BuckyBrewer61

The media is sensationalizing it a bit, but it is a legitimate public health concern. The flu is not entirely benign and kills thousands every year (like I mentioned earlier, usually those with weak immune systems), so a particularly contagious strain could cause a lot of mortality. Because of that fact alone the response of the state public health departments to be very cautious with expected cases is appropriate. Is there more to it than that? There's no way to be certain at this point, but judging on evidence so far I'd venture to guess not.

This is exactly right. Most of the population, particularly in America, have at least partial immunity to the "standard" flu virus from year to year due to immunizations and previous exposures to similar strains. This virus is a completely new strain that has never before been seen by the human population, so essentially no one is immune to it. There was some concern that this strain may, in fact, be more virulent than the standard flu (such as the 1918 and bird flu strains were), but those concerns are, as of yet, unconfirmed. That's not to say the possibility doesn't still exist though.

I'm not all that thrilled that Cam is out of the lineup, but looking at his numbers in the month of May... .194/.265/.323/.587 ...I suppose he could use a mental health day. Might as well do it with your ace on the mound.

That was the Cubs. Just another reason why I wouldn't have cared if Braun walked all the way around the bases yesterday. I second the sentiment that all this Brewer hatred is because, like it or not Cubs/Cards/Pirates fans, the Brewers are good. I'm all for having respect for the game, but I love this. Keep talking trash to us, telling us we're disrespectful punks while Pujols and Soriano stand in the box watching their HR's until they bounce 3 times in the stands. It'll only unite that clubhouse. We're no longer the punching bag of the NL Central, we're the new guys upsetting the status quo that you don't want to accept. Well we're here and we're not going away, deal with it..

I'm not arguing this, there is certainly a possibility that one bad call can change a game and, in a rare circumstance, cost a team a win. My points are these: 1) Bad calls are rare. More so than in any other sport. 2) Given the small amount of missed calls and the large amounts of games, I doubt umpires often significantly factor into a team's final record. Can it change the outcome of one game? Sure, occasionally. But over 162 games, the number of calls that help you and the number that hurt you will tend to normalize. I can't offer any stats, but it's my belief that the chances that umpire error alone will flip two teams in the standings are quite low. 3) Let's say for the sake of argument that every year a team's final record will be plus-or-minus 1 win based completely, solely on umpire performance alone (which I'd guess is a high estimate). Maybe once every few years, one team will miss the playoffs due solely to umpire error. Yes, that sucks, but is that reason enough to add 10-20 minutes of delay for replay to every single major league baseball game? You may think it is, I say no. I will say that I wouldn't mind an automated strike zone as long as it was immediate and didn't slow down the game. I don't prefer it, but I could live with it.

Also, in regards to balls and strikes, I still stick to my above logic, though agree that there is more penchant to "miss" calls in that realm. I, personally, like that pitchers and hitters have to adjust to the home-plate umpire's strike zone, it just feels like part of the game to me.

This is true, but what percentage of calls are "close" calls? For those of you with DVR, how many times, per game, do you go back and put the game in slow-mo to see if a man beat out a throw? Once, maybe twice (at least this is how often I do it...)? So say 2 calls out of 100 in a game are actually close (excluding balls and strikes for this argument). How often is an umpire right on these close calls? I'd argue it's still the vast majority of the time (based on my extensive, scientific DVR research). So do we really need a system to fix 10% of 2% of the calls? I say no. Over the course of an entire season, I'd argue that a few missed calls won't matter, so why make a dramatic change in the sport to fix what is not a dramatic problem?

If major league baseball were to ever implement replay (which, personally, I hope they never do), I'd like to see some sort of analysis or study first of how often umpires actually blow a call. My guess would be that they make the correct call >99.9% of the time. Literally. Baseball umpires are the best officials in all of sports and I don't think replay is necessary at all. I recall a recent report (though I can't verify this at the time) that even said, based on the "standard" strike zone, that home plate umpires accurately call balls and strikes over 95% of the time. As a sports society, we tend to amplify the importance of one or two instances and overreact, in my opinion (see Terrell Owens rule, Tom Brady rule, home run replay rule). All of a sudden, last year, there were so many homeruns that were incorrectly called! Really? I'd venture to guess that there weren't significantly more than in the past, and less than a handful over a 2,592-game season were misjudged (though a couple involved the Mets and Yankees, so there was legitimate outrage). Besides, with all the talk of appeasing the average fan, what is the number one complaint of the casual baseball fan? The game is too slow. Why make it worse with replays that may fix <0.01% of the calls. Under the current situation, over the course of a 162-game season, the best teams will have the best records, even if Tony Clark gets a phantom 2 RBI double in April. Isn't that the point, anyway?

Can anyone give a recap or possibly post a link (eventually...I doubt a link would be up anywhere this quickly)?

Most everything contains trace amounts of feces.

Estimates on how many people were infected with the flu in 1918 are around 1 billion people (well over half of the world's population of 1.8 billion!). Now, just because they were infected doesn't mean that they got sick, just like many of us probably got the normal flu this year and never noticed it or went to the doctor to treat it. So yes, the mortality rate amongst those who had symptoms is higher than what I had said earlier, however the mortality rate amongst those infected was anywhere from about 3-10% (depending on which numbers you want to pick). And yes, the 1918 pandemic got worse in the fall as this is the typical start to flu season. It's not that it was necessarily more mild as that it wasn't spreading as easily/quickly. It's much easier for the flu to survive/spread in the fall and winter (hence "flu season"), and therefore there have already been preliminary efforts set in place to begin sequencing this virus and developing a vaccine to be available before flu season rolls around again in a few months. People that are much smarter than I am have expressed a great deal of hope that our government/public health officials will continue pushing the vaccine even if things calm down in the coming weeks. Also, the strain from 1918 was, in fact, more virulent (harsher) than the "typical" flu, leading the the deaths of many young adults which is much less common in normal flu strains. The death of many young adults in Mexico has raised some concerns that this strain may also be more virulent, but recent info from America may suggest otherwise. In the end there's just not enough data yet to know for sure.

The swine flu is not some nasty mutant virus that will make your eyes explode and your heart fall out. The trouble with it is that it is highly contagious and it is a new strain of flu that has never been seen by the human population before, therefore nobody is immune to it. The flu is a nasty little virus that is often shrugged off because it is so common, but it can be very troublesome in people with weaker immune systems (e.g. infants, elderly, HIV positive individuals, people on immunosuppresive therapy). In small, local outbreaks, we have resources to control the swine flu and help those that contract it. The concern is the possibility of a nationwide and global pandemic, in which case it would be impossible to supply everyone with adequate treatment. That said, the 1918 pandemic killed about 7-8% of the people it infected, and that was upwards of 15-20 times more harmful than many of the smaller flu epidemics we've seen since then. So swine flu is far from a death sentence; and, assuming we control it (especially in this country) we have resources to treat it. The fear is of it spreading out of control, and it is a valid fear, so that is why everyone is being so cautious. I'm a med student/science geek and could go on for a while about this, so if anyone has any questions and wants to post them here I'd be happy to answer them. P.S. Wash you hands!

This is possible, but if he does take a 4th OF role, there are likely better opportunities out there for some decent playing time than playing behind Cam, Hart, and Braun.

How was Tatis not bunting there?

At this point of the season, I think the eye test is more useful than looking at the numbers, and I think we all agree with you that Rickie just plain looks better. Even though his avg and obp aren't too high, it seems as though his plate discipline is still solid and he will get his walks, and his approach has been very refreshing. A number of his outs have been well hit balls, such as the two long shots to the wall in deep right field in SF that would've been HR's in Miller Park. I don't want to do the math and know it's fudging the numbers, but replace two outs with HR's and I'm sure his numbers would look pretty darn good across the board.

There is no reason for Jason Kendall to be batting right now.

Is this game on FS-Wisconsin in Madison? I have Dish Network and can only find it on WGN.

Learning how to hit from both sides of the plate always gave Dale Sveum a burning sensation...

Cubs name Gregg as Team's Closer Kevin Gregg beat out Carlos Marmol for the closer position. The article cites Piniella saying that Gregg has had a better spring. Judging from past discussions on this topic, I think there are a few people around here will agree with me that I'd much rather see Marmol as the closer as Piniella then does not have the flexibility to use him in big spots earlier than the 9th inning.

I have a hard time understanding why people don't want to commemorate the most memorable Brewers season in over a quarter century. I'm 24 years old, and 2008 was the first time in my entire life the Brewers accomplished something tangible. I was watching every day with a sense of hope I'd never felt during baseball season...riding high with the winning streaks and low with the slumps. I was at the 2nd-to-last regular season game and was absolutely heartbroken. I was at the final regular season game and witnessed something I sometimes felt I never would, holding back tears I didn't think a sporting event could provoke. I was at game 3 and have never been so proud of my team and it's fans. Regardless of what happens in the future, 2008 will always be special to me. I don't care how it looks, and I certainly don't care what other teams' fans think, I want to remember that feeling every single time I step into Miller Park, whether it's in 2 weeks or 20 years. I want to look into the rafters and say "I remember. I was there."

I was loving it when I heard Sutcliffe saying that. I certainly don't dislike the WBC, it is great to see real baseball in March, I just wish I cared more. I wish it felt more like a big deal, and little things like that make it feel exhibition-like.

Got to thinking when I saw DeRosa starting over Braun in tonight's game. I don't think I'm being a homer when I say that if you were managing a big game and choosing between those two, there's no question you'd start Braun. Then we have Jeter taking out Rollins in the 5th after Rollins goes 2-for-3 with very good defense in the field. Why? So what are these games? They feel a lot like the all-star game to me...have to get everyone in, keep everyone happy. Is it entertaining? Sure. I don't hate the WBC, but does it matter or get me excited? Nah. Maybe some of the other countries are playing to win, but it feels like an exhibition tournament for team USA.

Braun went deep for team USA in an exhibition game today vs. the Phillies (off Antonio Bastardo...it 's too bad the Phillies train in FL, I would love to hear Uecker get to call an inning with that guy on the mound...Joe Winklesas anyone?). I don't really care about the WBC, but I'm excited to watch Braun take some hacks on Saturday.

I'm still watching your PBP if you don't mind keeping it going

Is anyone kind/bored enough to do a play-by-play for those of us that can't get the game on the radio?