RedRamage

100% agreed.

https://www.fanatics.com/mlb/st-louis-cardinals/st-louis-cardinals-new-era-2022-spring-training-low-profile-59fifty-fitted-hat-red/o-2398+t-03671165+p-04047864698+z-9-1404876011?_ref=p-CLP:m-GRID:i-r0c0:po-0

Heck, if they don't start until mid-May we'll all be watching the USFL and baseball will be far from our minds... right?

I personally don't mind the shift. I'm not going to be super upset if outlaw it, but imho if the defense is shifting on you it's because you aren't as good a hitter as someone the defense doesn't shift on. You're not using the whole field. That's on you as a hitter. No like them shifting? Practice hitting the other way. On a side note: How would the rule look? You'd have to get pretty specific with language... something like: "A defense must have two infielders and at least one outfielder on each side of a line drawn from home plate thru 2nd base to the outfield." But then you need to specify a minimum depth that outfields can play... I mean if I was shifting to the first base side I'd just move my "centerfielder" up close to the infield, and shift my "thirdbaseman" to the outfield. The left fielder plays just to the left of the centerline. Now I've satisfied the rule and still get my shift. I mean you should end up seeing a line of chalk through the outfield designating how far back the outfielders have to play.

I dunno that it was LA feeling entitled as much as it was the NFL wanting to the LA market.

That thought actually popped into my head yesterday and I didn't hate it. I didn't dwell on it too much cause I don't see it happening in the real world, but it's not a bad idea. I also like your idea of limiting a DH, like you can only DH twice a week or can only be a DH once every three games...

I don't think it's impossible to make the argument that a catcher is a very specialized position. Now, I'm not trying to argue that catchers should get a DH... I really don't to see that. But I think the argument can be made to some degree: Catchers are involved in the second most number of defensive plays after the pitcher Catchers get significant wear and tear on their bodies so it makes sense that teams would want to limit additional physical strain. Catchers need to focus on knowing hitter's tendencies as well as pitcher's strengths and weaknesses to best aid their pitcher in succeeding. Catchers need to train in specialized areas like pitch framing, and learning signs, both "plain text" and coded signs... these things could eat into time practicing hitting. Is that enough to warrant a DH? I don't think so... but it is different from other defensive positions. And I suspect if you ask players in the 30s and 40s and 50s they would say that pitching isn't different enough to warrant a DH. I hope it never comes to pass, but I wouldn't be shocked if there was a push for a DH for catchers in a few decades.

Do any of the specialists get a designated blower?

I would agree and that's definitely not something I want to see. Honestly I think it would be very interesting in football to go backwards and not have O- and D-teams. I think catcher is the next most "specialized" position, but I also think that it's isn't that far removed from other positions, like SS and CF for that matter. If catcher ever gets a DH I wouldn't be surprised to see the rest start falling as well. So, the question is: Is pitching different enough from catching that we can accept a DH there but still logically refuse a DH for catcher? I don't think the argument should hinge on pitchers being traditionally bad hitters. I'd rather argue that a pitcher's skill set (and therefore what he should practice and perfect) is significantly enough different that it warrants special treatment.

I've recently read a couple of books on "old timey" baseball and it's interesting to read about pitchers hitting. I think it was Auker who argued that a DH was silly because once you start going down that road, where do you stop? Obviously we haven't moved beyond pitchers yet and it seems like there's a reasonable argument that pitchers are a different animal. Every play (when their team is on defense) starts with the pitcher. They have a very specialized skill set they need to hone. They cost a lot of money and a teams success hinges heavily on how well they play. The argument would then be that because they have to spend so much time on pitching they don't have time to learn proper hitting. Because they are involved in every play, they have a bigger impact on the game than position players who also bat. And because they cost so much money and are so important to the success of the team it's reasonable to not want to add extra risk by having them hit. That seems like a pretty reasonable argument... but couldn't you pretty much say the same thing about Catchers?

How old were you when you realized that the D on the Tigers hat and jersey used to be different?

Anyone else listening to/watching this? linktr.ee/DetroitCityofChampions I'll admit I'm a little biased cause I particularly enjoy this event in sports history, but I do think it's an important time period... the year that really transformed Detroit into a sports town. The podcast is Jamie Flanagan with Charles Avison who's wrote three books detailing the events. Now, I'll readily admit that Charles is not always easy to listen too... he's definitely not a radio trained speaker, but the wealth of information he has about the players and teams and events from the 1935/36 season is just amazing to listen too.

https://www.mlive.com/sports/2022/02/detroit-native-byron-allen-preparing-bid-for-denver-broncos-could-become-leagues-first-black-owner.html

The science of scouting... 🙂

I actually turned on the game for a (very) short period of time last night and right away turned it off. This is an interesting idea, but does the winner or the loser get the first pick? If it's the loser than I anticipate it being a pretty dull game as well. My suggestion, years ago, was that pro-bowl nominee get to pick any college player of the same position to play for them in the pro-bowl. They mentor the player for the week or so leading up to the game. The benefits: College Players get a chance to show of their skills to more NFL coaches/front offices. Pro-Players get a chance to showcase people they believe are deserving (either from their college or hometown or highschool or whatever). My hope would be that these wouldn't be the star players that everyone is talking about but rather players who might be 3rd day draft picks or even UDFA types. This will probably be semi-self regulating in that the top name players will not want to play in the game for fear of risk of injury. Pro-players get a small taste of coaching and are able to show up their potential future coaching skills to NFL front offices The game will hopefully be more entertaining. It may not be hugely popular with the fans, but I doubt it'll be any less popular that it is right now.

I take issue with that though because I think this says people are looking at the problem wrong. The question shouldn't be: "Why aren't there more Black Head Coaches?" The question should be "Are minorities getting a fair shot at being hired?" And I totally get that the first question is a much better sound bite and far easier to provide "evidence" to support it and that the media is gonna go for the low hanging fruit... I get that. But in a situation where there are only 32 jobs... that sample size is so small that minor fluctuations can easily alter things. I'm sure that you agree that it's entirely possible that a team could go out and interview 10 people and pick the best candidate and the best candidate for them happens to be white but that race played no part in the decision, right? But by merely saying: "Wow... look at that... yet another white guy gets hired..." while rolling your eyes implies that the team was motivated by racism. Could there have been racism? Sure... could there not have been racism? Yes. But every team now that hires a white guy will have this cloud over them that they were racist.

While I mostly agree, I think it's also a problem to elude that every time a white coach gets hired it's because of racism. There's a clear issue with the Rooney rule. In theory it's a good idea, in practice I suspect that many minority coaches are really often wondering if team is only interviewing them to check the box. The spirit of the rule is to this gives minorities a chance to change minds... to get their foot in the door and convince teams that they are the guy. But in practice I'm certain that there are plenty of situations where teams are going through the motions but no matter how impressive the interview is, they'll never get the job. Look no further than Quinn hiring Patricia. There is no way anyone was going to interview so exceptionally well that Quinn didn't hire Patricia. One could argue that the mere chance to interview is worth something (practice, get your name in the media as a potential HC, maybe impress someone who'll mention it to someone else who's hiring...) but I don't know if that would out weight the negatives of feeling like you're just being used. It's the double edge sword of something like the Rooney Rule. Prior to the rule if a minority was interviewed for a job it's very likely that that candidate is being seriously considered. Now it seems like any time a minority who is interviewed people wonder: "Is he really a candidate? Is he really qualified and in the running or are they just checking the box?"

Valid point... There's actually a link in the original story that points to another Freep.com story that has some direct quotes from Austin and he does make some comments that I considered questionable, including this: “There is no pipeline (for Black offensive coaches),” Austin said. “You know, you can count on your hand how many Black quarterback coaches, how many offensive coordinators, how many offensive line coaches in this league are people of color.” Austin is right. I looked at coaching staff for each team and recorded minorities for various offensive positions. I went purely on appearance and if it was questionable I assumed white, so there' room for error but... in terms of OC (3), OL (3), and QB (4) coaches (out of 31... Giants don't have any coaches listed except for HC) there's not many. However I think it's a bit disingenuous that Austin didn't mentioned RB (28) or WR (19) coaches. Also FWIW, if there was an offensive side coach that was also listed as Assistant Head Coach I recorded that as well... 0 white coaches were in the category but 6 black coaches were.

FWIW, (this assumes the allegations against both are true) I would thing that covering up sexual assault by a team is a greater crime (from an organization's stand point) than committing sexual assault.

To be fair, this is Austin's Agent making the claim, not Austin himself.

This should come as a shock to absolutely no one. Everyone knew that Quinn wanted Patricia every more than everyone knew that Millen wanted Mooch. This is one area where the Rooney Rule just isn't going to fit and you're checking the boxes to say that you did it. Looking, Austin wasn't hired because he wasn't white, he wasn't hired because he wasn't Patricia. Skin color had nothing to do with it. I don't think there would be any evidence that race was a factor and if the team followed the rules of the Rooney Rule there should be no negative consequences from that. Austin got and interview and had an opportunity to change their minds... he might argue that no matter how well he did in the interview he was never going to get the job, but any white coach not named Matt Patricia would have been in the same boat. It may (snort) for Quinn to do that, but it was stupidity, not racism that made that happen.

I'm not going to say that racism isn't/hasn't ever been involved. I'm not in the hiring rooms or the minds of the people making the decisions. I suspect that there very much was racism in the past and I wouldn't be at all surprised if current decisions weren't at least influenced by racism. I wouldn't shock me if some of the old owners at the very least didn't lean in the direction of favoring whites. I don't doubt that you can find many, many examples of white guys who seemed to get hired without a good track record or retained longer than you'd expect... but I'd also argue that you find white guys who were seemingly passed over as well. And there very well might be legitimate reasons why someone like Bieniemy goes get hired other than passing gas in the interview. There was a time when I was accused of racism for questioning a certain activity with a customer at my work place many years ago. The individual was black and felt I singled him out for further "inspection" because he was black. The reality was that there was a very specific red flag that showed up that prompted me to further investigate. When he complained to my boss, my boss explained why I did what I did and the customer rejected that reasoning even though I still stand behind that reasoning, as did my boss at the time as did his boss at the time. I know I'm going off on a tangent here a bit, but what I'm trying to say is there MAY be very legitimate reasons why a candidate is passed over, fired, whatever that doesn't involve racism. Given the very small sample size it's not valid, in my mind to assume any specific action is because of racism. Now, on the flip side, given past history combined with the reality that (right now) there's only one Black HC in the NFL that it's fair to wonder if racism is involved and it's far to call on the NFL to take measures to ensure that racism isn't involved. The NFL has done that to some level (The original Rooney rule, changes and improvements to the Rooney Rule, incentivizing the develop of minority coaches and executives, Minority Coaching Fellowship Program) but I, for one, would like to see more efforts. A few of the hirings I've been involved with have included an "inclusion advocate." This is always a minority who is involved and who's job it is to ensure that the hiring process gives minorities a fair shot. I would say that the NFL should create an office, staffed by minorities, that dispatches people (again minorities) to sit in on an HC, OC, DC, GM, and maybe other select staffing position hiring processes. This could provide an independent, yet still confidential, way to ensure the process is fair.

I not sure I 100% agree with this. I think you're saying that because black college players are more likely to become players in the NFL that white college players have to look at other options, which includes coaches, and therefore are more likely to end up coaches. While I see some logic in that thinking the assumption is that aren't more black players in college as well. What I mean is if, to make the math easy, we say there are 500 black college players and 400 white college players and 100 "other" players... Black do better over all, so we'll say 20% of black players make it to the pros. White players don't do as well, so we'll say only 10% of them make it to the pros. That means 360 white players aren't NFL bound and may choose to go into coaching. But that also means that 400 black players are also not NFL bound and may go into coaching, so (obviously depending on where the actual numbers end up) there still might be more blacks who played in college but didn't make the pros than there are whites. All this said I DO think that it's wrong to point to the 70% of black players and say the pool of potential coaches is therefore 70% black because it assumes that all players equally want to be coaches and would make good coaches and that ONLY former players are NFL coaches.

At this point I'm rooting for Stafford. There's not really much difference between 31 and 32. Hope he wins.