64 thoughts on “March 10, 2017: How Often Does One Person Have to Get Sick?”

    1. We're in a surprisingly long healthy period now. Before that it was a few months of swapping colds with croup in there once or twice.

    2. Three of my four kids have had antibiotic prescriptions over the last two weeks. Two strep throats and one infected fingernail. When the third Rx came, I texted my wife to ask for a script for the fourth just to save us the hassle of coming in. Apparently the doctor was not receptive to the request.

    3. I have, so far, been remarkably healthy this winter. Not having kids probably helps, but I'm around them a fair amount anyway, plus I do a lot of visiting in hospitals. There's still plenty of time for me to get sick, of course, but so far, so good.

    4. After having been practically murdered by Caleb during most of 2016 (seriously, the kid is a smartbomb for my immune system), I've spent this winter being pretty dang healthy.

      Knock on wood, etc.

    5. This may be my worst winter for sickness, too.

      I got a terrible cough in mid January, to the point that I would cough hard enough for my vision to start going black and I would get dizzy and almost pass out. I finally kicked that two weeks ago, then got a cold/flu/something last weekend, and feel crappy once again. Add in a couple another cold the week before Christmas, and I think I've been sick for 8 of the past 11 weeks.

      Thankfully my wife and kids haven't been hit hard by any of them, and my current illness feels like it's progressing and will probably be on it's way out in another few days, but man am I ready to feel good for more than a week at a time.

  1. R. I. P. Bill Hands, best known as a Chicago Cub but who pitched for the Twins most of 1974, at age seventy-six.

        1. when Twins owner Calvin Griffith cut his pay by $4,500, Hands asked for a trade in spring training of '73

          Good ol' Calvin. Hands was worth 3.7 rWAR as a 32-year old in 1972 and earned $56,500. In 1973, he was basically a league-average pitcher and earned $53,000 (according to the Noll/Fort/Hylan database, reported in b-r).

          as an aside, Roger Noll was on my dissertation committee. I played IM basketball with him that year (he was visiting from Stanford). Big man.

  2. WBC Update:

    Pool B
    AUS 3 - 4 CUB (Cuba Advances, Australia eliminated)
    CHN 1 - 7 JPN (Pool B is well-ordered)

    Pool C
    CAN 2 - 9 DOM

    Pool D
    MEX 9 - 10 ITA (Italy scored 5 in the bottom of the 9th) Drew Butera hit a solo homer in the 5th for Italy, and reached on a fielding error in the 9th, and scored the game-tying run.

  3. Had a conversation the other day regarding baseball players who were genuinely stupid. Not ones who were intelligent but misunderstood, but truly intellectual featherweights. There was some trouble naming any of the greats who would qualify as actually stupid, at least to our knowledge. Mickey Mantle was the closest we could get, and there was speculation that he wasn't actually stupid. Anyone else have nominations?

    1. In addition to Algonad's suggestion,

      John Rocker (I read an interview with him years after his controversy and intelligence seemed far from just about anything he said) However: not a "great".
      Pete Rose
      Joe Morgan? (based on how people critiqued his announcing)

      I have no way to judge many of the players who do not speak much English.

        1. Gomez had a high enough crazy level that I felt it hard to tell. More like Manny with less English skills.

    2. Shoeless Joe couldn't sign his name; I hate to say "stupid" when "simple" is a better term, as used above.

      My nominee for one of the least brightest active players

    3. "You can't say there were dinosaurs when you never saw them." -- "Jurassic" Carl Everett everyone. Though not a great baseball player, certainly a stupid one.

      1. Joba chamberlain and knobby seem to come to mind now that I'm thinking about it, but neither we're all time greats. Though none of these examples are even close to lochte level stupidity.

  4. If you're my boss you seem to get sick on fridays when the weather is nice, and when critical elements of projects are in motion.

    1. I don't love the 'hand it to Wiggins and see what happens' play over and over down the stretch.

      Let's get the stop

        1. I love that Ricky basically win that game with his man-d on Curry on that last play. NEVER TRADE HIM, THIBS!

    2. Ok, the win not disappointing!

      But the Wolves tried to give that game away.

      I agree about late situation iso Wiggins, but its not like KAT was hitting his shots in the second half.

      1. Better way to look at it: they held in to win against one of the best teams in history.

        1. hard to call that squad without Durant "one of the best teams in history." The system is still in place, but they are struggling a bit.

            1. and with Harrison Barnes, Andrew Bogut, etc. That was a deep, versatile team. This team is substantially different from last year's roster.

              1. Substantially? That's a stretch. Iguodala, Green, Thompson, and Curry are all still there.

                Did they play them at the right time? Yes. Is it still a big win? Yes.

                1. substantially, yes. Barnes was 4th on the team in minutes played last season. Bogut was 7th, Barbosa 8th (all played over 1,000 minutes), Speights 10th and Ezeli 11th. Bogut, Speights and Ezeli, combined, played a little over 3,000 minutes in the post. Barnes and Barbosa were important rotation guys (Barnes started 59 games and was the 4th leading scorer at 11.7 ppg). In the playoffs, Barnes played more minutes than Steph Curry.

                  New guys on the roster this year who play significant minutes include Durant, Pachulia, David West and Javale McGee. Ian Clark is playing a bigger role off the bench. Rookie Patrick McCaw has played a significant role off the bench.

                  I never said it wasn't a big win. I said that this Warriors team, without Durant, is not one of the "best teams ever," and I said that this team is substantially different from last year's. Because it is.

          1. I debated putting this out there because of that, but they still have Curry and Thompson and Green. Their bench isn't as good as last year, but it's still not that far off personnel-wise.

    3. The Dubs went from a high flying circus basketball fun team to whining at every call that doesn't go their way pretty fast, maybe it was this one game (the refereeing was really terrible for both sides)

      1. yea, I don't think that's quite a fair reading. there's a LOT of whining in the NBA overall. The Warriors certainly don't stand out, and with their offensive style, the rate of whining opportunities is relatively low (they don't do a ton of isolation basketball).

        1. True. I mean, the Wolves do a lot of complaining to (KAT for sure, but most of the time he gets hacked and nothing called) but it just kind of stood out yesterday (I dont watch a lot of Warriors games)

          The Clippers are the Gold Standard.

Comments are closed.