Bash Riprock
-
Posts
1,818 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Articles
Events
Posts posted by Bash Riprock
-
-
4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:
Why doesn't the game just get rid of pitchers and use a pitching machine? Possibly a lot more hits, aka "action", that way.
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
-
2 minutes ago, Bobref said:
You’re ignoring the “opportunity benefit.” DHs put the ball in play more than pitchers. And there is always the possibility that something will happen vs. watching the pitcher go up there, take his three, and sit down. DHs may not hit as well as the average position players. But they are a much tougher out than the pitcher.
As for statistical analysis of the effect of the DH, I don’t have to do it. The owners, who have a lot more at stake than you or me, have already done that. That’s why they voted to expand it to the NL.
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.
-
11 minutes ago, Bobref said:
At a time when baseball is declining in popularity, and failing miserably to engage younger fans, baseball should be looking to inject more action into the game. This is a step in that direction. For that reason, I support it completely.
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!!
-
1 hour ago, AG said:
I don't follow the MLB all that closely anymore, but it always confused the heck out of me as to why one half of MLB allowed DHs and the other didn't. The entire league needed to either allow DHs or not allow them, IMO. Honestly I was never a big fan of watching pitchers, with sub .100 batting averages, attempt to bat anyway.
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??
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 3/15/2022 at 4:20 PM, BTF said:
Tom Brady loves attention. I called this the second he announced his retirement. I think it pains him to not be in the spotlight.
Perhaps he simply had enough of "family time" and is getting back to work for his own mental health........🥺🥴
-
1 hour ago, Bobref said:
If you’re good enough to command it, why not? That’s the American way, no?
Then turn pro
-
On 3/13/2022 at 8:07 AM, Bobref said:
That’s sort of what for-profit institutions do, isn’t it?
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.
-
13 hours ago, Bobref said:
In addition to the opportunity for a cash grab — which benefits everyone, including players — I think part of the NFL’s reasoning in embracing sports betting is simply bowing to the inevitable. Since the Goodell statement in 2015 quoted in the article, the flow toward public acceptance of gambling has become a tsunami. States legalizing sports betting, online opportunities in abundance, and most importantly, the explosion in popularity of fantasy football, all make gambling on football mainstream today. What was once considered shady, back room, under the table stuff is now family entertainment. Society’s mores changed. The NFL changed correspondingly. What’s the big deal? Why would anyone attribute some sort of nefarious motive to that?
Did you know in Indiana, which has a state lottery, state licensed casinos, and legal sports betting, there are also laws on the books against illegal gambling operations. Is enforcement of those laws hypocritical? I don’t hear a lot of people beating that drum.
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?
-
21 hours ago, JustRules said:
I see it more as them supporting something the fans do but for obvious reasons don't want their participants doing it. That's very logical because they are gambling on the outcome of games something the participants can influence. The NFL creating partnerships with the gambling entities is still valid because they make their money regardless of the outcome. I have no idea if they are advertising contracts or a percentage of bets placed, but either way they do not influence the winners of the bets.
In the scope of an athletic contest gambling is much more damaging than legal issues off the field. I'm OK with the league getting involved there as well, but the courts should be the primary arbiter and they don't impact the outcome of games.
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?
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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, gonzoron said:
Elderberry.
And yes, you were comparing Wentz and Rodgers in relation to Love.
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.
-
15 hours ago, Bobref said:
I don’t think Favre was a back to back MVP award winner in the two years before he was “pushed out.”
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.
15 hours ago, DE said:What are you even talking about? He isn't comparing the 2. Try and keep up.
Guessing one too many wine coolers last evening....
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, gonzoron said:
Comparing Rodgers and Wentz is laughable.
Wentz?
-
17 hours ago, JustRules said:
You don't want those involved in the games involved in any form of gambling. It's a bad look and gets them potentially into some bad situations. Let's say Ridley loses $1500 on these games. He tries to get it back and loses $5000 the next time. And it grows. Suddenly he owes someone a lot of money. He could get pressured to do something in one of his games to settle his debts. The best way to avoid that is to ban gambling by the partipicants entirely.
I know from an officiating standpoint the B1G is so opposed to gambling officials are not allowed to do any kind of gambling. This includes basketball pools and fantasy sports. I believe NFL officials are not allowed in a casino at any point during the season even if they aren't gambling. Violating any of those would result in immediate dismissal from the staff. I would imagine players and coaches are under even more scrutiny.
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.
-
On 3/9/2022 at 6:31 PM, PHJIrish said:
May God bless the Washington Commanders! I hate this for Terry McLaurin though!
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???
-
On 3/9/2022 at 1:11 PM, DE said:
Dude has proven nothing. Jus' sayin
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.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, gonzoron said:
This is one position the Colts have historically come out smelling like a rose on. Some very good tight ends.
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.
-
22 minutes ago, AG said:
If he keeps improving, yes. PFF has him as the 26th ranked TE out of 70. His ceiling is probably 500-600 yards receiving, but I do remember the Colts staff raving about his blocking several years ago. He's not going to make any QBs salivate, but he's also not a liability either.
I think we are on the same page.....and your last sentence aligns with my original thought. When trying to attract a FA QB, MAC will not excite a QB. Perhaps the same for Doyle, but he was considered a long-term solid performer at this position. Today, Colts have Cox and the 1 year player out of SMU. (forgetting his name)
I believe the lack of a proven LT and no established speedy #1 receiver would be the biggest concerns for a big name QB, assuming the Colts had something to offer their teams.
-
12 minutes ago, Muda69 said:
And he didn't get vaccinated, which made him public enemy number one with the media. Like Mr. Doyel at the Indy Star.
Yes...while Darius Leonard, Quentin Nelson and other Colts seemed to get a pretty free pass. They received nothing close to the wrath Wentz received.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Muda69 said:
Are sure that it wasn't Mr. Leonard's public relation manager who posted this?
I have no idea who does Leonard's tweets. Wouldn't one assume that if he outsources his tweeting, that he would have someone tweet in alignment with his personal feelings?
-
4 minutes ago, AG said:
Mo Alie-Cox is experienced at TE with seven starts last season, plus he's still youngish and improving.
Do you think the former college basketball player turned TE would be a starter for most NFL teams?
Not saying he isn't experienced or doesn't have talent....but is he seen as a true #1 across the league?
-
9 hours ago, Bobref said:
“Concerns about Wentz go beyond the playing field. In fact, most don't deny the amount of actual talent the quarterback has. His weakness comes in the form of mental strength, and in his leadership...or lack thereof.”
Well...if the media says so.......take it to the bank!!!
Maybe Darius Leonard was an outlier....wait a minute...he wasn't the only one tweeting.
Reports I've read is that Irsay was not a Wentz fan. And I am guessing that is what mattered most. My guess is because he didn't conform to the boss's wishes and didn't put up the stats like Leonard and Q. Are those reports accurate? Who knows...as plausible as your link. We do know Irsay missed a meeting with Wentz prior to the deal.
-
2 hours ago, AG said:
The answer to whom the Colts' next starting QB will be won't have an easy answer.
Veterans - Fitzpatrick, Foles, Bridgewater, Winston, and Mariota. Fitzpatrick is too old and is nothing more than a stop gap. Foles has never really been a full time starter. Bridgewater is average at best, but also isn't a long term solution. Winston possibly presents the best upside, but he has never been very accurate and makes far too many bad decisions. Mariota reminds me a bit of Carson Wentz. He will continue to intrigue teams due to his pre-injury history, but don't be fooled.
Young with potential - Trubisky. There are some that think that maybe Trubisky just wasn't a fit in Chicago and that he can flourish in a different system and with new coaches. He might be worth a flyer for the right price, but I doubt that he will come cheap. The Colts should stay away unless they can sign him for a cheap, one year prove it deal, laced with incentives. I would stay away.
Familiar with the system - Brissett. This might end up happening, barring Indy giving up precious draft capital for Garoppolo or Carr.
Draft. There aren't any 2nd or 3rd round QBs that I feel that the Colts should take, unless one drops to them. If the Colts do plan on taking a rookie passer in the 2nd round, I highly recommend signing one of the top free agents as well.
I totally agree....how does one attract an existing solid QB without a starting LT, lack of a speedy #1 receiver, and now no experienced TE? Not to mention what do the Colts offer? They have been hammered giving up draft picks...nothing this year in the 1st round and is giving up more future 1st round picks the answer? What can they offer to get a Jimmy G or D. Carr? Very little unless they offer up their current few studs.
Andrew Luck retiring has left a huge hole that will continue to haunt the Colts for years to come.....
-
20 hours ago, PHJIrish said:
I'm glad to see Wentz gone. He's never been a team player, and he probably will never be a team player. I'm just glad the Colts got something in return for him and the Commanders are playing his salary.
Now it's time to find a real QB leader, someone who will make the team better. It's not gonna be easy.
Like DE asked, please clarify this statement with some actual basis....and quoting Doyel who hated him from Day 1 for his Wentz' covid vaccine stance doesn't count. Unless you have connections to the Colts locker room, be careful buying everything members of the media may say....
Darius Leonard seems to have a different feeling.....
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Bobref said:
The two are inextricably intertwined, at least, in the minds of the owners. And do you really think the general population views sports gambling as tarnishing the league’s image? I don’t. Gambling is mainstream today. The fact that it is also extremely lucrative for the league doesn’t make it bad, or shady. It’s simply another form of entertainment.
I think the league is kidding itself of promoting something for their sport that drives dollars, then act like its horrific if their own players engage in the same. One year suspension for betting a total of $1500 on unrelated games?
Fine if they want to slap a hand for an undesired behavior that had minor impact....but this? While promoting gambling to others???
I think we disagree about it being shady as well. When you "wallow with the pigs, you are going to get muddy"........
I get it...we see this differently....that's cool.
You have the last word....appreciate the positive discussion!!!
-
1
-
Baseball is back, but the DH is everywhere, and that’s awful
in The Next Level
Posted · Edited by Bash Riprock
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.