FredLynn

If we can hold this lead I am going to need to change my tag line

One more run here would be great

Another very good performance for Doubront. Six and a third, two earned runs. Just gotta throw more strikes and he will be right where he wants to be.

Last batter for Douby?

Aviles since May 1: .246/.635 Aviles in April: .291/.865

Aviles is really slacking off. He could use some rest.

Nava is due to put one in the seats or in the gap

Middlebrooks has to learn to hit the ball to the right side more.

OK...leadoff walk. Lets get Sweeney in somehow.

Tough call...maybe allowing him one baserunner is OK, but no more. He will be facing the top of the order. Another two runs would make this game a lot easier for us.

We got five runs off Drabek. I don't mind him coming out for another inning or two.

Get through this inning and one more with the lead and we should be in pretty good shape if we get two more runs.

Cheap run..nothing was hit hard. Doubront is still doing well.

Two on now. Gotta get out of this unscathed.

Doubront's BAA vs RHB is lower than vs LHP. Interesting. Seems equally effective against either righties or lefties. The OPS for RHB is a little higher.

We need three more innings out of Doubront.

Solo HRs rarely beat you. Plus, the HR was hit on a pitch out of the strike zone. You just tip your cap to the guy that hit that; not much you can do about that.

You cannot give up base hits on 0-2 counts.

We need a GIDP. I called two of them last night.

His PC isn't bad. If he makes it through 6 we are in good shape.

Just getting here...4-0. I'll take it. I see Nick Pinto has an RBI. I think we are 162,951,326,875,455-0 in games Pinto has an RBI.

Ah. I see the misunderstanding. The discussion that was going on was in the context of the ALE. Here is a post by TutGadol the preceded what I wrote: The division is tough. Considering the injuries and the horrendous start, 3 gb is very pleasing, we might have a chance when all those injured guys come back. If you look at the whole league, I would have to agree that we (and every ALE team) are having an good year overall. It is, so far, the best division in the American League. I am not denying that. However, in past years, one team or two usually begins to separate themselves from the others as being superior or inferior within their division. For example, last year in two of the three divisions one team was at least six games ahead of the last place team. In 2010 the differences were 10, 14, and 7 games. In the ALE no team has that kind of separation. You can use the word "average" or "ordinary" in comparing the ALE teams if you like, rather than mediocre. I was not intending in my post to include the set of ALL AL teams.

If every team has, essentially, the same record, then every team is average by definition. Think college grades; if every student gets a 70% score on a test, which one or ones are above average or superior on that test. Answer: none. Also, none of them are inferior. You incorrectly use run differential as a prime determinant to measure how good a team is. That is fallacious reasoning. A team is exactly as good as its W-L record says it is. In the ALE none of the teams is far from the median number of wins and is therefore mediocre by definition, for that set of teams. I stand by that statement because none of the teams in the ALE has proven to be clearly the class of the division nor the doormats of the division. If you think otherwise perhaps you would enlighten me as to which team or teams are clearly superior or inferior to the others. To help you, here is the definition of mediocre: Definition of MEDIOCRE : of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance : ordinary, so-so I would say that all of the ALE teams are obviously of MODERATE quality; none stand out. The antonym of mediocre is defined as follows: Antonyms: excellent, fine, first-class, first-rate, good, high-grade, superior, top-notch So again, which ALE teams have clearly defined themselves as "excellent" or "superior"? How is my post "the most incorrect statement of the night"? Perhaps its the most disliked statement of the night for you, but it is factually correct.

Got it. I don't think minor fractures in and of themselves become chronic problems, but congenital defects can be an issue. Gill didn't name his condition, conveniently, so its impossible to research it.

I am not sure that is true about fractures predisposing to chronic back problems. I know that fractures in the arm, for example, as long as they are not badly displaced and horrific in nature, just heal up without sequelae. I assume that ordinary minor fractures in the back have the same clinical course. Maybe Jacko knows something else about this sort of thing; I am not an orthopedist, just a pediatrician.