Comments on: Only Four Games

By: Don't Jinx The Dirt

Don't Jinx The Dirt — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:55:14 +0000

I am reluctant to write what has surely been said before , so after waiting days to post so that it is buried like his rememberance……

:The development of a major league club on any permanent basis should involve planning not only for one succeeding season but for the permanency of a proud position in all succeeding seasons.
-Branch Rickey-

By: Buchholz Surfer

Buchholz Surfer — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:37:46 +0000

I think it could possibly be a great improvement to do away with the offside rule– the whole field would have to be defended and could be attacked. It certainly wouldn’t lead to less running– players run more now than they did in the past with the harsher offside rule.

A player who just hangs by the goal behind the defense would not be helping his team defend, which would now need that help, as they must defend the whole field at all times. Look at basketball– different sport, but no one just stands by the offensive goal when the other team has the ball, even though they are free to do so. They need to get back and defend.

If no offsides at all is just too radical, you could try it with a rule that says the offensive player can’t be ahead of the ball, but the defenders’ positioning is irrelevant. That would at least give the attackers more room and require the defenders to actually defend the players on the other team, instead of just trapping them offside.

It’d be great to see lower-level youth or amateur teams experiment with a no offsides rule, just to see what happened. They obviously shouldn’t just try it at the highest levels without experimenting first, but it’d be great to see how the game might change without the offside rule.

I’m sure that there’s no interest in actually experimenting with this rule even at the lowest levels– too radical, too many purists not willing to even see what might happen, etc. I think it’d be an interesting experiment though. Might make things more exciting and actually improve the game. Or not. The only way to really find out is to try an experiment though, and if they ever did, I’d love to see what happened.

Purists think I’m nuts– I’d also experiment with moving the penalty spot further back to give keepers a better chance, so that when a PK is called, it’s not a virtual automatic goal. And at the highest levels, use postgame video review to fine or even suspend players who are caught obviously diving.

By: MAO V

MAO V — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:27:58 +0000

Great example of ‘Not Sure’ idiocy….. From Omaha.com. How can you be ‘not sure’ about your PLANS????

Do you plan on attending the U.S. Olympic Swimming Trials this week?

Yes.
No.
I’m not sure.

Note: This question is for our site visitors’ enjoyment only and is not a scientific poll.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:13:22 +0000

Although I’m not qualified to be a GM, I’m hoping every day that the Rays will sign Barry. 4 wins to them could be their first playoff appearance (or at least first winning season)! One only needs to look at Josh Hamilton and Milton Bradley to see that “clubhouse cancers” are the new market inefficiency. I still don’t like him, and hope he never gets into Cooperstown, but how could any GM not want him on their team?

By: Creston

Creston — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:11:26 +0000

“Four wins could mean the Royals might actually get an occasional highlight on Baseball Tonight.”

I dunno, do you have anyone capable of playing a crazy version of Take Me Out To The Ballgame? Say, DeJesus and Meche doing an air guitar version of it, or something?

Btw, 4 wins in 3 months for a single player is a LOT of wins. He (Bonds) could do it, sure. He might possibly even do more. But it’s also very possible that he’ll do a lot less. A-Rod in his crazy insane season last year added “just” 10.7 wins for the whole season.

By: Bellylard

Bellylard — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:41:31 +0000

Barry might be smart enough to know that at his age 90 percent effort keeps him out there 80 percent of the time, and 100 percent might risk only keeping him out there, say, 60 percent of the time. 130 top-5-player quality games vs. 100 mvp-quality games.

By: Bellylard

Bellylard — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:33:34 +0000

Maybe you should have a poll on who is undecided.

I suspect the results will be inconclusive.

As for me, I used to be indecisive, now, I’m not so sure.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:16:37 +0000

The offside rule needs re-wording/re-working or whatever so that its back to how it used to be without any of this active/inactiver player rubbish. It would also mean that the first dutch goal against the I-ties (thats the Italians for you Americans) would have been offside. Seriously how does a player off the field injured play someone onside, it’s ridiculous.
On the other hand they had Big Sam as a pundit for one game saying that if he gets a job back in management (unlikely now Paul Ince is at Blackburn) he would play with the idea of having his striker stand behind the goal line and run on to the field as under the current rule it wouldn’t be offside. That’s the sort of thing I’d love to see utilised at free kicks from deep areas. Maybe Hull will use it since their manager is a protege of Big Sam.

By: Bob R.

Bob R. — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:37:43 +0000

If you think Bonds was only about home runs you have no idea at all what game he played. As for calumnies about his efforts, there is not a shred of evidence that he did not play hard and there is a mountain of evidence that he worked harder than most to be the best player he could be.

By: El

El — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:46:38 +0000

provide fans with the best performance he could

BB said he would not play hard because he didn’t want to risk injury.

That is cheating the fans – not providing them with his best performance.

Just a relentlessly stupid, selfish player only a HR whore could enjoy.