Bullshit. Just strike out so you don’t run the risk of hitting into a double play is much worse. More importantly, no one said that should be the approach, just that the outcomes are more favorable.

I looked through a few days worth of box scores, and the number of runs scored on outs is consistently just about equal to the number of double plays (I’d be interested if there’s a database that includes the FC-RBI over the long term). That’s just runs scored—not taking into account other runners advancing or errors…

Both are true. It’s the same as when a celebrity climbs onto the TMZ bus.

Every ball in play could also result in a two base error. Lots of things could happen, but the total win/loss ratio of outs on balls in play is a positive compared to strikeouts. It’s hard to believe anyone is suggesting otherwise.

You don’t think some hitters are better equipped to hit leadoff than others?

That’s only true if there’s no one on base, which is the circumstance of the leadoff hitter a disproportionate amount of the time. Strikeouts are less productive than other kinds of outs, but also don’t care the risk of the double play. It’s arguable that the best leadoff man would be one of your overall good hitters…

You know they time these things, right?

It’s not too farfetched to suggest that it's a legitimate question that hasn't been adequately answered to date.

It’s not clear how much more you’d be taxed, but the early proposal calls for an additional 4% payroll on employees and an additional 7% on employers. An 8% increase is probably a reasonable bottom line estimate on average although individual circumstances will vary depending on income, whether you’re covering just…

Or basically this:

It’s not arbitrary. It’s based on extensive medical research after testing hormone levels of countless thousands of men and women. Arbitrary would be if they had no data and said “maybe 4?” It’s no more arbitrary than saying what a healthy blood pressure or cholesterol is.

I’ll be convinced they deserve equal pay just as soon as anyone can present a reasonable argument why the U-20 team deserves the same.

The players will make $400k+ plus endorsements this year, which is obviously inflated because of the World Cup. They’d make a fraction of that playing in European soccer leagues. I don’t know exactly what their degrees are in, but somehow I doubt they’d be making that kind of money at a nine-to-five.

All you can drink is a better deal only because the drinks are incredibly overpriced to begin with and only if you’re going to have more than six or seven drinks a day off the included menu. You may “save” money, but only compared to if you still would have had seven rum runners were you paying for them individually. 

“Here is what they cannot deny: For every game a man plays on the MNT, he makes a higher base salary payment than a woman on the WNT.”

I’m sure that this is overall very rare and therefore not worth talking about.

The biggest problem isn’t even necessarily people hiding assets, although I’m sure they would. It’s determining wealth and valuing assets. Much of the wealth is real estate, stocks, commodities, etc, which are worth only what someone would pay for them. Stock options or outright ownership shares are even trickier to…

You’re exactly right. That’s why USSF continues to dump money into the NSWL. It’s not an investment they expect to pay off in the league itself. It’s a big picture investment.

Has USSF considered the possibility of not keeping the NWSL afloat? That’s the obvious response, and I’d imagine just the threat of it would get the players back pretty quick. It would be a setback, but the US soccer program would be fine long term if they played with scabs or just sat out a World Cup. The NWSL would f…

If Perez had any sense of comedy he would have thrown that ball over the fence too.