[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Anyone else see the Yankees get YUthanized?[/quote]
Oh yeah. He’s getting more comfortable every start. This is the most confident I have ever been in the Rangers pitching.
Pineda…torn labrum, possible major surgery out indefinitely
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Pineda…torn labrum, possible major surgery out indefinitely [/quote]
To make matters worse, Montero is coming along well as a catcher from reports. If he becomes a premium hitter at a premium position you guys will have been double fucked.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Pineda…torn labrum, possible major surgery out indefinitely [/quote]
To make matters worse, Montero is coming along well as a catcher from reports. If he becomes a premium hitter at a premium position you guys will have been double fucked.[/quote]
Wow what a dissappointment. He was the biggest reason people had high hopes for the Yankees this year. I agree it is sure looking like the Mariners got the better end of that deal now.
“If pitchers with torn labrums were horses, they?d be destroyed.”
- Will Carrol (Baseball Prospectus)
Boy my prediction about the Red Sox is looking worse everyday.
Carl Crawford is out for 3 months.
So Delmon Young has been arrested for assault and also for a hate crime as he made anti-semitic remarks.
.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
.[/quote]
LOL
If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?[/quote]
About the same as a night with your mother?
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Anyone else see the Yankees get YUthanized?[/quote]
Oh yeah. He’s getting more comfortable every start. This is the most confident I have ever been in the Rangers pitching.
[/quote]
Which is what I figured would happen. It’s big adjustment.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Pineda…torn labrum, possible major surgery out indefinitely [/quote]
I had that problem. He’s out for a year, but he will be able to pitch again. You can’t pithc with a torn labrum, because your arm is coming out of socket constantly. Aside from the fact that it hurts like hell you also cannot predict where your arm is going to be because it’s flopping around in the socket. After surgery I was able to lift full bore in 6 months, a you healthy person should be able to recover in no time.
This is a little off topic, but does anybody know like how to determine the value of signed baseballs? I know the baseball card values are easy enough to find, but I am not sure about balls.
I have 2 cool ones. One is a game ball from the 1982 Braves with the likes of Joe Torre, Bobby Cox, Phil Neikro, Brett Butler and Dale Murphy to name a few. It’s a family heirloom and I would never sell it, but I am curious to know if it’s worth any thing.
The other is a pristine Hank Aaron signed ball.
Anybody know a web page or something that could give me an idea on values?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?[/quote]
About the same as a night with your mother?[/quote]
I see high school level math isn’t your forte
Jays will be on espn on Monday night. Darvish vs Drabek. Will give you guys a chance to check out the Jays
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?[/quote]
About the same as a night with your mother?[/quote]
I see high school level math isn’t your forte[/quote]
What fucking high school did you go to? This is like kindergarten level math. You don’t know the answer, do you? That’s why you’re asking us, right?
It’s a five dollar ball, you moron.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?[/quote]
About the same as a night with your mother?[/quote]
I see high school level math isn’t your forte[/quote]
What fucking high school did you go to? This is like kindergarten level math. You don’t know the answer, do you? That’s why you’re asking us, right?
It’s a five dollar ball, you moron.[/quote]
Well, i posted it in PWI initially but I thought I’d post it here too since I would be curious how you’d answer.
Your answer to the following riddle can predict whether you are a believer in religion or a disbeliever:
Q: If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?
A: If you answered $10 you are inclined to believe in religion. If you answered $5 you are inclined to disbelieve.
Why? Because, according to new research reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, the $10 answer indicates that you are an intuitive thinker, and the $5 answer indicates that you solve problems analytically, rather than following your gut instinct.
Psychologists William Gervais and Ara Norenzayan, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, predicted that people who were more analytic in thinking would tend not to believe in religion, whereas people who approach problems more intuitively would tend to be believers. Their study confirmed the hypothesis and the findings illuminate the mysterious cognitive process by which we reach decisions about our beliefs.
Cognitive theory of decision making supports the hypothesis that there are two independent processes involved in decision making. The first process is based on gut instinct, and this process is shared by other animals. The second cognitive process is an evolutionarily recent development, exclusive to humans, which utilizes logical reasoning to make decisions. Their study of 179 Canadian undergraduate students showed that people who tend to solve problems more analytically also tended to be religious disbelievers. This was demonstrated by giving the students a series of questions like the one above and then scoring them on the basis of whether they used intuition or analytic logic to reach the answers. Afterward, the researchers surveyed the students on whether or not they held religious beliefs. The results showed that the intuitive thinkers were much more likely to believe in religion.
To test whether there is a causative basis for this correlation, the researchers then used various subtle manipulations to promote analytic reasoning in test subjects. Prior research in psychology has shown that priming stimuli that subconsciously suggest analytical thinking will tend to increase analytic reasoning measured on a subsequent test. For example, if subjects are shown a picture of Rodin's sculpture "The Thinker" (seated head-in-hand pondering) they score higher in measures of analytic thinking in tests given immediately afterward. Their studies confirmed this effect but also showed that those subjects who showed increased analytic thinking also were significantly more likely to be disbelievers in religion when surveyed immediately after the test.
Three other interventions to boost analytic thinking had the same effect on increasing religious disbelief. This included asking subjects to arrange a collection of words into a meaningful sequence. If the words used for the subconscious prime related to analytic thinking, such as "think, reason, analyze, ponder, rational," rather than control words "hammer, shoes, jump, retrace, brown," subjects scored higher on tests of analytic thinking given immediately afterward, and they were also much more likely to be disbelievers in religion. This demonstrates that increasing critical thinking also increases religious disbelief.
Norenzayan emphasizes that "Analytical thinking is one of several factors that contribute to disbelief. Belief and disbelief are complex phenomena that have multiple causes. We have identified just one factor in these studies."
Professor and Chairman Terrence Reynolds of the Department of Theology at Georgetown University finds it plausible that analytic thinking could make religious belief more difficult. "If one assumes that all rationality is tied to what we know directly through the five senses, that limits our understanding of meaning questions. Religion tends to focus on questions of meaning and value, which may not be available through analytic verification processesâ?¦ by definition God is a being that transcends the senses."
Reynolds and Norenzayan agree that analytic reasoning is not superior to intuitive reasoning. "They both have their costs and benefits," Norenzayan says. One of the consequences of the costs and benefits is one's tendency to believe in religion. So whether you answered $5 or $10 provides insight into what you believe and how your beliefs are formed.
Although they focused on religion in this study, I posted it here because I think it sorta applies. How you answered probably explains how you form beliefs about what you see on the field. It’s also probably why you and BONEZ had a such tough time understanding RBI is such a useless stat.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
LOL!! Yeah, but it looks like the boston chick started it. For the record, the Red Sox fans are more obnoxious than the Yankee fans when the teams play in ATL…