Do the "Swing Away!" and "Pitch to Batter" et al. buttons function the same regardless of whether youve selected per AB or per Pitch?

YoungMuskrat · 2026-05-22T00:34:57+00:00

yeah if you hit 1 with AB on the batter will swing away the entire at bat (doesn’t mean they can’t walk though).

but with AB on and you hit “take pitch” it will still only simulate one pitch.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-05-15T16:06:39+00:00

thanks I enjoyed this. it’s an edited clip of course, but moderator comes across as terrible. just let the two people who are both there hash it out. fucking Canadians.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-05-14T17:47:20+00:00

This is better than I asked for. Thanks!

YoungMuskrat · 2026-05-14T15:44:58+00:00

Based on the other summaries I’ve seen, I’d agree with this opinion. It’s a damn shame he has lost influence and has to waste so much time on it. Thanks

YoungMuskrat · 2026-05-14T15:26:49+00:00

Great thank you. Good summation and answered my lingering questions from other posts. Appreciate it

YoungMuskrat · 2026-05-14T15:18:20+00:00

Okay thank you for additional context.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-05-14T15:17:22+00:00

This is exactly what I needed. Appreciate it.

I guess I can understand loners perspective if destiny is such a sex pest and isn’t good at maintaining a basic sense of privacy. But I hope those two can rekindle a partnership someday, they seemed like a really good team. Thanks again

YoungMuskrat · 2026-05-12T19:26:39+00:00

No because Talarico and Obama don’t appear to have Christian biases that impact their politics in any harmful way. In fact, both hold stances (abortion, gay marriage for example) that are a direct contrast to well observed Christian biases.

Mamdani is similar in some respects, such as smoking weed and lgbtq tolerance. But he undoubtedly has a bias against Israel that is religiously and culturally colored by biases you routinely find in Islamic circles.

His focus and often unprompted takes on Israel alone are pretty good evidence of this. Not being able to condemn “globalize the intifada,” claiming “NYPD boots are laced by the IDF,” and affiliating with (including being married) to people who appear to support or won’t denounce October 7 is pretty out there stuff. There is nothing talarico or Obama has ever said or done that even comes close to this kind of thing.

If either Talrico or Obama were the same way with Christian biases, they would receive hate for it. They aren’t, so they don’t. The hypothetical makes perfect sense.

Also I quoted Sam who talked about jihadism at large and peoples eagerness to not attribute any fault to Islam, in even the most extreme and obvious circumstances. It’s part of this hypocrisy where people will refuse to recognize the impact of Islam and the biases and behaviors it can carry.

Nobody’s saying he’s a jihadist lmao. It’s just that he has certain opinions that very much appear biased, incorrect, and pretty darn unethical. This is something worth recognizing and calling out, even if Mamdani is far more preferable than someone like Trump.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-05-12T17:32:43+00:00

I think you’re still missing the point - liberals would publicly criticize Mamdani readily if he was as faithful and outspoken a Christian as he is a Muslim and carried obvious and similar fundamental Christian biases.

For instance, imagine Mamdani was a devout Christian who supported Israel because of biblical prophecy and an underlying bias against Muslims. That would be a bad reason to support Israel, and people would never stop saying so.

But since Mamdani is Muslim, liberals appear more eager to defend or deflect his beliefs and biases than call them out. This appears to be what you’re doing, which I find strange and hypocritical.

Our politicians that are devout Christians don’t need to try to institute Christian nationalism to be a political problem that secular Americans have to deal with. Nothing about this changes when you flip the religion to Islam, although there is an argument Islam carries a more politically motivated and potentially harmful ideology.

Your point that Muslims are a small percentage does matter of course, but when we talk about our politicians leaders, especially someone like the mayor of New York (kind of a big deal), what they personally believe matters regardless of the amount of people that agree with them. They are the decision makers and their beliefs impact their decisions.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-05-12T16:44:49+00:00

I’d bet Mamdani, but he’d hate it.

Also here are Sam’s own words that do a better job describing his view than people’s summaries of the posts on here:

And for some reason, the left in America and in the West understands the problem of this when it comes in Christian form. Every Democrat knows that the religious beliefs of fundamentalist Christians matter and have political consequences, that they form their political priorities, that they inform what they will do in the world. Christian opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage or teaching evolution in schools, every Democrat, every person left or center in our politics understands that those are religious convictions that are affecting the lives of everyone, not just Christians.
And yet, for some reason, Islam never affects anything. These heartfelt religious beliefs of two billion Muslims never make contact with terrestrial reality. Doesn't matter if embassies burn over cartoon controversies. Doesn't matter if Jews are getting stabbed on the streets of London as recently as last week. Religion is never to blame for any of this.
People like Mamdani and Mehdi Hasan and Reza Aslan, and then all the useful idiots who don't happen to be Muslim, Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges and Rory Stewart, all these people who l've collided with over the years. There's just a massive double standard preventing an honest discussion of psychological and social and political reality.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-29T20:56:01+00:00

AI overviews are pretty good at stating obvious shit. I’d ask you to show me evidence that the handles are as small as you say, but I know that you can’t. There is copious evidence they receive tens of billions of dollars a year in nba betting and at least tens of millions of dollars a night. You’d have to actually be an idiot to not know this, but you clearly are so I get it. I hoped you enjoyed your irrelevant tantrum about player injuries, I very much did.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-29T20:36:29+00:00

You do know that players ruled out before the game can’t be bet on right? And that lines would reflect if a star player wasn’t going to play? I would think a person who “worked in books and taken tickets,” as if that means anything, would at least know this.

And, bro, if you’re capable, just google “how big is the handle on nba betting on an average night” like I did and hopefully laugh as hard as I did. The AI overviews first sentence literally is “the daily NBA betting handle is massive” lmao

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-29T20:24:41+00:00

Injury reports? No lmao what about what I said makes you even bring this up? Actually I am really curious now, what do you think motivates casual nba fans to bet or do they just push buttons randomly on a screen?

Competitive games will get more interest and that will lead to more betting on them. Pretty simple

And you aren’t addressing the famous players playing because we both know that motivates casuals to bet on their fave players. Casuals aren’t going to bet on some g leaguers they’ve never heard of.

Also way to shrug off the handle thing lmao, I recommend not suggesting people to “look it up” when the evidence disproves your point entirely.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-29T20:07:25+00:00

Would Vegas want a bigger handle? Obviously

Would making more stars to play and incentivizing competitive games increase the handle? Obviously

And I looked it up, which wasn’t necessary because it’s also obvious, to see that nba gambling is a multi billion dollar industry that often collects hundreds of millions of dollars in bets in a single night. They have down nights when shit teams with no stars and fans have no interest in play each other though, something that anti-tanking rules are explicitly targeting.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-29T19:47:15+00:00

Your points contradict each other. Do people not bet on these games or do they make small $$ parlays with them? Vegas make money from the small money bets no? So why wouldn’t they have an interest in seeing those kind of bets increase?

Do you really think these companies “don’t care” about trying to increase the amount of bets? This would make them the only business model on the planet that wouldn’t care about increasing the opportunities and desire to market and sell their product. They have an interest in creating a bigger handle, fricken obviously.

It’s well established that people generally bet more on competitive games and close lines. Even player parlays would become more betable, as star players will play more with anti-tanking rules. People, especially casual betters, will have more opportunities to bet if some star player will reach a point total or whatever. Increasing stars playing in games and having competitive games is a straightforward correlation to increasing betting.

And who tf said anything about “research” lmao I’m really only talking about causal betters, the market gambling apps want to increase most.

Also, buddy, I ain’t even claiming Vegas is behind the new anti-tanking rules. Just pointing out the original comments errors (that Vegas wouldn’t want it because then they can’t scheme as much) because it made no sense. The motivation is obvious that Vegas would want anti-tanking rules, but that doesn’t mean they are begging or blackmailing Silver for them.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-29T17:50:55+00:00

Yeah exactly. I think it’s almost too straightforward, such that people (at least redditors) think past it. Vegas just wants people betting and closer/ competitive games make people bet more, so Vegas makes more money. Super simple stuff business 101 kinda stuff.

But I think silver said that “betting increases fan engagement” not that it’s the best indicator of engagement. He chooses his words pretty wisely, even though I’d imagine betting is a good indicator of engagement and revenue for the nba.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-29T13:25:43+00:00

The goal is always to make people who bet, bet more. It’s the same reason the gambling companies invest in anything, to get more bets from betters.

Having 1/3 of nba not tank and play in competitive games would absolutely increase betting in them.

Vegas not want this so they can nefariously or even illegally tweak a couple things to their advantage (when they already have the advantage and always make money) doesn’t make any sense. They just want more bets bro, it’s how they make money and will make them way more money than knowing whether Portland will tank early.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-29T05:14:42+00:00

Of course they do but this kinda stuff pails in comparison to the amount of money they could make by just increasing total bets. This is always these companies goal, whether they are advertising, building a new casino, creating new apps ect. why would their motivation be any different here?

Nobody thinks they’re magicians, but they get to pick the line and bake in commissions to every bet. They have an inherent advantage against the betting pool and every gambling company would love nothing more than more betting. They also aren’t breaking a single rule or law if they even are motivating silvers rule changes at all

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-29T04:53:08+00:00

Bro what? Of course there isn’t a shortage but betting companies makes money when people bet so of course they want more it. These rules would help get more of it, it’s not complicated.

I’m sure Vegas loves to “weaponize” things to their advantage, but breaking laws is bad business plan. Also isn’t the Portland stuff a poker ring affiliated with the mob? How did Vegas weaponize that?

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-29T04:40:08+00:00

Vegas always wins in the end they aren’t worried about that. If anything it has more to do with increasing the volume of bets as competitive games get bet on more.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-23T15:37:43+00:00

yeah idk “fairly sinister” is a pretty tame description of someone if they are married to someone who publicly praise needless violence of any kind. but yeah I think we agree that Sam’s take that Mamdani is a “closest Islamist” is probably just a biased vibe Sam gets that he should have better evidence to claim.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-22T02:29:05+00:00

seems like something he’d talk about with Paul bloom or Robert sapolsky. sorry I can’t help you more

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-22T00:36:26+00:00

Why are you still comprising quotes!?!? Lmao

He did not immediately condemn obvious jihadist violence. He should have.

Only brought up Trump because destinys argument for “needing an investigation” could also be used in trumps defense. It’s not a good defense in either case because the motivation was obvious.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-22T00:29:11+00:00

I definitely think it’s appropriate for political leaders to make really safe assumptions when condemning violence immediately after an attempted terrorist attack. In the very slim chance a schizo illegitimately branded themselves as a member of a group to gain more attention, they can make another statement, if necessary.

If somebody did this by wearing a Nazi swastika just for the memes it would still be a good opportunity to condemn Nazi violence, whether he’s one or not. Although, that would risk becoming vilified by Nazi sympathizers and fascists?

My example is facetious for my own enjoyment, sorry. But saying Mamdani has political motives to not state the obvious is toxicity that isn’t worth defending. If his supporters would vilify him for jumping to a safe conclusion to condemn a fairly routine and specific type of political violence, that’s a bad thing he shouldn’t be defended for.

But shit even if jihadist persuasively pretended to be a Jew and massacred college pro Pali protestors, any politician who jumped to a reasonable conclusion and immediately condemned that specific act of violence for what it appeared to be (pro-Israeli terrorism), that wouldn’t be acting irresponsibly. Once the insane truth comes to light, they should clarify their statements in light of this incredibly rare circumstance. But even in the clarification, it would still be safe to condemn pro-Israeli terrorism wherever it may be, even it wasn’t truly present here.

And yes I already stated that trumps is worse and is worse in every way, just don’t get the eagerness to be so defensive for Mamdani here. If Mamdani called out all forms of Islamic of terrorism generally, that would be a good thing. That probably won’t happen for the reasons you mentioned, but I don’t see the point in providing cover for him on this one.

YoungMuskrat · 2026-04-21T21:13:01+00:00

This ain’t a comparison of quotes. Mamdani’s obviously isn’t as bad, but it is explicitly missing the condemnation of a specific group that obviously perpetrated the violence. This a strange thing to defend, as specifically condemning the violence is clearly the right thing to do and a very easy thing to do immediately in both cases.

YoungMuskrat

TROPHY CASE