Peter Ramirez

Social Conservative and Fiscal Liberal. Believe in universal hugs. Pro-arguing, anti-opinions. 10% of the time, I'm right every time.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@billybinion "Cancel culture for me, but not for thee" surely applies to 90% of the people criticizing your position on this

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@StevenACohen2 Instead of posting meaningless tweets when we have the rare win, how about you do your REAL job as owner? The laughingstock of baseball and absolutely no sense of urgency nor even an acknowledgement of the situation. You like to talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@StevenACohen2 Hello? Is anyone home? We're waiting for some level of accountability here but I guess it's easier to tweet when one could still cling to hope than after the wheels would have already fallen off. You expect the fans to support the team at its lowest hour but here you are mia.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@RealColdRain @burgwx I hate to bring politics into this but if we as a nation could fall for the likes of Trump lord only knows how bad things will get in the future. Personally, I don't think I can get any more pessimistic on that front, esp since critical thinking is going to become even more scare

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@bcarey913 @HayHawthorne @MatthewCappucci Whatever you call it, it was off more than most of the other forecasts I saw from other well known forecasters, which I think speaks for itself. And the max swath in RI/MA was one of the easier parts of this particular forecast imo

Gotta agree with the L. Happens to everyone

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@SCweather_wx It's actually 4.5 in/hr, doesn't this Robert guy know anything?

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@AKSucksPolestoo @bigdogpistons1 @JoeDumarsBurner @esidery Those picks would likely be late 1sts and Ivey is expiring (and has missed a lot of time). Personally I'd wait for something better since they should have plenty of offers.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@RedStallion41 @JeffPassan Agree 100%. Take the big lead and if the 3rd basemen comes creeping in towards the bag for a potential throw the 3rd base coach can tell the runner to get back. Very little risk of getting picked off any way you slice it.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@Mauerback @JeffPassan The difference is the hitters were doing their best to produce; sometimes the opposition wins those battles. The failure at 3rd was entirely mental and the runner only had one job to do.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@BronxBombers88 @JeffPassan I absolutely get the muscle memory aspect and think this particular offense <<< the lack of a proper lead. That said, with the world series on the line, I'm running through the catcher if he's blocking the plate.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@FollowTheFigs @A_Sorensen89 @JeffPassan @Jomboy_ And "close to the bag" made me laugh. Anyone who has watched enough baseball understands that is not the definition of "close".

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@skynyrd991 @A_Sorensen89 @JeffPassan @Jomboy_ Especially with all the adrenaline in the world surely flowing. No one wants to throw to an atypical base in those circumstances. This is the textbook definition of overthinking.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@KCOracle @A_Sorensen89 @JeffPassan @Jomboy_ And if he had positioned himself closer to the bag prior to the pitch being thrown, that's what you have a third base coach for. Very easy to tell the runner to get back. No excuse not to have a bigger lead.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@A_Sorensen89 @SleepyNBA @JeffPassan @Jomboy_ Does this factor in where the infielders would be positioned? In normal bases loaded circumstances you're probably playing for the DP or conceding the run and taking the guaranteed out. Very different with the game on the line and the infielders playing in.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@FY_LightWork @AndrewHolnessJM Sure, it's an all-of-the-above approach. No reason to let the perfect be the enemy of the better.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@MatthewCappucci In short, because most of those affected will generally be spared the worst effects no matter where landfall ultimately occurs, we will always look like overhypers to the ignorant and intellectually lazy who were lucky enough to not see their worst possible outcome realized.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@MatthewCappucci Is it me or is this sentiment not uncommon given some would likely live far enough away from the point of landfall and/or coast to see less severe impacts?

And I think it's an unavoidable one because we warn people based on where landfall could be, not where it ends up being.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@jdubski221 @MatthewCappucci That doesn't seem to be what the article is focusing on, though. It's simply saying the storm was devastating, but not devastating enough to warrant the hype. And I very much take issue with that.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@00_990_00 @MatthewCappucci Exactly. If we humans were more logical and cautious there would be no reason to drill home the threat level to such an extent, but studies have essentially shown it to be a necessary approach to communication. That's not on meteorologists or the media, that's on all of us.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@PanthersFan_Afr @MatthewCappucci And if you tell people "only the areas within x miles of landfall are likely going to end up in the devastation zone", people will take the storm less seriously. It's always a lose-lose proposition for meteorologists and media since most areas will generally be spared the worst.

[Peter Ramirez @rushhour711]

@PanthersFan_Afr @MatthewCappucci Except it essentially was in the areas directly hit and nearest to the coast, as is typical. So the language wasn't the problem, it was the scope.

The problem is no one knew exactly where the storm was going to hit ahead of time, so it puts all areas at that same risk.