Jump to content

vs. NATIONALS, 7/17


OFFNY

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

 

I know, but boiling hot dogs is just the worst. At least pan fry or broil them. 

 

o

 

I'm a vegetarian, but when I ate meat when I was a kid, boiling them in sauerkraut and water made them taste much better than boiling them in just plain water.

 

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, scOtt said:

 

I've eaten raw bacon. It's smoked and cured. Safe.

 

 

People worry WAY too much about that.

I was just wondering how you can eat something that is already cooked raw?  Do you somehow uncook it?

And raw bacon might be edible but I find it gross.  I like it borderline burnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

I'm a vegetarian, but when I ate meat when I was a kid, boiling them in sauerkraut and water made them taste much better than boiling them in just plain water.

 

o

That is acceptable. I'm not really a fan of sauerkraut, but much better than just boiling water. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Philip said:

The radio guys are making all kinds of excuses for Sisco. At least one of them admitted that he doesn’t throw all that well.

He’s Bad. If he hits really well, it’ll be OK.

But only if he hits really really well.

You miss having Tanner Scott around don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, scOtt said:

 

Hot dogs are already cooked. I eat them raw fairly often.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

:confused:

 

o

 

Yes, he contradicted himself, but I think that Scott meant "unheated" when he said "raw."

 

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I was just wondering how you can eat something that is already cooked raw?  Do you somehow uncook it?

And raw bacon might be edible but I find it gross.  I like it borderline burnt.

I always liked bacon very warm but wobbly. I've ate it raw but just to test. Not as good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • Hi Puck- From a marketing standpoint the Orioles will eventually reach a relative saturation point which I agree is around 2.5m then it's about leveraging money from the fan experience-winning being a chief component of that.   
    • I doubt it.   wavetrapper joined about 10 days before OOO was banned.   He might have some similar views but seems better at claiming some unique expertise or superiority.   
    • Yes, it's possible.   But we don't know the extent to which the "old school" stuff is still taught.   I wouldn't assume it is ignored or underemphasized.   But, perhaps it is.   Nobody was asking that question last year or the first 2.5 months of this season, though.   I doubt the approach was any different when we were playing .650 ball than it is now.
    • Sports Guy- Isn't attendance becoming more of a  legacy statistic similar to Avg v. OPS?  It's a very different era than 1965 when there were few suites or "premium" seating and hardly any amenities beyond a beer and hot dog.  Today a seat and it's attachment rate are not comparable between say NY and KC-and we've seen the leverage of corporate sponsorship with TRP.  In the Warehouse I would think growing attachment rate and corporate partners would at some point have comparable priority as a revenue driver.  Seat sales account only ~20% of revenue and shrinking,  The revenue tilt is upgrading fans/corps. to a premium seat at an average of 4X the price.   Although this slide is from '22 it details the discrepancy between teams that can leverage premium seating and suites.  Playoff revenue is also likely in this slide which benefits teams like Houston. There is no real way I have found to judge revenue other than Forbes-just food for thought.  
    • The Mountcastle injury hasn't felt like a huge deal since we have a similarly-performing O'Hearn to slot into the same position.  But I think the lineup misses him. He is better than Eloy, Rivera, and the other guys his ABs are getting distributed to. And better defensively than O'Hearn.
    • There could be some interesting stuff to talk about here, or individual cases where what you're saying is true, but I think the short answer is no. Analytics are going to be more accurate overall than the old-school axioms-- the axioms that are provably true are probably still coached.   On point 1 we definitely have some players struggling to make adjustments and some of that may be that they're coached to hunt barrels at the expense of contact. The O's are built to maximize power and you can see that in their results (1st in SLG but 9th in AVG). Maybe a different approach could help some guys break out of a slump more easily, but it's hard to know because there are always struggling players no matter the coaching approach. Were the the Showalter O's missing old-school wisdom when they let Adam Jones continue whiffing on low and away sliders?  Point 2 I probably buy the least because pitching analytics across MLB have been so generally effective in helping players maximize their game. Probably there are ways the O's could be using their data better. Not every decision and result will be perfect. But analytics is golden for pitchers.  On point 3, is there any reason to think the O's are generally weak on defensive fundamentals compared to most teams? Gunnar had his recent error binge but that's all I can think of and that seemed more like a personal thing to me. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...