Bash Riprock

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.

Bottom line, if they felt Love (a former 1st round draft pick was ready after 2 years of watching) they would have made the move. They obviously believe that he isn't ready and so they re-upped a great player, that is near the end of his career for a large sum of money and 4 years. Keeping a first round pick on the bench for multiple years isn't desired. Favre wasn't MVP, but he threw for almost 4200 yds and 28 TD's in his final year for the Pack. Bottom line, they felt Rodgers (1st round pick) was ready and made the move. Guessing one too many wine coolers last evening....

Wentz?

Zero disagreement. I am not sure this crime fit the punishment, but not my call. My only point is that when an entity partners and gets involved in the gambling business, how can they not expect their own risks to increase? They are indeed opening the door. But, I guess they manage it by telling their people, "don't do as I do...do as I say..." Awesome example the NFL sets....once again.

Yeah...because Taylor Heinicke is such a better option for him.....🙄 You keep talking negatively about someone you really don't know. I have asked you for some actual firm data to back up your negativity about Wentz in the locker room. Do you have anything other than his Covid vaccine stance???

Actually he has DE...... He's proven that he cannot unseat a 39 year old QB that the Pack re-upped for 4 years for a very, very high price. That tells me plenty about Love. The Pack are not ready to hand him the key to the car. Farve was pushed out when Rogers was ready....same is not happening now.

No disagreement..... Just a lot to ask a top QB to "trust us" to find another one. Not saying its a show-stopper...but when you combine the current state of this position, with no starting LT and the lack of a #1 speed receiver, it does not make the Colts look attractive.