jazzytrav

Bam! I love the subtle dig.

I still don't get it. Why is anyone talking about a 13-0 record on these matters? As I understand it, if the information never gets leaked (as it did in this case), and the player wins the appeal, we would never even hear about it. For all we know, MLB could have a losing record in these cases. Am I wrong on this?

I've been dying for a new sig...thanks Nottso If anyone can post a link to a video of Braun's announcement or even just a recap, it would be greatly appreciated. Not sure I'll be able to get away for it.

That's what I was thinking. Awfully ballsy of them to mock the decision when they're the ones that leaked this in the first place. I'm thoroughly disgusted with MLB throughout this process. While it would be disappointing, I'll completely understand if Braun's name never shows up on an MLB video game again. I find it funny when I read articles on this saying that Das made the decision, as if it was his decision and there was no panel. I get that there may as well not be a panel, but to read journalist just disregard the entire panel concept and call it a decision by Das makes light of the ridiculousness of even having the panel. Like someone said way back in the original Braun thread, if you're going to have a panel, it should be all independents.

I hope Braun rains hell on them for even putting him through this. Disagree all they want, but they potentially cost him tens of millions of dollars, even with the successful appeal. This won't be the end of it.

If he's found innocent, the way that he comes out with this news could have huge implications on his relationship with MLB as a whole from this point forward. Personally, I would completely throw them under the bus, but that's me, and I'm not the one that has to live with that decision. If this was handled with the proper confidentiality, we would have never even known about any of this, and it might come up in an autobiography after he retires. He has to be very careful (if found innocent) to balance his vengence with at least some respect for his employer, so I wouldn't assume that he would come out with an announcement that quickly.

Beans and 500 ft. homers? I would pay double for that game.

There's a 50% chance of rain today.

I disagree. It sounds like nearly every case is a "slam dunk" leading to a suspension. The longer it takes, the more skeptical the arbitrator must be of the positive test. Though I also agree that there will likely be extra time given for damage control.

Flowers delivered to her at work. I've found that, while most girls think it's corny, there's nothing like getting flowers at work when the rest of the girls don't (especially when all of her co-workers are female). Oh, and chocolate-covered strawberries. I got them for her on our first Valentine's Day together, and now NOT getting them for her on Valentine's Day is grounds for divorce.

I wouldn't worry about saying "umm" too much. When I'm interviewing someone, I'm much more interested in content than delivery. If you drop an "umm," then try to catch yourself doing it, you will only manage to lose the message you're trying to convey. Obama said "umm" a lot and still got one of the most powerful jobs in the world. Any research and understanding of the company and what they do is a huge plus. If it sounds like a candidate hasn't even looked at the front page of our website, it's difficult to take them seriously for the rest of the interview. This one is more my personal preference, but if you're asked what your biggest weakness is, don't say you're "too much of a perfectionist" or something lame like that. I would rather someone give me an honest answer, since it shows me that they can recognize their own weaknesses and understand that they are, in fact, weaknesses. It also makes me more likely to believe them when they tell me about their strengths. As for the pre-interview jitters, working out is an excellent idea. Not only can it help relax you, but it can also make you feel stronger and more confident, as if you've already put in a day's hard labor.

Yup, I paid $13 a ticket for 3rd row from the field, close to 1st base...close to the same spot on the 3rd base line the following day (which happened to be C.C.'s "no-hitter.") I remember thinking that these seats would have been at least $50 at Miller or most other parks in the league...probably over $500 for Wrigley if you bought them on Stubhub. PNC Park is such a great place to watch baseball. Great food, cheap seats, and an awesome skyline.

Do we really know that this process is taking any longer than normal? As I understand it, under proper confidentiality, we still wouldn't have even heard about the positive test.

It sounds like you're talking about someone who irrationally discounts the general randomness of mistakes and becomes convinced that some other force is in play affecting outcomes. I think you understand it pretty well here. Self-fulfilling prophecy is more a result than a cause, but as a whole, I think it comes down to a combination of several words or concepts in concert. I'm not convinced I fully understand what you're talking about, though. Heck, I'm not even convinced that I know what I'm talking about. I think the general idea spans a lot of differing examples that stem from the same root, which is a misguided attempt to blame anything and anyone but ourselves. Based on that nature, I think confirmation bias comes the closest, though it doesn't necessarily fit the classic definition.

I think the collection on that page covers it all. Always a great source of info, bjkrautk, thanks! Although, "Exaggeration of the Frequency of Unpleasant Outliers" is still pretty awesome, and I don't know that I can give it up http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smile.gif

You have to imagine Detroit will go crazy with the father-son connection and the batting practice videos. He already earned part of that contract by being a marketing dream. As for watching him play, I think I'll feel more pride than sadness/anger as he mashes the Yankees and Red Sox.

I was driving home from Minneapolis on the Sunday afternoon when he hit his inside-the-park homer off the speakers in the Metrodome. I was supposed to go to that game (I was at the game the previous night), but wanted to get on the road earlier. Still kicking myself.

Congrats Prince. Man, I'll miss that bat, but part of me is glad it's going to the Tigers.

Yes, but this assumes that the subject understands the randomness of errors, which isn't the case because their expectation is assumed. It takes the routine into account, but not the response to the error as being random (meaning the subject finds it to be anything BUT random, and actually directed at them on a personal level). I actually kinda like this, although "over exaggeration" has always seemed redundant to me. Exaggeration of the Frequency of Unpleasant Outliers. That has a pompous ring to it that might fit my means. I also like this one, as it covers the self-centered nature of what I'm describing. That's likely the most powerful component, as it narrows the situation to being personal/individual and within only the exact moment, while being indifferent to the one's own experience, the experience of others, or even the cause. I love this site.

That's much closer to what I'm getting at, but I feel like it's missing something. It may be essentially the same thing, but I'm thinking more in cases where the outcome is highly improbable. In other words, the act is so routine that the outcome is assumed, so that when the outcome is different (in most cases, negative), it is perceived as something that "always" happens. So if the possibility of the negative outcome is 1/1000, the other 999 times are routine or mechanical and not taken into account, so that it is perceived by that person as 1/1 because they fail to account for routine.

Correct, but I'm looking for something more specifically tied to the human perception that it is "bad luck" or the idea that "this could only happen to me" while ignoring evidence that it COULD happen more often, but simply doesn't. Another idea somewhat along the same lines would be a person assuming an event only happens to them because they don't notice it happening to others, or it's simply not talked about or shown by others. A popular example would be someone thinking that there is something wrong with their relationship because they fight sometimes in private, and assuming this is only a problem for them because they don't see others doing it (though they likely do, but in private). I think the main thing I'm looking for is some kind of negative assumption made that could only be made be removing a key variable.

I'm trying to think of a word or phrase that describes what I assume is a statistical concept. The situation is where one gets angry that an improbable outcome has occurred, using the fact that it is improbable to declare that the outcome should not have happened and therefore they have "bad luck." Specifically, this would be a situation where the causes leading to the outcome are repeated without the person noticing until it causes the improbable outcome. This is probably much more simple than I'm making it, but my brain is mush right now. Example: Every morning, I come into my office and put the key in the door. Nearly every morning, I put in the correct key and the door unlocks. One day, I put in the wrong key on accident, and get angry because this highly improbable event should not have happened, even though my rational mind knows that "improbable" does not mean "impossible." I wonder why it had to happen at this point, and not any other point (since I'm presently experiencing "this point" and not any other), though also knowing this fails to take into account that the sheer amount of times that I perform this action means that at some point, the negative outcome, however improbable, will likely occur. I would take a word, phrase, larger concept...heck, I'll read a book on it if anyone has one in mind. It is directly related to something I'm trying to do at work, so any help is much appreciated. I'm not much of a statistics person, so I'm hoping this will be an easy answer for someone on this site http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smile.gif

I'm assuming that wouldn't be too difficult since he signed the contract with the the signature of a different name. Besides being fraud, there could also be someone originally named Fausto Carmona, making it identity theft. He should be more worried about avoiding jail or deportation than whether his contract will hold up.

I would highly recommend the Omni William Penn Hotel. Easily the best hotel I've stayed at in the U.S. I've even stayed at much pricier hotels and found myself wanting to go back to that one. As Hawing mentioned, the inclines are fun and the view is awesome. Although, I'll admit that I'm partial to Pittsburgh and the inclines, since that's where I proposed to my wife http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif PNC Park is beautiful, the Clemente Bridge is a must on your way to the game (not a far walk from the Omni, or any of the downtown hotels), and the Carnegie Science Center is also close by (and a ton of fun for nerds like me).

Hmm...let's try this on. "I'll have a brat and a Mello Yello please." I think I like it.