|
Post by clmetsfan on Nov 28, 2017 14:39:53 GMT -5
I sincerely hope that Holy Cross students are capable of finding commentary on the issue that's actually reputable. Yes, once they are in their safe spaces. Just another media outlet highlighting the issue. Be sure to let us know when the Enquirer picks it up. Though I am thoroughly amused by the mockery of safe spaces while linking to the ultimate right-wing safe space, so thank you for that.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Nov 28, 2017 12:49:34 GMT -5
I sincerely hope that Holy Cross students are capable of finding commentary on the issue that's actually reputable.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Nov 28, 2017 12:47:57 GMT -5
Actually CL I think it would be muted. No loud sounds are made by people not writing checks. The noise will come stage left with acclaimations and huzzahs for the courageous new vision that has left the violence , religious zealotry, and offensive imagery of the past behind. Those in O'kane will congratulate each other as we fade further into the morass of sameness. To clarify, I was referring mainly to the hand-wringing and garment-rending that would occur on this board, as if a mascot change is the worst thing that could possibly happen in the clusterf--- that is the USA in 2017.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Nov 27, 2017 15:40:46 GMT -5
Now I kinda want to see the nickname change just for the reactions.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Nov 2, 2017 14:24:59 GMT -5
Nice reasoning, CL Typical positive insight for a Mets fan We gotta have something to hang our hats on!
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Nov 2, 2017 12:34:45 GMT -5
At the time though, it was pretty clear what he wanted to do. He had no desire for McCullers to go more than three innings. Essentially, he broke the game down into three three inning games from a pitching perspective (McCullers, Peacock, Morton). The bigger issue was that McCullers was getting lucky. His control was awful (4 HBPs made for 7 baserunners in 2.1 innings) and the Dodgers were making great contact on balls that were being hit right at fielders (e.g. Taylor's LDP to end the second inning). McCullers was certainly generating lots of swings and misses, but you can't keep putting guys on base and hoping the for the best against a potent lineup when you've got a 5-run lead to protect. I thought it was the right call at the time given the availability of guys in the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Nov 1, 2017 11:17:19 GMT -5
It would've been such a shame if this series didn't go seven games.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 27, 2017 9:49:34 GMT -5
There is. I know at least two besides me. Sorry, CL. Once you’re out more than 10 years, you’re no longer a younger alum. Sort of middle alum. Soon, you’ll be at your 25th and become an old alum like me. The Church discontinued Limbo, 92. Gotta pick one.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 26, 2017 15:38:39 GMT -5
Hey, your loss if you can't enjoy watching what happened last night (or the night before, for that matter, when two aces battled it out in less than 2.5 hours). Maybe as you age, you will understand nostalgia Not sure what you mean. As I said, I'm all for nostalgia. But you're also gonna have a hard time convincing me that the "good old days" were better when they meant that much fewer people were actually able to enjoy the sport. Being nostalgic and recognizing that something has improved are not mutually exclusive. I have this conversation with my peers all the time about the crappy television shows that we used to watch as kids. Just because we thought back then that Full House was good doesn't mean that it really was. Similarly, when I see old grainy TV feeds that we used to watch, it reminds me of the simpler days of childhood too. But there's not a chance in hell that I'd go back to it when we now have high-def footage, and slow-motion replay, and score bugs that mean we don't have to wait for the announcer to tell us what inning it is or how many outs there are.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 26, 2017 14:37:11 GMT -5
Yeah but that presupposes one still enjoys watching MLB.😊 Hey, your loss if you can't enjoy watching what happened last night (or the night before, for that matter, when two aces battled it out in less than 2.5 hours).
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 26, 2017 14:32:57 GMT -5
Believe it or not, in the good old days, people listened to the Series on radio or watched their black & white TVs. If you went to a Catholic school and had nuns from Brooklyn and the Dodgers were playing the Yankees (we didn't need no stinkin west coast or southern teams in those days in a World Series), the right nun would have the game on the radio and you listened to some of it on a portable radio on the school bus home, jumped off the bus and turned the game on TV to watch the end. If the nun didn't allow the class to listen (a possible Giants fan), the principal would make periodic announcements over the PA system. I'm all for nostalgia, but nothing you just described is more appealing than coming home from work and being able to watch a baseball game from start to finish.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 26, 2017 10:19:17 GMT -5
Remember when the WS was played during the afternoon? What time did the game finish this morning? Afternoon WS games were before my time, but even with extra innings in a game played on the West Coast, the game last night didn't that far past midnight (I don't think it was quite 12:30 when Devenski struck out Puig). Beats the hell out of it being over before anyone's even home from work.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 26, 2017 9:33:49 GMT -5
What a freaking game last night.
The action was made even better by the reactions. Baseball is so much better when players are fired up and showing spontaneous displays of emotion. Guys like Correa, Altuve, and Puig are an utter joy to watch.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 26, 2017 9:26:45 GMT -5
I feel I just did, but I will not be going back through months of comments to cherry pick those that support my opinion. Of course, you did say "No one" so even one such remark would disprove your comment. You are free to look through the comments yourself. Yes, as a former reporter, I would have made sure to have a few more opinions from other demographics (including current students or recent graduates and women, who might have a very different perspective) but that is just my opinion. It seems the bulk of the comments were from prominent Crusader alumni, and space if often a factor when cuts are made. Also, there is no way to know if any younger alums responded to the request from the Telegram. There is. I know at least two besides me. All this said, yes, space limitations and editorial decisions outside of a reporter's control often undermine even the best efforts to bring more opinions to the table. I'm more disappointed by the reaction to the exclusion than the exclusion itself.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 26, 2017 9:10:35 GMT -5
"No one"? Have you read some of the comments on this board about older alumni (and the need for us to "die off" so that more rational views can prevail)? As to the second point, I both can and do. I've seen plenty of resentment over the perception that older alumni's opinions are the only ones that get voiced or carry any weight (which I imagine gets misinterpreted as being hostile towards the older generation). And no, I've seen nothing that looks forward to the eventual death of older alums. Perhaps you can enlighten me? I also think that if you really do, you would agree that it was a mistake to only include opinions of one demographic in an article about a topic that spans many demographics.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 26, 2017 9:03:30 GMT -5
It's funny, I emailed back and forth with the reporter, as he specifically asked for younger perspectives, and I put him in touch with some female friends from school as well. And yet the only perspectives that made it to print were those of old men. Perhaps he wanted keen insight and was not as biased as some to the experience that age can bring. OR, maybe he just wanted some opinions that would stir things up. No one is diminishing your or anyone else's opinion on the basis of age (even though diminishing younger opinions is certainly a time-honored tradition on this board). Surely a Jesuit-educated college professor can appreciate the value that differing perspectives can add to a discussion, regardless of which side of the argument they may fall.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 25, 2017 17:05:55 GMT -5
Seems like maybe that T&G article could have been more balanced by getting even a single comment from someone who graduated in the last 40 years... and I say that with absolutely no disrespect to any of you who were quoted. It's funny, I emailed back and forth with the reporter, as he specifically asked for younger perspectives, and I put him in touch with some female friends from school as well. And yet the only perspectives that made it to print were those of old men.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 25, 2017 17:04:39 GMT -5
I still can't believe people get this worked up over a mascot. It has no effect on your degree, your education, or your past experiences as students and alums of the college. To withhold donations because a nickname was or wasn't changed seems -- to put as delicately as I can -- childish.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 24, 2017 13:27:22 GMT -5
I really wanted Alex Cora, but the unfortunately the Sox job is much more appealing. I'm happy with Callaway. We need someone who can (maybe?) correct the horrendous career turns that Harvey and Matz have taken, and to maximize Thor and deGrom's potential.
The best part about Callaway, though, is that he is decidedly NOT a Wilpon-influenced hire. He has no ties to the organization, which hopefully means that he'll be able to act as his own man and keep the one of the worst ownership groups in sports at arm's length.
|
|
|
ALCS
Oct 24, 2017 13:23:43 GMT -5
rgs318 likes this
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 24, 2017 13:23:43 GMT -5
Good point, hoops. I, as a Yankee fan, want the Yankees to win every game against the hated Red Sox. BUT, I want the Sox to win all of theor other games against the rest of MLB. It only makes the Yankee wins sweeter. When the Yanks and Sox play, I root for the supervolcano.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 23, 2017 14:03:23 GMT -5
Could have been them quoting him, which I missed. Thanks, Craig. Speaking of Dodgers, it'd be pretty cool if they won. I like a lot of their young, home-grown talent like Bellinger (thanks for the fantasy win) and Taylor. Lasorda seems to be involved still with the team, if only as an icon, and seems to be a likeable guy. I'm rooting for LA as well, but entirely because -- and this is something on which you and I can definitely agree -- Grandy is one of the best teammates and all-around human beings in all of sports, and he deserves a ring. This might be his last shot.
|
|
|
ALCS
Oct 23, 2017 13:43:12 GMT -5
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 23, 2017 13:43:12 GMT -5
Yanks didn't hit enough to advance, didn't play mistake-free enough to advance either. Hats off to the Astros, what a squad. I think it's one of the hosts on WFAN here in NY that once said that every team will win 60 games, and every team will lose 60 games. The winning and losing teams will impose their will or win/lose those games that could go either way-- the "other 42"-- and determine those teams' fate. The Yankees had two, maybe three games that could be categorized as the "other 42" and lost 'em all. That's the difference... small margin of error, even in a 7 game series. Whoa whoa don't credit the puds on FAN for that quote. www.goodreads.com/quotes/123936-no-matter-how-good-you-are-you-re-going-to-lose
|
|
|
ALCS
Oct 23, 2017 11:39:35 GMT -5
rgs318 likes this
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 23, 2017 11:39:35 GMT -5
I swear this has nothing to do with the bitterness that's derived from my username (sidenote -- it totally does):
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Sept 29, 2017 13:58:01 GMT -5
clmetsfan, you make a good point. But if you can point me to some literature where this is spelled out I would love to see it. For all I know they are absolutely doing that control group comparison but I have not seen it and it certainly is not included in the articles that journalists breathlessly churn out to discourage people from letting their children play football. The best source is always the reports themselves, which are always peer-reviewed before they're published. Don't stop with just the media "analysis" of them, which will always emphasize the most sensationalist aspects. The infamous report from a couple months ago in which 111 out of 112 brains studied is a perfect example. The report that was published in the Journal of the AMA clearly states that that particular study was limited in scope to just brains that had been donated by families who suspected CTE, which is a clear confirmation bias. That aspect got downplayed in all the media coverage of the report, but it was definitely there. As for other studies, here's one from the Journal of Alzheimer's disease last year that studied 78 former NFL players' brains (aged 40-69) and included a control group of 16 same-age brains from people who played non-contact sports: content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad151028?resultNumber=7&totalResults=48&start=0&q=exosome&resultsPageSize=10&rows=10
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Sept 29, 2017 10:12:27 GMT -5
Haha. Thank you for helping to make my point... There are many people who experience these issues who did not play football. The symptoms are broad in many cases and can be attributed to other contributing factors. There are cases of some players having had CTE, but displaying no symptoms. I'm not a scientist or statistician but it appears to me that the conclusions people are making about causation and the relationship with football are not following scientific method. I imagine that abuse of drugs and alcohol can cause these types of symptoms without playing football. Perhaps there is a genetic component as well. I just think we should be asking a lot more questions of these researchers before drawing conclusions and demonizing football. Again, what are you basing this on? Do you really think the researchers at BU and elsewhere are not following basic scientific protocol?
|
|