Jump to content

TrueYankee26

Members
  • Posts

    6,748
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TrueYankee26

  1. 14 minutes ago, BBTV said:

     

    I am also against legislating where people stand on a baseball field, but at the same time, I want to see more action and I don't want big-meaty home-run hitters have to adjust their swing so they can hit weak grounders down the 3b line to beat the shift, or bunt like Bryce does periodically.  

     

    I don't see any parallels to banning the shift to banning the blitz.  A better comparison would be changing the rules on where receivers can be in order to be eligible or rules on motion - which the league has done as the game has evolved.  

     

    Baseball is the only game that hasn't evolved as times change, as athletes change, and as fans change.  There's some charm in that, and I don't blame anyone who loves baseball for that very reason.  I used to be one of those people, but as I get older, I find that I have less patience to waste what time is remaining in my life watching Ryan Howard bat .200 because he lined out 50 times to a shortstop playing in short right field.

     

    EDIT;

    banning the shift is also closer to the NBA changing the size of the lane because Wilt Chamberlain was too good, or the NHL restricting where goalies can play the puck from, or the NHL banning the neutral-zone trap.  Again, MLB is the only sport that hasn't changed with the times.  If you like that, that's totally cool.

    I get it. Heck, in some ways I want it to change with the times (I am pro-universal DH and as a fan of an American League team I am most familiar with the DH and prefer that, and usually I am not keen on analytics, I like just the basic stats and the eye test), but another part of me that is prevailing fears baseball would lose its soul by changing something that I believe is fundamental to the game, you have to earn getting on base (another reason why I dislike the GR) or banning the shift. I am a bit mixed, some things I agree with traditionalists and others I agree with the new school fans.

  2. 59 minutes ago, BBTV said:

     

    Such as....?

     

    It actually has nothing to do with "pace of play".  Think about it - how does it quicken the "pace"?

     

    It has to do with two things:

     

    1) player health and safety.  There's no need for a game to go 15 innings and a team to burn all its relievers, only to have to come back the next night and pitch guys that probably need rest because they were used in a meaningless 16-inning game.

     

    2) length of game.  There's absolutely no need for a regular season game to end after 10:30 (they should probably end at 10:00).  You want for parents to let their kids stay up to watch whole games, which is kinda hard when games go as long as they do.  And you also want to take your kid to a game without ruining his next day of school because he was up too late (let alone your next day at work.)

     

    Personally, I find that it adds drama and makes every pitch count.  Also adds a lot of strategy, which is needed since some has been lost due to the DH.

    Yes I meant length of the game there but I like that baseball is not like the other sports with a game clock. I also dislike banning the shift, hitters have to adjust; imagine banning the blitz in football? Bigger bases, alright. Universal DH, hell yes I am absolutely for it. I like the pitch clock if they absolutely have to make the game go faster

  3. 8 minutes ago, BBTV said:

     

    This post is objectively wrong.

     

    I love the ghost runner - and I'm one of the older and more traditionalist members of the forum.

    Ok there is one lol.

     

    Still reeks of desparation from MLB to quicken the pace of play because they fear turning away more youth from the game (like me, I am 31). There are better ways.

  4. spacer.png

    spacer.png

     

    #1 seeded Eagles make the Super Bowl?  ✅️ 

    The Eagles lost the Super Bowl? ✅️ 

    Game came down to a FG? ✅️ 

    The game involved Andy Reid as a Head Coach? ✅

    Eagles started a Black QB? ✅

    QB of the Eagles opponent made two prior Super Bowl appearances? ✅

    Game was broadcasted on FOX? ✅

    1st time then current #1 broadcasters covered the game? ✅

    • Like 1
    • WOAH 4
  5. One of the most wild NFL seasons ended appropriately with a Super Bowl thriller.

     

    Dynasty in the Midwest for the 1st time since the 60s Packers (or 70s Steelers if you think Western PA leans that way)

     

    Reid takes down his former team, he is on the right side this time of an Eagles' Super Bowl defeat by a FG broadcasted in FOX to someone who will be an all time great. He might have hinted thay he could walk away but I don't see it. He is in good hands with Pat Mahomes and if he is lucky, Chiefs have that 2000-2010s Pats like mega dynasty that New England enjoyed with TB.

    • Dislike 3
  6. 23 minutes ago, GrayJ12 said:

    I don't know how to explain it, but this just FEELS like a Fox graphic. I was disliking it when the game started, but it's been growing on me all game.

    I also had a bad feeling especially when I posted what turned out to be the fake scorebug.

     

    Fox hit another home run with their graphics and scorebug IMO. As I said earlier, a nice mix of most of their graphics of the last decade.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.