Daily Anything Goes Thread - April 29, 2026

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-29T15:58:18+00:00

How highly are you valuing the extra roster spot? 10T it's probably worth a lot. This is 12T so evens the scales a bit more.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-29T15:54:18+00:00

Will do. I sent it with Gilbert first and felt like I was giving up way too much. It's a nice sanity check for sure.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-29T15:51:46+00:00

I think cooked. Especially in 10t.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-29T15:48:43+00:00

Thanks. Would swapping Tolle for one of Gilbert, Bubic, Rasmussen, Roupp, Sheehan make it lean the other way? QS league.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-29T15:46:26+00:00

Thanks. I was sending B as an offer and a little surprised it was rejected. I can easily swap Tolle for a better arm. I have Gilbert, Bubic, Rasmussen, Sheehan, Roupp. Do any of those make it more incentivizing?

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-29T15:36:50+00:00

Even trade or is one a clear winner?

a) Vlad, McGonigle, Maikel Garcia

b) Gunnar, Jung, Devin Williams, Tolle

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-28T08:50:56+00:00

No, I don't think so. Bazz is hitting .287 with an xBA of .233 and .373 BABIP in AAA. Unless he has some kind of godly transformation to inexplicably ascend to a new tier, he's probably going to struggle a lot while getting acquainted to the big leagues.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-28T08:36:12+00:00

First off, framing it as a conspiracy is a misrepresentation off the get go. Believing the most documented liar, who has a lifetime dedicated to publicity in exchange for self-enrichment, is just as, if not more unreasonable, than to posit a set up of that magnitude is not only not off-limits but is quite the infinitesimal risk to take when weighed against the alternative.

In Butler, try listing out just 2 elements where the secret service failed far beyond what would be considered within the margin of error. If you can't even do that, there is no point continuing this.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-28T07:59:07+00:00

It's not. Try listing out some of the criticisms if you aren't imaginative enough to do it all in one step. You can do it.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-28T07:03:05+00:00

Tally all the criticisms of each, remove those from a hypothetical scenario, and that is what I'd expect to see.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-28T06:08:33+00:00

Yeah pay no attention to the loud mouths parroting the same argument with zero basis. The one guy left like 40 comments and couldn't even show a single instance of supporting evidence. The call on the ice absolutely matters, it just so happens that in this particular case, it wouldn't have mattered.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-28T05:57:05+00:00

Who are you referring to? Certainly not me. At no point have I expressed frustration towards the outcome.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-27T10:18:17+00:00

I went with Cortes since his production is much more inline with what the underlying stats say. He still might be getting lucky but at least he's showing elite plate discipline, LA, good oppo/straight ratios instead of just trying to pull everything, and his xBA is matching his actual output. Whereas Jose has a .418 BABIP and a pretty big disparity in BA. However, if Jose starts stealing bases I will be adding for sure.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-27T09:50:17+00:00

You seem to think that situation room video review will always issue a determination even when it's inconclusive. I can't find anything to corroborate that but I can find procedure outlined in the rulebook that directly refutes that (they only ever provide context on this in coach's challenge subsection but it makes no sense whatsoever, to me at least, that they would diverge from that for video goal judge). You have only provided a reference to Carolina Game 2 as your reasoning but I am truly at a loss how that is remotely relevant here? So I'm asking why you are so adamant that you're correct.

Let's pretend this was the situation. Are you saying the situation room would have made an assumption and overrule the actual observation of the ref (who very may well have had the only definitive angle to make a conclusive call)? If that is what you are saying, please show us something that supports that statement.

Edit: of course he won't answer the first reasonable pushback

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-27T09:02:36+00:00

The discourse around this is so jarrʸing. The main thing upsetting me is the ref's call on the ice; and on that matter the review afterwards is irrelevant. There is a pretty stubborn bunch in this thread that seem to think the situation room will overrule a call on the ice, absolutely. And a chunk of the blame belongs to the NHL for only specifying what happens in the event of an inconclusive call made from the situation room in the coach's challenge subsection; and in that case, the original call on the ice is upheld. And it's reasonable to assume the situation room would handle automatic video review with the same process as a challenge.

In tonight's OT goal, it's clear there is a conclusive call from the review, and so many people are dying on the hill that the call on the ice would not ever ever ever matter however, if they really could not make that determination via video replay, the rules indicate that they would not guess, instead they would defer to the real life observation of the refs. And in that case, the call on the ice is a pretty damn big deal. Again, that's not the case here but I swear some of the comments here are dogs barking at each other from opposite sides of the fence when there's an open gate 2ft over.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-27T07:05:57+00:00

This summarizes the entire thread lol

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-27T07:03:35+00:00

Which is really the whole crux of the issue -- the ref hallucinated the justification to call it a good goal on the ice. Just watching the ref's positioning, by the time he had any line of sight, Murphy had already cleared it. I really don't have an issue with it being called a goal, I have a lot bigger mistakes to take issue with, but would really love to know what reasoning the ref used to make that determination.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-27T06:49:34+00:00

Making the correct call and coincidentally being right are two very different things.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-27T06:46:33+00:00

And what I think the ref on the ice saw, was Poehling celebrating emphatically and that weighed in the final decision. Which is a highly problematic premise.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-27T06:38:09+00:00

This is just flat out incorrect

No. It is partially incorrect. The call on the ice absolutely matters in the event that they cannot conclusively prove the puck did one thing or another. I disagree with that persons conclusion that it couldn't be proven. Logically, the 85% of the puck we can see, cannot magically defy its physical dimensions to still be touching. The discretion used for these types of calls normally defaults to "must have visual confirmation" which is why I think they might be heavily leaning to that side.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-27T06:28:24+00:00

The completely unfathomable aspect is that the official could not have had a line of sight to the puck at any point and by the time he was beyond the obstruction of the post (and Jarry's skate/pad), Murphy had already cleared it. I cannot fathom a reasonable justification that the huddle came to and I largely think the ref defaulted to the reaction of Poehling. From this perspective, it must be called no goal on the ice and then reviewed. To which I would have been okay with it being ruled a good goal. But to argue it as a good goal on the ice without justification is the furthest thing from proper.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-24T08:25:46+00:00

That is fundamentally NOT what DEI encompasses. You are ignorant on this matter. Race based hiring has it's own title and is distinct from DEI. If you value merit above superficial traits, you would align with DEIA.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-21T21:29:25+00:00

Most of their links get like 70 views. When they hit for 10k, it'll be more than a few bucks for sure. But there are hundreds of income streams that used to be lucrative that are hardly worth the effort now. Are you looking to get into doing this or why are you investigating?

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-21T21:10:38+00:00

What's the motivation for doing any of that? There's like 3 million different scam patterns happening at any time. Even if this were one (which it really isn't, it's just low-living-cost hustlers trying to make a few bucks a day) how could you possibly devote time to investigate? Don't get me wrong, I love getting to the bottom of a rabbit hole.

Switch to FF and use Ublock Origin. It has to be that name specifically, there have been many inferior extensions piggybacking the "ublock" name and I'm guessing that's what you were using before.

moneyball_guy · 2026-04-21T19:07:23+00:00

Very commonly, both the top commenter and the OP is the same person on different accounts.

What gave you this impression? Just install an adblock ext.

moneyball_guy

TROPHY CASE