The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I do think there is a severe disconnect between watching a sport on TV and watching it in person. Ive been to baseball games live and enjoyed them much more.
Complete opposite for me.
First off, I don't want the social aspect. The social aspect fucking sucks. Fighting traffic to park a half-mile away from the stadium and having to step over drunk rednecks and homeless people on the way in? Having the assholes in the row in front of you stand up every 30 seconds for no apparent reason while the assholes behind you scream in your ear? Being unable to hold a conversation with my neighbor because of the crowd noise? No. Fuck that.
Second, if I'm in a stadium, I'm lucky if I can see the ball at all. When a baseball game is on TV, the camera is showing me exactly what I need to look at. I don't need to track a ball the size of my fist going 90+mph across a field a hundred yards away.
At home, I can have a conversation with my friends, I can sit on a couch instead of a hard chair on a concrete floor, I can drink my own beer from my own damn fridge instead of paying $8 for Coors in a plastic cup, I don't have to deal with idiot rednecks, and I can actually see what the fuck is going on.
And I'm supposed to pay $100 for the privilege of watching it in a stadium?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
there's extra innings and there's extra innings. really depends on who is playing who and whether we're halfway through the season already or not (in which case, chances are something like 90% set that it is meaningless)
I do think there is a severe disconnect between watching a sport on TV and watching it in person. Ive been to baseball games live and enjoyed them much more.
Complete opposite for me.
First off, I don't want the social aspect. The social aspect fucking sucks. Fighting traffic to park a half-mile away from the stadium and having to step over drunk rednecks and homeless people on the way in? Having the assholes in the row in front of you stand up every 30 seconds for no apparent reason while the assholes behind you scream in your ear? Being unable to hold a conversation with my neighbor because of the crowd noise? No. Fuck that.
Second, if I'm in a stadium, I'm lucky if I can see the ball at all. When a baseball game is on TV, the camera is showing me exactly what I need to look at. I don't need to track a ball the size of my fist going 90+mph across a field a hundred yards away.
At home, I can have a conversation with my friends, I can sit on a couch instead of a hard chair on a concrete floor, I can drink my own beer from my own damn fridge instead of paying $8 for Coors in a plastic cup, I don't have to deal with idiot rednecks, and I can actually see what the fuck is going on.
And I'm supposed to pay $100 for the privilege of watching it in a stadium?
This is why living in a city with a crappy team is great. You can get Cubs tickets for like, $5.
0
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
Maybe, but ties and extra innings are boring as fuck.
how are extra innings boring? it's the tension mang
you guys don't appreciate tension
i bet you all hated last season of breaking bad
Hooray, another hour of even more tired players not scoring. Whoops someone finally make a mistake, EVERYBODY LEAVE.
do you like overtime?
It depends. Hockey overtime? Sure. They don't call it "sudden death" for no reason. Football overtime? Not as much as hockey overtime, but there's still the sense of urgency. I'm not a big basketball fan so I won't comment there. Extra innings are just a slog. "We're going to be here until one of you teams manages to score a run." It's more a threat to finish the game in the regulation 9 innings than anything.
stanley cup overtimes are the best thing, because there's always something at stake (and often enough, everything is at stake). definitely not often the case when baseball extra innings happen.
Japanese baseball limits games to 12 innings, playoffs to 15. I learned this from the movie Mr. Baseball. Tom Selleck, is there anything you can't do...
Maybe, but ties and extra innings are boring as fuck.
how are extra innings boring? it's the tension mang
you guys don't appreciate tension
i bet you all hated last season of breaking bad
Hooray, another hour of even more tired players not scoring. Whoops someone finally make a mistake, EVERYBODY LEAVE.
do you like overtime?
It depends. Hockey overtime? Sure. They don't call it "sudden death" for no reason. Football overtime? Not as much as hockey overtime, but there's still the sense of urgency. I'm not a big basketball fan so I won't comment there. Extra innings are just a slog. "We're going to be here until one of you teams manages to score a run." It's more a threat to finish the game in the regulation 9 innings than anything.
i guess i'm just in the minority - i usually root for games to continue at all costs, any sport. I'd rather quintuple-OT, whether its college football or the NBA, and I love the 21 inning games. I don't know, I guess it's just wanting to see something unusual or incredibly unlikely
i was digging that 400 hour long tennis match
y2jake215 on
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
- People make ridiculous amounts of money ($3 millon/year on average) for doing seemingly little work.
You know what really chaps my ass? Rodriguez can make 32 million a year, but an Indy Car driver risks spectacular death during every race, and maybe with endorsements pulls 5-7$ million. Fuck baseball players who reel that much cash in.
Let us not forget the stupid world series. 7 fucking games, that most series don't even go too. Back in the 1890's, they'd sell seven game contests as tickets were the sole money maker for teams. That isn't the case anymore in our modern age. That tradition needs to be taken out to the woodshed and shot. Don't drag the series out. I say 5 games, max, but I'd prefer 3.
... means an increase in the odds that any given night I'm going to turn on a game and see half a dozen kids pulled up from AAA and the 15th strongest pitcher in our bullpen getting shellacked for 20 runs by Baltimore's starting squad.
You obviously are not an Orioles fan, as that is an overly optimistic scenario.
my issue isn't necessarily that individual players may get paid so much for doing so little, its that there really shouldn't be a professional sport in this day in age that doesn't have a hard salary cap. The fact that theres no limit to what players can be offered brings more imbalance to the game than any difference in playing surface. And, no the luxury tax doesn't fix this issue at all. It was one of my biggest issues with the NHL until they fixed it and now i'm a fan again.
On MMA, I refuse to watch sports where my choices are
1) Shell out for boxside tickets
2) Squint at an incomprehensible mass of flesh.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think Carlin's comments on the inverted nature of scoring dynamics in baseball (as opposed to other sports) is one of the things that make extra innings more frustrating than they are enjoyable.
In most sports, the offense scores by accomplishing a goal. In baseball, the offense scores when the defense just kinda screws up.
I think Carlin's comments on the inverted nature of scoring dynamics in baseball (as opposed to other sports) is one of the things that make extra innings more frustrating than they are enjoyable.
In most sports, the offense scores by accomplishing a goal. In baseball, the offense scores when the defense just kinda screws up.
Although I think there's a lot of ground to somewhat combine the two to make soccer an entertaining and watchable support, which I currently feel it is not (although it's slightly better than watching baseball IMO).
Arena soccer would be fantastic, play in a walled field approximately the size of a hockey rink, which is about a quarter of a regular soccer field, halve the width of the goal, shrink the player count down to 6 on 6 or so, bam, you have a great sport.
Honestly if there's one thing soccer needs to crib from hockey its line changes. The average soccer player covers 7 miles per game. Which is a lot, until you remember that the game is 95 minutes long. 13 minutes a mile. In Hockey(granted people skate faster than they walk) a player is covering about 4 miles in 20 minutes of play, done in shifts. The game is played at a near-sprint, which is what makes it so exciting.
No. Stop. North Americans (Mexico aside) don't like soccer. We get it. Stop trying to tinker with it though. Just let it go and the rest of the world will handle it just fine. You guys keep your football, mmkay?
In terms of baseball though, I think a lot of people here just don't realize how much of the game is being played away from the action. Just because a player is standing around with no balls coming toward him doesn't mean that he isn't doing anything. I can't count the number of times I've missed seeing a play because I got distracted for a split second.
There's a good deal of accidental nut shot in MMA due to the stance. Inside leg kicks can go awry pretty quickly. Can't recall seeing someone punch a dick after rules were implemented in the 90s.
There's a good deal of accidental nut shot in MMA due to the stance. Inside leg kicks can go awry pretty quickly. Can't recall seeing someone punch a dick after rules were implemented in the 90s.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Let us not forget the stupid world series. 7 fucking games, that most series don't even go too. Back in the 1890's, they'd sell seven game contests as tickets were the sole money maker for teams. That isn't the case anymore in our modern age. That tradition needs to be taken out to the woodshed and shot. Don't drag the series out. I say 5 games, max, but I'd prefer 3.
If the goal is to determine the best team, this is ridiculous. Larger sample size = more accurate result. God bless the NCAA tournament, but it's a crapshoot and one and done is going to give you some funky results sometimes.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
In terms of baseball though, I think a lot of people here just don't realize how much of the game is being played away from the action. Just because a player is standing around with no balls coming toward him doesn't mean that he isn't doing anything. I can't count the number of times I've missed seeing a play because I got distracted for a split second.
But, in video game terms, baseball is kind of like a rail shooter. Every person in the stands with any understanding of the sport knows what play the defense is going to make in any given situation. It's a script; when Runners are on [Base X and/or Y], throw ball to [Infielder A or B]. Every reaction is pre-programmed. 90% of the skill of the game is hogged by two actions: pitching and batting. The other 10% is made up of dozens of little things, little of which occur simultaneously during either of the former actions.
But football can't do that. The left tackle doesn't get to hold his dick because the play is a pass to the right. The defensive end doesn't have a script for where to go every time he sees [Action X], he has reads and context he has to filter before he can make a play.
0
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
when i was last in the states i went to a baseball game
i regretted it
it's worse than cricket because at least cricket is designed to be absolutely absurd
Although I think there's a lot of ground to somewhat combine the two to make soccer an entertaining and watchable support, which I currently feel it is not (although it's slightly better than watching baseball IMO).
Arena soccer would be fantastic, play in a walled field approximately the size of a hockey rink, which is about a quarter of a regular soccer field, halve the width of the goal, shrink the player count down to 6 on 6 or so, bam, you have a great sport.
Isn't arena soccer a thing? They're the only soccer games I've ever been to (minus playing regulation style stuff as a kid).
I remember seeing the Philapdelphia Kixx (I think?) a couple times as a kid. They were damned exciting though, not sure if that's even what it was exactly though.
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I think Carlin's comments on the inverted nature of scoring dynamics in baseball (as opposed to other sports) is one of the things that make extra innings more frustrating than they are enjoyable.
In most sports, the offense scores by accomplishing a goal. In baseball, the offense scores when the defense just kinda screws up.
that's sort of a ridiculous statement
you only score in football when the defense screws up. if the defense is perfect you would never score.
There's a good deal of accidental nut shot in MMA due to the stance. Inside leg kicks can go awry pretty quickly. Can't recall seeing someone punch a dick after rules were implemented in the 90s.
I think Carlin's comments on the inverted nature of scoring dynamics in baseball (as opposed to other sports) is one of the things that make extra innings more frustrating than they are enjoyable.
In most sports, the offense scores by accomplishing a goal. In baseball, the offense scores when the defense just kinda screws up.
that's sort of a ridiculous statement
you only score in football when the defense screws up. if the defense is perfect you would never score.
just like... every other sport.
Not true. The defense is at a disadvantage in football because of the complexity of any given football play. A defense can be perfectly stationed to stop one play, but have it be a ruse and break coverage only to give up a big play or score.
Plus, there are situations that defenses are statistically unable/barely able to accommodate for. A quick out route will work every time in man-to-man coverage. A 6'5" receiver will always beat a 5'8" corner for a jump-ball.
There's some chaos in football, and endless variety, and new stuff being invented all the time.
Baseball, more or less, is still the same game it has been for 100 years.
In terms of baseball though, I think a lot of people here just don't realize how much of the game is being played away from the action. Just because a player is standing around with no balls coming toward him doesn't mean that he isn't doing anything. I can't count the number of times I've missed seeing a play because I got distracted for a split second.
But, in video game terms, baseball is kind of like a rail shooter. Every person in the stands with any understanding of the sport knows what play the defense is going to make in any given situation. It's a script; when Runners are on [Base X and/or Y], throw ball to [Infielder A or B]. Every reaction is pre-programmed. 90% of the skill of the game is hogged by two actions: pitching and batting. The other 10% is made up of dozens of little things, little of which occur simultaneously during either of the former actions.
But football can't do that. The left tackle doesn't get to hold his dick because the play is a pass to the right. The defensive end doesn't have a script for where to go every time he sees [Action X], he has reads and context he has to filter before he can make a play.
I can agree with this. But if it were so easy to do, the players wouldn't be paid nearly as much as they are because they could be replaced by just about anybody.
Just because a given player isn't active physically, doesn't mean he's just sitting around holding his dick. When they do, errors happen.
0
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
also I enjoy enormously how much more popular cricket is than baseball internationally
because cricket is just so much sillier
0
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
In terms of baseball though, I think a lot of people here just don't realize how much of the game is being played away from the action. Just because a player is standing around with no balls coming toward him doesn't mean that he isn't doing anything. I can't count the number of times I've missed seeing a play because I got distracted for a split second.
But, in video game terms, baseball is kind of like a rail shooter. Every person in the stands with any understanding of the sport knows what play the defense is going to make in any given situation. It's a script; when Runners are on [Base X and/or Y], throw ball to [Infielder A or B]. Every reaction is pre-programmed. 90% of the skill of the game is hogged by two actions: pitching and batting. The other 10% is made up of dozens of little things, little of which occur simultaneously during either of the former actions.
But football can't do that. The left tackle doesn't get to hold his dick because the play is a pass to the right. The defensive end doesn't have a script for where to go every time he sees [Action X], he has reads and context he has to filter before he can make a play.
Tell Randy Moss he's supposed to do something when the play isn't to him
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
In terms of baseball though, I think a lot of people here just don't realize how much of the game is being played away from the action. Just because a player is standing around with no balls coming toward him doesn't mean that he isn't doing anything. I can't count the number of times I've missed seeing a play because I got distracted for a split second.
But, in video game terms, baseball is kind of like a rail shooter. Every person in the stands with any understanding of the sport knows what play the defense is going to make in any given situation. It's a script; when Runners are on [Base X and/or Y], throw ball to [Infielder A or B]. Every reaction is pre-programmed. 90% of the skill of the game is hogged by two actions: pitching and batting. The other 10% is made up of dozens of little things, little of which occur simultaneously during either of the former actions.
But football can't do that. The left tackle doesn't get to hold his dick because the play is a pass to the right. The defensive end doesn't have a script for where to go every time he sees [Action X], he has reads and context he has to filter before he can make a play.
I can agree with this. But if it were so easy to do, the players wouldn't be paid nearly as much as they are because they could be replaced by just about anybody.
Just because a given player isn't active physically, doesn't mean he's just sitting around holding his dick. When they do, errors happen.
I it was the moneyball theory that attempted to poke holes in the "paid what they're worth" argument.
I think all pro sports' pay should be incentive-based, not historical.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
In terms of baseball though, I think a lot of people here just don't realize how much of the game is being played away from the action. Just because a player is standing around with no balls coming toward him doesn't mean that he isn't doing anything. I can't count the number of times I've missed seeing a play because I got distracted for a split second.
But, in video game terms, baseball is kind of like a rail shooter. Every person in the stands with any understanding of the sport knows what play the defense is going to make in any given situation. It's a script; when Runners are on [Base X and/or Y], throw ball to [Infielder A or B]. Every reaction is pre-programmed. 90% of the skill of the game is hogged by two actions: pitching and batting. The other 10% is made up of dozens of little things, little of which occur simultaneously during either of the former actions.
But football can't do that. The left tackle doesn't get to hold his dick because the play is a pass to the right. The defensive end doesn't have a script for where to go every time he sees [Action X], he has reads and context he has to filter before he can make a play.
Tell Randy Moss he's supposed to do something when the play isn't to him
Ask any player of the game: while kickers may be the most unappreciated, the WRs are hands-down the most divisive players in the locker room.
Baseball and football are both boring because for most of the time nothing is happening. Basketball, rugby, starcraft and kickboxing are fun to watch.
Football has a ton of strategy that is constantly being revised and created during every moment of the game. It's why there are a dozen coaches up in the booths during the game, mapping the opposing side's formations. They don't wear those headsets the whole time for nothing.
As well, there's a game clock. You're never more than 25 seconds from the next play.
Baseball needs a game clock, as someone suggested.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way about baseball and other "sports."
I have tried to come up with my own definition of a sport with the following rules:
1. the score must be measured quantitatively
2. most of the players should be physically active while on the field.
3. the sport should not require lots of mechanical equipment
Rule 1 would remove things like ice dancing
Rule 2 would remove things like baseball, football, golf, and a bunch of other things that definitely require skill, but in my mind have such little physical activity that they should not be considered a sport.
Rule 3 would remove things like car racing.
And here are some examples of what would be a sport, in my mind, with this set of rules:
Basketball, Soccer, Tennis, Hockey (assuming they don't spend too much time beating each other), Rugby, etc
Does this seem like a completely wacky idea?
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
People who don't follow hockey have a weird estimation of how much fighting goes on in hockey.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way about baseball and other "sports."
I have tried to come up with my own definition of a sport with the following rules:
1. the score must be measured quantitatively
2. most of the players should be physically active while on the field.
3. the sport should not require lots of mechanical equipment
Rule 1 would remove things like ice dancing
Rule 2 would remove things like baseball, football, golf, and a bunch of other things that definitely require skill, but in my mind have such little physical activity that they should not be considered a sport.
Rule 3 would remove things like car racing.
And here are some examples of what would be a sport, in my mind, with this set of rules:
Basketball, Soccer, Tennis, Hockey (assuming they don't spend too much time beating each other), Rugby, etc
Does this seem like a completely wacky idea?
Not wholly, but I disagree about football and golf. Football players are in ridiculous shape and have to be because it's a very active game (like I said, a play every 25 seconds or less), and golf requires a lot of walking and a vast array of different swings to successfully play championship-level golf.
I especially agree on the issue of quantitative measurement.
Kind of off-topic, I think timed grouped events in the Olympics (or elsewhere) is a bunch of horseshit. I shouldn't be timed in any instance where someone can legally impair my progress.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Even without fighting it is a quite violent game, but yeah... fights get shown on Sportscenter and whatnot because they don't happen all the time. The league has put in a lot of effort to minimize fights; the referees usually clamp down on players before they throw down their gloves.
People who don't follow hockey have a weird estimation of how much fighting goes on in hockey.
If my memory serves me correctly, I thought hockey had quite a bit of fighting in the 90s before they started instituting some of their fighting rules.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Posts
Complete opposite for me.
First off, I don't want the social aspect. The social aspect fucking sucks. Fighting traffic to park a half-mile away from the stadium and having to step over drunk rednecks and homeless people on the way in? Having the assholes in the row in front of you stand up every 30 seconds for no apparent reason while the assholes behind you scream in your ear? Being unable to hold a conversation with my neighbor because of the crowd noise? No. Fuck that.
Second, if I'm in a stadium, I'm lucky if I can see the ball at all. When a baseball game is on TV, the camera is showing me exactly what I need to look at. I don't need to track a ball the size of my fist going 90+mph across a field a hundred yards away.
At home, I can have a conversation with my friends, I can sit on a couch instead of a hard chair on a concrete floor, I can drink my own beer from my own damn fridge instead of paying $8 for Coors in a plastic cup, I don't have to deal with idiot rednecks, and I can actually see what the fuck is going on.
And I'm supposed to pay $100 for the privilege of watching it in a stadium?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This is why living in a city with a crappy team is great. You can get Cubs tickets for like, $5.
do you like overtime?
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
It depends. Hockey overtime? Sure. They don't call it "sudden death" for no reason. Football overtime? Not as much as hockey overtime, but there's still the sense of urgency. I'm not a big basketball fan so I won't comment there. Extra innings are just a slog. "We're going to be here until one of you teams manages to score a run." It's more a threat to finish the game in the regulation 9 innings than anything.
but they're listening to every word I say
i guess i'm just in the minority - i usually root for games to continue at all costs, any sport. I'd rather quintuple-OT, whether its college football or the NBA, and I love the 21 inning games. I don't know, I guess it's just wanting to see something unusual or incredibly unlikely
i was digging that 400 hour long tennis match
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
You know what really chaps my ass? Rodriguez can make 32 million a year, but an Indy Car driver risks spectacular death during every race, and maybe with endorsements pulls 5-7$ million. Fuck baseball players who reel that much cash in.
Let us not forget the stupid world series. 7 fucking games, that most series don't even go too. Back in the 1890's, they'd sell seven game contests as tickets were the sole money maker for teams. That isn't the case anymore in our modern age. That tradition needs to be taken out to the woodshed and shot. Don't drag the series out. I say 5 games, max, but I'd prefer 3.
You obviously are not an Orioles fan, as that is an overly optimistic scenario.
1) Shell out for boxside tickets
2) Squint at an incomprehensible mass of flesh.
In most sports, the offense scores by accomplishing a goal. In baseball, the offense scores when the defense just kinda screws up.
Like with golf.
No. Stop. North Americans (Mexico aside) don't like soccer. We get it. Stop trying to tinker with it though. Just let it go and the rest of the world will handle it just fine. You guys keep your football, mmkay?
In terms of baseball though, I think a lot of people here just don't realize how much of the game is being played away from the action. Just because a player is standing around with no balls coming toward him doesn't mean that he isn't doing anything. I can't count the number of times I've missed seeing a play because I got distracted for a split second.
There's a good deal of accidental nut shot in MMA due to the stance. Inside leg kicks can go awry pretty quickly. Can't recall seeing someone punch a dick after rules were implemented in the 90s.
Pssst.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
If the goal is to determine the best team, this is ridiculous. Larger sample size = more accurate result. God bless the NCAA tournament, but it's a crapshoot and one and done is going to give you some funky results sometimes.
But, in video game terms, baseball is kind of like a rail shooter. Every person in the stands with any understanding of the sport knows what play the defense is going to make in any given situation. It's a script; when Runners are on [Base X and/or Y], throw ball to [Infielder A or B]. Every reaction is pre-programmed. 90% of the skill of the game is hogged by two actions: pitching and batting. The other 10% is made up of dozens of little things, little of which occur simultaneously during either of the former actions.
But football can't do that. The left tackle doesn't get to hold his dick because the play is a pass to the right. The defensive end doesn't have a script for where to go every time he sees [Action X], he has reads and context he has to filter before he can make a play.
i regretted it
it's worse than cricket because at least cricket is designed to be absolutely absurd
I remember seeing the Philapdelphia Kixx (I think?) a couple times as a kid. They were damned exciting though, not sure if that's even what it was exactly though.
that's sort of a ridiculous statement
you only score in football when the defense screws up. if the defense is perfect you would never score.
just like... every other sport.
I wrote a long detailed email to Gabe and Tycho about that comic.
Not true. The defense is at a disadvantage in football because of the complexity of any given football play. A defense can be perfectly stationed to stop one play, but have it be a ruse and break coverage only to give up a big play or score.
Plus, there are situations that defenses are statistically unable/barely able to accommodate for. A quick out route will work every time in man-to-man coverage. A 6'5" receiver will always beat a 5'8" corner for a jump-ball.
There's some chaos in football, and endless variety, and new stuff being invented all the time.
Baseball, more or less, is still the same game it has been for 100 years.
I can agree with this. But if it were so easy to do, the players wouldn't be paid nearly as much as they are because they could be replaced by just about anybody.
Just because a given player isn't active physically, doesn't mean he's just sitting around holding his dick. When they do, errors happen.
because cricket is just so much sillier
Tell Randy Moss he's supposed to do something when the play isn't to him
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
I it was the moneyball theory that attempted to poke holes in the "paid what they're worth" argument.
I think all pro sports' pay should be incentive-based, not historical.
Ask any player of the game: while kickers may be the most unappreciated, the WRs are hands-down the most divisive players in the locker room.
Football has a ton of strategy that is constantly being revised and created during every moment of the game. It's why there are a dozen coaches up in the booths during the game, mapping the opposing side's formations. They don't wear those headsets the whole time for nothing.
As well, there's a game clock. You're never more than 25 seconds from the next play.
Baseball needs a game clock, as someone suggested.
I have tried to come up with my own definition of a sport with the following rules:
1. the score must be measured quantitatively
2. most of the players should be physically active while on the field.
3. the sport should not require lots of mechanical equipment
Rule 1 would remove things like ice dancing
Rule 2 would remove things like baseball, football, golf, and a bunch of other things that definitely require skill, but in my mind have such little physical activity that they should not be considered a sport.
Rule 3 would remove things like car racing.
And here are some examples of what would be a sport, in my mind, with this set of rules:
Basketball, Soccer, Tennis, Hockey (assuming they don't spend too much time beating each other), Rugby, etc
Does this seem like a completely wacky idea?
Not wholly, but I disagree about football and golf. Football players are in ridiculous shape and have to be because it's a very active game (like I said, a play every 25 seconds or less), and golf requires a lot of walking and a vast array of different swings to successfully play championship-level golf.
I especially agree on the issue of quantitative measurement.
Kind of off-topic, I think timed grouped events in the Olympics (or elsewhere) is a bunch of horseshit. I shouldn't be timed in any instance where someone can legally impair my progress.
I was under the impression that's what the second period was for. Dukin' it out.
The penguins, the team that lead the league in fighting majors last yeah, has played 8 games.
They have played 8 games and have two fights this season.
Edit: Hockey Fights says 3, but they count this little gem as a fight.
If my memory serves me correctly, I thought hockey had quite a bit of fighting in the 90s before they started instituting some of their fighting rules.