Doohickie

Tangent: I know there is W-L record, but are there more sophisticated fancy stats on coaches? Is there any way to quantify which coaches gets the most out of a given roster? I'm thinking maybe a WAR but for coaches, or possibly stats that break down which coaches are better and defense, offense, PK, PP, etc., in such a way that you could somehow minimize the effect of roster on the coach's ratings.

Oh, I change my mind all the time. But sometimes I just don't agree with someone on a given point and that person is rather outspoken on that point and I don't want to have the same discussion/argument again and again.

It has definitely sped up the game (by more than a half hour on average), but surprisingly made game playing times more uniform as well. It's now very common for games that start at the same time to end withing a few minutes of each other. You can now easily fit a baseball game in a 3 hour time window with little chance of it running over. I think having the pitch clock (and batter's box clock) enforced immediately by awarding a ball for an offending pitcher or a strike for an offending batter is particularly satisfying. Immediate, tangible consequences.

Really now?

Yeah, not working for me either. You can still go out on the open internet and find a gif and paste it in your post, but it's not as convenient as having it integrated in the editing bar.

If I put you on Ignore, you'd still see my posts. I just wouldn't see yours. I put a lot of people on Ignore. I usually take them off Ignore eventually unless they are ridiculous trolls in which case they end up banned anyway. Basically if I have the same argument with someone over and over and it's not productive and it gets to the point that I get frustrated, I take a break from them. It doesn't mean I hate them, it's just that it's ground that's been covered already and no one is changing anyone's mind.

Oh I think he's a great guy. He just talks about Eichel too much. And it's the same conversation over and over.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Off on a tangent here, but in the old stadium everyone knew not to get seats on the third base side which caught sunlight far longer than the first base side. It was like being in a rotisserie turned up to high. But to follow the tangent a bit further: By definition all HS football stadiums in Texas are aligned on a north-south axis. The home fans get the west seats (facing away from the setting sun) and the visitors get to look into the sun's death ray until it sets. This is deliberate.

Yeah, the Rangers don't like it either.

I'm not one for small talk

Hella lot better smelling that tobacco smoke.

He will by the end of the series.

That's a hot take I can live with.

So... I guess I gotta take to to the next level. Not only put @Thorny on Ignore, but also everyone who quotes him.

Good for you. Not everyone is the same. Anyway, cuddle buddies!

How many of those were "didn't want to be here" vs. "Kevyn was turning over the culture"? I think Eichel, Reino and Risto were the latter. Ullmark is really the only one in the first group for sure. Montour.... probably the same thing and Ullmark... he was going to walk anyway so get what you can. Could be that the market wasn't there for Montour... either because his value was hurt by the Krueger stank, or because there were other more attractive trade targets.

Which, if you're convinced is the case, you can acquire a war horse in his 30s, knowing he doesn't have to be a long term piece.

Sounds like a personal matter.

Well then don't complain when you can't find workers.

I think Kevyn saw him as part of the Eichel clique that needed to go. To me the 1 yr deal he gave Reino was the first concrete indication of the changes to come.

Not only did he score but he was out on the ice late to protect the lead.

I'm on a 4x40 schedule. Once in a great while I'll work on a Friday for something that I want to be over and done with and not weighing on my mind over the weekend... like maybe a couple times a year. I had a family crisis several years ago and while I took just a couple days off to deal with the acute phase of it, I got into the habit of working 40 hours and no more. Oddly in the aftermath of that I got promoted. It's not how much you work (at least in some fields), it's the quality of your work. If you're regularly working 60-70 hour weeks, quality drops off. By cutting back to 40 I was getting almost as much done insofar as the quality of my work was much better.