Podcasts about Mendoza Line

Pete and Darius debate how big a leap the Lakers could take by adding a center in free agency vs. making a larger trade for one. Are the free agent bigs good enough, or would it make more sense to trade for one? And how does the team's penchant for playing small-ball groups play a factor in these decisions? The guys dive into these questions and more.  Support Pete here: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lakerfilmroom Buy Me a Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/lakerfilmroom Pete's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@LakerFilmRoom Pete's Playback: https://www.playback.tv/lakerfilmroom For Feedback or Questions: lakerfilmroom@gmail.com To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Eric explores the 60/40 principle in business, highlighting that a 60% failure rate in areas like sales calls or email open rates can still represent significant success when viewed through the lens of a low batting average in baseball or email marketing metrics. The discussion also emphasizes the importance of tracking numbers and constantly evaluating processes like pricing and sales training, with participants expressing a renewed commitment to consistent role-playing and sales practice for continued growth. Key Takeaways: Always take time to recognize your wins, including the micro wins, and don't take simple things for granted. Embrace the 60/40 principle, understanding that a failure rate, especially in sales or marketing, can sometimes indicate success or proper pricing. Commit to consistent and immersive sales training and role-playing to significantly improve your skills, rather than just doing occasional sessions. Track key numbers in your business, such as sales closing rates and email open rates, to understand performance and identify areas for improvement. Actively maintain contact with your past customers through methods like email and text campaigns to revive old leads and generate new business. Resources: Contractor Sales Secrets: ContractorSalesSecrets.com Fitz Fish Ponds: Koi Trips Book A Call With Triplett: Call with Triplett The Pond Digger: https://theponddigger.com/ LA Pet Fair: https://www.lapetfair.com/ Atlantic-Oase: https://www.atlantic-oase.com/ Helix Pond Filtration: http://helixpondfiltration.com/ TWT Contractor Circle (Facebook Group): TWT Contractor Circle TWT Contractor Power Circle (Facebook Group): TWT Contractor Power Circle The Pond Digger Instagram: Instagram The Pond Digger Facebook: Facebook Train With Triplett TikTok: TikTok

This Week In Fantasy Baseball - Lee Keller (@Regicidal) and John Ke (@thejohnke) catch you up on everything in "This Week in Fantasy Baseball"!It's the 100th episode of This Week in Fantasy Baseball! John and Lee are back to answer a few questions from the Pitcher List Discord, including where they think the remaining free agents will sign, who is at the top of this year's first-year player draft, and what rookies to consider in redraft leagues! Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | SpotifyConnect: @ThisWeekPL | thisweekplpod@gmail.com Join: PL+ | PL ProProud member of the Pitcher List Podcast Network

This Week In Fantasy Baseball - Lee Keller (@Regicidal) and John Ke (@thejohnke) catch you up on everything in "This Week in Fantasy Baseball"!It's the 100th episode of This Week in Fantasy Baseball! John and Lee are back to answer a few questions from the Pitcher List Discord, including where they think the remaining free agents will sign, who is at the top of this year's first-year player draft, and what rookies to consider in redraft leagues! Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | SpotifyConnect: @ThisWeekPL | thisweekplpod@gmail.com Hosts: Christopher Torres, Mike Carter, Dave Funnell Subscribe: Apple | Spotify | YouTube | RSS Join: PL+ | PL ProProud member of the Pitcher List Podcast Network

This Week In Fantasy Baseball - Lee Keller (@Regicidal) and John Ke (@thejohnke) catch you up on everything in "This Week in Fantasy Baseball"!It's the 100th episode of This Week in Fantasy Baseball! John and Lee are back to answer a few questions from the Pitcher List Discord, including where they think the remaining free agents will sign, who is at the top of this year's first-year player draft, and what rookies to consider in redraft leagues! Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | SpotifyConnect: @ThisWeekPL | thisweekplpod@gmail.com | Join PL+!Get a PL subscription and join our community!: https://pitcherlist.com/premium/

We say we don't care but we talk ourselves into rooting for LAD because of sandwiches, some boyfriend math, and general disdain for the NYY. The dads check in – putting Freddie's last few months in perspective, remembering childhood dreams, and dancing with the other dads.  We lost Fernando Valenzuela last week and Pottymouth gives us some context, some history, and some appreciation. And not for nothing, brings up housing policy. The MLBPA Players Choice Awards foreshadow the big ones. We consider the interpreter version of the Mendoza Line and are still working out if it is the Roberts or the Lasorda line. So many familiar faces in winter ball – baseball does not stop when the Series is over! And the Rays evaluate new sites for opening day.We say, ”I picked both Hernandi,” “I'd eat that sandwich,” and “I'm kind of off billionaires right now.” Make a plan to vote, fight the man, send your game balls to Meredith, get boosted, and find us on Twitter @ncibpodcast, on Facebook @nocryinginbball, Instagram @nocryinginbball and on the Interweb at nocryinginbball.com. Please take a moment to subscribe to the show, and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to NCiB. Become a supporter at Patreon to help us keep doing what we do. Say goodnight, Pottymouth. 

In an alternate universe episode of Boy Meets World, Nails beats up Mr. Feeny and teaches Cory to dip. It's Episode #200! Our show has finally crossed the Mendoza Line for Podcasts. Thank you for listening! Card #1T on Beckett Follow-Up: Larry Bird is good at baseball, too SABR Bio by Rick Swaine Jim's highlight reel Baseball America Abbott's No Hitter Baseball Hall's Scouting Reports Jim's TED Talk Boy Meets Jim NYT: Jim, "A Most Extraordinary Fella"

On the 200th episode of The Chronicle News Dump, hosts Aaron VanTuyl, Chronicle Editor-in-Chief Eric Schwartz and photographer Kody Christen discuss the path that led them to the PREMIER level of Lewis County Podcasts (200). Kody leaves early to take pictures of something. Another lawsuit has been filed in the Aron Christensen case and soapboxing occurs. Jim Walsh went to a barn. The SWW Fair had more people than any fair ever. A columnist grasps for a through-line between reproduction and outer space.  Email us at chroniclenewsdump@gmail.com. Brought to you by SUMMIT FUNDING, CHEHALIS OUTFITTERS and THE ROOF DOCTOR!  Listen to past episodes or subscribe here: https://apple.co/3sSbNC5. 

The SaaS Mendoza line highlights the slope of the long term growth rate that investors expect and operators should target on a path to IPO. Dave "CAC" Kellogg and Ray "Growth" Rike break down the updated expectations.Veteran software VC, Rory O'Driscoll of Scale Venture Partners proposed a theory to identify the growth rate below which a company may not be on the VC-to-IPO trajectory.In 2018, Rory started with an analysis of SaaS companies at the time of IPO. In 2018, SaaS companies going public had a minimum run rate ARR of $100M and at least a 25% forward growth rate. He then examined growth rates over time and observed that the growth persistence - which represents the rate of growth decay year over year, that public SaaS companies grew at 80-85% of their previous year's growth. This metric is commonly known as "Growth Endurance".Dave and Ray discuss the new reality of the SaaS Mendoza line, with the most recent data in 2023-2024 suggesting that a SaaS company must have at least $400M - $500M" in revenue before they can IPO as evidenced by the recent Klaviyo, OneStream and Rubrik initial pubic offerings.CAC and Growth highlight other common "growth expectation" models including the T2D3 (Triple, Triple, Double, Double Double) and 56789 models. If you are evaluating what it takes for early stage company to attract new investors as your growth on a path to IPO - this conversation is full of great insights and perspective on investor expectations.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

“4th of July Special: What's The Point Of A Strawberry?” Well, not counting the fact that they lower your blood pressure, are high in fiber, rich in antioxidants and guard you from cancer, strawberries are pretty much useless. In this wildly discursive 4th of July chat with singer-songwriter Shannon McArdle, the Brooklyn musician talks to Alex about why she's not into strawberries (or fruit for that matter), why she got on a subway in the middle of a pandemic and how she lost the tip of her finger. Look, this is our perennial and evergreen 4th of July Shannon Spectacular and this conversation not only covers all the bases, it will make you forget that there's no (legal) firework celebrations this year. This chat covers the genius of the new Dylan album, the durability of Soda Stream machines and the 20th anniversary reissue of Shannon's old band The Mendoza Line's We're All In This Alone. Oh, and Alex worries Shannon might get scurvy. And Shannon doesn't seem worried about this at all. An hour and a half of comedy, antics and dogs. Enjoy! Stereo Embers The Podcast www.bombshellradio.com Twitter: @emberseditor Instagram: @emberspodcast Email: editor@stereoembersmagazine.com

The Nats were swept by the visiting Dodgers on Thursday afternoon as they came up on the wrong side of a pitcher's duel. Mark & Al begin with MacKenzie Gore's noble effort in defeat as his only blemish was allowing an early Solo HR. Gore also threw over 100 pitches, a rarity for him thus far. L.A.'s starter however, the highly paid Yoshinobu Yamamoto tossed six shutout frames. (12:00) The offense could only muster one run and it came on a Joey Meneses RBI single in the bottom of the 8th. Among those struggling at the plate, Joey Gallo is hitting just .129 this season. Eddie Rosario is also well below the "Mendoza Line" so far this year. The good news though is that Meneses had a trio of hits in this game and his first extra base hit since the second game of the season. (19:10) Keibert Ruiz was reinstated from the IL and played for the first time since April 8th. Davey Martinez did praise Riley Adams for how well he played while Ruiz was out of the lineup for an extended time. (25:00) Mark gives an update on Dylan Crews, who has not been in Harrisburg's lineup for over a week. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

[Er, uh, um, this was recorded before Friday's night's slaughter in Philadelphia, so the lavish praise for Garrett Crochet may need a tiny dab of correction. Nah, what the heck, he's one of the only decent things to happen with this team, so let's plow on.] This edition, SSS duty geezer Leigh Allan and his son and west coast correspondent, Will, disagree as to whether Garrett Crochet will have a higher WAR than number of wins. It's close call either way, so here's your chance to make a guess (hint: as of recording, his bWAR is 0.8, record 1-2): Since Sharing Sox was recorded on the same day The Athletic raised serious doubts the White Sox will have fewer losses than the 1962 Mets, who went 40-120 and inspired the famous Casey Stengel quote, “Can't anyone here play this game?” So, what the heck, here's another chance to vote. As for other matters, the duo discuss how the pitching is better than expected (though not great) and the two newbies did well, how the promise of defensive improvement was apparently meant as humor, and how the Mendoza Line is so far above the majority of the White Sox lineup that it's barely visible up there. Of course, the billionaires seeking billions in handouts gets some discussion. Then there's Tim Anderson coming to Chicago to play the Cubs and being quoted about Sox players not really caring about winning. We'd noticed, Tim. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Appreciate the "all-encompassing type of suck" comments from Rays reliever Pete Fairbanks! (02:26) We tell you why it was such a winning line for growing the game.(09:47) The Angels lose their big money signing from the offseason and we play back our pointed comments about the Robert Stephenson signing at the time. Kratz brings up a strong point about why this is a prime example of the elbow explosion epidemic.(16:26) Are the Dodgers OK?(19:53:) Are the Orioles the best team in baseball?(23:53) Do the Twins need to tweak the way they value offense?(33:25) Former #2 overall pick Jack Leiter debuted for Rangers and we react live to his rough first day on a Big League mound.Hosts: Todd Frazier, Erik Kratz, Scott BraunOne more LIVE SHOW from Cincinnati: we'll be inside GABP Friday 1-3p ET and then a little meet/greet with Toddfather at the BetMGM Sportsbook at The Banks next to the ballpark from 3:30-5p ETFollow FT

Bobby V starts the week talking a bit about The Valvano family Easter.  We then look at the Final Four and talk about DJ Burns vs Zach Edey.  A Little Kim Mulkey talk too.  Nick wonders what the Mendoza Line is for game show prize money.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Zach, Jack, and Andrew discuss the most recent Mets signings and transactions, new Met manager Carlos Mendoza, Jeremy Hefner as pitching coach, the new Mendoza Line, off-season focus, Yoshinobu Yamamoto, DH possibilities, options at third base, Juan Soto to the Yankees, the Shohei Ohtani sweepstakes, and baseball card stories.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hour 4: The final hour includes for Mets manager talk and a big Monday Night game for the Jets

“4th of July Special: What's The Point Of A Strawberry?” Well, not counting the fact that they lower your blood pressure, are high in fiber, rich in antioxidants and guard you from cancer, strawberries are pretty much useless. In this wildly discursive 4th of July chat with singer-songwriter Shannon McArdle, the Brooklyn musician talks to Alex about why she's not into strawberries (or fruit for that matter), why she got on a subway in the middle of a pandemic and how she lost the tip of her finger. Look, this is our perennial and evergreen 4th of July Shannon Spectacular and this conversation not only covers all the bases, it will make you forget that there's no (legal) firework celebrations this year. This chat covers the genius of the new Dylan album, the durability of Soda Stream machines and the 20th anniversary reissue of Shannon's old band The Mendoza Line's We're All In This Alone. Oh, and Alex worries Shannon might get scurvy. And Shannon doesn't seem worried about this at all. An hour and a half of comedy, antics and dogs. Enjoy! Stereo Embers The Podcast Twitter: @emberseditor Instagram: @emberspodcast Email: editor@stereoembersmagazine.com

A fun episode, where the guys discuss: (2:10) Mediocre Observations - Eddie loves summer but complains about bugs (or is it a bug?); crushed vs. cubed ice; while Adam discusses "old-man" phrases; and potentially offensive phrases  (17:00) Eddie discusses a week chock-full of golf (i.e., his 9-hole league at Fairway Hills, 9 holes with his son and dad at Northwest's Inside 9, and 18 at Needwood and Laytonsville) (35:00) Adam discusses his round at Mt. Airy Country Club, where he is still troubled by his short game (or part of it...) (41:30) Mediocre Takes from the Tours (i.e., The Memorial and a new LPGA Champion who may become a star!) Please visit our friends Chasing Aces at www.chasingacesgolf.com.  Even the best are chasing aces! Also, please follow us on Instagram @mediocregolfpodcast Email us at mediocregolfpodcast@gmail.com Music credits for the closing theme song: Joakim Karud, "Great Days"

This week, Andrew and Craig contemplate whether or not the Oakland A's can beat the Mendoza Line (.200), as this is published, the A's are 12-46 (.207). Also this week, The Rangers are for real, Jose Abreu is making us worried, when does a musical artist or band become a just a nostalgia act and more.Episodes Mentioned this Week152 - R.E.M.'s Murmur at 40 w/ Tony Fletcher 150 - The RRHoF Episode: We Can't Have Too Many Rock Bands Errata - Who's going to tell Andrew Lance McCullers did not attend LSU? Hall of Fame inductees included Kate Bush, Cheryl Crow, Missy Elliott, George Michael, Willie Nelson, Rage Against the Machine, and The Spinners. -->Join our Discord: https://discord.gg/tT8d3pVUsN-->You can support Hooks & Runs by purchasing books, including the book featured in this episode, through our store at Bookshop.org. Here's the link. https://bookshop.org/shop/hooksandrunsHooks & Runs - www.hooksandruns.comHooks & Runs on TikTok -  https://www.tiktok.com/@hooksandrunsHooks & Runs on Twitter - https://twitter.com/thehooksandrunsAndrew Eckhoff on Tik TokLink: https://www.tiktok.com/@hofffestRex von Pohl (Krazy Karl's Music Emporium) on Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com/people/Krazy-Karlz-Music-Emporium/100063801500293/ Music: "Warrior of Light" by ikolics (Premium Beat)     

Braves homestead off to good start, Freddie Freeman back, A's pxp man fired over one mistake, Bijan Robinson to wear number 7? Good. Falcons signee, UGA tight end U., Finebaum on which ACC team should join SEC, Melo retires, ESPN idiots say Celtics will overcome 0-3 deficit, first the Bruins now the Celts--poor Boston, Barkley does it again, Jim Brown's impact, better all-around athlete: Brown or Bo Jackson? old tweets destroy another career, Big Ben says the quiet part out loud, and the death of a great actor Ray Stevenson. Pete's Tweets, This Day in Sports History, bdays, Ripley's Believe it or not, plus here's your Lincoln where's you hurry, NFL gambling run amok and dammit I forget my rant on Michael Block, the Mendoza Line revealed, plus two words: Mick. Tingelhoff

The Nats were shutout yet again from the Orioles in a 4-0 loss that resulted in them being swept at home in the short series. Al & Mark focus on how the offense was helpless against a Baltimore pitching staff that typically does not dominate its opponents. It is already the fourth game this season in which Washington was unable to score. (05:00) CJ Abrams was 0 for 4 with 3 Ks and had a 9th inning throwing error. Abrams has struggled at the plate this year and is barely hitting above the "Mendoza Line". (14:00) MacKenzie Gore gave up three runs in six innings in his fourth start as a National. Gore struggled in the middle of his outing as he issued four walks between the 3rd and 4th innings. He finished on a high note as he retired eight in a row to conclude his day. (25:00) The Washington Post reported that Ted Leonsis offered at least $2 Billion to purchase the organization but the Lerners did not accept. (35:00) Tim Shovers attended the Fred Nats game on Wednesday and spoke with the Voice of the Team Eric Bach, who gives updates on Elijah Green, Brady House, Jarlin Susana, and Robert Hassell III. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rookies, rookies, rookies! Listen to Luke, Ryan and Goody dissect the 23 class for All About Reality and league implications for your Reality Sports Online rookie drafts (Superflex and standard). Also, where's the Mendoza Line where you want to sell off picks in this class from a tier perspective? --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rsopodcast/message

The Nationals skid extended to four games in a 1-0 loss in Colorado. Mark (Live for Coors Field) & Al balance the negative of the lineup with the big picture positive of Josiah Gray only allowing one run in six innings. Yet again a Nats outfielder lost a ball in the sun (Lane Thomas), and it was a very costly one that led to the lone run. (15:40) Washington was shutout and only had one runner reach scoring position. The troubles aren't only with the bats, they surprisingly are only 1 for 4 in stolen base attempts this year. (23:20) Joey Meneses had a rough day at the plate and is well below the Mendoza Line so far (.172). Why has he looked lost so far this season in the batter's box? Luis Garcia returned to the lineup and singled in the afternoon, but Mark points out what troubled him with his approach at the plate. The offense so far has only homered twice in seven games! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello everyone, and welcome to Ideas Untrapped podcast. My guest for this episode is Decision Scientist, Oliver Beige - who is returning to the podcast for the third time. Oliver is not just a multidisciplinary expert, he is one of my favourite people in the world. In this episode, we talk about scientific expertise, the norms of academia, peer review, and how it all relates to academic claims about finding the truth. Oliver emphasized the importance of understanding the imperfections in academia, and how moral panics can be used to silence skeptics. I began the conversation with a confession about my arrogance about the belief in science - and closed with my gripe about ‘‘lockdown triumphalism''. I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation, and I am grateful to Oliver for doing it with me. I hope you all find it useful as well. Thank you for always listening. The full transcript is available below.TranscriptTobi;I mean, it's good to talk to you again, Oliver. Oliver; Tobi, again.Tobi;This conversation is going to be a little bit different from our previous… well, not so much different, but I guess this time around I have a few things I want to get off my chest as well. And where I would start is with a brief story. So about, I dunno, I've forgotten precisely when the book came out, that was Thinking Fast and Slow by the Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman. So I had this brief exchange with my partner. She was quite sceptical in her reading of some of the studies that were cited in that book. And I recall that the attitude was, “I mean, how can a lot of this be possibly true?” And I recall, not like I ever tell her this anyway…but I recall the sort of assured arrogance with which I dismissed some of her arguments and concerns at the time by saying that, oh yeah, these are peer-reviewed academic studies and they are most likely right than you are. So before you question them, you need to come up with something more than this doesn't feel right or it doesn't sound right. And, what do you know? A few years, like two or three years after that particular experience, almost that entire subfield imploded in what is now the reproducibility or the replication crisis, where a lot of these studies didn't replicate, a lot of them were done with very shoddy analysis and methodologies, and Daniel Kahneman himself had to come out to retract parts of the book based on that particular crisis. So I'm sort of using this to set the background of how I have approached knowledge over my adult life. So as someone who has put a lot of faith naively, I would say, in science, in academia and its norms as something that is optimized for finding the truth. So to my surprise and even sometimes shock - over different stages of my life and recently in my interrogation of the field of development economics, people who work in global development - [at] the amount of politics, partisanship, bias, and even sometimes sheer status games that academics play and how it affects the production of knowledge, it's something that gave me a kind of deep personal crisis. So that's the background to which I'm approaching this conversation with you. So where I'll start is, from the perspective of simply truth finding, and I know that a lot of people, not just me, think of academia in this way. They are people who are paid to think and research and tell us the truth about the world and about how things work, right? And they are properly incentivized to do that either by the norms in the institutional arrangements that birthed their workflows and, you know, so many other things we have known academia and educational institutions to be. What is wrong with that view - simply academia as a discipline dedicated to truth finding? What is wrong with that view? Oliver;There's many things. Starting point is that it was not only Daniel Kahneman, behavioral economics has multiple crises also with Falsified work. Not only with wrong predictions, wrong predictions are bad but acceptable. This is part of doing science, part of knowledge production. But Falsification is, of course, a bigger problem now and they had quite a few scandals in that. The way I approach it always is sort of like a metaphor from baseball. Basically there's something called the Mendoza Line in baseball which is a hitter that has a 200 hitting average. This is like the lowest end of baseball. If you go below 200, then you're usually dropped off the baseball teams. And on the upper end you have really good hitters that hit an average of like 300 or something. If you have a constant 300 average you usually get like million dollar contracts, right? We can translate this to science in a lot of ways. Of course, there is a lot of effort involved in going from a 200 average to a 300 average to a 20% average of being right to 30% a average of being right. But still if you're at a 300 level, you're still wrong 70% of the time. And so the conversations I observe, they're people that are not specialists in a field [and] we're trying to figure out who is right in a certain conversation. Talking about conversations in a scientific field we basically try to use simple pointers, right? One of the pointers is of course a paper that has gone through peer review. You see these conversations of like, okay, this paper has not been peer reviewed, this paper has been peer reviewed. But peer review does not create truth. It sort of reduces the likely likelihood of being wrong somewhat but it doesn't give us any indicator of this is true. The underlying mechanism of peer review usually cannot find outright fraud. Cannot detect outright fraud. This happened quite a few times. And also peer review is usually how close is the submitted paper to what the reviewers want to read. There is a quality aspect to it, but ultimately it changes the direction of the paper much more than it changes quality. So academia overall is a very imperfect truth finding mechanism. The goal has to be [that] the money we spend on academic research has to allow us to get a better grasp of so far undiscovered things, undiscovered related relationships, correlations, causal mechanisms, and ultimately, it has to give us a better grasp of future and it has to give us a better grasp of what we should do in order to create better futures. And this all basically comes down to, like, predicting the future or things that were in the past but yet are to be discovered. Evolution tends to be a science that is focused on the past, looking at things in the past. But there's still things we have to discover, connections we still have to discover. And this is what academia is about. And the money, the social investment we put into academia has to create a social return in the way that we are better off doing the things we need to do to create a better future for everyone. And its [academia] track record in that regard has been quite mixed. That's true.Tobi;So let's talk a little bit about incentives here. Someone who has also written quite a lot, who talked so much about some of the issues - I think he's more focused on methods. He's andrew Gelman, the statistician. I read his blog quite a lot, and there's something he consistently allude to and I just want to check with you how much you think that influenced a lot of the things that we see in academia that are not so good, which is the popularity contest - the number of Twitter followers you have; whether you are blue checked or not; bestselling books; Ted Talks that then lead to people making simplistic claims. There's the issue of scientific fraud, right, some of which you alluded to also in behavioral economics, behavioral science generally. There was recently the case of Dan Ariely, who also wrote a very popular book, Predictably Irrational, but who was recently found to have used falsified data. And I recall that you also persistently criticized a lot of people during the pandemic, even till date - a lot of people who made outright wrong predictions with terrible real life consequences because policymakers and politicians were acting under the influence of the “expert” advice of some of these people who will never come out to admit they are wrong and are less likely to even correct their mistakes. So how is the incentive misaligned? Oliver; Okay, many questions at once. How does academia work? And like I always like to say that academic truth finding or whatever you want to call it is not too far away from how gossip networks work. The underlying thing is, of course, any kind of communication network is basically sending signals. In this case, snippets of information, claims, hypotheses and the receiver has to make a decision on how credible this information is. You have the two extreme versions, which is basically saying, yeah, I just read this paper and I think this paper makes a good claim and is methodologically sound or I just read this paper and this paper is crap as everything about it is wrong. So you basically start with a factual claim and an evaluation. This happens in science Twitter in the same way a gossip network communicates typically good or bad news about the community. Also, a gossip network communicate hazards within the community, sending warnings, which is what academics have been doing quite a bit over the last two and a half years. And they also have this tendency to, a) exaggerate claims, reduce claims, and [they] also have this tendency to create opposing camps. Because very few middling signals are being retransmitted. I've been watching the funeral of the Queen, I have no strong opinion about British royalty in either direction so if I post something on Twitter about it, nobody will retweet. And, of course, the two extreme ends will be retweeted. This is how Twitter works, but it's also how science usually works. You'll see that strong claims in either direction are being transmitted much more frequently than middling moderate claims. So the bifurcation of opinions is inherent in both of them. This element of credibility, that you build credibility, based on how someone else reflects your own beliefs. Your own prior beliefs, really. This is the core mechanism [that if] I read something that confirms my prior beliefs, I'm much more likely to retransmit it with a positive note that "I really like this and I think it's methodologically sound." And if it's something that contradicts my prior beliefs, I'm very much more inclined to question its methodology. And I think we've seen this to an extreme over the two and a half years because we had situations where the discussion was very polarized. And the really bad thing to observe in a scientific discourse in general, but also the amplified scientific discourse on Twitter, is like the absolute lack of quality control when something confirms one's own prior beliefs. So this is usually what a scientist has to do. Like, if I get something that confirms my beliefs, I still have to do a minimum quality control [to check] if it's actually methodologically sound. And this clearly did not happen. People were just passing on anything that confirmed their beliefs and basically expected someone else to do the quality control. The first job any academic has is basically to subject everything, even that confirms your beliefs, and this is also [what] you think is true, you still have to subject it to quality control. And clearly this rarely ever happens. This is why academia is supposed to run on confrontation that, basically, the other camp does it. But if you bring academia together with Twitter, which is [an] amplification network that runs on social engagements, likes and retweets, then you have a very toxic mix. And this is the situation we had over the last two and a half years, how scientific communities can coalesce around things that are just not empirically sustainable.Tobi;Now pardon my language, there's a way that academics, whether they are scientists or social scientists (I know economists are particularly notorious in this arena), they completely f**k with your mind when you're a skeptic. So I'll give you an example. Two days ago…I opened with the replication crisis in psychology, so two days ago, I read a SubStack by someone who is presumably a psychologist, who was then basically complaining that, “oh, yeah, after the replication crisis, a lot of them in academia who were doing PhDs, were also having their own crisis of confidence, because then you have to confront a public who thinks they know everything.” So, like, you describe your study or you say you found something and someone says, "oh, but the field didn't replicate." The whole thing just sounded like some weak apologia that just didn't make any sense. I recall that sometimes a little bit after the financial crisis [of] '07-'08, if I recall correctly, Paul Krugman was dismissing something Talib, Nicholas Nassim Talib, wrote by saying that, oh, if you think you found something that a whole community of academic experts… I'm not quoting him verbatim, I'm paraphrasing… If you think you found anything that a whole academic community of experts missed, then you are most likely to be wrong.So, it brings me to the question of skepticism and how to approach it, because at the other extreme end of this is to say… and certainly there are people like that in the world today who think that no scientific knowledge is true, who question even proven medicine, and there are also conspiracy theorists who say outrightly false things for their own motives, no doubt. So, like, how does one deal with skepticism? Especially if you have conspiracy theorists and outrightly ignorant people on one side, and on the other side you have academic confusion or experts who out of their own biases or some of these institutional and social problems that you have described can also not really come out and admit that, oh, we botched this and this and this is what we are doing to correct our errors. How do you handle skepticism in such a milieu?Oliver; The first thing is and it's also the reason why I like the baseball metaphor is if you are [an] academic, you're an expert in a field, you spend far more time studying this field than others, you're communicating with other experts in the field, so you can get this feeling, and probably justified feeling that because you put more effort into it you should get more reward in the form of more recognition and more credibility. But you should also come up with a realization or understanding that any field you're in and that includes economics and all other fields, there are so many things that are still undiscovered, so many things that are undiscoverable that we have to build axiomatic constructs around in order to actually help us move forward. And if you're able as an academic to move from 20% right over many years to 30% right, you're still 70% wrong. So these are not empirical numbers, but I think they get the point across. And if you don't get that, then you're doing something wrong in academics in general, right? And we've seen this arrogance that was not supported by imperial superiority, like, quite a bit over the last years. Especially Paul Cook when he got some of the things very wrong just recently when he came out, when he admitted that most macroeconomists have been dead wrong about inflation for over a year. And then he claimed that nobody could have foreseen that. This is doubly wrong. You can be arrogant or you can be incompetent, but you cannot be both at the same time. Basically, academia is also a competition for attention. This is an attention industry and exaggerated claims get more attention than moderate claims. So this is not a problem. The problem is, and I see in the discussion is the complete absence of understanding of what the scientific method entails. And that clearly, a lot of academics become specialists in a particular subsection of the scientific method but don't have an understanding of how the whole thing works. Which is interesting, especially in economics, because economics has this very strong claim that it underwent An Empirical Revolution over the last 20 years, which is certainly true. Econometrics have got a much bigger role over the last 20 years, but they also claimed that because they underwent an empirical revolution, they also underwent a credibility revolution, that their results are much more credible and this is a much bigger claim. And this is not a claim that recent events have validated or recent economic performance has not been up to par to support it. But the key thing [is that] the scientific method is basically starting out from a theory which does not have to be a formal way of expressing, but you have to have an overarching idea of how things are connected, how some things cause other things. And from this, you have to be able to create predictions. Basically, foresee future discoveries. And you do this in a number of steps. The first step is usually formalization. You try to come up with a formal model. There are lots of discussions about like, okay, how formal does a model have to be? Usually, formalization is a self-discipline device. It means that you don't come up with ad hoc predictions, but the predictions are based on a clear mechanism that should be working under a variety of conditions. And then once you have a formal model, which we've seen a lot of people trying to build formal models over the last few years, and a lot of them have gotten more attention than they deserved or that they expected, and then you come up with a hypothesis. Hypothesis usually means are you comparing your own view of the world to competing views of the world. You try to find the positions where they diverge the most or where it becomes visible. And then you do empirical test experiments. Or in economics, you try to do a natural experiment or control trials in order to show that your overarching theory, your model, is closer to the truth than the competition. But the key is also and this is remarkably what a lot of people have just simply missed out on, this is the replicability and the role of moving away from a subjective view of the world to an objective view of the world so this can be refuted or replicated by others.And this also means that people who are opposed to your viewpoint have to admit that your view of the world was better than others. And this has almost completely broken down. Because in the two scenarios, economics (macroeconomics) in particular has been dead wrong, especially about inflation which is really one of the core predictive elements of macroeconomics and they have been dead wrong for an extended period of time for the very simple reason because they did not want to acknowledge it. And this is a problem, right? So then we start obfuscating about where you went wrong and you're trying to play political games that being wrong was not just unexpected change in economic environment or social environments or something but being dead wrong was basically caused by your model being fundamentally wrong. Very clearly economics should be in a crisis. The crisis should be clear within the field and the less the field itself owns up to this crisis, the more the outside world [should] pressure the field itself to come clear with its wrong predictions because the cost of getting these things wrong are staggering Tobi;True. So I have three questions but I'll ask them differently. You mentioned towards the end of your answer you talked about political games which is something that also gets me really angry and sometimes confused. And a related issue about that I found also is in development economics. But that will take us into the second question. So let's talk about the politics here. For example, take a field like economics which is highly partisan. You have some people that are called neoliberal economists. Some people are socialists, some people are heterodox, some people are capitalists. I know within the field of macroeconomics itself, they have all these other labels - new Keynesian monetarist, you know, whatever. But what I'm getting at is the role of partisanship, because you always have rival camps accusing themselves of partisanship. One story I related to, which I'm sure you also must have come across is - I saw a story on Twitter a couple of weeks ago before the Chilean constitutional referendum that Mariana Mazukato, Gabriel Zukman and Thomas Piketty, who are all economists, who are all leftists, who mix their research with political preferences and policy advocacy, plan to travel to Chile to celebrate the new draft constitution because it's a win for justice, it's a win for this or that. It's the final rejection of the Pinochet dictatorship and the neoliberal imposition that is. I did not encounter in that particular discourse chain anybody asking what is good for Chile, and Chileans, and even more relevantly how Chileans feel about this. And, I mean, what do you know? The referendum happened and 60% of the voters rejected the new draft. And I know that partisanship and political games, like you said, play not just in economics, it happens in other fields as well. So I'm curious - is this okay? And how exactly did should I say, scholars, particularly in social science, people that have been able to make extraordinary contributions to our body of knowledge and what we know, how have they managed to keep their politics, their personal politics away from their work? Or is it just that everything just used to be easier before we had Twitter? Oliver;Politics and economics have been intermixed long before Twitter. So this is not particularly new, and the mechanism itself is also not new. But your starting point is basically, as I said, like, very simplified that the role of academia is to predict the future and to design strategies to reach good futures. So in that situation, it's not surprising that academics take political positions. The problem comes in, of course, that if the ideological mix in academia and the ideological mix in the overall population and the ideological mix in sort of the ruling elites don't line up. This is a tricky situation, but being close enough to the highest echelons of power for long enough to observe what happens. If you have a change in the administration in Washington DC, then usually the new administration brings in economic experts from favourite schools. And then if the administration loses to the other party, then the other party brings in their favourite economists. So in that regard, if you have this semiconstant exchange of viewpoint, an economic viewpoint gets discredited, it gets replaced via the political process with other people, this is usually how you get closer to the view - I used to call it the drunk unicyclist. You're not really moving forward in a straight path, but you're moving around left and right, and you just try to avoid falling into a ditch. And this is what we observe. No political process is perfect. And as long as the political interests of the academics and the political interests of the elite are aligned with population ones, this is as good as we can get it. I generally have a problem with ideology in economics, but it's inevitable. And my quality is that I be able to read and appreciate writers from the left end of the spectrum, on the right end of the spectrum. I usually deduct points over ideological bent. But good thinkers can make good points even if they are driven by ideology. The problem also comes in when there is essentially no penalty for being wrong in academia. So basically being wrong and being catastrophically wrong externalizes the damage to others. So the worst scenario you do if you're tenured faculty, sort of what I call the endowed chair blue check, like a tenured faculty with a wide reach in social media, you can be dead wrong,you can be persistently wrong, completely unwilling to own up being wrong, and there's no real penalty to it. This is the major problem we're facing right now.Tobi;So that then brings me to the question of niches or what I'll call cottage industries in academic research generally. I know recently I did ask you about what you think about the EA movement. I'm not talking about them, but for descriptive purposes we see the behavior of that group, the adherents, the critics and how much commitment, particularly adherents display to their tribe. I see a lot of that too in academic research. One group I am very familiar with is in economic development (development economics) where everything now is about field experiments and randomized control trials. And one of the fundamental ways it biases research in my opinion and also have negative real life consequences is, if you do a field experiment, a randomized control trial on cash transfer, say in a Kenyan village over a period of time and you measure your results and they are positive and say oh yeah, well, cash transfer works. But the real question that policymakers, whether local governments or central governments or regional governments really deal with every day are sometimes bigger than that. So, like, for example, if you want to choose between building a power station for that particular village at $1 million versus scaling up your cash transfer program, what you'll find is that development economists in the current paradigm would most likely go for the cash transfer plan. Let's scale it up. We have tested this. It works. Essentially they are biased to what they can measure - like, we don't know the spillover benefits of electrification, it would be difficult to design a study, there are so many externalities. So basically they reduce real-life situations into the parameters of their methods and its limitations. And such behaviour is very, very similar to what you see with other social groups. Whether it is the Effective Altruism movement… I was briefly involved also with the Charter City people where for every problem that they can see, the solution is to build a charter city.That movement was actually inspired by your dear friend, Paul Romer. So there is this almost blind commitment and loyalty to their method, to their cottage industry. And sometimes I see it as just drumming up support for their tribe, as opposed to a commitment to the truth and finding what works. So, again, pardon my big question, what's going on here?Oliver; Okay, two things on the starting point about tribes within academia is…like, one of my favourite sayings is that tribalism is the shared belief in counterfactuals, counterfactual being everything that is unknown. And the less we know, the more unknowns there are, the more we tend to flock with our own tribes. So this is something you see everywhere in academia. That's what we call thought collectives. Ludwig Fleck, one of the guys who influenced Thomas Kuhn, came up with this term, thought collectives, to describe this idea that people that share the same idea of causal mechanisms tend to come together and confirm each other and create this thought collective. And this is, of course, what we see here, especially in academia. Economics has additional problem. I think it's not nearly as strong in development economics as other fields, but it's also visible there. This is very much the way economists are recruited. Economics, especially US and UK-centric economics, is extremely mathematicized. So, like, mathematical skills are basically number one, two, and three and the priority. And so you have basically a situation where real-world understanding has almost no role in getting accepted into PhD programs or getting promoted within the system. It used to be theory knowledge, formal theory knowledge. Now it's econometrics knowledge that gets you promoted. And this is very far away from qualification to solve real-world problems. And of course, people are impressed by mathematical skills. So this is something that you can play as a trump card. And this is what happens in the field. And the field is closing itself off from all kinds of outside knowledge because of that, especially in the social sciences. And in my world, I use people with mathematical skills, but only for very, very clearly defined tasks. I have my own mathematical skill set, but I also understand what the limitations are, and I think that's a major problem. And basically, if everyone around you came up in this system that promotes mathematical skills over real-world skills, then you believe that this is the only thing you need. And it's been very clear that basically every ten years, economics has a major crisis about being completely wrong in their predictions. And this intellectual monopoly is a major problem with that.Tobi;My third question in that line then pertains to the philosophy of science. Oliver;Yes. Tobi;So there are people who argue that a lot of these problems are also because modern science or the methodology of science today is divorced from some kind of philosophical foundation. I'm familiar relatively mildly with three philosophical approaches to science and let's just say truth finding. Thomas Kuhn basically puts everything down to competing paradigms. Like my last question, you know, competing tribes. And it's the tribe that wins at the moment that sort of has the monopoly of truth, not strictly, but socially. Then there's Karl Popper, which is also quite popular, that for anything to be valid as truth, it has to be falsifiable. And we've seen this play out so much in particle physics with things like string theory and things like many-worlds interpretation and so many things where their critics are saying, you guys are basically making claims that are not falsifiable, that cannot be tested and what you are doing is not science. And that has been going on now more or less for about three decades, right? And, of course, there's the Lakatos approach, which sort of fits into your own view, correct me if I'm wrong, which is that science has to make novel claims and it has to be predictive, it has to make predictions about the world. So my question then is academia, science, the truth-finding industry, so to speak, or the knowledge production industry, is it having a philosophical crisis?Oliver;I think it has more of a structural crisis. I'm not that deep in the philosophy of science I'm much more interested in the process itself. But one of the things that I think matters to me is Milton Friedman's claim that there are no wrong assumptions but whatever assumptions you make about the world has to generate correct predictions. A theory is being evaluated by its ability to produce non-falsifiable predictions, right? Predictions that turn out to be true even if others don't believe them. This is something you see in the arts as well, you see actually in religion as well, this mechanism of belief propagation that starts with one person believing and over time and over time, can be many decades, of something being accepted as true by everyone. So everyone starts believing in it. Basically, social contagion mechanism. I've always been interested in this. One scenario where this happens or should be happening is science. Right. This is, of course, a process. A process happens via this academic mechanism of peer-reviewed publications, getting tenure based on publication records and so on. And these are all very very imperfect mechanisms. The two extreme versions of that [are] the American system, which is extremely stratified, and the German version is the opposite, it's non-stratified, [and] we produce a massive amount of mediocrity. So, like, neither of them are optimal mechanisms to create truth. And we've seen that over the last two and a half years that political posturing took precedence over truth finding. Is it in a crisis? I think, yes, very clearly. We have two and a half years where very wrong, easily debunkable claims were propagated and were not retracted, even after they've been proven to be wrong. And ultimately, we're in a situation where an economic crisis is very clearly caused by misjudgment from people which we support and pay for being less wrong than the overall population. And that just simply did not work.Tobi;One last thing I'll like to get off my chest and then I'll pass them out to you is, I mean, specifically, if we follow from our last two podcast episodes, I'm a bit frustrated that there is a bit of lockdown triumphalism that the people who vigorously and vehemently used their academic or expert pedigree…Oliver;Credentials. Tobi;Yeah…to advocate for lockdowns are also taking a sort of victory lap. So the pandemic is over. Everything is back to normal. We did the right thing, even though the whole world was against us. That frustrates me a little. I was still watching a clip on YouTube recently because you get even more sensible take from everyday people, people who are experiencing these things than people who are building models and tweeting. One person somewhere here in southwest Nigeria complaining during the pandemic that the government has decided that it is better for us to die at home of hunger than not die from the pandemic. Because this pandemic, we don't know what it is, we don't know how it spreads, but without giving us any information, you basically confined us to our homes with no means of livelihood and nothing to depend on. That makes me sad because in Nigeria here and in many parts of Africa today, a lot of what we are seeing as, and are calling the food crisis, cost of living crisis, whatever it is you want to call it, did not necessarily start, but were aggravated or exacerbated by that approach to the pandemic. And it makes me sad that the people that are culpable, we can have a situation where they can take a victory lap. So that's me. Over to you. What would you like to get off your chest about everything that we have disclosed today?Oliver; Number one is epidemiological modelling was clearly an empirical debacle. The predicted epidemic wave that would take five to six months, that would wipe all large parts of the population never happened. And we have, I don't know, how many thousand waves in our database now, they all go for eight weeks. They start declining, acceleration starts declining very early on. And now we had enough scenarios where simple no measures were taken at any time during the wave. The key moment in that case was, I think, Paul Krugman complained that Denmark was removing all restrictions at the height of the epidemic wave and basically the very next day, the Danish wave dropped. Not a lot of people saw it, but it was extremely embarrassing for him. I've been in very much the same situation because I was living in the United States in the early 2000s and I was very clear from the very beginning of the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein did not have bioweapons. And so the whole invasion was built on Untruth. And the United States and the UK back then also knew that. Back then there was a strong moral panic, especially in the United States, against anyone who was basically speaking against the rationale for going to war. Now, 20 years later, almost nobody is willing to admit that they were speaking up in favour of the invasion back then. This is like a one-generation thing. And we'll see the same thing about the epidemic. This is very clear. The young people who had to carry most of the restrictions…up till now in Germany they're still forced to wear masks at school. They will have a very different view about what happened than the politicians in power. These are the things that'll evolve over many, many years. So I expect the same thing to happen. The interesting thing is really sort of back then it was more on the right end of the spectrum that drove this moral panic. Now it's moved over to the left end of the political spectrum. This is something that we're still to be investigated, why these moral panics unfolded onto the ideological spectrum as we know it. But it might be an interesting topic for the next call.Tobi;True. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

The guys discuss why keeping Kirk Cousins is good for now, how tough it is to find a top QN, K.J. Osborn's heroics and more! To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With new polls showing Donald Trump losing his grip on the Republican base, Sarah, David, and Steve debate the do's and don'ts of gauging Trump's political altitude. They also discuss Ron DeSantis' attempt to court the vax-skeptic voter, the recent COVID outbreaks in China, and what the implosion of Sam Bankman-Fried tells us about America's cult of the CEO. Plus: Should we be talking about MTG?Show Notes:-Josh Kraushaar on Trump's declining position

Andrew Marchand and John Ourand dissect the shocking news coming out of Burbank on Sunday night that Bob Iger replaced Bob Chapek as Disney CEO. The two talk about what the move means for ESPN, the NBA's next rights deal, the direct-to-consumer business and sports betting. Other topics include the Apple's pricing for the MLS out-of-market package and the start of the World Cup.   Telemundo soccer announcer Andrés Cantor joins the pod from Qatar as The Big Get. Cantor talks about being on the ground in Doha and offers a preview of the World Cup. Cantor offers his opinion on the Apple-MLS deal and discusses where MLS falls in the soccer pantheon. Cantor also discusses the origins of his famous ‘Gooooooooooal” call during soccer matches.   Mentioned this week: Bob Iger, Mike Krzyzewski, Mina Kimes, Erin Andrews, Peter Schrager, Kevin Willard, Bob Chapek, Michael Nathanson, Eric Shanks, Acie Wyatt, Alexi Lalas, Harry Kane, Dick Ebersol, Bob Costas, Grant Wahl, Roger Penske, Mario Mendoza, Mendoza Line, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Jimmy Pitaro, Robert Sarver, Bill Simmons, Dan Loeb, Adam Silver, Gorilla Monsoon, Al Michaels, Bel-Air Country Club, Joe Buck, Troy Aikman, Eddy Cue, James B. Stewart, Tripp Mickle, Everton FC, Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Diego Maradona, Landon Donovan, David Letterman, Jimmy Fallon, Regis Philbin, Kathie Lee Gifford, John Elway, Diego Marchand, Roberto Duran, Jason Benetti, Brock Huard, Emari Demercado, Griffin Kell, Sonny Dykes, Chris Mason For more information on WSC Sports visit bit.ly/3OzggWO Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The two biggest surprises of this #NFL Season have huge games this weekend. Jets trying to finally beat the Patriots, losers of 13 straight in this meeting. The Giants playing a feisty and explosive Lions offense.... Is this a make or break for both New York Teams? After last nights disappointing defeat to the Titans has us asking questions. Is this the end of the Aaron Rodgers and the Packers? When we here the term Mendoza line it is often referred to baseball, but we're using it in football terms for Kirk Cousins and Dak Prescott. Why are we calling it the Mendoza Line Game?

Right before Dan goes to Qatar and Johnny loses another laptop we've gathered for the last dance. Regular sideman, Pat Fenlon is joined in studio by the man who once saved his job! Yes, none other than Eoin Doyle, who missed the Mendoza Line by half a goal this season but will be fresher next season after dragging his heart around St Anne's Park in the off season trying to remember who Stevie Nicks is. Alan Reynolds is f*cking live from Derry where low key celebrations and pre season planning is well under way following the minor distraction of a game last weekend. The victorious assistant joins us to discuss Lansdowne demons, big life decisions and his inability to get through a sentence without cursing. As 40 year old Johnny prepares for his one man crusade against Galway Utd next season, Dan has an insight on how to wear flares, the mailbag has the LOI Central drinking game (had to happen), and the lads in studio cast their thoughts forward to next season. All of this is subject to the continued and rather frivolous use of a marketing budget by Future Ticketing, Collar & Cuff, Porterhouse Brew and Malone Financial Services. They think it's all over.....

Imagine having a few zany neighbors in the 1970's, like Mr. Roper or Ralph Furley did. Well....that was my lot as well and I've decided to sit them down and recall those madcap days of growing up in the Keating household that was filled with shag carpet, multi-colored paneling, and plastic furniture coverage. Plus, an extension of the Mendoza Line video response!Music by Mango SafariThatSeventiesCardShow@gmail.comThat Seventies Card Show on YouTubeTwitter @SeventiesCard

“4th of July Special: What's The Point Of A Strawberry?” Well, not counting the fact that they lower your blood pressure, are high in fiber, rich in antioxidants and guard you from cancer, strawberries are pretty much useless. In this wildly discursive 4th of July chat with singer-songwriter Shannon McArdle, the Brooklyn musician talks to Alex about why she's not into strawberries (or fruit for that matter), why she got on a subway in the middle of a pandemic and how she lost the tip of her finger. Look, this is our perennial and evergreen 4th of July Shannon Spectacular and this conversation not only covers all the bases, it will make you forget that there's no (legal) firework celebrations this year. This chat covers the genius of the new Dylan album, the durability of Soda Stream machines and the 20th anniversary reissue of Shannon's old band The Mendoza Line's We're All In This Alone. Oh, and Alex worries Shannon might get scurvy. And Shannon doesn't seem worried about this at all. An hour and a half of comedy, antics and dogs. Enjoy! Stereo Embers The Podcast Twitter: @emberseditor Instagram: @emberspodcast Email: editor@stereoembersmagazine.com

Nate Pierotti of New Stack Ventures joins Nick to discuss The Mendoza Line in VC, Why Most Investors Fail More than they Succeed, What Founder Greatness Looks Like, and Lessons from Pitching to 500 LPs & Closing $42.6M. In this episode we cover: What The Mendoza Line is & It's Implications for Venture Capital How New Stack Finds & Selects Great Founders Lessons from Pitching over 500 Limited Partners and Raising $42.6 Million Missed a recent episode? Go to The Full Ratchet blog and catch up! Also, follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter. The host of The Full Ratchet is Nick Moran, General Partner of New Stack Ventures, a venture capital firm committed to investing in founders outside of the Bay Area. To learn more about New Stack Ventures by visiting our Website and LinkedIn and be sure to follow us on Twitter. Are you a founder looking for your next investor? Visit our free tool VC-Rank and we'll send a list of potential investors right to your inbox!

The Unnecessarily Complicated Episode: Maestro's patio hosts a bourbon-fueled wide-ranging conversation on how we unnecessarily complicate our lives...The Cancer Question returns...Sportle Shout Outs...Can you make the Pro Bowl worse? Roger Goodell says "Challenge Accepted."

This week we talk about Reid Detmers throwing the first “real” no-hitter of the season, Manny Machado continues to be the hottest hitter alive, Bill has beef with the outdated Mendoza Line, Anthony Rendon going deep lefty and Christian Yelich returning to superstar form.    Subscribe and leave us a review! Follow us on Instagram: @the_groundscrew @jgerson101 @bill_rom @tweetxthexdietz

The Nats trounced the Rockies 10-2 in Denver as they have won three of the past four games on the road trip. Al & Mark (Live from Coors Field) recap the victory as Erick Fedde became the first Nationals starter to last seven frames this season. Why has the team played so much better on the road than at home this year? (10:52) Josh Bell had three hits, including a 3 run HR, as his OPS is above 1.000. This brings up a question we will ask many times this year.... sign him to an extension or trade him this summer? (16:30) Juan Soto slugged a HR in the 5th, but in the 3rd inning he shocked everyone by attempting to lay down a bunt. Did Davey Martinez sign off on that? (23:57) Nelson Cruz was lifted in the 7th due to a stiff back. The hosts discuss Cruz's performance so far in 2022 as he is hitting well below the "Mendoza Line". Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Episode 16 of Campfire Songs featuring Night Shop, Magic Sam, Big Fish Ensemble, Hypercolor, Partner Look, Slapp Happy, Graeme Downes, and The Mendoza Line

We discuss identity theft, mention the greatest player of all time, and look at the embodiment of mediocrity before stat geeks turned us onto the fictional "replacement player" -- Mario Mendoza. Mendoza was a glove-first shortstop who made it to MLB from the Mexican Leagues but was most famous for eternally flirting with the .200 batting average for his big league career.  Come join us on our journey.

The Nats lost 5-3 to Boston on Saturday afternoon. Mark & Al go through Josiah Gray's good outing, which was arguably his best start of the season.(8:13) The bullpen had another active day and Mason Thompson was the low light as he walked an AL relief pitcher on four pitches.  What approach should Mike Rizzo take for next season in bolstering the bullpen?(20:06) Gerardo Parra made possibly his final at bat in Washington, Jordy Mercer's ejection caused a roster scramble, and Juan Soto had a testy at bat in a crucial moment in the 8th inning.(31:53) Carter Kieboom went o for 4 and his average is barely over the Mendoza Line.  Is he losing his chance to win the job for 2022?(36:05) Davey Martinez had a notable pregame press conference. 1) He gave a vote of confidence to pitching Coach Jim Hickey.  2) An update on Stephen Strasburg.(45:39) The Nationals will have a prospect make his MLB debut Sunday on the mound.  Learn more about Joan Adon as he faces the Red Sox in a very crucial Game 162 for the visitors.

Kevin Newman is trending closer and closer toward the Mendoza Line with each game so why is he still batting leadoff. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ep. 008 - 2021 Seattle Mariners Podcast "unofficial" No hit again, Mendoza line, wheels up, & more banana boat 4.  A free podcast found in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, Pocket Casts, etc.... about all things 2021 Seattle Mariners baseball for fans by fans. Questions / Rant phone line: 702-850-1344 Call and leave a voice message for us and we'll answer questions on air and / or play your quality content! lol Host: https://twitter.com/AaronAviles (@AaronAviles) Co-Host: https://twitter.com/jsloppy7 (@jSloppy7) Co-Host: https://twitter.com/TheHawkMariners (@TheHawkMariners) Twitter: https://twitter.com/marinerspodcast (@MarinersPodcast) https://my.captivate.fm/www.MarinersPodcast.com (www.MarinersPodcast.com)

Why does something crazy come "out of left field"? And what does 70s baseball player Mario Mendoza have to do with mediocrity? We answer these questions and many more in our latest mini episode: Based on Baseball. We also look at baseball-oriented idioms such as "touch base", "grand slam", "murderers' row", and many more. Did we miss your favorite baseball idiom? Let us know in the comments and we will include it in a future show!

This show is a reunion of sorts. I'm joined by Pete Hoffman & Shannon McCardle of The Mendoza Line. The band is reissuing their album We're All In This Alone. Pete & Shannon hadn't spoken for 12 years, until the day before we recorded. They tell me about missed opportunities, some regrets, Stratomatic baseball, & saying “tit” as many times as possible.The reissue of We're All In This Alone includes 3 bonus tracks that were found on a cassette in a box in Pete's basement. There's also some rare posters for purchase. Check out @mendozalineband on IG for details. Pick up the album on bandcamp or any of the streaming services. Follow us @PerformanceAnx on social media. Subscribe, rate, & review & check out all the great shows on Pantheon Podcasts, of which we are a proud member. Now let's get together with Pete & Shannon of The Mendoza Line.

This show is a reunion of sorts. I'm joined by Pete Hoffman & Shannon McCardle of The Mendoza Line. The band is reissuing their album We're All In This Alone. Pete & Shannon hadn't spoken for 12 years, until the day before we recorded. They tell me about missed opportunities, some regrets, Stratomatic baseball, & saying “tit” as many times as possible.The reissue of We're All In This Alone includes 3 bonus tracks that were found on a cassette in a box in Pete's basement. There's also some rare posters for purchase. Check out @mendozalineband on IG for details. Pick up the album on bandcamp or any of the streaming services. Follow us @PerformanceAnx on social media. Subscribe, rate, & review & check out all the great shows on Pantheon Podcasts, of which we are a proud member. Now let's get together with Pete & Shannon of The Mendoza Line.

Imma tell you like this whodie, if you're really about that pretty bitch shit, that gutta shit, that fifty, if you're still selling jerry and you know you're doin' numbers, 28 wit' a ladder, still on that FIGARO. If you're wet like wonton soup, if you look like Jesus, if you've got 50,000 bitches on your dick, if you're bitch mob task force all day, real pink bandana shit, KRIS HUMPHRIES. If you know the BasedGod, you already know what it is. It's time for an episode on Lil B. The king of all memes. The BasedGod. Brandon McCartney. An unstoppably prolific enigma of an MC, Lil B has memed his way into the public spotlight again and again -- whether through his highly effective curses on NBA players, the various public beatings he's taken from fellow rappers, or his provocative album titles like "I'm Gay", Lil B captures the imaginations of the people. Comedian Zach Armentrout, host of The Mendoza Line comedy show, joins us to discuss Green Flame, one of the eighteen mixtapes that Lil B released in 2012. In typical Lil B fashion it's lo-fi, dashed off, with seemingly no thought put into it, and yet somehow, someway, Mike is all about it. Listen as Zach and Heather try to reason with him to no avail.

Imma tell you like this whodie, if you're really about that pretty bitch shit, that gutta shit, that fifty, if you're still selling jerry and you know you're doin' numbers, 28 wit' a ladder, still on that FIGARO. If you're wet like wonton soup, if you look like Jesus, if you've got 50,000 bitches on your dick, if you're bitch mob task force all day, real pink bandana shit, KRIS HUMPHRIES. If you know the BasedGod, you already know what it is. It's time for an episode on Lil B. The king of all memes. The BasedGod. Brandon McCartney. An unstoppably prolific enigma of an MC, Lil B has memed his way into the public spotlight again and again -- whether through his highly effective curses on NBA players, the various public beatings he's taken from fellow rappers, or his provocative album titles like "I'm Gay", Lil B captures the imaginations of the people. Comedian Zach Armentrout, host of The Mendoza Line comedy show, joins us to discuss Green Flame, one of the eighteen mixtapes that Lil B released in 2012. In typical Lil B fashion it's lo-fi, dashed off, with seemingly no thought put into it, and yet somehow, someway, Mike is all about it. Listen as Zach and Heather try to reason with him to no avail. Part of the Pantheon Podcast Network.

Venture-backed companies must walk the line between fast growth and efficient growth. Even as VCs value high-quality revenue, companies are still held to a minimum growth rate. We think of this threshold as the “Mendoza Line,” a baseball term we've adapted to track the minimum growth needed to get access to venture funding. Above this line, startups are generally attractive to investors and even have a good chance for a strong exit.

Ian Kinsler is off to a tought start in 2018, with his batting average falling below the Mendoza Line. With Mike Trout lighting the baseball world on fire, should Mike Scioscia consider batting MLB's best player in the leadoff spot?Despite Kinsler's struggles, the team has not skipped a beat as a team offensively, averaging 7 runs per game in Seattle after bludgeoning the Orioles' staff for 3 games before that. However, perhaps now is the time to experiment and give a few struggling Halos the opportunity to find their strokes. Kole Calhoun and Ian Kinsler have gone on notable cold streaks, with Zack Cozart showing some signs of life after a few tough weeks. A lineup with Mike Trout starting things off could spell early doom for opposing pitchers, or perhaps mess with the mojo of the rest of the lineup.Tuesday also means the Down on the Farm Report, featuring three guys who have been dominating the upper levels of the Angels' system. Jesus Castillo and Griffin Canning are scorching on the mound in Mobile, while David Fletcher leads the Pacific Coast League in hits. Also, congratulations to Jabari Blash for earning his Halo debut on Sunday!Don't forget to follow the show on Twitter @LockedOnAngels and subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, and Google Play. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Intern Dana finds a way out of the Dog Park but can't quite figure out where it leads. Plus, a look at opening weekend of football season, helpful tips on adopting a dog from the SPCA, and Carlos visits the house that doesn't exist. Guest voice: Jasika Nicole. Weather: "The Lethal Temptress" by The Mendoza Line, http://misrarecords.com/artists/the-mendoza-line Music: Disparition, disparition.info. Logo: Rob Wilson, robwilsonwork.com Produced by Night Vale Presents. Written by Joseph Fink & Jeffrey Cranor. Narrated by Cecil Baldwin. More Info: welcometonightvale.com, and follow @NightValeRadio on Twitter or Facebook. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices