igor67

I choose to examine the angle that our starter gave up 5 walks in 2 innings to what may have been one of the best offenses of all time, and only allowed 3 runs. It's not crazy to imagine that having been a complete blowout right away. Also since no one else said it: Must Win

Fatigue certainly makes it easy to rationalize taking modest extra risks here and there. MN cases also look like they are going up by a fair amount. The positivity rate though is so high in WI right now in comparison I don't know how to weigh that in a reliable way. We are certainly thinking about it and how we interact with family in WI these days.

If you think they will be effective on consecutive nights it is a very different story. The short season may also change how much you are willing to ride those arms at this point too. With the super short series and your best starter in game 2 though there is every reason in my mind to play Game 1 like it is the entire series. To that end I suggest scoring 10+ in the first inning as the best pitching strategy.

For those not inclined to read the articles, spread is not driven by naked virus particles. It is the particles plus the water the pick-up in your mouth. The bigger those particles end up the less far they spread. Masks can help filter those out somewhat, but the bigger effect is increasing the humidity inside your mouth as you breath and increasing the droplet size. The theory behind all of that to my understanding pre-dates Covid. The empirical question was whether or not that change would significantly altering the rate of spread.

A lot depends on what kind of schedule Williams and Hader can be successful on. If you think they would be better off with an off day and need to stick to the 1 inning pitching, then you definitely look at making sure you get them into game 1 early in my book. I might even lean into trying to squeeze 2 innings from them in game 1, if you don't like going back to back days, and then you've got them for at last an inning in game 3. Plan #1 though is definitely avoid game 3 at all.

I would second that format rickh150 a very good balance of rewards

I mean I would trade having beat the Dodgers in the playoffs before, but can you imagine how salty the fans will be after dominating the season and then lose to us in a 3 game series...

I will at least second the physical therapist recommendation. Unsurprisingly I take a rather dim view about chiropractors (I do try and be consistent about evidence and science). My wife spent years saying she should go, but eventually ended up a doctor instead for a foot issue and it lead to a whole set of very simple do it at home PT exercises (so simple I can't believe they work that well to be honest) that solved her problems as long as she stay consistent. She also mixes in yoga. In short, Western medicine has figured out the relevant parts for most of those problems. I think it is more of a delivery problem where people aren't getting the referral to the PT like they should and/or they just aren't following through.

I personally don't believe that attempting to float the idea of herd immunity as a viable option (sans a viable and effective vaccine) is helpful or responsible either, but perhaps that's just me. It's worth recognizing that relatively early-on based on the very limited information a case could have been made for it. Based on how most countries reacted it was not a compelling case, but not a Flat-Earth situation either. From a news story today https://www.yahoo.com/news/parents-knowingly-sent-kids-coronavirus-170052665.html “The human behavior aspect of sending sick and positive children to school is not something we can control, and we never accounted for people completely disregarding basic health guidance,” Johnson said. “We have no tools left, and we just want everyone to be safe.” As much as I suggested caution above, any plan that didn't account for parents sending sick kids to school wasn't developed by anyone with normal school experience. There are any number of reasons it should have been easy to imagine parents sending kids anyway. A little cynicism about human behavior and rule breaking is useful when trying to make plans.

I'll throw-in a few thoughts again: In regards to school openings and models- On the ground it is super complicated. I know of multiple schools for example that rushed into hybrid or in person expecting it to be unsustainable, but motivated to do so by a number of factors. The variations in what hybrid or in person looks like is wildly different for different schools. So I would urge anyone to be extremely cautious in judging, what I will do is guarantee that for whatever issues you can think of there are 10 more that the school boards and administrators have also thought about. While there have been moments I think it is worth recognizing that compared to the internet at large we have managed to have discussions about political topics in a productive manner. I frequent some other places frankly that are overpopulated with otherwise intelligent people that can't actually have anywhere near the level of discussion we have a sports based site. Being able to have real discussion is important, I'll even say it is way more important than anything Covid related. In regards to politicization of science. First, politics absolutely should be involved in science. How it is involved however is a very important question. It is well recognized in science ethics that the widespread funding from the government after WWII creates a significant obligation for the scientist to report and communicate their results (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12192/on-being-a-scientist-a-guide-to-responsible-conduct-in). As I try to teach my students however that creates a reciprocal responsibility for citizens in a democracy to listen and learn enough to participate in that discussion. What should never happen is political concerns altering scientific conclusions/interpretations. Every scientist is of course subject to their own bias, but that is a big reason why public communication is so critical it allows others to test and check for the real (if any) impact of that bias. A good example of politics solving and causing problems can be found in https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/547559/pandoras-lab-by-paul-a-offit-md/ Those old enough may remember that selling margarine in Wisconsin was illegal for many years. In the long run this purely economically driven decision proved to be a health benefit. But the original political problem was creating policy on poorly developed links between cholesterol and heart disease. Ultimately there is clearly an important role for people to be involved in making policy decisions from scientific conclusions. What I would label as very concerning about the top level CDC communications is how out of character and modified it has become. It usually referred to as 'guidance' for a reason. It historically has been the agency's best attempt to synthesize existing data and conclusions into a useable format for policy makers. There certainly seem to have been a number of instances where that guidance has been adjusted significantly from what non-agency experts would have produced.

Not surprised about never having that kind of offensive swing in a week. I was just explaining to my daughter last night the beauty of 150 years of a sport and you can still legitimately say a few times a season 'that has never happened before'.

I keep hoping everyone is savings hits to have the most ridiculous 1 month run of their careers, flags fly forever.

Taylor could cool off at this point and still force out a bunch of the random OFers we collected in the offseason. I really had kind of written him off, but between last September and this year he has just hit whenever they've played him.

There have been small anti- vaccine groups pretty much all the way back. Some of the relevant law was even decided out of Amish Communities in Wisconsin. I say that to highlight in some cases how diverse the views on taking them can be not to lump Amish into a category with say Jenny McCarthy. In a post Covid world I think we can better imagine what the polio vaccine truly meant at the time and why rejection of it was relatively a non-issue. Its far from a perfect analogue as a disease, but people recognized how serious a problem it was and it could have quite the range of outcomes. I had an uncle that survived with a paralyzed toe for example.

I wonder if the tilt towards pitching is enabled by the shorter season. Similar to how most pitchers can switch to the bullpen and improve, the starters have so much less season to save yourself for.

I wonder if the tilt towards pitching is enabled by the shorter season. Similar to how most pitchers can switch to the bullpen and improve, the starters have so much less season to save yourself for.

I wonder if the tilt towards pitching is enabled by the shorter season. Similar to how most pitchers can switch to the bullpen and improve, the starters have so much less season to save yourself for.

I wouldn't compare Taylor's and Grisham's careers at all. Taylor started off awesome and moved fast before completely stalling out in AAA for years. Grisham didn't have great numbers ever really until he broke out. It would be fantastic if Taylor moved beyond 4A player status, and I'm all for giving him a chance at the moment but those early career profile are very different in my mind.

With the number of pitchers included it is pretty likely that we end up in a few years with at least one of them who is also a journeyman quality reliever based on those stat lines and scouting reports. There is also a chance they all flameout and probably a similar chance we handily win the trade That could happen any number of ways, but you could certainly imagine one of those guys being a mid rotation type and still having a bullpen arm.

I would agree that if 20% of people developed a noticeable fever after a vaccine that would be very problematic. Regrettably as the recent news around the approval of convalescent plasma swirls my confidence that we will get clear communication on the side effects dwindles. I hate to type that. But it is too important to long term public confidence to be anything other than honest upfront if we are approving a less than ideal vaccine. Compared to most other diseases we don't necessarily need anywhere near the compliance rate we'd typically want to make a big impact.

Peavey has the correct general description, a fever is possible with any infection or perceived infection by the immune system but it a different part of the immune response from an allergic reaction. If it helps think about how long it takes to develop a fever (usually at least a full day after exposure to a disease often longer) while the allergic reactions happen in minutes to a few hours depending on amount of allergen. A high sustained fever is a risk for just about any infection. It's kind of a remote (read on par with winning the lottery) possibility with a vaccine, but from when I've perused the subject the numbers or so low that it is possible the numbers attributed to those type of reactions are caused in whole or in part by other super rare infections. The way to think about it is that children today receive enough vaccinations that from about 6 months to a 3 or 4 years old it is true that they will have gotten a vaccine not that long ago. So demonstrating true cause and effect become really hard. The US actually set-up a vaccine court back in the 1980's to specifically handle any claims and damages that might result from wide spread immunization. The court does hand out awards to this day for documentable adverse vaccine reactions. They have done all the work to investigate what types of rare events actually happen and merit awards.

The extent of mild to moderate side effects is probably the biggest wild card in going this fast. It is not unreasonable to think that more people than typical would experience reactions. The vast majority of those reactions would be like getting sick (since many disease symptoms are caused by your immune system working). Normally they want to minimize those reactions because it creates possibility for people to not want to get other vaccines for example. I would hope the testing that is being done is still rigorous enough combined with years of experience that they avoid anything with an unusual chance of severe reactions. It is a tough set of ideas to communicate because I think at this point most people are willing to have a chance of feeling sick to not actually get sick so we can all move on, but there are a very vocal group of people waiting to pounce on any vaccine symptoms to fuel their decades long propaganda machine. All medical treatments carry risk. If you can't imagine what the risk is for a treatment that doesn't mean its not there. Antibiotics for example increase your chances of infection, including some very unfortunate otherwise hard to catch infections.

I can at least see why not stealing when up big is something of a sportsmanship issue. Higher injury risk, requires extra effort. But you are still there to swing the bat.

Sling is completely portable. You do need to have decent internet to stream. Netflix is also completely portable and lets you stream a little better with slower connections (since it buffers unlike Sling).

tag or not pretty sure by the laws of physics Baez's foot had to push Haders into the bag first