TBayXXXVII

Well, like I said, Seattle isn't a hitter nor HR friendly park, so it makes sense that he's better on the road. That's been the case every year for him. To me, the difference is that he's more experienced and learned more how to hit in his home park. Learned more of what pitches to hit, where, and how. After all, this is only his 4th full season and he's shown progression. It's not like he's an 8-9 year vet (like Brady Anderson was), who's been relatively static.

Curious, how do the home/away splits raise a flag for you, in what way? Looking at Statcast and I saw that Seattle is not a very hitter friendly ballpark. T-Mobile Park ranks as the 30th most hitter friendly park in baseball this year, so dead last, and 18th best HR-friendly park in the league this year. If you track it over the last 3 years, they're 28th most hitter friendly park out of 28 (as the A's & Rays don't have 3 years of data in their current ballpark), and 20th best HR-friendly park. To me, it makes sense that he's putting up a better slash line on the road than at home. Last year was similar, and more road heavy. To me, this says he's learned to hit for power at home this year.

Yeah, I know the numbers... I gave them to you. LOL Define "come close"? Does 50 qualify? I mean, he's now entering his peak prime years. He should have 1 or 2 more like this before any decline. But, it depends on what you consider a decline. I mean, what if he ends up with 62 this year, hits 48 then 52, before going down to say 38? Do you think he's going to drop down to 30 next year? So you think that he's the ONLY ONE who's able to circumvent the steroid testing?

Nah, not Brady Anderson. Once he became an everyday player, he was hitting a HR about 2.5 to 3% of his plate appearances, then all of a sudden shot up to 7, and then back down. His fly ball% did go up, but back down again. The reason Raleigh isn't like him, is because his HR% was always high, it just went higher. In his first (mostly), full season, he was at 6.5%, he then went down to the mid-to low 5's and now this year at 8%. It's not really the outlier. He's a power hitter who's squaring up more and getting more comfortable. This is his 4th season, so the numbers make sense. It didn't for Anderson because it happened at age 32, after being a role player for 3 years and a regular for 6. Raleigh is more like Schwarber, but hitting that stride at a younger age. Prior to this year, in Raleigh had 93 HR's in 1760 PA's (462 games)... Schwarber had 110 HR's in 1884 PA's (492 games). They're more similar than Brady Anderson.

I don't think he's wrong. I definitely know he's right on strike 3 though. (in regards to the umpires calls... not comments in the dugout).

Bus driver age = Current date - D.O.B.

Woah, woah, woah there buddy. Didn't you read the article? The author included a quote of someone who is concerned about hunters. Also made 2 other hunting references. Clearly, these guys were simply hunting.

What's worse.... they're going to re-file!! Anthony Russo, an attorney for the consumers who sued Hershey, said that they intend to amend the complaint. Seriously, this guy should be disbarred if that happens.

How the flip did this make it to court? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hershey-reeses-halloween-pumpkin-candy-lawsuit-judge-ruling/

Shhh.... you're not supposed to know/say that.

Not really sure you'd have an option. If it were tonight, there'd only be one held by liberals. MAGA's party wouldn't be on a Wednesday night... we have to work tomorrow.

You can keep with your childish rants, have at it. Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

If it's raining, then it's an "exaggeration" of the truth and not to be taken literally (which by definition), is "hyperbole". If it's not raining at all, then to say that person is being hyperbolic, would be wrong to do so. YOU said that hyperbole "by definition" is "not true". You were incorrect. Oh, and yes, Kimmel lied.

1. Yes, taken off air until he issued an apology. 2. Yes, have Kimmel apologize, until then... ? No one silenced Kimmel, except Kimmel and ABC/Disney... whomever. All he had to do was say sorry. Not hard.

TBay: What Jimmy Kimmel actually said, was actually a lie. Also TBay: Something that is "literally impossible", isn't hyperbole. @TimHauck can't handle being wrong, he just throws hissy fits.

Then he was fired by his company, the government didn't force them to do that. All they wanted was an apology. Also like I said earlier, I think this was strategic on ABC/Disney's part to make it look like government force. Him being back on the air, after a mere apology kinda says that's right, no?

You still get over being owned on that, can you? You keep doubling, tripling, quadrupling... down on that. That is too funny.

I took OP's word for it. Meh. With that being the case, the left really made it a bigger issue than it should be, did they not?

The answer is YES. He did lie. I paraphrased.

It doesn't matter to the FCC. I won't disagree with your claim about Garrett. I'm ok with the FCC stepping in.

Just more evidence to support my assertion that the worst political party to ever exist on the planet, is the current version of the Democrat party. Thanks. Surprised it came from you.

Both. Depends on when it's necessary and when it's not.

That's why I voted "Right".

I think they fired him for financial reasons, it just looked better for their political side to make it look like the government caused it. That aside, to your points... 1. It doesn't matter that his show is a comedy show... though, one would contend that the show would have to be funny for it to qualify as a comedy show. But, I digress. He wasn't making a joke. He was making a statement. 2. The fact that this topic exists, provides an example of public harm, I would think. Does it not? Kimmel's statement was political rhetoric attacking one side based on misinformation, was it not? Isn't that what got Trump shot at twice, what got Hortman killed, what got Kirk killed? Isn't that thing that people are claiming needs to stop? Also, the only thing the FCC wanted was for Kimmel (to pretend), to apologize. That's all. How do we know that? Because that's all that happened and he's back on the air. They weren't trying to silence him.

If that's the benchmark, why stop at Trump? That's every politician. Yeah, I said "every", not just some. To answer your question, it's because that's not under the purview if the FCC.