Red Mosquito

At least the weather is conducive to the sport tonight. Should get an accurate result.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

philpritchard wrote:I'm sad, guys.

Your hockey team is fun to watch right now.... and... you'll always have Joe Carter and John Olerud.

All true. And it's been a great season compared to... like... 26 other teams. But still.

It's not over though. Kluber may not quite be himself on short rest, then it's a rookie in Game 5 and a second look at Tomlin in Game 6. You never know.

Looking at the Jays lineup, it's pretty amazing that so many hitters have gone cold at the same time.

Trying to channel some Kevin Millar devil magic, I see.

It's Kevin Pillar, dummy.

Hardcore baseball question: What do you think of the notion that RBI's are a meaningless or overrated stat (non home run RBI's that is) because they depend largely on runners in scoring position when coming to bat and not everyone has proportionate opportunities?

Also what do you think of it when announcers make a big deal about a guy "learning a new position out there" when all he's done is moved from LF to RF (or vice versa)?

RBIs are meaningful.

I wish people used RsBI instead of RBIs

Dodgers-Blue Jays World Series.

Get ready.

RBIs tell you very little about the talent of the individual player who accumulates them.

CopperTom is right, sort of: people should definitely say and write "RBI" (singular and plural) instead of "RBIs." I get the same eye twitch with that and when people says "mothers-in-laws" and "attorney generals."

Phil is also right. They're not meaningless, but they're too reliant on the players ahead of you in the order. They're similar to pitchers' wins.

Simple Torture wrote:CopperTom is right, sort of: people should definitely say and write "RBI" (singular and plural) instead of "RBIs." I get the same eye twitch with that and when people says "mothers-in-laws" and "attorney generals."

I get it, and it's logical in a way, but when you have a common acronym like that, you treat the acronym as a word by simply adding the s at the end (or, if you believe RBI is already plural because it stands for "runs batted in", then you can add nothing.)

Just... not RsBI. No.

philpritchard wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:CopperTom is right, sort of: people should definitely say and write "RBI" (singular and plural) instead of "RBIs." I get the same eye twitch with that and when people says "mothers-in-laws" and "attorney generals."

I get it, and it's logical in a way, but when you have a common acronym like that, you treat the acronym as a word by simply adding the s at the end (or, if you believe RBI is already plural because it stands for "runs batted in", then you can add nothing.)

Just... not RsBI. No.

I'm willing to compromise and let slide if you say "ribbies" as some people do, treating it as an acronym and sounding it out. But if you're reading out the letters, it's an initialism, not an acronym.

But you're right, I should've been more clear: CopperTom was wrong. We can agree on that.

Simple Torture wrote:I'm willing to compromise and let slide if you say "ribbies" as some people do, treating it as an acronym and sounding it out. But if you're reading out the letters, it's an initialism, not an acronym.

Both initialisms and acronyms are treated as nouns, though, and should have an s added when pluralized.

Isn't baseball talk the best?

For the record, I prefer RBI as both the singular and plural.

While we are on such a conversation, did you know the actual pitch is a Change OP, not a Change-up. It stands for Change Of Pace. I hope that comes back.

CopperTom wrote:For the record, I prefer RBI as both the singular and plural.

While we are on such a conversation, did you know the actual pitch is a Change OP, not a Change-up. It stands for Change Of Pace. I hope that comes back.

I vaguely remember that from a sports trivia game when I was a kid.

It's warm and sunny in Toronto, and the league has decided the roof has to stay closed today to make sure conditions are the same as they were the first two games in Toronto.

MLB is an asshole.

Why does it matter what the weather was like then? That's silly.

Closed roof is better than 4 o'clock start shadows.

Bammer wrote:Hardcore baseball question: What do you think of the notion that RBI's are a meaningless or overrated stat (non home run RBI's that is) because they depend largely on runners in scoring position when coming to bat and not everyone has proportionate opportunities?

Also what do you think of it when announcers make a big deal about a guy "learning a new position out there" when all he's done is moved from LF to RF (or vice versa)?

There actually is a lot of little different things with how you play LF to RF. LF you can give the line to the hitter, knowing its a short throw to 3rd to cut down a triple. RF you give the line, and triples become a whole lot easier. Factor in the slice of the ball, and other things, and yes, they are different positions.

That being said, it all comes down to the individual player. Some players can just go play anywhere and be good. Others are 1 position only. Usually though if they are playing a different position the manager has enough faith in them to do it, so the announcers are probably going over board just to talk about something.

I get more annoyed when a player tosses a fit about moving to a new position.

Really happy for my boy Tito.

same

Now Bautista can STFU for a while.