GatewayRedbirds.com

The penalty shot is too close. Move it back to where the goalie actually has more of a chance. Right now it is just luck if the goalie guesses to dive the right direction.

ancillary media comment. ESPN/ABC has done a great job with coverage. For once, I have a clue as to when and where the games are on. St. Louisan Taylor Twellman seems to be the weak link in coverage - too vehement/dramatic. Lalas and the roving band of ex-players add the right mojo. Helps that the WC action has been great.

pioneer98 wrote:The penalty shot is too close. Move it back to where the goalie actually has more of a chance. Right now it is just luck if the goalie guesses to dive the right direction.

Did you watch yesterday's shootout?

pioneer98 wrote:The penalty shot is too close. Move it back to where the goalie actually has more of a chance. Right now it is just luck if the goalie guesses to dive the right direction.

That's the point. Don't foul in the box.

They should put the mound farther away. Give the hitter more of a chance to get hits. That way they'd hit higher than .280. More runs, it'd be more fun.


They should lower the hoop, there would be sicker dunks.

Come on.

years back there was talk of raising the basket. and apparently someone is talking about making the hole in golf muuuuchh bigger.

Freed Roger wrote:ancillary media comment. ESPN/ABC has done a great job with coverage. For once, I have a clue as to when and where the games are on. St. Louisan Taylor Twellman seems to be the weak link in coverage - too vehement/dramatic. Lalas and the roving band of ex-players add the right mojo. Helps that the WC action has been great.

I like his in game analysis, but he does seem to get way too excited on the panel show.

I do hate the PK shootout as a way to decide games. But everyone does. I suppose they have to do it in the knockout rounds. Clubs would hate it, but how would everyone else (FIFA, fans, countries, coaches, players) feel about playing the Final until someone scores? I'd rather see a game decided by cramped and fatigued zombies than a coin flip. (I know I've thrown this question out before, but I don't remember if it was on the forum.)

I don't ever recall seeing a cooling break. Practice for Qatar?

Crazy stuff happens in MLS, too.

Here is Jack McInherney trying some [expletive].

http://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/matchc ... ideo/19270

Oh my oh my oh my. Don't hurt em, Jack.

Freed Roger wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:The penalty shot is too close. Move it back to where the goalie actually has more of a chance. Right now it is just luck if the goalie guesses to dive the right direction.

Did you watch yesterday's shootout?

I watched both of them. The first one they did struggle to score, mainly because they missed the goal entirely, not because goalies made that many more saves. In the 2nd shootout, only 1 time did a ball not go in the net out of 10 shots, on a great save.

Nate Silver says the average for making a penalty shot is 72.5%. All I'm saying is: would it be bonkers to do something to make the average closer to 50%? A 50% shot to make a goal would mean the goalie and shooter are on more of a level playing field. If you want to give them the same 72.5% penalty shot for fouls during a game, fine. But we are talking about the penalty shots to decide a game, not free kicks after a foul occurred.

For some perspective, in the NHL, the Blues led the entire NHL in shootout goal percentage at 48.8% last year. The average team shot around 33% in the shootout. Even with that low percentage, a penalty shot in the NHL is a big deal when awarded. And I don't like shootouts to decide hockey games, either. But I still love hockey.