For some reason I have a very vivid memory of Jim Sundberg’s triple in the 1985 ALCS. I don’t think it was the memory of it happening live. It was maybe a replay on a newscast. But I remember how it bounced off the top of the fence. Somehow that stuck with me. Must have been 6:

He’s definitely exciting. It worries me that he’s surrounded by...questionable...talent. A guy who loves to pass needs some folks who can finish.

I don’t disagree. Just trying to come up with some sort of rationale. I suppose they don’t want to bottom out, but they’ve created a weird-ass team, especially given the way their coach supposedly wants to play.

What’s the alternative for Miami, though? Going the Kobe route? Having a player clearly past his prime take up such a huge part of the salary cap that your ability to create a team is severely hamstrung? I get that the exploding salary cap gives teams some room, but Wade was well-compensated even when taking pay cuts…

They do seem to be very bad at team building. They cleared out their front court filled with multiple players who couldn’t be on the court at the same time only to create a back-court with multiple players who can’t be on the court at the same time.

Sure, but even in Minnesota, I wouldn’t put Love in the ultimate teammate category with Nash and LeBron, or even in the cold blooded, but consummate team player group with Chris Paul. He seemed like a dude going after stats, which wasn’t wholly irrational given what was placed around him.

I don’t know, man, that article stands up pretty well. The League was at a crossroads, the Suns style of play won out over iso-Kobe. Mayo was a bust, reformed his game as a sometimes pretty decent role player. Vince shifted from the guy who pouted his way out of Toronto and annoyed Jason Kidd into a solid role player.…

1) The practicality of any particular plan being implemented is not necessarily an argument against the quality of that plan or goals. Universal health care, for example, would greatly benefit the country, but it cannot practically be passed. Still a good idea.

Yes, rational conversation will continue to be impossible so long as you continually interpret “no non-deadly purpose” as “no purpose.”

Look, the fundamental problem here is, once again, you making up things about what I said.

Look, this is just daffy. The only solution to animal overpopulation is not giving guns to citizens to shoot them. There are ways to organize repression of dangerous populations that don’t involve Bubba getting to buy any gun he wants and keep it at home.

This is just pathetic. You’ve completed fabricated a concept, “not useful to society,” out of my statement and then run with it. It’s a beautiful example of strawman generation.

You’re right, I mean, when you aim at a deer and pull the trigger, it just gives them a gentle tickle.

Sure, but that’s a slightly different argument than you hear in today’s political discourse. I am not fundamentally opposed to a strict licensing regime for private gun ownership - devil’s in the details, of course.

In a properly functioning system, it would be the status they earned through an intense vetting process that involved firearm training as well as psychological observation. We probably hand out weapons to police officers with far too much eagerness and not enough caution, but I don’t fundamentally share your…

Gotcha. Fair point.

You’re right, there are no laws about how fast you can drive, about how you need to behave at an intersection, how you need to drive in a work zone; no regulations on whether a car should have seatbelts or airbags or bars that stop the roof from collapsing if it rolls over or rules governing tire quality or whether…

It’s about the consequences.

And Oliver.

This is mostly not true. Britain gained far more economically than it lost in the arrangement.