I’m a little tired so this might not make sense, but apply your standard to any other measure of a person.

I disagree with a lot of what you are saying here. I do wish that Kerr said more, but you can’t just jump from “he didn’t say what I wanted him to say about this issue” to “stick to sportzzzz!”

This isn’t going to be popular, but your preamble (and mine) identify what I think is a real problem here. Someone whispered this in Trump’s ear and he fucked it up earlier, but he tried to make the point that Steve Kerr was hesitant to criticize China but has been perfectly comfortable criticizing the US for years.…

Which of the issues do you think is unsolvable? I’m assuming that we’re talking about actually paying the athletes, not allowing for endorsements.

A lot of sharp money on Sweeney taking this job. 

Man I stole your joke without realizing it.

REMOVED JOKE, BoredEsq beat me to it.

This is where I get stumped, and I guess I’m just asking the same question again, sorry if I’m being dense. The idea that you can add $1 to the price of a burger and somehow end up with more profit means you could have presumably done the same thing before you were even thinking about healthcare.

I have some A’s related thoughts.

Genuinely curious here, because your argument sounds familiar to me as a Vegas resident when there was all the debate about increasing taxes for tourists. The idea that tourists will just eat an extra $5/night seems to suggest that Sheldon Adelson had been leaving thousands of dollars on the table every night.

Shit.

If you’re taking it out of the tip, you’re punishing the wrong party.

There are a few issues.

It’s passive aggressive because you walk in, order a sushi roll that’s $10 on the menu, and they charge you $10.25 with the implication that Obama is stealing that $0.25.

Fair enough. I was reading his reply as if it were coming from me ("why is this itemized on the receipt and not baked into the menu price?"), not the more likely "thanks Obama".

I’m with Darren here. I’ve seen a few restaurants pull this bullshit- there’s a chicken place in California that has a “California cost of business fee”.

This is just an uneducated guess, but I looked up “Androgel” and it appears as though they have at least two different strengths (1% and 1.62%). Maybe whatever you’re doing is 10x more concentrated?

The original point is not “irrefutable”. Statistics like success rate are starting points, not conclusions. You are right that they do not cherry pick data- they take in plays from all sorts of different score differentials, game situations, and team and player strengths. The result is just a rate.

That’s why I’m asking you to just start fresh. What I was saying above about the defense confused things. I was preemptively arguing against the point that a defense might adjust to a tendency, which would push success rates down. Let’s pretend that didn’t happen, and forget all about that point.

OK, I hate myself for replying, but here we go.