Bash Riprock

I used to get out to Wyoming (Casper area) for business and local sports page featured their 8 man HS teams.....but always 2nd fiddle to rodeo. I thought that was really cool.

Some good insight.....Ryan is probably one of the best options out there...for short term. He's definitely on the tail end of his career and hopefully he can rebound from declining stats last year. But he is a short-term solution...Rivers Part II I do hope the O line improves this year...wasn't great down the stretch and now they must replace both the LT and RG positions. I'm a little more skeptical than you about their recent performance. Its time to move on from Wentz. I understand Zak Keefer wrote a negative article on his leadership and coachability in the Atlantic, but again provides no sources. I tend to take the work of players like Leonard, Pittman, Taylor, etc. over a member of the media....a biased media from day 1. Reich had positive words to say just yesterday, and I don't see him be blantantly dishonest. As the quote from the Forgetting Sarah Marshall, "its like the Sopranos....its over." https://clutchpoints.com/commanders-news-colts-coachs-surprising-comments-about-carson-wentz-per-ron-rivera/ Now, let hope the Colts can fill other needed position gaps.....LT, WR, TE, etc.

Interesting

2016 & 18 were great, but other than that....solid, not great Lots of yards, but not a ton of TD's. Hard to get excited to sprint to the ticket office......

I hear you...but its fun as a fan to speculate. I guess my top wish would be Garoppolo. I am not overly excited about any of the options, but it is what it is... Looks like someone has made an offer for Jimmy G.....reported less than an hour ago https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/jimmy-garoppolo-trade-rumors-49ers-have-been-offered-two-second-round-picks-for-veteran-qb-per-report/

Mariota? Who in your opinion will land in town to QB?

is it looking like Mayfield or Ryan??

if the DH in the AL hasn't made a big difference in the past (and I supplied you plenty of data that shows it hasn't) then WHY do you think adding the DH to the NL will make a significant difference to a new generation of fans that currently don't have a baseball tradition? As I showed you, the NL already has 7 of the 10 highest drawing venues now in MLB, based off 2021 attendance. According to this article, MLB has the oldest fans of all major sports. I understand trying to do something to get the attention of the 18-34 age group. https://frontofficesports.com/mlb-looks-to-grow-its-younger-fanbase/ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sports-with-the-oldest-and-youngest-tv-audiences-2017-06-30 Major League Baseball’s television audience is among the oldest in professional sports, according to data recently released by Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal and Magna Global. The average age of a baseball viewer is 57, up from 52 in 2006. There won’t be a youth movement, either, as just 7% of baseball’s audience is below age 18. Can you provide something other than your personal desire to see expansion of the DH work when history has proven its had minimal impact?

LOL...SMH What I did post were a couple of examples that showed their was no real statistical relationship to the DH making the game better. a slight offensive increase. I also provided a paper (dated back to 2010) that illustrates the DH has done nothing to increase attendance in its use over time in the AL. The DH brings a perception more than anything else. It hasn't driven attendance in the past, but you think it may now. OK....wish away. What has led to the decline in MLB attendance is hardly the difference in offensive production in the NL vs the AL. 7 of the top 10 MLB teams in 2021 are NL teams....if the DH was so great to spur attendance, why aren't AL teams doing better putting fans in the stands? https://www.statista.com/statistics/193664/regular-season-home-attendance-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

Opportunities with no statistical relationship to real success… Ok…..but if we just do something…anything…

Aaron can’t be happy…..Adams is Vegas bound….

theses from a Clemson grad student "Revisiting The Impact of the Designated Hitter on MLB" 2010. Perhaps the data has changed since this work, but interesting read nonetheless. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1878&context=all_theses#:~:text=They included%3A 1.,a temporary pinch hitter 3. The DH rule change was designed to improve attendance in the AL. When performing a regression analysis on 108 years of data, it appears that complete games pitched is more closely aligned with attendance than are batters ages or runs scored.

interesting read..........this may be more about perception and the hope of something big vs reality. But driving up attendance and viewership? I don't think so. https://brandeishoot.com/2020/10/09/results-of-the-designated-hitter-rule-change-in-the-mlb/ So, for the 2020 season, there was a DH for the teams in the National League for the first time. Since there was now a DH in both leagues, you would assume a higher average batting average for the entire league. However, that is not what occurred this season. Based on the information from Baseball Reference, the average batting average for the entire league was 0.245 and teams scored 4.65 runs per game, on average. If you take a look specifically at the National League, you can see that they had an average batting average of 0.246 and only scored an average of 4.71 runs per game during this season. Both of those statistics are less than last season without the DH. Does this mean that the DH in the National League is actually worse for teams’ offenses? Do the DH curse National League teams to have worse offensive seasons? Should the National League go back to having pitchers hit to improve batting for these teams? The answer is: maybe. In reality these statistics are a bit deceiving because of the shortened season. The previous year’s stats were measured for a full 162 games while this year only consisted of 60 games. So, in general the down year could actually improve if there were more games, considering most hitters start off really slow and get better when they play more games. Additionally, this season was full of surprises. Many players were either forced to not play or chose not to play due to restrictions because of the coronavirus pandemic, so this may have influenced batting stats. Even though statistically overall, the addition of the DH did not accomplish the task of increasing the offense in the MLB, the entertainment level of the game likely went up. No longer did people have to sit and watch the pitcher be a “free out.” The reality of the change is that it seems like there is more chance for offense because you have someone that can actually hit in the lineup over the pitcher. Overall, the rule change did its job. It helped keep some pitchers safe from being injured and it gave people that only watch National League baseball a taste of what it is like to have a DH hitting instead of the pitcher. People don’t really care about whether or not statistically there was an increase in offense in baseball. What people really care about is what seems to be happening. It doesn’t matter if the batting average of teams went down; now that the pitcher isn’t hitting, you have one more chance of hitting a home run in any particular inning.

What makes you think I don't? I just don't buy that pushing the DH into the NL makes the game better or more marketable. Especially to a younger demographic. Professional sports, baseball included, stopped marketing to the family and went after corporations. Families were priced out or stuck in the nosebleeds. So kids (unlike my generation) didn't go to the ballpark in the numbers of the past. As a result, those kids that are now ticket buyers that didn't grow up in the ballpark don't care now. They have other interests. They have little to no tradition. If they truly wanted to bring the game back, they would make it more affordable to the family.....that includes tickets, concessions and parking. Generations care because they are there to establish love and tradition. If not, why should they invest their time and significant dollars? In addition, MLB started to play politics, hoping to pull younger folks....at the end of the day, they didn't care and some of us older folks that would prefer politics kept out of our entertainment, were turned off. MLB is reaping what they sowed.

I like it....or if they don't want to automate, use batting practice pitchers to serve it up and they can turn every game into Home Run Derby.......Screw defense.....just park it!! Afternoon game at Wrigley Score....... Chi Cubs - 116 StL Cards - 102

Have a solid baseball background....not ignoring anything. I can play the same card and say you are ignoring the significantly more strategic analysis applied by having the pitcher step into the batter's box. As far as that analysis....just point me to it so I can read it. Because I don't buy that increased attendance at AL ballparks occur because of the DH rule or that younger folks flip on their TV's to watch for the same reason. I believe the owners (and the union in the case) are trying anything to stop the decline....and in this case it includes of throwing anything at the wall that sticks.

If the DH is not slowing down the decline in popularity for the AL, what makes you believe it will slow it down overall? DH is nothing new. Are the ratings and attendance much higher in the AL vs NL? Has a true correlation been established that having an extra stick of a .250 hitter than can't field brings significantly more interest to the game for a younger demographic? Is hitting the only way to drive excitement in baseball? Perhaps for the casual fan I guess. BTW, .250 is generous. According the the stats I reviewed, the average AL DH hit .229 in 2020....NL DH's for interleague games hit .235. Wow. Huge excitement!!

it forces strategy....a pitcher than can bunt is huge in moving runners. A pitcher that is a decent hitter is a pure blessing to a team. Forces the use of pinch hitters, different use of the bullpen, etc. A pitcher that does get on base has to run...and that can have impact. Requires more out of a manager and a pitcher. Also provides some check in balance for a pitcher that wants to brushback or bean someone, knowing he has to dig into the batter's box as well. But hey....what's tradition??

Perhaps he simply had enough of "family time" and is getting back to work for his own mental health........🥺🥴

Then turn pro

For the most part yes....but I think we see corporations lately making exceptions to the rules with Covid mandates, ceasing business with Russia, etc. But absolutely...image isn't what it used to be...and in this case...what is right for the goose, doesn't necessarily apply to the gander.

I am not really commenting whether they should or shouldn't. I have opinions about it, but don't want to get in that debate. I am simply saying it easy to predict an increased probability of this happening with players. My guess, Ridley isn't the only one. There is impact whether you choose to accept that or not as mentioned in the article I shared.......but hey, follow the cash, right?

We see this differently....as the say goes, "you show me a person's friends, and I will show them their future"......but at the end of the day, I agree with their motive...its always about following the dollars, regardless of the impact. I agree players gambling impacts integrity of the game. Have no issue with punishment...I am just saying how can people not predict that the probability of gambling increases, when its made to be much easier to do? https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-10/nfl-draftkings-lucrative-partnership-blurs-lines-between-sports-gambling All of this brings seductive — sometimes addictive — betting much closer to kids, teens and older students while making gambling a more explicit centerpiece of sports. Young men are particularly vulnerable. As I’ve noted before, there possibly will be social fallout, and a bigger incentive for corruption, tied to these shifts. Regulation, meanwhile, will likely be scant and left to individual states. "We've been very open about our position that we oppose legalized sports gambling,” Roger Goodell, the NFL’s commissioner, observed back in 2015. “We haven't changed our position on that, and I don't anticipate us changing that going forward at all. We think the integrity of the game is the most important thing.” What changed? An opportunity for the NFL to feast on fresh revenue streams emerged. The league said it expects to pull in $270 million this year from new gambling deals and as much as $1 billion by the end of this decade. Sports betting companies, freed by a 2018 Supreme Court ruling to operate in states other than Nevada, and given a huge boost by shut-ins looking for fun during the Covid-19 lockdown, have even bigger piles of money awaiting them. A Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analyst recently estimated that the online sports betting market could grow to about $39 billion by 2033, up from about $900 million currently. Goldman, which the NFL also retained to find partners that can help it expand the reach of its media properties, thinks that cord-cutting and streaming have made it hard for sports leagues to attract younger fans. Lo and behold, sports betting skews much younger than traditional casino gambling — and thus offers leagues a way to reel in loyalists younger than 40.

not even close. The conversation about Wentz was about the locker room comments made. My comments with Love was in regards I do not believe he is a strong option for the Colts given their opening at QB. Totally unrelated. He is not ready to be the #1 in GB. And that is not comparing Love to Rodgers...its clear that Rodgers is the preferred option to Love by Packers management. Try again....I never compared anyone, let alone Wentz to Love. 2 separate issues.