Rod Carew "speaking out - to the commissioner"

[HobokenJon]

Preach, Rod! Preach! Loved this. The Athletic wrote it up today. Here's his original post. One more desecration I would add to his list: Intentional walks with no pitches pitched.

https://mailchi.mp/rodcarew/2022-wee...9?e=e68036346f
https://theathletic.com/3539812/2022...les-analytics/

Excerpts:

"How can you tell me the game is better when it looks like softball - times when teams use four outfielders, and extra innings starting with a man on second?"

"How is the game better with analytics becoming so dominant that players don't know how to think for themselves?"

"In spring training and during the season, I spend time in the cages talking to all players, especially the young guys. They're learning all about exit velocity and launch angle, but they don't understand the nuances of the game, the things that make a difference between winning and losing."

"There's a place in the game for analytics. They just shouldn't be the game."

"Baseball isn't a skills competition. Yet instead of trying to create well-rounded players, teams seem to be building robots designed to hit balls far and throw it hard."

"The finer points of our sport are being downgraded to the point of being lost. That's why games are longer, slower and more boring."

[Shoeless Moe]

I heard in a game tonight the announcers say the Braves have not sacrificed bunted all season.

Bert Campaneris did it 40 times in 1977.

[RCFire82]

That would be the defending World Series Champion Braves!
Go Bravos!

[jingram058]

Anytime I bring up stuff like this, or robotic umpires, or 5 minutes of commercials every half inning during game telecasts, or starting the 10th inning with a man on second, or what have you, and how it's ruining baseball, I get torched like a cremation fire.

[ClementeFanOh]

Bravo Rod! A fellow net54 member called him "the hitting witch" in a PM a
few weeks back, and I love that nickname. He also happens to make very,
very good points. A tip of the cap to him- Trent King

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Anytime I bring up stuff like this, or robotic umpires, or 5 minutes of commercials every half inning during game telecasts, or starting the 10th inning with a man on second, or what have you, and how it's ruining baseball, I get torched like a cremation fire.

I do NL only fantasy leagues because i hate the DH and i am pretty much a purist but i actually like the man on 2nd rule and starting to live with the DH

baseball is entertainment, thats why you see such huge money into it, so trying to make it more entertaining is going to happen

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I do NL only fantasy leagues because i hate the DH and i am pretty much a purist but i actually like the man on 2nd rule and starting to live with the DH

baseball is entertainment, thats why you see such huge money into it, so trying to make it more entertaining is going to happen

We agree on something! I like older school small ball where bunts, singles and steals matter. I also like teams that have great pitching and fielding over huge offenses. All that said, I love the man on second in extras. Sounded terrible at first. In practice I think it’s worked well and is really fun. In a way I think it has forced some teams to think more about fundamentals - trying to get the guy over with a productive out.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

We agree on something! I like older school small ball where bunts, singles and steals matter. I also like teams that have great pitching and fielding over huge offenses. All that said, I love the man on second in extras. Sounded terrible at first. In practice I think it’s worked well and is really fun. In a way I think it has forced some teams to think more about fundamentals - trying to get the guy over with a productive out.

Also when to take out a starting pitcher mattered an inning earlier because of a pinch hitter...

however i dont think teams right now make productive outs in extra innings they appear to not care and are swinging away from what remember the early data says but that could change..

[Hxcmilkshake]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I do NL only fantasy leagues because i hate the DH and i am pretty much a purist but i actually like the man on 2nd rule and starting to live with the DH



baseball is entertainment, thats why you see such huge money into it, so trying to make it more entertaining is going to happen

NL has the DH now. And I can't wait for robot umps.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Hxcmilkshake

NL has the DH now. And I can't wait for robot umps.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

there should be a few replays given a game on strike 3 calls....if super fast response...perhaps in the late innings....really not fair to take a strike 3 in the 9th thats clearly a ball.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Hxcmilkshake

NL has the DH now. And I can't wait for robot umps.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Just think, we could go back to hitting off of a tee like my 5 year old in order to save the pitchers arms. Oh, I guess we wouldn't need pitchers anymore, so let's load up on more swing and a miss home run hitters, cuz "that's what the fans want..."

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Anytime I bring up stuff like this, or robotic umpires, or 5 minutes of commercials every half inning during game telecasts, or starting the 10th inning with a man on second, or what have you, and how it's ruining baseball, I get torched like a cremation fire.

Definitely too many commercials, and don't get me started on extra innings...there are no words to describe how much I hate the zombie runner!!

[mrreality68]

Glad a person like Rod Carew is speaking up.

Change to games are good but they should stay in the framework of the game and the traditions.

Small ball has been neglected and not all players hit homers so it should be better balanced.
I am ok with the DH since all teams play interleague play and most pitchers cannot hit (let alone do a quality bunt)
I am not a fan of the man on 2nd but perhaps over time I can used to it.

[insidethewrapper]

I've been a fan for over 65 years and the game is starting to lose me. Man on 2nd base in extra innings ?, Taking pitchers out of no-hit games ? Making the bases bigger ( less space between the bases ) ? Pitch clock ?

They "baby" pitchers with pitch counts and innings and it seems more and more pitchers are having sore arms, so maybe a different method should be tried ! If it was working I'd say "great" , but this regiment isn't working. It's like throw hard one day, take 5 days off and pitch hard again ( sounds like the weekend warrior syndrome) and we all know those results. Pitch 5 innings with a 6 man staff ? Do these athletic trainers know anything ? Everyone has a sore leg or arm etc.

Just enforce the rules and make batters stay in the batters box ! No adjusting batting gloves after every pitch. Nothing wrong with 2 1/2-3 hour games. But 3 1/2 + tends to be long.

One more thing, next year all teams will play all other teams in both leagues, should there only be one Home Run leader, Batting Leader etc. instead of having a NL Leader and an AL Leader ?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Definitely too many commercials, and don't get me started on extra innings...there are no words to describe how much I hate the zombie runner!!

If a guy was throwing a perfect game through 9 innings, would a zombie runner ruin it? Suppose the zombie stole third and home to win the game? The pitcher never allowed a batter to reach base (perfect game) yet loses.

How can any baseball purist reconcile that?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If a guy was throwing a perfect game through 9 innings, would a zombie runner ruin it? Suppose the zombie stole third and home to win the game? The pitcher never allowed a batter to reach base (perfect game) yet loses.

How can any baseball purist reconcile that?

Definitely an issue. My biggest problem with it is that it just feels so artificial...it's like if the NBA decided the baskets will be moved from 10 to 7 feet for Overtime.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If a guy was throwing a perfect game through 9 innings, would a zombie runner ruin it? Suppose the zombie stole third and home to win the game? The pitcher never allowed a batter to reach base (perfect game) yet loses.

How can any baseball purist reconcile that?

I am not disagreeing with you but the chances of this happening is extremely unlikely as pitchers no longer seem to go 9 and as mentioned before with pitch counts and specialist relievers.

[Seven]

The game has lost its way.

"Efficiency" isn't always better in the sake of the sport. I say this as someone that wasn't even alive in the 1970's, go back and watch a game. The game goes on quicker, the pitchers go deeper into games, watching the game is just more enjoyable. Players seemingly played harder, pitchers threw more and a good portion of them had long lasting careers. As a side note, The rule changes against sliding, and blocking the plate took another great aspect out of our game.

Baseball was better when it was more true to its roots. When it was simple, yet strategic. When the quality of play on the ballfield was actually worth the price of admission. Players used to be tougher, I'm not just saying that either. You don't get players that even play all 162 games anymore, they have to be rested because their investments now.

[butchie_t]

Just how long before they reduce balls and strikes to 3 and 2. In the attempt to reduce the game time. I always hated that when they did that crap in softball. Next stop MLB.

Then I am gone, and not that I watch much as it is now. Just no interest in that as there once was. And I agree with every word that Mr. Carew spoke. I don’t give a tinkers damn about WAR and any of that statistical mumbo-jumbo.

Can a batter move a runner if he has to bunt, yes or no. Can a batter hit to the opposite field and score a runner from third, yes or no. Someone puts a shift on, FREAKING LEARN TO HIT THE BALL WHERE THEY AIN’T and quit bitching about the shift……Shelia.

Cheers,

Butch

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

I am not disagreeing with you but the chances of this happening is extremely unlikely as pitchers no longer seem to go 9 and as mentioned before with pitch counts and specialist relievers.

In today's game, yes. But someday there will be a throwback manager who won't be afraid to let his pitchers actually throw the ball more than 80 times a game.

Or a knuckleball pitcher who isn't putting any strain on his arm.

[insidethewrapper]

Another aspect of the game is no more manager/umpire arguments. It's an auto ejection. That was entertaining for the fans.

I still like HR, BAve, On-Base and Runs Scored and RBI's. You win games by getting on base, scoring runs and batting them in.

WAR - How is it calculated after every at bat ? If it was, then it would be more interesting to watch, like the other stats.

Who saves the most runs in the field ? Watch any game and it is the first baseman. Without a good first baseman, there would be a lot more errors from throws from the other infielders.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If a guy was throwing a perfect game through 9 innings, would a zombie runner ruin it? Suppose the zombie stole third and home to win the game? The pitcher never allowed a batter to reach base (perfect game) yet loses.

How can any baseball purist reconcile that?

part of a perfect game is the team aspect, your team needs to score for you to win the game, if you throw 11 perfect innings and your team scores zero you dont get a perfect game either....really a trivial point

i worry about rules that impact winning or losing a game versus trophy names for accomplishments.

if you dont field your position as a pitcher and make an error you lose a perfect game....not allowing a runner to score from 2nd base with no outs would be your job since your team didnt score for you..part of the team aspect.

your example out of all the issues in baseball to worry about seems marginal even from a purist standpoint

[Snapolit1]

Rod is right and also wrong. The game can be slow. But that’s not because guys aren’t sacrificing or playing the same strategy that was gospel truth three decades ago. A good deal of what Rod and his generation believed - sacrificing bunting — has been pretty clearly shown not to be optimal strategy to win ballgames with the skill sets players have today. None of that stuff is affecting time of play.

It’s a different game. Would love to know how many times the Dodger or Yankees have sacrificed bunted their ways to the impressive win totals they have.

I do hate all the chatter on exit velocities and launch angles.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Rod is right and also wrong. The game can be slow. But that’s not because guys aren’t sacrificing or playing the same strategy that was gospel truth three decades ago. A good deal of what Rod and his generation believed - sacrificing bunting — has been pretty clearly shown not to be optimal strategy to win ballgames with the skill sets players have today. None of that stuff is affecting time of play.

It’s a different game. Would love to know how many times the Dodger or Yankees have sacrificed busted their ways to the impressive win totals they have.

I do hate all the chatter on exit velocities and launch angles.

Agree. A lot of this is the game was better in my day sort of chatter that occurs all too often in all aspects of society. But even I will say that when I heard a 12 year old caring about his launch angle (happened once) I rolled my eyes. Maybe I’m wrong of course.

[Shoeless Moe]

The most exciting play in baseball:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsNLLi1fKG8

[Hxcmilkshake]

The Yankees signed Josh Donaldson in part because of his exit velocity.

Hes hitting. 220 with 12 hrs

They also deployed a shift against a guy in his 2nd big league at bat!!!! Of course it didn't work.

It gets nuts sometimes

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I heard in a game tonight the announcers say the Braves have not sacrificed bunted all season.

Bert Campaneris did it 40 times in 1977.

He also got caught stealing 43% of the time in 47 attempts. Texas did a lot of stupid stuff with him, including having him sacrifice 40 times. Teams did lots of dumb stuff back then, like the A's wasting multiple roster spots on designated pinch runners.

The Braves don't sacrifice because sacrifices are a waste except in limited conditions. The old strategy of bunting a guy from 1st to 2nd and then praying that one of the next two guys - who will fail over 70% of time each - will somehow succeed has been proven to be dumb. I would argue it was never aesthetically interesting or strategically deep either.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

. Someone puts a shift on, FREAKING LEARN TO HIT THE BALL WHERE THEY AIN’T and quit bitching about the shift……

Do you think no one has ever considered this? Have you ever asked yourself why thousands of high level professional baseball people have never tried what you're suggesting? Or is it possible that maybe they HAVE considered it and know that it either doesn't work or actually benefits the defense?

Hint: it's not that they haven't thought of your suggestion.

[Snapolit1]

More pitches. Less contact. Doesn’t have a damn thing to do with bunting or guys not learning (wrong) baseball strategy.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Do you think no one has ever considered this? Have you ever asked yourself why thousands of high level professional baseball people have never tried what you're suggesting? Or is it possible that maybe they HAVE considered it and know that it either doesn't work or actually benefits the defense?

Hint: it's not that they haven't thought of your suggestion.

sometimes it can take years to implement...launch angles were discussed for 20 years and exit velocities as well...heck even analytics for 50 years...cant just flip a switch

you make more money hitting single into the hole of the defense or make more money hitting 25 homers doing it the other way which may not translate to wins perhaps but will make you more money.....

i dont know which way will lead to wins, but i do think you go to give more time to let it play out.. NBA used to have illegal defense rule with a zone defense and got rid of it..

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Do you think no one has ever considered this? Have you ever asked yourself why thousands of high level professional baseball people have never tried what you're suggesting? Or is it possible that maybe they HAVE considered it and know that it either doesn't work or actually benefits the defense?

Hint: it's not that they haven't thought of your suggestion.

How much do they get paid to hit a ball?

Hint: More than enough to figure it out and do it.

Butch

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Someone puts a shift on, FREAKING LEARN TO HIT THE BALL WHERE THEY AIN’T and quit bitching about the shift

I 100% agree. If a team wants to shift 6 players to one side, when a dead pull hitter is up, it should have this right. A team should have the ability to place players anywhere on the field that it wants.

Lay down a bunt to the other side, or learn how to hit to the opposite field. Adjust, and show you can adjust, and shifts would end. Banning a shift reduces strategy and gamesmanship.

[1952boyntoncollector]

(Sacrifice flies were counted as at-bats in 1941; under today's rules, Williams would have hit between .411 and .419, based on contemporaneous game accounts.[61])

we worried about how they change stats? What arent Sac flies outs? ..so now you want to keep the sac in but they arent out? Seems like encouraging them already....how dare we change what a perfect game can be broken up in the 10th with a runner on 2nd...but changing what makes a .300 hitter doesnt matter..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

I 100% agree. If a team wants to shift 6 players to one side, when a dead pull hitter is up, it should have this right. A team should have the ability to place players anywhere on the field that it wants.

Lay down a bunt to the other side, or learn how to hit to the opposite field. Adjust, and show you can adjust, and shifts would end. Banning a shift reduces strategy and gamesmanship.

I agree with this however its still a business...just like the off chance someone pitches a perfect game into the 11th..what about if tv ratings and attendence went down 75% because of the shift...i would make the shift illegal to save baseball if too boring etc...again i am against it but in the off chance baseball was in danger to lose huge market share, you got to do what you got to do..not saying thats what happening now...

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

How much do they get paid to hit a ball?

Hint: More than enough to figure it out and do it.

Butch

I mean this in all seriousness: have you ever given any serious thought to why they don't do what you're suggesting?

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I mean this in all seriousness: have you ever given any serious thought to why they don't do what you're suggesting?

Joey Gallo said he gets paid to hit doubles and homers so he doesn't even try to go the other way. I would say that other players feel the exact same way. He wouldn't even need to learn to go the other way. He could bunt for hits a few times and it will stop. Heck, with how far they play him off of the third base line, he could get some doubles on a good bunt. He could even put the odds in his favor by using a bat with a bigger barrel to bunt. Since he's not swinging it, who cares if it is heavier. If they give you a hit, take it. Make them adjust to you.

The shift is easy to beat if you want to beat it, but current hitters have the caveman mentality of swing hard and hope for the best. As someone who gets paid to watch minor league baseball, I can tell you without a doubt that it's only going to get worse. There are very few hitters with a nice approach at the plate and even less who change their approach in situations, and no one ever has a two-strike approach anymore. That mindset doesn't exist.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Joey Gallo said he gets paid to hit doubles and homers so he doesn't even try to go the other way. I would say that other players feel the exact same way. He wouldn't even need to learn to go the other way. He could bunt for hits a few times and it will stop. Heck, with how far they play him off of the third base line, he could get some doubles on a good bunt. He could even put the odds in his favor by using a bat with a bigger barrel to bunt. Since he's not swinging it, who cares if it is heavier. If they give you a hit, take it. Make them adjust to you.

The shift is easy to beat if you want to beat it, but current hitters have the caveman mentality of swing hard and hope for the best. As someone who gets paid to watch minor league baseball, I can tell you without a doubt that it's only going to get worse. There are very few hitters with a nice approach at the plate and even less who change their approach in situations, and no one ever has a two-strike approach anymore. That mindset doesn't exist.

comes down to owner and payroll, if you willing to pay more money for hitters to beat shift they will, I assume they spending money on how to win games and/or bring people to games.

The NBA used to be not pay three point shooters (and thats all they shoot) who play defense the amount of money they pay now....we will see if beating the shift specialists get more money

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Joey Gallo said he gets paid to hit doubles and homers so he doesn't even try to go the other way. I would say that other players feel the exact same way. He wouldn't even need to learn to go the other way. He could bunt for hits a few times and it will stop. Heck, with how far they play him off of the third base line, he could get some doubles on a good bunt. He could even put the odds in his favor by using a bat with a bigger barrel to bunt. Since he's not swinging it, who cares if it is heavier. If they give you a hit, take it. Make them adjust to you.

The shift is easy to beat if you want to beat it, but current hitters have the caveman mentality of swing hard and hope for the best. As someone who gets paid to watch minor league baseball, I can tell you without a doubt that it's only going to get worse. There are very few hitters with a nice approach at the plate and even less who change their approach in situations, and no one ever has a two-strike approach anymore. That mindset doesn't exist.

My guess is most teams have hired a literal genius to crunch the numbers and attempt what you’re suggesting and the analytics based on thousands and thousands of outcomes has said the team is better off not doing it. I like Buck as Manager on the Mets because he’s a bit old school but even he is doing math on games. If you toss the math aside over the course of the season that could hurt a little.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I mean this in all seriousness: have you ever given any serious thought to why they don't do what you're suggesting?

Don't tell that to Wally Moon. In 1958 Moon had an OPS+ of 84 with the Cardinals. In the off-season he was traded to the Dodgers. With the help of Stan Musial, he adjusted his stance to hit to the opposite field to take advantage of the short left field in the LA Coliseum. From 1959-1961 he had an OPS+ of 129, 123, 142. In the LA Coliseum his OPS was .993, on the road .797. When the Dodgers moved to Chavez Ravine, Moon had OPS+ of 83, 117, 74, 69 and had an OPS of .585 at home.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Carter08

My guess is most teams have hired a literal genius to crunch the numbers and attempt what you’re suggesting and the analytics based on thousands and thousands of outcomes has said the team is better off not doing it. I like Buck as Manager on the Mets because he’s a bit old school but even he is doing math on games. If you toss the math aside over the course of the season that could hurt a little.

Well it is the teams that buy all in to the launch angles and exit velocities and that gets passed down to the scouts and who they look for, so of course players are going to cater to what gets them noticed, it would be dumb not to. That doesn't mean that beating the shift isn't simple, and there's no way to know what teams would then do if someone who hits homers just decided to bunt down the third base line all of the time with no one within 75 feet of the line until they adjusted to him.

Joey Gallo doesn't have to be pathetic at baseball. He chooses to be that way. He also doesn't have to whine about something he controls, but he does that too. I have no problem with the shifts at all. If someone has a major flaw, exploit it, don't cater to him. They don't let pitchers who throw 89 MPH get closer to that plate to pitch. They have to find ways to get outs.

[Snapolit1]

How come football players from the 1960s and 70s don't whine about how the game is played very differently today than when they played? Never once heard Len Dawson dumping on Patrick Mahomes for the way he plays. ("Mahomes has to learn how to run a real offense. Throwing 50 passes in the Super Bowl is not how you do it. I threw 17! Players today lack the fundamentals.")

How come no one ever complains that football teams have like 19 coaches on the side lines staring at computer data to determine what plans to run? No one bemoans analytics ruining football.

How come football announcers who are former football players don't spend all game shitting on how the game is played today like John Smoltz and many others? People like Romo actaully seem to enjoy watching the game.

How come?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

Don't tell that to Wally Moon. In 1958 Moon had an OPS+ of 84 with the Cardinals. In the off-season he was traded to the Dodgers. With the help of Stan Musial, he adjusted his stance to hit to the opposite field to take advantage of the short left field in the LA Coliseum. From 1959-1961 he had an OPS+ of 129, 123, 142. In the LA Coliseum his OPS was .993, on the road .797. When the Dodgers moved to Chavez Ravine, Moon had OPS+ of 83, 117, 74, 69 and had an OPS of .585 at home.

Wally wasn't hitting against relievers throwing 100 with command.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Joey Gallo said he gets paid to hit doubles and homers so he doesn't even try to go the other way. I would say that other players feel the exact same way. He wouldn't even need to learn to go the other way. He could bunt for hits a few times and it will stop. Heck, with how far they play him off of the third base line, he could get some doubles on a good bunt. He could even put the odds in his favor by using a bat with a bigger barrel to bunt. Since he's not swinging it, who cares if it is heavier. If they give you a hit, take it. Make them adjust to you.

The shift is easy to beat if you want to beat it, but current hitters have the caveman mentality of swing hard and hope for the best. As someone who gets paid to watch minor league baseball, I can tell you without a doubt that it's only going to get worse. There are very few hitters with a nice approach at the plate and even less who change their approach in situations, and no one ever has a two-strike approach anymore. That mindset doesn't exist.

So, if it's "easy", why is NO ONE doing it? Does every single player, coach, manager, and GM hate success? Every. Single. One?

It's a win for the defense if Joey Gallo tries to bunt. It's really that simple.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

How come football players from the 1960s and 70s don't whine about how the game is played very differently today than when they played? Never once heard Len Dawson dumping on Patrick Mahomes for the way he plays. ("Mahomes has to learn how to run a real offense. Throwing 50 passes in the Super Bowl is not how you do it. I threw 17! Players today lack the fundamentals.")

How come no one ever complains that football teams have like 19 coaches on the side lines staring at computer data to determine what plans to run? No one bemoans analytics ruining football.

How come football announcers who are former football players don't spend all game shitting on how the game is played today like John Smoltz and many others? People like Romo actaully seem to enjoy watching the game.

How come?

They do, remember all the jive ass celebrations in the end zone? It was so pathetic they had to pass a rule banning it. Can you imagine, some egotistical wide receiver celebrating in the end zone when his team is down 32-7? Clueless and no class.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

How come football players from the 1960s and 70s don't whine about how the game is played very differently today than when they played? Never once heard Len Dawson dumping on Patrick Mahomes for the way he plays. ("Mahomes has to learn how to run a real offense. Throwing 50 passes in the Super Bowl is not how you do it. I threw 17! Players today lack the fundamentals.")

How come no one ever complains that football teams have like 19 coaches on the side lines staring at computer data to determine what plans to run? No one bemoans analytics ruining football.

How come football announcers who are former football players don't spend all game shitting on how the game is played today like John Smoltz and many others? People like Romo actaully seem to enjoy watching the game.

How come?

Mostly 'cuz they are all dead from CTE

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

They do, remember all the jive ass celebrations in the end zone? It was so pathetic they had to pass a rule banning it. Can you imagine, some egotistical wide receiver celebrating in the end zone when his team is down 32-7? Clueless and no class.

And they repealed that rule and there have been coordinated group celebrations for years.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Tabe

And they repealed that rule and there have been coordinated group celebrations for years.

Yep, and it's still a pathetic display when your losing by 21 points.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Yep, and it's still a pathetic display when your losing by 21 points.

That I can agree with.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Yep, and it's still a pathetic display when your losing by 21 points.

That’s entirely different than complaining about how basic strategy to play the game has evolved over time.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

That’s entirely different than complaining about how basic strategy to play the game has evolved over time.

It's an entirely different sport, I'm not sure you can compare the two.