“The last pass of day by a quarterback not named Taylor or Jones was intercepted by a player wearing a jersey with the absolute value of -50.”

As a socially awkward person, it’s entirely conceivable to me that he’s worried it might be insulting to pick up the check in that situation. It’s not, of course, but that’s how our weirdo minds work.

I love Sanderson so much that I’m willing to let him have his dad jokes.

A 15-seed winning it all.

he’ll be dead?

Thanks for sharing this.

I don’t know, the moment when Lance looks into the camera is pretty incredible.

there is no chance of that happening while Boston exists. A player from a pretty neutral team like Seattle is the only way that could have possible happened.

Don’t get me wrong - it was a good zinger. I have to admit that as a braves fan I loved those Smoltz closer years, even if in your head you know he’s probably worth more as a starter.

Are you responding to someone else or did you just need someone to drop that witticism on? My comment was only about how it’s disingenuous to compare win totals when one player spent years as a closer. I’ve been saying this whole time that I think Schilling should be in the HOF.

that just doesn’t make any sense. you threw up a comparison of win totals and conveniently left out that one guy spent years in a role where you generally get saves instead of wins. Schilling should be in the hall of fame, but you can make that point without being deceptive.

Saves are a bullshit stat, and so are wins. but once you throw wins out there you can’t ignore the fact that one guy spent years of his career racking up saves instead. It’s just cherry-picking at that point.

Schilling should be in, but a comparison that leaves out one of Smoltz’s most relevant stats that Schilling can’t match is just a bad argument.

Do you guys actually just wait for Barnwell to write something and then write an identical article no matter the subject?

Don’t lie, you’ve been saving that one

Yeah, I gave up. Getting them to admit that just one incredibly simple fact was completely incorrect took multiple posts. Then I started asking myself what the hell they could be talking about with this supermajority thing (maybe they were talking about having 60 votes in the Senate?) and just gave up.

This is what you said: “Except that his party controlled the House for his entire first term...”

Obama’s first term ran from January 2009 to January 2013. The Republicans captured the House in 2010. The Democrats did not have a majority in the House, super-majority in the House, control of both sides of Congress, or anything else you moved the goalposts to, through Obama’s first term. Ugh I just realized that no…

“Except that his party controlled the House for his entire first term”