman Gleyber Torres — who for all intents and purposes was the final piece separating the lovable ‘Baby Bombers’ from returning to full on ‘Evil Empire’ status.

Torres became the youngest player in Yankees history to launch a walk-off home run as New York emerged with a 7-4 victory over the Indians for its 15th win in 16 games. It was Torres second homer in as many days.

Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: May 07, 2018 at 12:59 AM | 102 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: evil empire strikes back, gleyber torres, this is the darkest timeline, yankees

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. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 07, 2018 at 02:29 AM (#5667619)
The Yankees’ new Death Star is fully operational

Almost - waiting on Greg Bird's return.
   2. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: May 07, 2018 at 06:15 AM (#5667623)
Doesn't the Death Star always blow up in the end?
   3. Leroy Kincaid Posted: May 07, 2018 at 06:22 AM (#5667625)
Doesn't the Death Star always blow up in the end?


Not before it takes out a planet.
   4. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 06:26 AM (#5667627)
The Empire did nothing wrong.
   5. villageidiom Posted: May 07, 2018 at 08:18 AM (#5667644)
The Empire did nothing wrong.
Were they responsible for training stormtrooper marksmanship?
   6. Blastin Posted: May 07, 2018 at 08:48 AM (#5667648)
I hereby submit that the Yankees' current 16-2 is more impressive than the Sox's earlier 17-2 based on strength of competition (projected .551 combiend WPCT).


But I understand if people disagree. Of course, if they win tomorrow it'll be 17-2 anyway.
   7. Rally Posted: May 07, 2018 at 08:48 AM (#5667649)
They also provided crappy body armor, most likely sourced from the lowest bidder. It won’t protect from a laser blast, but it must really piss off the troops that it won’t even protect from a rock thrown by an Ewok.
   8. PreservedFish Posted: May 07, 2018 at 09:11 AM (#5667654)
It's true that you don't get a very balanced view of life under the Empire. Sure, they seem fascist, but you would have no ideas what freedoms Americans do and do not enjoy if all you saw was a movie about America that sets every scene in the Pentagon or on the battlefield.
   9. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 09:17 AM (#5667658)
Almost - waiting on Greg Bird's return.

Don't hold your breath.

Were they responsible for training stormtrooper marksmanship?

They also provided crappy body armor, most likely sourced from the lowest bidder. It won’t protect from a laser blast, but it must really piss off the troops that it won’t even protect from a rock thrown by an Ewok.

Yeah, the actual WWI Sturmann were more combat effective than those guys.
   10. BDC Posted: May 07, 2018 at 09:22 AM (#5667663)
We can assume that the Empire hates Scandinavian film, given their attitude towards Max von Sydow and Mads Mikkelsen.
   11. McCoy Posted: May 07, 2018 at 09:30 AM (#5667665)
Live near the Kennesaw Mountain battlefield park and have gone up and down the mountain numerous times. Yesterday was the first time I actually walked the trails that go along that actual battle lines of the Civil War battle which was a lot more eye opening. Walked along the trail of Cheatham Hill where the divisions of Illinois assaulted the lines along an area that would come to be known as the "Dead Angle". The battle lines can still be seen and they appear to have kept the geography of the charge similar to how it was back then. Kind of insane that people as late as 1864 still did these suicidal frontal assaults (never mind 1914). At the apex of the assault the lines were a mere 30 to 40 yards apart and they would stay that way for 6 to 7 days. The union got to building a tunnel that they were going to use to blow a hole in the Confederate lines. Dug about 80 feet of it before the Confederates abandoned the position. Something like half the union casualties (3,000 for the Kennesaw Mountain Battle) happened at Cheatham Hill. In 1866 they would move the dead to the city of Marietta where I live across the street from the Confederate dead and about a mile away from the Union dead but in 1938 they found a Union body buried just feet away from the Confederate lines and they decided to leave the body there and turn it into a tomb of the unknown soldier.
   12. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 09:45 AM (#5667669)
Kind of insane that people as late as 1864 still did these suicidal frontal assaults

The Civil War was among the first major conflicts with the rifled musket/minie ball. Both sides took a long time to get used to the lethality. The entire doctrine of infantry and artillery had to change; artillery could no longer outrange infantry in direct fire, so had to shift to indirect fire.

Of course by 1863-64, there was no excuse. Just poor generalship. Grant went from an A level commander in the west to a C- butcher in the East. Sherman showed how to fight a war when you have superior numbers. Flank 'em, flank 'em, and flank 'em again. Kennesaw mountain was a costly departure from his general strategy.
   13. . . . . . . Posted: May 07, 2018 at 09:57 AM (#5667671)
Grant went from an A level commander in the west to a C- butcher in the East.


Such bullshit. Grant was a tactical genius when he could win with tactics and a strategic genius when he could win with strategy. The Confederacy was never going to be crushed into total submission with military brio and derring-do.
   14. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 10:01 AM (#5667675)
Such bullshit. Grant was a tactical genius when he could win with tactics and a strategic genius when he could win with strategy.

No general who resorts to attrition is a genius. The idea that we'll just trade two our our casualties for one of theirs, and it's OK b/c we have more men, is morally reprehensible. Grant practiced Verdun-level idiocy in the late War.

Grant could have sat on his ass watching Lee, and let the war be won in the West, and the outcome would have been absolutely the same. There was zero reason to assault fortified positions in Virginia, when there was a wide open theater where Union troops could be redeployed en masse.

A direct assault on a fortified enemy is always a failure of military imagination.
   15. McCoy Posted: May 07, 2018 at 10:11 AM (#5667681)
Except it was Sherman that ordered the frontal assault at Kennesaw and not Grant. The whole flank, flank, flank thing was/is not some new technique. It has been the tried and true technique of warfare since at least the phalanx. Flank, flank, flank was en vogue throughout the Civil War. The problem was that the battles in and around Northern Virginia were not really conducive to that style of fighting which lead to inaction in some cases (McClellan) and carnage in other cases. In NoVA the Union was attempting to get to Richmond while also protecting DC so you could only flank so much and then on top of that you had the ocean to your left and the Wilderness and mountains to your right. Out west the battles could be more fluid because there were less men and less natural barriers and the Union didn't need to defend a pathway to anything of theirs for the most part.

Grant quickly realized that the Union would win a battle of attrition and that the key to victory was to keep on hitting the Confederates over and over and over as opposed to the previous Union strategy which was to hem and haw for months, allow the Confederates to either dig in or get away, have a battle, suffer casualties and then have inaction for months to allow the Confederates time to rebuild and restructure their armies so as to put their men where they are needed most.

Artillery changed to indirect fire for several reasons and it had little to do with the range of the rifle. Armies were still using direct fire artillery at the start of WWI. Direct fire artillery was/is deadly in fluid battles when armies are on the move and have little time to dig in and prepare. Those were the battles of the Napoleonic era and a huge chunk of the Civil War. Troops in the Civil War lined up and marched hundreds of hundreds of yards to engage opposing troops. Direct fire is quite effective against this style of attack. Indirect fire need time to prepare or at least have a somewhat static battle line. Good lines of communication and good reconnaissance. You also need better artillery and shell technology to have effective indirect fire. High explosive shells didn't come onto the scene until the late 1880's. It was also in the 1880's that we started to see manufacturers able to build large barreled pieces of artillery. The final issue was the actual ability to aim artillery for indirect fire and again that wasn't really solved until the late 1880's or early 1890's.
   16. Blastin Posted: May 07, 2018 at 10:17 AM (#5667684)
You guys crack me up.
   17. McCoy Posted: May 07, 2018 at 10:20 AM (#5667686)
No general who resorts to attrition is a genius. The idea that we'll just trade two our our casualties for one of theirs, and it's OK b/c we have more men, is morally reprehensible. Grant practiced Verdun-level idiocy in the late War.

Grant could have sat on his ass watching Lee, and let the war be won in the West, and the outcome would have been absolutely the same. There was zero reason to assault fortified positions in Virginia, when there was a wide open theater where Union troops could be redeployed en masse.

A direct assault on a fortified enemy is always a failure of military imagination.


The war was already won and over with in the West and the Confederacy had not fallen. There is this myth that always seems to never go away that you can sit around and not get your hands bloody and your enemy will surrender. It doesn't happen. You can't bomb your way into forcing a country into submitting. You can't starve your way into getting them to submit. At the end of the day those things can help but you still have to get in there and take things away and spill blood.

That isn't to say that all of Grant's decisions were good. Cold Harbor was indeed a folly but the Overland Campaign was a success for Grant and it would have been a huge success for Grant had he not decided to wage a battle at Cold Harbor. Without Cold Harbor Grant had inflicted about 30,000 casualties on Lee while Grant had 40,000 casualties. Lee was incapable of replacing most of those men while Grant could be back to full strength quickly. The OC pushed Lee back to Richmond and Petersburg and pinned Lee's army down to one geographic spot where it would either fight and perish or stagnate and perish.
   18. DavidFoss Posted: May 07, 2018 at 10:31 AM (#5667693)
The OC pushed Lee back to Richmond and Petersburg and pinned Lee's army down to one geographic spot where it would either fight and perish or stagnate and perish.

The Petersburg Siege is what won the war. They didn't teach that to me in HS (sieges are less boring than short high-casualty battles I guess). Are you saying that without the bloody attrition battles of May 1864, that Grant wouldn't have been able to surround Lee at Petersburg? (Non-rhetorical question, you guys sound like bigger buffs than me).
   19. BDC Posted: May 07, 2018 at 10:41 AM (#5667699)
I think you have to distinguish tactical flanking on the battlefield, or even operational flanking during a limited campaign, from the kind of strategic movement that Sherman practiced in Georgia. Sherman was freed from having to defend anything – there were other armies available to defend Nashville, etc., and they did. So he could disperse his men across the March-to-the-Sea route and use the Emancipation Proclamation to destroy the slave economy wherever he went.

In the east, as McCoy notes, Grant couldn't do quite the same thing. Roaming the central Virginia woods and foothills, heading gradually for North Carolina, while Lee had a substantial army just south of Washington, was not an option. For better or worse, Grant had to show that he could advance on Richmond, engaging Lee, while Sherman was advancing in Georgia – it was a political as much as a military imperative.
   20. McCoy Posted: May 07, 2018 at 10:46 AM (#5667705)
Grant wanted to meet Lee in battle and destroy his army. The only way Grant could draw out Lee was if he moved on Richmond. Lee would have to engage Grant if Grant either got between Lee and Richmond or threatened to march on Richmond. So Grant did just that. At the beginning of May Grant crossed the Rapidan River and was about 65 miles away from Richmond. Lee fought him in a stubborn battle that created many casualties. So far Lee faced a classical Civil War campaign. The next Union move would have been to pull back, dig in, and lick their wounds. Grant did not do that. The next day after the Battle of the Wilderness Grant engaged Confederate troops by maneuvering to Spotsylvania where the two sides slug it out for almost two weeks. Grant again maneuvered toward Richmond instead of falling back and this would happen over and over through the rest of May and June to the point that Grant was actually below Richmond in the middle of June and he then crossed the James River and made a move on Petersburg. If you think about that that is monumental. A union general had intentionally left the path to DC open and instead focused on smashing the Confederate army and taking out Richmond. McClellan would never have done that. McClellan would have smashed into the Confederate lines initially and then dug in and done nothing for months.
   21. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 07, 2018 at 10:51 AM (#5667707)
After Shohei Ohtani (1.018), the AL rookies with the highest OPS (50+ PA) are the Yankees Tyler Austin (.878), Gleyber Torres (.857) & Miguel Andujar (.781).
   22. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 07, 2018 at 11:04 AM (#5667715)
I hereby submit that the Yankees' current 16-2 is more impressive than the Sox's earlier 17-2 based on strength of competition (projected .551 combiend WPCT).

That stretch also came without an off day, and included a jaunt to the west coast to sweep the Angels, as well as a stop in Houston to take 3-of-4 from the Astros.
   23. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 11:04 AM (#5667718)
The war was already won and over with in the West and the Confederacy had not fallen. There is this myth that always seems to never go away that you can sit around and not get your hands bloody and your enemy will surrender. It doesn't happen.

Then let them starve in their trenches. When the soldiers run out of food they'll either go home, or cease to be effective in short order.

In the east, as McCoy notes, Grant couldn't do quite the same thing. Roaming the central Virginia woods and foothills, heading gradually for North Carolina, while Lee had a substantial army just south of Washington, was not an option. For better or worse, Grant had to show that he could advance on Richmond, engaging Lee, while Sherman was advancing in Georgia – it was a political as much as a military imperative.

But, he didn't need to conduct repeated assault. All he need to do was demonstrate and maneuver and skirmish with Lee to prevent him sending forces south.
   24. McCoy Posted: May 07, 2018 at 11:10 AM (#5667720)
The armies of the Confederacy were not trapped before Grant came along. They were never going to be starved into submission or at least it would have taken years and years to do that and the Union did not have the political ability to wait years and years.


Even Sherman in his maneuvers in GA engaged with the enemy. The idea that Grant could somehow avoid battle while demonstrating on Richmond is absurd. At some point Lee is going to fight him and the key thing was what the Union army would do next. Normally afterwards they would back off and do little. What Grant did was keep on going which forced Lee to keep on engaging with Grant. That was key. Moving around and doing little was the Union strategy for much of the war in VA and it caused a great deal of casualties and achieved little. It allowed Lee to set the tempo and decide when and where to fight. Grant took that away from Lee.
   25. Mefisto Posted: May 07, 2018 at 11:19 AM (#5667727)
In addition to the points McCoy is making, casualties in the traitor army during 1864 prevented it from having the ability to move north. Grant could afford to move on Richmond precisely because he prevented Lee from moving on DC (or MD or PA).

The starvation argument is nonsense. The rail lines delivering food to the traitors came from (a) the Shenandoah Valley; and (b) the rail lines South and East of Petersburg. Nobody was going to starve unless and until Grant could cut those lines. That's why he needed Sheridan in the Valley and himself at Petersburg.
   26. Blastin Posted: May 07, 2018 at 11:28 AM (#5667733)
So how bout the Yankees?
   27. McCoy Posted: May 07, 2018 at 11:31 AM (#5667739)
I thought we were talking about the Yankees.
   28. perros Posted: May 07, 2018 at 11:35 AM (#5667743)
Traitor talk is pretty funny coming from any 'Murican.
   29. DavidFoss Posted: May 07, 2018 at 11:47 AM (#5667748)
So how bout the Yankees?

Brooklyn was dominant during the war. They didn't start playing great baseball way up in Morisania until later in the 60s.
   30. Blastin Posted: May 07, 2018 at 11:55 AM (#5667756)
That stretch also came without an off day, and included a jaunt to the west coast to sweep the Angels, as well as a stop in Houston to take 3-of-4 from the Astros.


Oh yes, the travel is another factor, but I just didn't know the Sox travel so I didn't want to say that and be caught out wrong.
   31. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: May 07, 2018 at 11:57 AM (#5667760)
Traitor talk is pretty funny coming from any 'Murican.


There are at least two rather critical distinctions between the traitors of the 1770s and those of the 1860s, which I am sure you are aware of. The 1770s guys a) won, and b) would have hanged if they hadn't. That makes the talk a lot less funny IMO.
   32. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 07, 2018 at 12:07 PM (#5667770)
C. C. Sabathia indicated he will likely retire if the Yankees win the World Series. He's 2-0 with a 1.39 ERA, so it would probably be his choice if he continues to pitch anything like that. However, if he'd pitch another year if they didn't win it all, I wouldn't rule out his eventually finding the challenge of repeating to be worthy of his time - properly compensated, of course.
   33. . . . . . . Posted: May 07, 2018 at 12:25 PM (#5667784)
Everyone else has made all the good detailed arguments about how stupid snapper's position was (before a break at work let me have my turn), so cokes to all of them.

Lincoln + Grant was the best combination of political and military leader this nation ever had. Grant, being Grant and not giving a ####, understood the nature of total war so much more quickly than his contemporaries.

snapper would've been fighting his gentleman's war in 1914, too.
   34. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 12:34 PM (#5667789)
All you basement-dwellers have a distorted idea of the Star Wars situation from your childhood impressions and the unbalanced story they presented in the original trilogy. Now viewed with a bit more situational context we realize the vaunted Jedi, purported "heroes", are in fact the cloistered private muscle of a hereditary theocracy - literally a hereditary theocracy! Hard to think of anything more un-American than a group of inbred Inquisitors operating as the thuggish arm of the government.
   35. Chip Posted: May 07, 2018 at 01:14 PM (#5667816)
That stretch also came without an off day, and included a jaunt to the west coast to sweep the Angels, as well as a stop in Houston to take 3-of-4 from the Astros.



Oh yes, the travel is another factor, but I just didn't know the Sox travel so I didn't want to say that and be caught out wrong.


The Sox 17-2 stretch was 10 road games, 9 home, including the start of a West Coast trip in which they outscored the Angels 27-3 during the 3-game sweep. At home they took 2-3 from the Yankees and swept the Rays and Orioles. On the road, in addition to LAA they took 3 of 4 from Tampa, swept the Marlins in 2, and took the first game in an Oakland series they ended up losing.

The A’s and Rays have turned out to be competitive teams in the early going, with Oakland over .500 with a +3 run differential, Tampa 2 games under with a -2, not much different from Cleveland’s current .500 and +5. And the Indians have played the weakest schedule in the AL to date per BB-Ref’s SOS.
   36. Swoboda is freedom Posted: May 07, 2018 at 01:30 PM (#5667823)
Were they responsible for training stormtrooper marksmanship?

How about automatic weapons fire, which could have covered up a lot of sins. It was available in Rogue One, which means the storm troopers should have had it.
   37. GregD Posted: May 07, 2018 at 01:40 PM (#5667832)
The Civil War was among the first major conflicts with the rifled musket/minie ball. Both sides took a long time to get used to the lethality. The entire doctrine of infantry and artillery had to change; artillery could no longer outrange infantry in direct fire, so had to shift to indirect fire.
There's been a significant pushback on this view--long the standard view and somewhat calcified into conventional wisdom. Earl Hess, an extremely rigorous researcher, has delivered a pretty devastating counter to the conventional wisdom. It will probably take a few decades--maybe more!--before the conventional wisdom disappears even from lectures and historical texts (and perhaps will never disappear from pop culture since discredited views live forever there) but almost all younger historians have shifted their view in response to Hess' work. Look here and here
   38. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: May 07, 2018 at 01:42 PM (#5667833)
How about automatic weapons fire, which could have covered up a lot of sins. It was available in Rogue One, which means the storm troopers should have had it.


Geez, dude, they did.
   39. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: May 07, 2018 at 01:50 PM (#5667842)
So how bout the Yankees?


Two ripe topics (Star Wars*, and the Yankees), and we wind up on Civil War tactics.

*But seriously, is "Solo" going to be run-of-the-mill bad, or "War of the Clones"-level travesty?
   40. Rally Posted: May 07, 2018 at 01:58 PM (#5667850)
All you basement-dwellers have a distorted idea of the Star Wars situation from your childhood impressions and the unbalanced story they presented in the original trilogy. Now viewed with a bit more situational context we realize the vaunted Jedi, purported "heroes", are in fact the cloistered private muscle of a hereditary theocracy - literally a hereditary theocracy! Hard to think of anything more un-American than a group of inbred Inquisitors operating as the thuggish arm of the government.


It's not hereditary. Jedi are not supposed to have kids. Yeah, I know Vader broke the rule. The ones strong with the force seem to occur randomly across the universe, and when found they are taken from their parents. Pick a random Jedi, he probably does not even know who his parents were, and most likely is not following their footsteps into a position of power.
   41. The Good Face Posted: May 07, 2018 at 02:01 PM (#5667852)
There's been a significant pushback on this view--long the standard view and somewhat calcified into conventional wisdom. Earl Hess, an extremely rigorous researcher, has delivered a pretty devastating counter to the conventional wisdom. It will probably take a few decades--maybe more!--before the conventional wisdom disappears even from lectures and historical texts (and perhaps will never disappear from pop culture since discredited views live forever there) but almost all younger historians have shifted their view in response to Hess' work. Look here and here


Those are good arguments with respect to range/training/preferred use by soldiers, but the Minie ball carried a different ballistic profile than the previously used lead ball, which resulted in increased muzzle velocity, greater energy delivery, and different wound channels. Ball ammunition often slides around bones or particularly dense muscle, while the tapered Minie ball (which was also moving faster) tended to shatter bone or penetrate straight through dense muscle. Compound fractures were super bad news in the 1860s.

It's possible he addressed those issues in the book itself, but those articles don't touch on them.
   42. Lassus Posted: May 07, 2018 at 02:03 PM (#5667854)
*But seriously, is "Solo" going to be run-of-the-mill bad, or "War of the Clones"-level travesty?

Former. I trust Ron Howard, mostly.
   43. GregD Posted: May 07, 2018 at 02:04 PM (#5667855)
It's possible he addressed those issues in the book itself, but those articles don't touch on them.
They aren't articles; they are the book's publication pages at their presses
   44. The Good Face Posted: May 07, 2018 at 02:08 PM (#5667858)
It's possible he addressed those issues in the book itself, but those articles don't touch on them.

They aren't articles; they are the book's publication pages at their presses


Those summaries didn't address those issues.
   45. McCoy Posted: May 07, 2018 at 02:24 PM (#5667884)
Interesting stuff. Anyone who thinks infantry engage in long range gunfights is incredibly wrong. Now granted quite a few armies believed in long range rifles to the point that your common European foot soldier was carrying around a tree by the end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th century. But detailed analysis of virtually any war involving rifles from the Crimean on reveals that the effective range of rifled soldiers is much much smaller than the supposed effective range of the rifles they are using. Soldiers had to get up close and somewhat personal in order to actually fire their weapon and have a chance to actually hit something in real combat beyond sniping.
   46. Blastin Posted: May 07, 2018 at 02:24 PM (#5667886)
The A’s and Rays have turned out to be competitive teams in the early going, with Oakland over .500 with a +3 run differential, Tampa 2 games under with a -2, not much different from Cleveland’s current .500 and +5. And the Indians have played the weakest schedule in the AL to date per BB-Ref’s SOS.


I mean, so the travel wasn't any better, though I still think Houston/Angels/Jays/Indians is slightly superior to "it turns out they are competitive." But it's all just random noise.

(The Twins are not an MLB team in the Bronx)
   47. The Good Face Posted: May 07, 2018 at 02:41 PM (#5667906)
Interesting stuff. Anyone who thinks infantry engage in long range gunfights is incredibly wrong. Now granted quite a few armies believed in long range rifles to the point that your common European foot soldier was carrying around a tree by the end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th century. But detailed analysis of virtually any war involving rifles from the Crimean on reveals that the effective range of rifled soldiers is much much smaller than the supposed effective range of the rifles they are using. Soldiers had to get up close and somewhat personal in order to actually fire their weapon and have a chance to actually hit something in real combat beyond sniping.


Pretty much. Which is why, after WWII, militaries started downsizing their clunky, high caliber battle rifles and shifted to smaller, lighter assault rifles. If only snipers and designated marksmen are going to be effective shooting at targets more than a couple hundred meters away, might as well give everybody else cheaper, lighter guns that are easier to shoot and carry, and that use cheaper, lighter ammo that soldiers can carry more of.
   48. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5667929)
snapper would've been fighting his gentleman's war in 1914, too.

If I were Prime Minister of France or England, I would have made peace in Winter 1914, at whatever price was necessary. And my country would have been far better off in the long-run that by "winning" the war. The U.S. should have taken one look at the slaughter and told France and Britain, "You're on your own."

There is no moral justification for subjecting your population to that kind of slaughter, unless your enemies are eliminationists, like the Nazis or Soviet/Chinese Communists, or horrible totalitarians. European civilization destroyed itself fighting that pointless war.

If France had collapsed in 1914 like they did in 1940, we could have arrived at the German dominated Europe we have today, and spared the World two horrific wars, the Cold War, Nazism, Communism, and 100 million plus death.
   49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 03:06 PM (#5667932)
The starvation argument is nonsense. The rail lines delivering food to the traitors came from (a) the Shenandoah Valley; and (b) the rail lines South and East of Petersburg. Nobody was going to starve unless and until Grant could cut those lines. That's why he needed Sheridan in the Valley and himself at Petersburg.

Where were they going to get powder, and arms?
   50. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 03:09 PM (#5667934)
There's been a significant pushback on this view--long the standard view and somewhat calcified into conventional wisdom. Earl Hess, an extremely rigorous researcher, has delivered a pretty devastating counter to the conventional wisdom. It will probably take a few decades--maybe more!--before the conventional wisdom disappears even from lectures and historical texts (and perhaps will never disappear from pop culture since discredited views live forever there) but almost all younger historians have shifted their view in response to Hess' work. Look here and here

Combat ranges never reached the 1000 M+ that some early 20th century military men thought were going to happen. But they're pretty typically 300 M, which is well within the accurate range of a Minie-Rifle-Musket. That's opposed to 50 M (being very charitable) for a smoothbore.

Before the Minie rifle, a battery of artillery could deploy 300 M from an infantry formations, and blast the hell out of is. With the rifle-muskets, those gunners got slaughtered.
   51. Swoboda is freedom Posted: May 07, 2018 at 03:16 PM (#5667940)
Before the Minie rifle, a battery of artillery could deploy 300 M from an infantry formations, and blast the hell out of is. With the rifle-muskets, those gunners got slaughtered.

But cannon also became rifled and became more accurate over distance. They also developed explosive shells instead of solid shot or cannister shot over short distance.
   52. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 03:19 PM (#5667945)
But cannon also became rifled and became more accurate over distance. They also developed explosive shells instead of solid shot or cannister shot over short distance.

Right. That was the transition forced by the Civil War (although there were signs of it in the Mexican War). Artillery doctrine at the time of the Civil War hadn't caught up with the technology of rifles, or artillery.

The move from direct fire with shot and canister, to indirect fire with explosive shells was a major doctrinal leap. Everyone in 1860 still thought the best way to fight was to mimic Napoleonic tactics.
   53. Rally Posted: May 07, 2018 at 03:41 PM (#5667970)
And the Indians have played the weakest schedule in the AL to date per BB-Ref’s SOS.


That is quite sustainable. 3 of the 5 teams in their division are outright rebuilding.
   54. Swoboda is freedom Posted: May 07, 2018 at 03:45 PM (#5667976)
Right. That was the transition forced by the Civil War (although there were signs of it in the Mexican War)

Don't forget the Crimean. Very similar war to civil in some ways. New tactics and weapons. Old generals.
   55. BDC Posted: May 07, 2018 at 03:49 PM (#5667981)
Everyone in 1860 still thought the best way to fight was to mimic Napoleonic tactics

Although as early as Shiloh (April 1862), commanders avoided charging across open fields and such. That's the inference that historian Stacy Allen memorably described in Tony Horwitz's book Confederates in the Attic: “Grandpa was brave but he wasn’t stupid.”
   56. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 03:52 PM (#5667985)
Don't forget the Crimean. Very similar war to civil in some ways. New tactics and weapons. Old generals.

Yes. Except the Russians were still using smooth bores, so the Brits and French could get away with a lot of stuff that wouldn't fly in the Civil War.

Although as early as Shiloh (April 1862), commanders avoided charging across open fields and such. That's the inference that historian Stacy Allen memorably described in Tony Horwitz's book Confederates in the Attic: “Grandpa was brave but he wasn’t stupid.”

Yet we still got Pickett's charge, and a bunch of other costly frontal assaults.
   57. DavidFoss Posted: May 07, 2018 at 03:55 PM (#5667991)
That is quite sustainable. 3 of the 5 teams in their division are outright rebuilding.

They list Cleveland as having the easiest 'remaining' schedule in the AL. Average opponent record of 14-18. They get to play the Reds six times this year as well.

I don't see the current SOS number being lowest. That looks like Detroit right now. But Cleveland just finished a series against the Yankees and maybe the poster above looked at the SOS numbers before that series.
   58. Dennis Eclairskey, closer Posted: May 07, 2018 at 03:56 PM (#5667992)
And of course the charge at the battle of Franklin by the Army of Tennessee was up there with Pickett’s charge in costly disasters
   59. BDC Posted: May 07, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5667998)
Stacy Allen (in Horwitz's book) actually points to the charges at both Gettysburg and Franklin as anomalies. His work at Shiloh is interesting, in that the received history of the battle includes Quixotic charges across fields in the face of lethally massed rifled-musket fire – but Allen argues that such charges simply didn't happen at Shiloh. (If they had, burial patterns on the field would have looked much different.)
   60. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 04:09 PM (#5668002)
Stacy Allen (in Horwitz's book) actually points to the charges at both Gettysburg and Franklin as anomalies.

What about Fredericksburg? They charged up that damn hill all day.
   61. Cowboy Popup Posted: May 07, 2018 at 04:57 PM (#5668046)
*But seriously, is "Solo" going to be run-of-the-mill bad, or "War of the Clones"-level travesty?

I'm guessing it will be bad when Glover is on screen and a travesty when he's not. I have zero faith in Ron Howard, particularly building on top of what Lord & Miller did (which would likely have been a much better movie).
   62. zenbitz Posted: May 07, 2018 at 05:03 PM (#5668053)
I think it's generally agreed that there was a moron in charge at Fredericksburg. Same moron that has a bridge named after him over Antietam creek. And for some bizarre reason, a major thoroughfare in Portland, Oregon.

And consider that while Grant shed a huge amount of Union blood, he did, at least, win the battles. Not true of Fredericksburg where the Union charged up the hill all day and didn't even win.

If I were Prime Minister of France or England, I would have made peace in Winter 1914, at whatever price was necessary.


Snapper also thinks the USSR should have surrendered to the Germans. :) Miss you bud!
   63. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 05:06 PM (#5668057)
*But seriously, is "Solo" going to be run-of-the-mill bad, or "War of the Clones"-level travesty?


I dunno, the guy playing Han Solo was really good in "Hail Caesar". I won't go see this movie but if I did I'd be yelling out "Trippingly!"
   64. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 05:30 PM (#5668068)
All you basement-dwellers have a distorted idea of the Star Wars situation from your childhood impressions and the unbalanced story they presented in the original trilogy. Now viewed with a bit more situational context we realize the vaunted Jedi, purported "heroes", are in fact the cloistered private muscle of a hereditary theocracy - literally a hereditary theocracy! Hard to think of anything more un-American than a group of inbred Inquisitors operating as the thuggish arm of the government.

It's not hereditary. Jedi are not supposed to have kids. Yeah, I know Vader broke the rule. The ones strong with the force seem to occur randomly across the universe, and when found they are taken from their parents. Pick a random Jedi, he probably does not even know who his parents were, and most likely is not following their footsteps into a position of power.


Wow, you totally buy in to their theocratic propaganda. I can't say I'm entirely surprised, given as how people on earth certainly bought into the "priests don't have children" and "Jesus selects the Pope through magic mind control" baloney, but it's still pretty shameful.

Newsflash you nerf-herder, everything you've ever seen about the Star Wars universe is literally terrorist propaganda. When one side is half romantic subplots and the other side only seems to spend their time scheming and rubbing their hands together in wicked glee you should realize you're being suckered.
   65. zenbitz Posted: May 07, 2018 at 05:39 PM (#5668074)
*But seriously, is "Solo" going to be run-of-the-mill bad, or "War of the Clones"-level travesty?


I dunno but to quote another poster from another (OT) thread... I *am* the target demographic.
   66. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 06:34 PM (#5668097)
Would that it were so simple.
   67. Greg Pope Posted: May 07, 2018 at 06:40 PM (#5668100)
But seriously, is "Solo" going to be run-of-the-mill bad, or "War of the Clones"-level travesty?

So my problem going into it is that I think they're going to jam everything we know about Han into one movie. From what I've heard, the movie addresses meeting Lando, acquiring the Falcon, meeting Chewbacca, the Kessel Run, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting. Why should everything we've learned about Han have happened within such a short time frame? Why not plan for a couple of movies and leave some things for later?
   68. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 06:42 PM (#5668101)
Because then it would be called “Duo”.
   69. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: May 07, 2018 at 06:44 PM (#5668102)
Because then it would be called “Duo”.
[golf clap]
   70. BDC Posted: May 07, 2018 at 06:47 PM (#5668104)
Doesn’t the Kessel Run claim have to be bullshit? If there even is a Kessel Run.

Actually showing it would be like an Othello prequel where he really meets the Anthropophagi, and men whose heads do grow beneath their shoulders.
   71. eric Posted: May 07, 2018 at 06:50 PM (#5668106)
the Kessel Run


As long as they can come up with a good explanation for how one can do it in under 12 parsecs without it sounding like a desperation goof cover-up, then I'll be happy.
   72. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: May 07, 2018 at 06:50 PM (#5668107)
So my problem going into it is that I think they're going to jam everything we know about Han into one movie. From what I've heard, the movie addresses meeting Lando, acquiring the Falcon, meeting Chewbacca, the Kessel Run, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting. Why should everything we've learned about Han have happened within such a short time frame? Why not plan for a couple of movies and leave some things for later?
Jabba would be a big one. In the right hands you could turn that into an entire 2nd Solo movie, like a mob movie in space with some heist elements to it.
   73. Zach Posted: May 07, 2018 at 07:54 PM (#5668157)
Why not plan for a couple of movies and leave some things for later?

Principled objection to unnecessary sequels and mercenary franchise extensions?
   74. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 08:08 PM (#5668166)
NAAAAAAHHHHHHH
   75. John DiFool2 Posted: May 07, 2018 at 08:33 PM (#5668189)
So how bout the Yankees?


The first Yankee who steps out of that dugout gets his head blown off.
   76. McCoy Posted: May 07, 2018 at 09:39 PM (#5668234)
Cannons in the Civil War were rarely unexposed to direct small arms fire. Armies almost always built up earthen works and other barriers between the field of fire and the guns. That isn't to say that artillery crews weren't exposed to danger but they most certainly didn't get slaughtered. Opposing armies also didn't loiter within the lethal range of guns so no small arms did not neutralize guns. If I'm reading the conversation correctly that seems to be the argument being put forward. Indirect fire and howitzers came about because technology improved to the point where those kinds of weapons were far more lethal than grapeshot, solid shot, and fused shells.
   77. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 10:23 PM (#5668258)
Cannons in the Civil War were rarely unexposed to direct small arms fire. Armies almost always built up earthen works and other barriers between the field of fire and the guns. That isn't to say that artillery crews weren't exposed to danger but they most certainly didn't get slaughtered. Opposing armies also didn't loiter within the lethal range of guns so no small arms did not neutralize guns. If I'm reading the conversation correctly that seems to be the argument being put forward. Indirect fire and howitzers came about because technology improved to the point where those kinds of weapons were far more lethal than grapeshot, solid shot, and fused shells.

This is just wrong. Pre-war U.S. Army doctrine called for the Horse Artillery to deploy far forward on the battlefield, even in front of the Infantry, to deliver direct fire against opposing Infantry. In the First Battle of Bull Run, several U.S. batteries got mauled this way. You can even see the beginnings of this in the Mexican War, but the lessons weren't learned.

Indirect fire came about because the gunners couldn't survive within 500 yards of the infantry, and canister couldn't reach that far. In the smooth bore era, artillery at 200-300 yds was basically invulnerable to musket fire.
   78. Walt Davis Posted: May 07, 2018 at 11:32 PM (#5668292)
Man this is a weird thread so might as well punt in yet another direction ....

Somebody mentioned Tampa's cromulence which reminded me that they were going to have regular bullpen starts. Let's see how that's going ...

3/31 vs Bos: 7.1, 3 R, 2 ER -- success! (Kittredg/Yarbrough)
4/8 vs Bos: 6, 2 R, 2 ER -- success! (same guys)
4/15 vs Phi: 7, 7, 4 -- not so good also Yarbrough went 4.2 so more like an actual start
4/29 vs Bos: 5, 3, 3 -- Andriese went 3.1 scoreless, then Venters went an inning, then Kettridge gave up 3 in 2/3.
5/4 vs Tor: 7, 1, 1 -- Kittredge for 2 then 5 scoreless from Yarbrough

So ... not so bad given three starts vs. Boston. Total: 32.1, 16 R, 12 ER. They haven't actually been K'ing tons of guys. They are skipping this spot when they can.

The hero has been Yarbrough with 24 IP, 12 R, 9 ER, 124 ERA+ with most of those runs in that one lousy game or in short relief stints. Including some appearances outside of these games, they've used him for 4, 4, 4.2, 4 and 5 innings stints ... so he's practically a 5th starter anyway. So far he's Dick Tidrow 1977, on pace for about 130 innings.

Kittredge has been the goat with 15 innings, 11 R, 10 ER and terrible peripherals. Outside of his first stint, Kettridge hasn't been used for more than 2.1 innings.

Yarbrough had been a pretty good starter in the minors (3.43 ERA at AAA in 2017, 2.95 at AA in 2016) so it's not clear they wouldn't be just as well making him the 5th starter and stretching him out to the point he can face 22-24 batters consistently. But yes, so far, just two outings over 18 batters.
   79. Walt Davis Posted: May 07, 2018 at 11:44 PM (#5668298)
And on yet another hijack attempt ... before today:

Gleyber: 327/357/500
Soler: 308/425/510 (after a horrible start)
Jimenez: 319/347/652 at AA
Cease: 32 IP, 42 K, 1.95 ERA at A+

Chapman: pitching for the Yanks
Davis: pitching for the Rox
Quintana: 80 ERA+ so far this year, control problems (Hickey ain't fixed that Cub problem ... 2nd most BB/9 in the NL)

I don't actually object to those trades ... I'd much rather have had Miller than Chapman but I'm guessing that would have cost more than Torres. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do and we've seen hot streaks out of Soler before. (FYI, Frazier had a rehab stint, now off to a solid start at AAA; Sheffield was very good at AA, promoted to AAA.)
   80. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 08, 2018 at 07:35 AM (#5668332)
Greg Bird played in his first rehab game in extended spring training yesterday. He’s expected to join single-A Tampa soon and move quickly to AAA Scranton if he shows he’s healthy. His left-handed bat and patient approach at the plate would be a great addition to the Yankees lineup.
   81. McCoy Posted: May 08, 2018 at 08:30 AM (#5668348)
This is just wrong. Pre-war U.S. Army doctrine called for the Horse Artillery to deploy far forward on the battlefield, even in front of the Infantry, to deliver direct fire against opposing Infantry. In the First Battle of Bull Run, several U.S. batteries got mauled this way. You can even see the beginnings of this in the Mexican War, but the lessons weren't learned.

Indirect fire came about because the gunners couldn't survive within 500 yards of the infantry, and canister couldn't reach that far. In the smooth bore era, artillery at 200-300 yds was basically invulnerable to musket fire.


The Civil War was not an indirect fire war. Armies of the world wouldn't develop all of the things they needed for indirect fire until the 1880's and they were still using direct fire and direct fire guns at the start of WWI.

It is true that canister shot was a short range shot but that was not the only shot in an artillery unit's bag. They also had case, solid, and shell and those were all effective at 600 to 1200 yards out. Canister was used and used effectively by both sides against attacking units.

Something like 40% of artillery used by both sides was smoothbore with the Union having a higher percentage of rifled artillery. The Napoleon was the most popular field piece of the war and it was a smoothbore.
   82. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: May 08, 2018 at 11:35 AM (#5668467)
As long as they can come up with a good explanation for how one can do it in under 12 parsecs without it sounding like a desperation goof cover-up, then I'll be happy.
I read something once about that; supposedly the Kessel Run involves getting stuff in or out of someplace (Kessel) that is fraught with peril (black holes or other navigational hazards). Solo took some route that was more direct (read: dangerous) than any previous path.
   83. PreservedFish Posted: May 08, 2018 at 11:44 AM (#5668474)
I read something once about that; supposedly the Kessel Run involves getting stuff in or out of someplace (Kessel) that is fraught with peril (black holes or other navigational hazards). Solo took some route that was more direct (read: dangerous) than any previous path.


Good save.
   84. SandyRiver Posted: May 08, 2018 at 11:57 AM (#5668486)
As long as they can come up with a good explanation for how one can do it in under 12 parsecs without it sounding like a desperation goof cover-up, then I'll be happy.

First they need to explain why a distance metric is being used to describe speed. (And since the story is set "far, far away, we don't even know the length of their parsec, unless the referenced planet is 93 million miles from its primary.)
   85. AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Posted: May 08, 2018 at 12:12 PM (#5668501)
So my problem going into it is that I think they're going to jam everything we know about Han into one movie. From what I've heard, the movie addresses meeting Lando, acquiring the Falcon, meeting Chewbacca, the Kessel Run, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting. Why should everything we've learned about Han have happened within such a short time frame? Why not plan for a couple of movies and leave some things for later?


I tend to enjoy movies that create myths, not those that destroy them by explaining everything in nauseating detail.
   86. BDC Posted: May 08, 2018 at 12:18 PM (#5668506)
I tend to enjoy movies that create myths, not those that destroy them by explaining everything in nauseating detail

I take it you are not the target audience for my Casablanca origin story "Rick Goes to Everybody's," wherein we see Rick Blaine looking for a job, Rick running guns to the loyalists in Spain, Rick absconding with the church funds in the company of a senator's wife, Victor Laszlo printing scandal sheets in a cellar, Elsa getting braces put on her teeth, etc. etc.
   87. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: May 08, 2018 at 12:20 PM (#5668508)
(And since the story is set "far, far away, we don't even know the length of their parsec, unless the referenced planet is 93 million miles from its primary.)
Well, obviously, a parsec in the Star Wars universe refers to the galactic capital planet of Coruscant, when describing the Kessel Run one would mean a Kesselian parsec, Solo would use his home planet of Corellia as a basis for "parsec"

I got nothin'.
   88. PreservedFish Posted: May 08, 2018 at 12:27 PM (#5668513)
I tend to enjoy movies that create myths, not those that destroy them by explaining everything in nauseating detail.


This a strong, succinct comment.
   89. Panic Posted: May 08, 2018 at 03:07 PM (#5668620)
Is this that new Pop Culture/Catch-All thread I've been hearing so much about? Solid addition to the site.
   90. dlf Posted: May 08, 2018 at 04:29 PM (#5668722)
I take it you are not the target audience for my Casablanca origin story "Rick Goes to Everybody's," wherein we see Rick Blaine looking for a job, Rick running guns to the loyalists in Spain, Rick absconding with the church funds in the company of a senator's wife, Victor Laszlo printing scandal sheets in a cellar, Elsa getting braces put on her teeth, etc. etc.


I hesitate to correct one as knowledgeable as our Professor BDC, but clearly Miss Bergman's marvelous character Ilsa has been mistaken for a blonde pixie who turns entire forests into frozen wonderlands. Play it Sam, play 'Let it Go,' I'll hum it for you.
   91. BDC Posted: May 08, 2018 at 04:49 PM (#5668739)
Aaargh spelling from memory has turned my beautiful script idea into a hallucinatory mashup.
   92. Walt Davis Posted: May 08, 2018 at 06:10 PM (#5668782)
First they need to explain why a distance metric is being used to describe speed. (And since the story is set "far, far away, we don't even know the length of their parsec, unless the referenced planet is 93 million miles from its primary.)

In that galaxy far, far away they speak English and your plausibility hangup is about the definition of a parsec?

I take it you are not the target audience for my Casablanca origin story "Rick Goes to Everybody's," wherein we see Rick Blaine looking for a job, Rick running guns to the loyalists in Spain, Rick absconding with the church funds in the company of a senator's wife, Victor Laszlo printing scandal sheets in a cellar, Elsa getting braces put on her teeth, etc. etc.

Don't give that #### away for free BDC, Netflix has sunk millions into even worse ideas than this.

It's a shame David Soul is too old for this role now.



   93. SandyRiver Posted: May 09, 2018 at 08:14 AM (#5669090)
In that galaxy far, far away they speak English and your plausibility hangup is about the definition of a parsec?


Well played, but...
In that galaxy long, long ago the main characters look exactly like far-future earthly humans (while the minor characters look anything but), and your hang-up is about deftly dubbing in English?
   94. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 09, 2018 at 09:50 AM (#5669118)
Fireballs in space? This galaxy has entirely new laws of physics!
   95. RickA. Posted: May 09, 2018 at 02:37 PM (#5669388)
I tend to enjoy movies that create myths, not those that destroy them by explaining everything in nauseating detail.


Way off topic, but that's why I hate the "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" Christmas special. Feels like it explains everything away.
   96. perros Posted: May 09, 2018 at 02:48 PM (#5669401)
Okay, kids, back to the Yankees --

Drury is a better option than Andújar at this point, who I send back to thr minors to learn to hit breaking pitches, or at least not swing at pitches he cannot possibly hit. And while Tyler Austin is okay, I want Bird at 1B and Walker as his backup.
   97. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 09, 2018 at 05:19 PM (#5669553)
When is Bird coming back?
   98. Howie Menckel Posted: May 09, 2018 at 07:02 PM (#5669592)
I tend to enjoy movies that create myths, not those that destroy them by explaining everything in nauseating detail.

enough about the Seinfeld finale
   99. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 09, 2018 at 07:18 PM (#5669600)
When is Bird coming back?

I think the target is the end of the month.
   100. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 10, 2018 at 07:07 AM (#5669850)
It would be nice to get some left-handed offense into the lineup.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
danielj
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSmith, Baines elected to Baseball Hall of Fame
(391 - 6:40pm, Dec 10)
Last: McCoy

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(284 - 6:37pm, Dec 10)
Last: Carl Goetz

NewsblogThibs' Hall of Fame Tracker
(398 - 6:30pm, Dec 10)
Last: gabrielthursday

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (December 2018)
(408 - 6:14pm, Dec 10)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogBig plans, lower expectations for Padres at winter meetings - The San Diego Union-Tribune
(43 - 6:05pm, Dec 10)
Last: Man o' Schwar

NewsblogRoyals to sign Billy Hamilton – HardballTalk
(12 - 5:57pm, Dec 10)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogRidiculous not to put George Steinbrenner in Hall of Fame
(38 - 5:56pm, Dec 10)
Last: QLE

NewsblogWill the A's be in the air next season? Signals are fuzzy.
(18 - 5:54pm, Dec 10)
Last: stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (The Berhalter Thread?)
(94 - 5:14pm, Dec 10)
Last: spivey

NewsblogKyler Murray: Is The NFL A More Lucrative Option Than MLB for Oklahoma QB?
(24 - 5:07pm, Dec 10)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(3473 - 4:58pm, Dec 10)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-10-2018
(15 - 4:27pm, Dec 10)
Last: Master of the Horse

Hall of MeritMock 2019 Hall of Fame Election Results
(2 - 3:31pm, Dec 10)
Last: Petunia inquires about ponies

NewsblogArizona Diamondbacks hunt for value, not trades at MLB winter meetings
(6 - 3:26pm, Dec 10)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogTexas Rangers: Could the Rangers' Jurickson Profar be somebody's consolation prize for missing on Manny Machado? | SportsDay
(10 - 3:16pm, Dec 10)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

Page rendered in 0.6887 seconds
46 querie(s) executed