Baseball 2018

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Good for her for speaking out.

You're assuming she's telling the truth. People sometimes lie. See: "Jackie", Emma Sulkowicz, Lucy DeCoutere, That's why evidence and substantiation matters. That's why going to law enforcement matters.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

What good would reporting to the police do if you have zero physical evidence or witnesses?

Most police forces take domestic abuse allegations very seriously. It's not the 1980s.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

If she did suffer from physical violence I have no problem with her taking to a public blog to vent after suffering in hidden silence.

If there is physical violence, that leaves evidence: bruises, scratches, etc. Most people have a cell phone with a camera, which makes taking photos to document injuries a simple matter. Or making video or audio recordings, for that matter.

I take issue with anyone using social media to assert crimes were committed rather than using the proper route of law enforcement. 911 is just three digits to dial.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Most police forces take domestic abuse allegations very seriously. It's not the 1980s.

Did not claim that they didn't. But at the end of the day most cases come down to "he said, she said". Therefore, a lot will be done to ultimately come to nothing. Not all violence leaves marks or sends one to the hospital. If the authorities don't have anything definitive they can take before a judge they can't do much more than give a warning.

If there is physical violence, that leaves evidence: bruises, scratches, etc. Most people have a cell phone with a camera, which makes taking photos to document injuries a simple matter. Or making video or audio recordings, for that matter.


I take issue with anyone using social media to assert crimes were committed rather than using the proper route of law enforcement. 911 is just three digits to dial.

If, if, IF..........If you don't have that evidence, then what does the victim do? What can the law do? Victims shouldn't have to hide what they go thru just because their animalistic partners aren't dumb enough to slap them when other people are around. Or that they aren't predictable enough so that you can set up a recording device to capture the attack. If they can't get them convicted in court, then maybe the court of public opinion will bring justice.

I have zero issue with it as long as she is telling the truth.

[bertha]

subscribed, this seems like a very interesting thread

[knightdreamer2k]

Most domestic abuse cases are he said she said. It also doesn't matter how someone reported it. I don't understand why someone would have to meet another persons definition of the correct criteria for reporting.

As a male I understand history that has gone against women for far too long. If the wind blows the other way it is only because for too long it has been ignored. I hope to teach my children when they are the advantaged and then also when they are not.

[ukhotstove]

Wanted to watch something about baseball but not a game, could have watched the tried and tested Major League films, Field of Dreams, Moneyball etc but decided seeing what Netflix had to offer so typed "baseball" into the search engine and came up with among others a documentary called The Battered Bastards of Baseball, probably not only the best thing I've seen on baseball but sport in general.

[Cobra Mgr]

I'm not for all of the beanball stuff. But after CC did this would you still give CC is half mil out of respect?

[Elendil]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

Wanted to watch something about baseball but not a game, could have watched the tried and tested Major League films, Field of Dreams, Moneyball etc but decided seeing what Netflix had to offer so typed "baseball" into the search engine and came up with among others a documentary called The Battered Bastards of Baseball, probably not only the best thing I've seen on baseball but sport in general.

Looks awesome. Queued it.

[monkeyman576]

So, the '18 Red Sox have won more games than the '75 Reds, who are considered one of the best teams of all time. Does that mean that if the '18 Red Sox win the world series they should be considered one of the best of all time?

[Cobra Mgr]

IDK. Reds won their division by 20 games. They won 10 games more than any other team that year. They also had the MVP & CY Young winners. Each would make the HOF. Two others who made the Hall. Plus, Pete Rose. A 5 time Gold Glove winner @ SS. But more importantly, a catchy nickname. That tends to elevate your status as an all time great.

[monkeyman576]

The '18 Red Sox are in a tougher division. The '18 Yankees got Giancarlo Stanton in the offseason and the Red Sox still beat them. And you don't think Mookie Betts, JD Martinez, David Price, and Chris Sale are possible hall of famers?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

The '18 Red Sox are in a tougher division. The '18 Yankees got Giancarlo Stanton in the offseason and the Red Sox still beat them. And you don't think Mookie Betts, JD Martinez, David Price, and Chris Sale are possible hall of famers?

Possible? Sure. I guess for all the above except JD. I don't see many HOF players being on 4 teams by the time they are 30. If he plays at this level the next 5 years then I'll revisit the question.

You seem to think I'm downgrading the Sox. I'm not. I'm just reading off Cincy's resume. Besides, the question isn't "are they better than the 75 Reds." It's "are they one of the all-time great teams?". They would have to dominate the competition (which they have so far), win it all, & stand up over the test of time. If the Big Red Machine is the bench mark, they were legendary for more reasons than just their win total. IDK if they measure up just yet. But I can't say they won't as time passes.
.
And IDK how much tougher the AL East is now than the NL West then. Show me the Yanks, I'll show you the O's. Kind of balances out.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Possible? Sure. I guess for all the above except JD. I don't see many HOF players being on 4 teams by the time they are 30. If he plays at this level the next 5 years then I'll revisit the question.

You seem to think I'm downgrading the Sox. I'm not. I'm just reading off Cincy's resume. Besides, the question isn't "are they better than the 75 Reds." It's "are they one of the all-time great teams?". They would have to dominate the competition (which they have so far), win it all, & stand up over the test of time. If the Big Red Machine is the bench mark, they were legendary for more reasons than just their win total. IDK if they measure up just yet. But I can't say they won't as time passes.
.
And IDK how much tougher the AL East is now than the NL West then. Show me the Yanks, I'll show you the O's. Kind of balances out.

The Reds closest competition was the Dodgers at 88 wins. There were no other .500 teams in that division. The Red Sox had two teams 88 wins or higher besides them in their division, and had fewer teams in the division, I think strength of division is pretty favorable towards the Red Sox. Yeah, the Reds have more hall of famers, most likely, but there were fewer players in the league back then and thus it was easier to distinguish yourself.

[Westheim]

So far the Red Sox seem to struggle with their pitching, which is not something you want before a 5-game set. I am not yet convinced they will march through the playoffs uncontested.

[monkeyman576]

it took the 75 reds 7 games to beat the red Sox in the world series.

[Elendil]

If the Sox win it all in convincing fashion, I'm open to considering them one of the best ever. However, right now advanced metrics don't even consider them the best in the AL (check out B-R's SRS or BP's 3rd-order winning percentage). They've had a lot of luck in terms of winning close games and easier strength of schedule, apparently, than the AL West.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

The Reds closest competition was the Dodgers at 88 wins. There were no other .500 teams in that division. The Red Sox had two teams 88 wins or higher besides them in their division, and had fewer teams in the division, I think strength of division is pretty favorable towards the Red Sox. Yeah, the Reds have more hall of famers, most likely, but there were fewer players in the league back then and thus it was easier to distinguish yourself.

If the O's win their last 4 games of the year, they would still finish 14 games behind 1975's cellar dweller Houston. It balances out. The 2018 AL East, minus the Sox, do have a slightly better winning percentage than the '75 NL West, sans the Reds. But IDK if a statistician factored in the differences in scheduling (Boston playing vs the weakest division in the NL, the 2018 AL as a whole being top heavy, the 1975 NL w/o CIncy as a whole looking much like it does today. Parity) whether that small advantage would stand up. And as I said before, we have to give it time.

[Cobra Mgr]

How is this possible?

[Cobra Mgr]

Wow! Two tiebreakers tomorrow. I assume the losers play each other Tuesday?

[cephasjames]

Why are there play-in tiebreakers for division titles? Didn't they use to determine tiebreakers by who won the season series?

[MorseMoose]

For how bad the Twins were this year, I'm quite impressed with how they finished. Granted, a lot of that was against their divisional foes...