Why Not?
-
Posts
3000 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Why Not?
-
-
11 hours ago, atomic said:
Soccer is more fun to play than baseball.
Even if you are great at baseball and play shortstop most of the time you are just sitting or standing around.
My 9-year-old played a doubleheader last week. This was between two "travel" teams, so at least the kids are engaged and have some ability. During the first game, the ball was hit into play 4 or 5 times over 5 innings before the 2-hour time limit was reached. It was dreadfully boring to watch. I can't imagine it was fun for anyone buy the pitchers and catchers.
-
4 minutes ago, LocoChris said:
The issue isn't necessarily overrating Gausman but the amount of control he had. I think people expected better for a solid pitcher under control for another 2 years.
I think you're right. But it's important to note that those two controllable years wouldn't be terribly cheap and the O's are not planning to compete anyway.
-
1 minute ago, GoldGlove21 said:
They had like 9 players in the top #100 and we couldn't get one BECAUSE...... we offloaded O'Day' money.
Jumping to conclusions there.
-
Just now, Yardball85 said:
I keep seeing Brett Cumberland as one piece from Braves.
-
1 hour ago, FlipTheBird said:
Opportunity has hurt baseball at a youth level, as you noted. There are simply more options.
The last decade has also seen an enormous rise in kids settling on one sport and playing it exclusively - which has reduced overall participation and essentially killed traditional rec leagues in more areas. See travel ball, etc.
In my neck of the woods, the number of baseball participants is rising, especially at the T-Ball level. That said, the number of players declines at each age level. My kids' league had 9 T-Ball teams last year but just 3 teams at the 13-15 age level.
I don't think it's that baseball is boring in general. But if you aren't any good, it can be VERY boring. Who wants to strike out three times and play RF two nights a week? Baseball is heartless. If you stink, it's painfully obvious that you stink. When kids realize that they stink, they quit.
If you stink at field sports like soccer, football or lacrosse, it's not as evident. It's easier to hide weak players and the kids don't get as discouraged/embarrassed as quickly
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, allquixotic said:
Why would a guy like that -- who isn't really good, and isn't playing meaningful baseball for a team that matters -- bother with PEDs? I mean, I could see it for a contender. Maybe I could even see it for Wellington last year with the O's, since we had our chances to sniff the playoffs until late in the season.
Just seems odd to me that someone that irrelevant in the MLB would use, while, you know, Mookie Betts is still out there playing and hasn't yet been caught. Is it just that the rest are really good at avoiding detection, or do only bad players waste their time with PEDs?
Sigh.
Welington Castillo's baseball career is irrelevant to YOU.
To Welington Castillo, Welington Castillo's baseball career is the absolute most important baseball career in baseball history.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, weams said:
You can't walk off the Eastern Shore.
You CAN, it just takes longer (and you save four bucks)
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:
Perfectly cromulent back of the rotation starter.
Watch that language!
-
I hope they don't take Bursitis Johnson in the second round.
-
4
-
-
-
You aren't answering the question.
Society (and sometimes law) judges what is acceptable and what is not. History will decide, and you are going to be on the wrong side of it.
-
I agree that they should change it. I don't think they should be forced to.
I agree with this.
I think the mounting pressure will get it done at some point. It's a process.
-
Are you kidding?
**Looks at posting history **
Nope, you're not. I'm not going to waste my breath.
Probably a good idea, because justifying racism doesn't look good.
Explain how this is a manufactured media conspiracy. You either don't understand the business or you are just trying to deflect your untenable stance. Probably both.
-
If that was true, why did the Washington Post have three separate pieces in the same edition last week? Why not make it into one story?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not familiar with that day's coverage. Was one a column/opinion piece? Was one a sidebar? It's not uncommon to break a larger story into smaller ones to make them less daunting for a reader to tackle.
That is not evidence that the Post is covering the topic solely to sell papers or get clicks. They are covering it because it is a worthy topic.
-
This is the biggest strawman talking point that the media keeps repeating. There is a difference between a team name and a specific interaction with an individual. I have literally never heard anyone ever be referred to by Redskins ever...in person or otherwise. But I have rooted for a proud football franchise with the same name for over 30 years. Context exists and it matters.
I don't call any individual by anything other than their name. It can be taken out of context. But it doesn't change the fact that there are multiple contexts. Redskins is the name of a football team--for 82 years--not a racist insult. People rally around it. Families bond over it. Communities take pride in it. It has been a tremendously positive influence on the DC metropolitan area and beyond. It's about courage, honor, and respect. It's clear that this is not a unanimous opinion. That's fine. Few opinions are, but it's called agreeing to disagree. But instead, the minority is trying to shout the rest down. Fans, players, and native Americans, by a majority, are not in favor of a name change. Even if that weren't true, why should the Redskins kowtow? The team will continue as it has and that is its right.
And I hail to the Redskins.
This garbage could be right from the Redskins' inept PR department.
Proud!
Honor!
Respect!
-
I'm not against a name change. If the team decides to change the name, I'll support it and be relieved that I don't have to explain the nuances of this issue to people; however, this smear campaign needs to stop...or at least be clearly identified as the media ratings frenzy that it is.
That doesn't make sense. No media outlet is earning extra ratings/clicks for covering this topic.
-
I'm all for changing the name so I don't have to listen to these self-righteous arguments anymore. Everyone here believes in equality and human dignity. But YOU WIN! You you're the most condescending, black-and-white person about it. None of us doubt you're supremacy, in that regard. Sleep easy.
your
letters
-
1
-
-
Yep...which goes back to my earlier point. No-one can name an example of a native American being called a redskin in a pejorative manner or even in any kind of manner. If this word was as hateful as politicians want it to be, why have I only ever heard it used in relation to a pro football team?
Are you saying that no Native American has ever been referred to as a redskin? The NFL's Redskins are not referring to Native Americans?
-
They are not congruent in any way. It's the same hyperbolic rhetoric that the media has been espousing on the topic to increase ratings. And it's disrespectful to the victims of those examples of hate-filled and violent acts.
You are simply wrong.
You can substitute less-violent societal changes prompted by a single case (Rosa Parks, maybe) if it makes you feel better about continuing to support use of a racial slur for a sports team. I understand that those are hoops one has to jump through.
This isn't about ratings, it's about bigotry. It's about fixing something that is clearly and obviously wrong to any clear-thinking person. That is 100% congruent to the examples I gave previously.
-
Don't co-op actual physical violence and tragedy to suit your argument. Shame on you.
It's different levels of discrimination, but it's all discrimination. My point stands.
-
Absolutely true.
This didn't become a hot issue until we got a superstar quarterback who lead the team to the division championship his rookie year and lead the league in jersey sales. Then all of a sudden the Skins had more media exposure and were scheduled for the most prime time games out of anyone in the league for the next year and all of a sudden this is a giant issue. Please, where was this outrage when we were 3-13 and 4-12 practically every year? How come no one cared about this when Rex Grossman was our starting quarterback?
I also believe this bit is very relevant here:
These are even more relevant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
Most positive social changes have had a key moment that brings a wrong to light. A moment or situation when minds are changed, when people stop and think "You know what, this is wrong."
Perhaps the team's brief run of success helped ignite a movement in the same way Till's murder pushed along the civil rights movement. It doesn't lessen the legitimacy of the movement.
-
The Washington Abolitionists.
I have no idea what the logo would look like.
It would just be the current Redskins logo but the profile would be John Brown.
-
At the end of the day polls mean nothing. There was a time in this nation if you did a poll on if a man should be put in jail for beating his wife, the results would have reflected something quite different than now. Polls mean nothing other than highlighting ignorance... just because a majority believe something wrong is ok does not make it right. If it did we would still game slavery, Jim Crow Laws, woman would not vote and it would be fine to beat your wife.
Redskin is a derogatory word used to describe native Americans. Its ugly and its wrong.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
American history is littered with poll results and general opinions that we find quite embarrassing now. The majority scoffs at the Westboro Baptist nutjobs today even through our Grandparents pretty much agreed with their positions. All but the straight-up racists will find today's Redskins polls remarkable in 50 years.
Progress happens, even if the majority is slow to adapt.
-
Right, language evolves. And "Redskin" hasn't been used as a pejorative in decades.
So when the meaning or connotation of a word loses it's taint it's time to quit worrying about it. To keep harping on the outdated usage only serves to keep the outdated definition alive.
Use of Redskin as a pejorative hasn't lost its taint.
Like I said before, heads are buried in the sand. No amount of mental gymnastics are going to justify the use of a slur as the name of a football team.
Could the Orioles Move Out of Baltimore in 2024?
in Orioles Talk
Posted
I don't disagree with your observations. But the perception of danger is keeping participation numbers down.
I have three sons and have successfully steered them away from football. I was concerned about injury but also was not fond of the culture around our local leagues.