Colin Cowherd "Soccer will surpass baseball in a few years"..

[apalisoc_9]

:wow

To think The MLS is less than 25 years old and now to join the MLS you need crazy money.

[DMC]

:wow

To think The MLS is less than 25 years old and now to join the MLS you need crazy money.

To go watch you almost need to be above the poverty line but not quite.

[apalisoc_9]

To go watch you almost need to be above the poverty line but not quite.

Get this fat talk out of here.

Fucking obese people shouldnt be allowed in sports forums.

[DMC]

Get this fat talk out of here.

Fucking obese people shouldnt be allowed in sports forums.

A 90 pound man in your country is known as "Bubba".

3rd world discussion trying to blossom after real sports have concluded. Don't you have a wheel to roll with a stick, or some pasty squash looking shit to mash up with a wooden pin?

[apalisoc_9]

A 90 pound man in your country is known as "Bubba".

3rd world discussion trying to blossom after real sports have concluded. Don't you have a wheel to roll with a stick, or some pasty squash looking shit to mash up with a wooden pin?

Mcdonalds is 24/7. Stop posting in this thread just because you havent had your big mac fix doesnt mean you have to post here.

[DMC]

Mcdonalds is 24/7. Stop posting in this thread just because you havent had your big mac fix doesnt mean you have to post here.

This is the NBA forum. The povertyball forums are elswhere, Impaleacock_9(inches)

[apalisoc_9]

This is the NBA forum. The povertyball forums are elswhere, Impaleacock_9(inches)

You havent touched a basketball in your life, fatso.

[DMC]

You havent touched a basketball in your life, fatso.

You haven't had a new pair of shoes in your entire life.

[midnightpulp]

So that means it will surpass Basketball, as well. Soccer won't though. The match vs. Trinidad only drew 460K on television. That's like Saturday women's golf ratings :lol

[midnightpulp]

Seriously, though. Why do soccer fanboys constantly insist soccer is the "sport of the future" here? (been hearing this shit since the '94 World Cup, and before that, in the 70s when Pele came stateside). Here's an example. Important World Cup qualifying match between Mexico and the USA last year. This is the biggest rivalry in North American soccer, and the argument I keep hearing is that as Mexican immigration increases, so will soccer's popularity. I would guess there's 15-20 million illegal or 1st generation immigrants living in the States right now (Mexican-Americans who've been here for multiple generations do not give a shit about soccer). And yet, this "big match" that would have everyone in Brazil and Argentina huddled around the village televisions drew a pathetic 2 million (all those Mexicans obviously weren't watching). Worse than: NHL Finals, Horse racing, Random baseball game on Fox, Golf, and Nascar.

http://i68.tinypic.com/2lbf8ld.png

Another example. Seattle is probably the biggest MLS market in the US, with one of the most passionate fanbases. The opening Sounders match drew 2.4 in that market. A terrible Mariners team drew an average of 4.88 last season, and baseball has 600 games.

Is it marginally more popular here than it was 20 years ago? Sure. But it's not poised to displace any of the Big 4.

[Caltex2]

:wow

To think The MLS is less than 25 years old and now to join the MLS you need crazy money.

Soccer has surpassed baseball everywhere except North America and that won't change.

[140]

oh look a graph



:lol

[hater]

American retards say the same thing every 4 years

Truth is they dont get soccer. They cant fathom a sport where there are nonconstant breaks where they can go sit on the toilet or go buy more nachos and beer

If there are less points scored than platters of nachos eaten, which is 6 or 7 per half, their heads explode :lol

Real truth is the world is better off with them not being too into soccer. We dont want them to fuck it up by inserting 50 timeouts so they can refill their enormous bellies and sell their garbage thru commercials

[endrity]

I actually think the sport is in very solid footing in the U.S right now. It might never catch football and basketball, but soccer is here to stay in the US.

[midnightpulp]

American retards say the same thing every 4 years

Truth is they dont get soccer. They cant fathom a sport where there are nonconstant breaks where they can go sit on the toilet or go buy more nachos and beer

If there are less points scored than platters of nachos eaten, which is 6 or 7 per half, their heads explode :lol

Real truth is the world is better off with them not being too into soccer. We dont want them to fuck it up by inserting 50 timeouts so they can refill their enormous bellies and sell their garbage thru commercials

Yeah, retard, that's why we actually have a sport with more flow. It's called ice hockey.

"After watching this I can see why North Americans don't like soccer."


https://youtu.be/FKiydEbrHuk

[Clipper Nation]

Also Colin Cowturd: "Matt Stafford is better than Aaron Rodgers."

[hater]

Yeah, retard, that's why we actually have a sport with more flow. It's called ice hockey.

"After watching this I can see why North Americans don't like soccer."


https://youtu.be/FKiydEbrHuk

:lmao hockey is not “yours” retard

You didnt even invent it

Thats like LA Ligua faggots claiming soccer is their :lmao

[midnightpulp]

:lmao hockey is not “yours” retard

You didnt even invent it

Thats like LA Ligua faggots claiming soccer is their :lmao

Your dumbass stated "we don't get soccer" because in your dipshit mind, you think Americans lack the ability to understand a sport that is continuous, with few breaks. :lol Yeah, that's why the NHL is firmly the 4th most popular league in the country while the MLS struggles to beat the WNBA in ratings.

[midnightpulp]

This year’s championship was highlighted by Game 5 of the WNBA Finals on ESPN2, which averaged 902,000 viewers (including streaming audience)


On the English-language ESPN broadcast, the MLS Cup Final match averaged 803,000 viewers.

:lmao

[hater]

Your dumbass stated "we don't get soccer" because in your dipshit mind, you think Americans lack the ability to understand a sport that is continuous, with few breaks. :lol Yeah, that's why the NHL is firmly the 4th most popular league in the country while the MLS struggles to beat the WNBA in ratings.

Yup and hockey is a niche sport here in US just like soccer

Face it, you fatfucks cant keep your attention over 5 consecutive minutes without geeting up to the toilet or going for more cheesefries :lmao

[Caltex2]

Soccer would be better if it didn't stick so much to tradition and accepted some nuances.

[midnightpulp]

Yup and hockey is a niche sport here in US just like soccer

Face it, you fatfucks cant keep your attention over 5 consecutive minutes without geeting up to the toilet or going for more cheesefries :lmao

Hockey isn't niche. Niche is stuff like billiards, which the MLS also loses to in the ratings :lol

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Yx55o3tmPbs/VVKOMA2x_CI/AAAAAAAAdQY/QLpWrSw3gdw/s1600/ESPN2%2BTV%2BRatings%2BMLS%2BMay%2B10%2B2015.jpg

[Clipper Nation]

:lmao hockey is not “yours” retard

You didnt even invent it

Thats like LA Ligua faggots claiming soccer is their :lmao
:lol A Canadian team hasn't won the Stanley Cup since 1993. Hockey is ours now.

[Caltex2]

Even basketball could change, like altering the foul out rule (why foul anyone out? Just shoot techs and put the ball out on the side AND call the game as you see it) and no 8-second rule (you have a shot clock anyways) or backcourt violation. Why these rules, along with the 5-second call, exist above the high school level I'll never know.

[midnightpulp]

Soccer would be better if it didn't stick so much to tradition and accepted some nuances.

Soccer has already been "solved."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEAbWrdB9XU

You can use hands and feet. Full contact. And like all great sports, you can take the lead from a deficit in a single possession due to multiple scoring options (1 point for through the uprights, 3 points for a proper goal). Not popular worldwide because the Irish didn't obviously have an empire like the English.

[Caltex2]

But that's way too extreme for too many people. They could dramatically, to hockey levels, increase scoring without changing the dynamic of the sport. They could even do so much as just widening the net.

[Fabbs]

https://youtu.be/qjp1Zrvn8VQ

:lol hater posting on ST during the entire match.

[midnightpulp]

But that's way too extreme for too many people. They could dramatically, to hockey levels, increase scoring without changing the dynamic of the sport. They could even do so much as just widening the net.

Indoor soccer is higher scoring. Soccer will continue to be a highly flawed sport until they reform the penalty system. It's inexcusable that a match could be won by a guy flopping in the box resulting in essentially a free goal (even if the fouled player wasn't shooting the ball nor had a viable scoring opportunity). Sure, shitty pass interference calls and late 4th quarter fouls can alter the outcome of football and basketball games, but since those sports are much higher scoring, you can at least mitigate/buffer the damage of bad calls. The most common score in soccer is 1-0, so one bad call effectively sinks a team more often than not.

Hockey solved it. A penalty is punished by removing a player from the ice (a penalty shot is only given when the player was on a clear break away and simply recreates the situation). They also need to figure out tweaks so there isn't so many fuckin' ties. One characteristic of flawed games/sports is how often a tie happens (this is why TicTacToe is considered a flawed game). Soccer fans don't care, though. As long as they're out in 90 minutes, get to chant and jerk off to Ronaldo, all is good.

[Caltex2]

People grew up watching and playing the sport, so they don't like drastic change. But minor tweaks could make it more enjoyable for non-fans, fringe fans and diehards. Widening the net alone likely increases scoring by a goal a game.

[hater]

Hockey is niche here faggots

Dal with it

[140]

American retards say the same thing every 4 years

Truth is they dont get soccer. They cant fathom a sport where there are nonconstant breaks where they can go sit on the toilet or go buy more nachos and beer

If there are less points scored than platters of nachos eaten, which is 6 or 7 per half, their heads explode :lol

Real truth is the world is better off with them not being too into soccer. We dont want them to fuck it up by inserting 50 timeouts so they can refill their enormous bellies and sell their garbage thru commercials

Agreed tbh

[midnightpulp]

People grew up watching and playing the sport, so they don't like drastic change. But minor tweaks could make it more enjoyable for non-fans, fringe fans and diehards. Widening the net alone likely increases scoring by a goal a game.

Soccer will never face pressure to change, since fans are religious about the sport and tune in no matter what. Anyhow, for non-fans, it shouldn't be of concern if soccer changes or not. There's much better "goal sports" out there you can explore (Gaelic, Hurling, Aussie Rules). Why demand soccer to change "for us" when half the world is perfectly content with low-scoring, inconsistently officiated soccer matches that wind up in a tie 30% of the time? And shit, even if soccer changed I wouldn't watch it. As I said, I think a sport like Gaelic is an "evolution" of soccer that makes it redundant.

[FkLA]

Why do most Muricans hate soccer so much anyway? Is it just like a pompous, contrarian thing? The whole world loves it but we are big bad Muricans so fuck soccer!

I mean the rest of the world has embraced the NBA and NFL, not sure why there's such hatred towards soccer. It's actually nice to have something else to watch other than Fatball during the summer.

[Caltex2]

Hockey is niche south of the Frost Belt.

[HarlemHeat37]

Why do most Muricans hate soccer so much anyway? Is it just like a pompous, contrarian thing? The whole world loves it but we are big bad Muricans so fuck soccer!

I mean the rest of the world has embraced the NBA and NFL, not sure why there's such hatred towards soccer. It's actually nice to have something else to watch other than Fatball during the summer.

I don't think the rest of the world has embraced the NFL, I haven't looked at any numbers, but I'd bet that American football isn't a notable sport outside of America..

NBA isn't surprising, as basketball has become a very popular sport worldwide...I've
noticed a strong link between soccer and basketball fans, despite the sports being dissimilar..

I like soccer and I watch big games, but I think a lot of Americans have just become annoyed by the hipster American soccer fans who have been claiming that soccer is going to take over America, they've been saying it for over 20 years:lol

[HarlemHeat37]

The only thing I dislike about soccer is the blatant match-fixing, tbh..other than boxing, it's the only sport where I always have to wonder whether the game is rigged:lol

Russia hosting the WC will be a nice test in that regard..

[Clipper Nation]

Why do most Muricans hate soccer so much anyway?
Because it's boring garbage, and we're too busy watching actual sports.

[Jodelo]

Need some more graphics.

[Chris Fall]

Cowherd is literally one of the dumbest people in sports media. He’s also a shock value take artist. His whole purpose in life is to get someone, anyone rile up over something he says. He’s a fucking idiot.

[midnightpulp]

Why do most Muricans hate soccer so much anyway? Is it just like a pompous, contrarian thing? The whole world loves it but we are big bad Muricans so fuck soccer!

I mean the rest of the world has embraced the NBA and NFL, not sure why there's such hatred towards soccer. It's actually nice to have something else to watch other than Fatball during the summer.

Why does the world love it?

I don't think Americans hate soccer generally speaking. I bought the very first FIFA back in '94. I continued to buy soccer video games up until about '99. I've watched every World Cup to some degree since '94 (wont' be watching this year). I simply don't think the sport is worth investing time in over US sports (which I find better designed, and which is an opinion I can write a fuckin' dissertation on vs. soccer, so me turning my nose up at soccer isn't out of Murrican pride). If I'm going to invest time into a soccer-like sport, it would be something like Gaelic or Aussie Rules (more of a Rugby-like sport), which I find better designed. My opinion is that soccer is one sport of many and unlike soccer nuts, I don't think the sport is some proverbial gift from God that is intrinsically superior to other sports.

And no, appeal to popularity is a fallacy. It grew through British imperialism, not because the peoples of the world "saw the light." And if you don't think that was a factor, the Brits managed to make a sport you would find more boring than baseball the 2nd most popular in the world.

:lol rest of the world embracing the NFL? On what planet? They hate it. I get it's popular in Mexico and Canada, but most other countries find it slow, plodding, unskillful, and absolutely despise the fact we call it "football," (even though American football has more of a right to be called football than soccer does).

[Spurtacular]

This is the NBA forum. The povertyball forums are elswhere, Impaleacock_9(inches)

:lmao

[midnightpulp]

I don't think the rest of the world has embraced the NFL, I haven't looked at any numbers, but I'd bet that American football isn't a notable sport outside of America..

NBA isn't surprising, as basketball has become a very popular sport worldwide...I've
noticed a strong link between soccer and basketball fans, despite the sports being dissimilar..

I like soccer and I watch big games, but I think a lot of Americans have just become annoyed by the hipster American soccer fans who have been claiming that soccer is going to take over America, they've been saying it for over 20 years:lol

Because basketball is something they can understand right away. It's basically vertical hand soccer but much higher scoring. Euros and South Americans love that "design," i.e. 5, 11, 15 guys running around on some rectangular surface trying to put a ball into a goal. All the popular team sports in Europe (handball, field hockey, basketball, etc) employ that central design.

[AlexJones]

Spain is winning it all tb

[FkLA]

Why does the world love it?

I don't think Americans hate soccer generally speaking. I bought the very first FIFA back in '94. I continued to buy soccer video games up until about '99. I've watched every World Cup to some degree since '94 (wont' be watching this year). I simply don't think the sport is worth investing time in over US sports (which I find better designed, and which is an opinion I can write a fuckin' dissertation on vs. soccer, so me turning my nose up at soccer isn't out of Murrican pride). If I'm going to invest time into a soccer-like sport, it would be something like Gaelic or Aussie Rules (more of a Rugby-like sport), which I find better designed. My opinion is that soccer is one sport of many and unlike soccer nuts, I don't think the sport is some proverbial gift from God that is intrinsically superior to other sports.

And no, appeal to popularity is a fallacy. It grew through British imperialism, not because the peoples of the world "saw the light." And if you don't think that was a factor, the Brits managed to make a sport you would find more boring than baseball the 2nd most popular in the world.

:lol rest of the world embracing the NFL? On what planet? They hate it. I get it's popular in Mexico and Canada, but most other countries find it slow, plodding, unskillful, and absolutely despise the fact we call it "football," (even though American football has more of a right to be called football than soccer does).

You're one to talk about design with your love affair with fatball. Meaningless, overly long regular season, each game is a 4 hour long snoozefest, half of those 4 hours are just dead time waiting for the next pitch, players other than the pitcher stationary for atleast 90% of the game.

:sleep

[Othyus Lalanne]

Because it's boring garbage, and we're too busy watching actual sports.

It's boring to watch, but if you ever played it, trust me, it's a sport.

[midnightpulp]

You're one to talk about design with your love affair with fatball. Meaningless, overly long regular season, each game is a 4 hour long snoozefest, half of those 4 hours are just dead time waiting for the next pitch, players other than the pitcher stationary for atleast 90% of the game.

:sleep

You're invoking aesthetic arguments. "It bores me, so it's not well designed." Your entertainment preferences have nothing to do with game design. You simply can't get over the fact they "don't run around." That's your entire argument. It would be like calling a Hitchcock film bad because there's not enough gun fights. When I criticize soccer, I actually talk about the core elements of the sport and don't just handwave away with, "Well, they don't hit each other like they do in football, so therefore it's boring." I'm not going to tell you what to like, but the "boring" reply is a shallow argument if you're actually trying to have a discussion.

There's more dead time in an NFL game and they're longer on average, but you have no problem. Like I said, you have a fundamental bias against baseball for some reason. It's evident every time you discuss the sport.

[midnightpulp]

But ^ that said, I totally agree the MLB needs pace of play tweaks (which have nothing to do with the sport's design and are "problems" with player behavior). The Minors have a pitch clock and games usually finish in about 2:20 min. Golden Age baseball took about 2 hours to play, with many games even lasting a mere 1:30.

[FkLA]

Not having a pitch clock is a design flaw. Basketball didn't have a shot clock and when team's started dribbling around to kill time they implemented one. Fatball needs to do the same.

Regular season length is a design flaw. I get that the "sport" demands so little from its non-pitcher players that they can play 50 days in a row, but still it makes a game in June completely meaningless.

If they fixed those two things...got closer to 1.5 hour games and had under 100 games I might actually watch it more. Right now, those two things coupled with so little action makes it a snoozefest to watch. No other sport has that trifecta of dullness, tbh.

[midnightpulp]

Not having a pitch clock is a design flaw. Basketball didn't have a shot clock and when team's started dribbling around to kill time they implemented one. Fatball needs to do the same.

Regular season length is a design flaw. I get that the "sport" demands so little from its non-pitcher players that they can play 50 days in a row, but still it makes a game in June completely meaningless.

If they fixed those two things...got closer to 1.5 hour games and had under 100 games I might actually watch it more. Right now, those two things coupled with so little action makes it a snoozefest to watch. No other sport has that trifecta of dullness, tbh.

No, not having a pitch clock isn't a design flaw. Players can't use taking their time to exploit it for an offensive or defensive advantage. Basketball without a shotclock can be exploited to the point of a team holding onto the ball the entire game and winning 2-0. There's no clock in baseball.

Length of season a design flaw? :lol One of your worse arguments. No single game is meaningless. It's a mathematical impossibility. A meaningless game would literally be a game that doesnt count toward the win/loss record.

An example of a design flaw in baseball is probably the ground rule double rule. Even if was obvious a player was going to score from 1st, he has to stay at 3rd regardless. Ground rule doubles should be automatic triples imo.

Plenty of action in baseball. 300 pitches per game. It's just action you don't like because it doesn't unfold through "running around."

[Silver&Black]

fatball and povertyball are both garbage :lol

[midnightpulp]

Furthermore, length of season is a design advantage. You actually need to build a team for depth while also have minor league call ups constantly at ready because you can't just sign 1 or 2 elite players and coast to a sure playoff berth. Ideally I would actually like basketball to have a longer season. The game is too superstar dependent. The logistics won't allow it, but the NBA would be by far a more interesting league.

[lefty]

When was beisbol ahead :lol
Muricans :lmao

[K...]

Soccer, hockey, and baseball are all bad tv products but tv is changing and tv sports money may decline.

The NFL too might disappear if there is ever a cte reckoning, or it succumbs to permanent political drama.


Worldwide soccer is subsidized by both state and rich owners. There's no reason that couldn't happen here. 'it's just that historically other sports have been more valuable. The NFL is one of the most fucked up management groups and will repeatedly step on their own dicks if given the chance. If a new branch of rich people want to subsidise soccer if would easily prosper here

[Clipper Nation]

When was beisbol ahead :lol
Muricans :lmao
Since always? Povertyball has never been more popular in America than baseball. This is despite hipster povertyball fans insisting for the past 30+ years that povertyball is "just a few years away from surpassing baseball."

[hater]

Agreed tbh

:tu ma nig

[spursistan]

Water is wet..

[spursistan]

I actually think the sport is in very solid footing in the U.S right now. It might never catch football and basketball, but soccer is here to stay in the US.
Agreed. With US winning the rights to host the 2026 World Cup, I'm expecting a soccer boom of sort in the next decade or so

[Clipper Nation]

Agreed. With US winning the rights to host the 2026 World Cup, I'm expecting a soccer boom of sort in the next decade or so

:lol You mean like that "soccer boom" we were supposed to have from the 1994 World Cup? Good luck with that.

[phxspurfan]

Not having a pitch clock is a design flaw. Basketball didn't have a shot clock and when team's started dribbling around to kill time they implemented one. Fatball needs to do the same.

Regular season length is a design flaw. I get that the "sport" demands so little from its non-pitcher players that they can play 50 days in a row, but still it makes a game in June completely meaningless.

If they fixed those two things...got closer to 1.5 hour games and had under 100 games I might actually watch it more. Right now, those two things coupled with so little action makes it a snoozefest to watch. No other sport has that trifecta of dullness, tbh.

I find baseball perfect for naps tbh. The drawl of the old announcers combined with the white noise from the crowd in most games just gives me the perfect backdrop to fall asleep.

[phxspurfan]

:lol You mean like that "soccer boom" we were supposed to have from the 1994 World Cup? Good luck with that.

there were millions of soccer moms after that

[lefty]

Since always? Povertyball has never been more popular in America than baseball. This is despite hipster povertyball fans insisting for the past 30+ years that povertyball is "just a few years away from surpassing baseball."

Who cares about America tbh? :lol

[Clipper Nation]

there were millions of soccer moms after that
Youth soccer became popular here in the '70s, not the '90s. And even then, soccer is still viewed as a kids' "sport" that you eventually grow out of and start playing a real sport instead.

[DAF86]

Why does the world love it?

I don't think Americans hate soccer generally speaking. I bought the very first FIFA back in '94. I continued to buy soccer video games up until about '99. I've watched every World Cup to some degree since '94 (wont' be watching this year). I simply don't think the sport is worth investing time in over US sports (which I find better designed, and which is an opinion I can write a fuckin' dissertation on vs. soccer, so me turning my nose up at soccer isn't out of Murrican pride). If I'm going to invest time into a soccer-like sport, it would be something like Gaelic or Aussie Rules (more of a Rugby-like sport), which I find better designed. My opinion is that soccer is one sport of many and unlike soccer nuts, I don't think the sport is some proverbial gift from God that is intrinsically superior to other sports.

And no, appeal to popularity is a fallacy. It grew through British imperialism, not because the peoples of the world "saw the light." And if you don't think that was a factor, the Brits managed to make a sport you would find more boring than baseball the 2nd most popular in the world.

:lol rest of the world embracing the NFL? On what planet? They hate it. I get it's popular in Mexico and Canada, but most other countries find it slow, plodding, unskillful, and absolutely despise the fact we call it "football," (even though American football has more of a right to be called football than soccer does).

Wut? That doesn't make sense brah. :lol If that was the case, soccer should be huge in the US (a formar British colony) and less popular in places like South América, yet it's the complete opposite. And if you are talking about current imperialism, there's no bigger imperialist country than the US, yet they can't impose shit sports wise, other than the NBA.

[Caltex2]

Britain had a lot of colonies in the 1900's and late 1800's. The US hasn't been a colony in almost 250 years.

[FkLA]

No, not having a pitch clock isn't a design flaw. Players can't use taking their time to exploit it for an offensive or defensive advantage. Basketball without a shotclock can be exploited to the point of a team holding onto the ball the entire game and winning 2-0. There's no clock in baseball.

I think the varying waiting times (depending on the pitcher) can affect hitters mentally to a certain extent. Sometimes calling time before a pitch is used strategically by both pitchers and hitters. But sure, I can agree that it can't be exploited to the extent that dribbling a basketball around to keep the ball away from a Mikan was.

Design flaw or not though, it's still a big issue. You don't care because you're a diehard but as a casual fan I do. There's a lot more of me than there is you too. If fatball is smart they'll do something about it.


Length of season a design flaw? :lol One of your worse arguments. No single game is meaningless. It's a mathematical impossibility. A meaningless game would literally be a game that doesnt count toward the win/loss record.

An example of a design flaw in baseball is probably the ground rule double rule. Even if was obvious a player was going to score from 1st, he has to stay at 3rd regardless. Ground rule doubles should be automatic triples imo.

I think you know what I meant. It's hard to get excited for 1 out of 162 (or whatever it is). You just have to tread water until the trade deadline, get yourself a star and then the real race starts. And just to be fair, I will say that I think the baseball trade deadline is better than any other sport's deadline.

But don't kid yourself about the season being so long because it add some more strategy/complexity to the sport. We both know the reason it's so long is greed. I'm sure owners rake in the money and it's why fatball players are able to have such crazy salaries.



Plenty of action in baseball. 300 pitches per game. It's just action you don't like because it doesn't unfold through "running around."

Come on, stop looking at it through your fatball homer glasses. Does MLF hold a pitching derby during it's all-star weekend? Did MLF turn a blind eye to PEDs in the late 90s so we could see more shutouts or no hitters? Offense is what draws crowds. Not just in Fatball but in any major sport.

[spursistan]

The only thing I dislike about soccer is the blatant match-fixing, tbh..other than boxing, it's the only sport where I always have to wonder whether the game is rigged:lol

Russia hosting the WC will be a nice test in that regard..

1007282205163511809

Not the game but the governing body..Fifa is arguably the most corrupt sporting entity to ever exist especially in the Blatter era..:lol

It took a sophisticated and large scale FBI/CIA sting operation to take him down...

[Chris]

Hfnqv6e5qK0

[BD24]

I don't give a fuck about either sport, they are both boring as fuck tbh.

With that said, there is no way in hell soccer surpasses baseball in a few years.

So lets make this interesting faggot. First off, what is your definition of a a few years? Give me an exact number. Honestly whatever the fuck it is I will elo bet your auntfucking ass that soccer does not surpass baseball in the USA in a few years.

Soccer will always be a fringe sport for poor pieces of shit or people that werent athletic enough to play a real sport in the US tbh. Deal with it.

[midnightpulp]

Wut? That doesn't make sense brah. :lol If that was the case, soccer should be huge in the US (a formar British colony) and less popular in places like South América, yet it's the complete opposite. And if you are talking about current imperialism, there's no bigger imperialist country than the US, yet they can't impose shit sports wise, other than the NBA.

British influence here was non-existent by the late-1800s/early-1900s, which is when soccer started to spread. Look at all the former Anglo colonies (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, US). Soccer isn't popular in any of them. The reason why is because the sports British settlers first brought with them to these countries were folk bat-and-ball and "football games" (primitive rugby-like games in which, yes, you used your hands to move an "eggball" toward a goal). By the time soccer was codified in 1863 and then started to spread a decade later, the former Anglo colonies already had embedded sports cultures revolving around bat-and-ball games (cricket, baseball) and rugby-like games (Rugby, Aussie Rules, American football).

So yes, British influence is why baseball and American football are popular. Baseball is actually a British sport that was simply refined by Americans. American football obviously is a descendent of rugby.

Soccer was easier to spread to other countries because they didn't really have an existent sports culture yet. What domestic sports did Argentina have before the large British diaspora there started to spread soccer and rugby in the country? Same goes for Brazil. Introduced by a Brit ex-pat. Spain? Introduced by Brit expats. It's the same story with many countries. Brit ex-pats introduce the sport to countries that don't really have a domestic/thriving sports culture and soccer fills the void, becoming the defacto national sport of these countries. Same thing here, except, like I said, the bat-and-ball and eggball games were introduced first. The US didn't have any sort of global influence until after World War I. Too late to spread our sports by that point, as most countries already had sporting cultures in place by that time.

[Othyus Lalanne]

Not having a pitch clock is a design flaw. Basketball didn't have a shot clock and when team's started dribbling around to kill time they implemented one. Fatball needs to do the same.

Regular season length is a design flaw. I get that the "sport" demands so little from its non-pitcher players that they can play 50 days in a row, but still it makes a game in June completely meaningless.

If they fixed those two things...got closer to 1.5 hour games and had under 100 games I might actually watch it more. Right now, those two things coupled with so little action makes it a snoozefest to watch. No other sport has that trifecta of dullness, tbh.

There are 22 people out there. It's fucking crowded in front of both gates so we would just see terrible attempts at scoring.


Soccer, hockey, and baseball are all bad tv products but tv is changing and tv sports money may decline.

The NFL too might disappear if there is ever a cte reckoning, or it succumbs to permanent political drama.


Worldwide soccer is subsidized by both state and rich owners. There's no reason that couldn't happen here. 'it's just that historically other sports have been more valuable. The NFL is one of the most fucked up management groups and will repeatedly step on their own dicks if given the chance. If a new branch of rich people want to subsidise soccer if would easily prosper here

The NFL owners are finding their balls so they will tell the politicos to fuck off and the press will give up.


Agreed. With US winning the rights to host the 2026 World Cup, I'm expecting a soccer boom of sort in the next decade or so

You sound like someone in a Soviet Union speaking about a 5 year plan.

[midnightpulp]

I think the varying waiting times (depending on the pitcher) can affect hitters mentally to a certain extent. Sometimes calling time before a pitch is used strategically by both pitchers and hitters. But sure, I can agree that it can't be exploited to the extent that dribbling a basketball around to keep the ball away from a Mikan was.

Design flaw or not though, it's still a big issue. You don't care because you're a diehard but as a casual fan I do. There's a lot more of me than there is you too. If fatball is smart they'll do something about it.

They've done breakdowns on whether or not slow pitchers are more effective than fast pitchers, and the differences were so minimal as to be non-existent. But yes, baseball needs to address the issue and the pitch clock is likely coming next season.


I think you know what I meant. It's hard to get excited for 1 out of 162 (or whatever it is). You just have to tread water until the trade deadline, get yourself a star and then the real race starts. And just to be fair, I will say that I think the baseball trade deadline is better than any other sport's deadline.


Why is it "hard to get excited?" One criticism of basketball I see from people who don't like the sport is that there is too much scoring and no score means anything until the 4th, but yet you'll be there in game threads raging at every Parker misfire from the 1st quarter on because you know how these errors can compound into a loss, so that missed jumper in the 1st quarter in a game that ended 100-99 starts to look pretty important. I guess I'm on the flip side. Even though I like football, I actually think 16 games is way too short (you can't play any more unless you want players to die). Short samples are prone to variance and there's no way to recover from a 4 or 5 game skid in the NFL. You can argue, "well, that just means teams need to bring their best every Sunday." What if the team in question lost their QB and #1 WR for two months to injury?

Hmm. I don't know of any recent team that was average until the trade deadline, signed a star, and then flourished to playoff run. The very best players in the MLB only add about 8-10 wins over a 162 game season, so no individual star is going to transform a .500 team at the trade deadline into a contender.


Come on, stop looking at it through your fatball homer glasses. Does MLF hold a pitching derby during it's all-star weekend? Did MLF turn a blind eye to PEDs in the late 90s so we could see more shutouts or no hitters? Offense is what draws crowds. Not just in Fatball but in any major sport.

Just because I said there was 300 pitches per game (which qualifies as action) doesn't mean I'm endorsing pitching dominance. I'm actually anti-strikeout and would love to see strikeouts reduced to about 3 per team per game (6 per game overall. We're at 16 per game right now). The issue with "casual baseball watchers" is that you don't really pay attention (or don't understand) what's happening until the ball is in play, so you tune out anything prior until there's some proverbial "running around."

An example. 0-1 count. Next pitch is a slider that bends out of the zone the batter badly chases. I know the batter didn't see that pitch well, so I'm anticipating the catcher calling for that pitch again and also wondering if the batter can make the adjustment and lay off. He does. 1-2 count. What's coming next? I see the catcher now moving inside and calling for a pitch high in the zone. High inside fastball. Batter lays off as it narrowly misses the zone. This is "entertaining" because the batter battled back from a situation where he would reach base 18 percent of the time to 28 percent of the time. If he can work a 3-2 count, that percentage increases to 42%. Every pitch matters and subtly shifts the odds in favor of one way or another throughout the at-bat and game.

I'm not suggesting you should be entertained by this. If you need some type of motion (i.e. running, jumping, etc) to precede/accompany an in game event, then baseball will simply never appeal to you, since the most common baseball action is pitching. I'm "entertained" by it, even on an athletic level, because controlling a 95-100mph fastball, curveball, slider, etc is hard as fuck, harder to do than making a 3 pointer in an NBA game. And having the eye/spatial awareness to do things like not swing at balls out of the zone or battle back by fouling off tough pay off pitches is also hard as fuck. Main point is that there's plenty of compelling action before a ball is ever put into play.

What's "fatball?" I don't think it's baseball, since 95% in the league aren't fat and no elite player can be considered fat. Talking about the NFL?

[DAF86]

British influence here was non-existent by the late-1800s/early-1900s, which is when soccer started to spread. Look at all the former Anglo colonies (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, US). Soccer isn't popular in any of them. The reason why is because the sports British settlers first brought with them to these countries were folk bat-and-ball and "football games" (primitive rugby-like games in which, yes, you used your hands to move an "eggball" toward a goal). By the time soccer was codified in 1863 and then started to spread a decade later, the former Anglo colonies already had embedded sports cultures revolving around bat-and-ball games (cricket, baseball) and rugby-like games (Rugby, Aussie Rules, American football).

So yes, British influence is why baseball and American football are popular. Baseball is actually a British sport that was simply refined by Americans. American football obviously is a descendent of rugby.

Soccer was easier to spread to other countries because they didn't really have an existent sports culture yet. What domestic sports did Argentina have before the large British diaspora there started to spread soccer and rugby in the country? Same goes for Brazil. Introduced by a Brit ex-pat. Spain? Introduced by Brit expats. It's the same story with many countries. Brit ex-pats introduce the sport to countries that don't really have a domestic/thriving sports culture and soccer fills the void, becoming the defacto national sport of these countries. Same thing here, except, like I said, the bat-and-ball and eggball games were introduced first. The US didn't have any sort of global influence until after World War I. Too late to spread our sports by that point, as most countries already had sporting cultures in place by that time.

Soccer was invented in England, so it's obvious that they are the ones that spread it out around, but that doesn't explain why it became, by far, the most popular sport in the World. Why soccer and not rugby or cricket? Why not some sport from other country? Easy, soccer was the funnest one of the bunch for the vast majority of the people, simple as that.

[Bynumite]

2 goals in 2 games :lmao Fucking povertyball man :lmao

[spurraider21]

Hfnqv6e5qK0
victim complex

[DeadlyDynasty]

2 goals in 2 games :lmao Fucking povertyball man :lmao
and one was a bonus time own-goal:lol. But hey, they ran around a lot for 90+ minutes and accomplished nothing, so that means they're amazing athletes.

[midnightpulp]

Soccer was invented in England, so it's obvious that they are the ones that spread it out around, but that doesn't explain why it became, by far, the most popular sport in the World. Why soccer and not rugby or cricket? Why not some sport from other country? Easy, soccer was the funnest one of the bunch for the vast majority of the people, simple as that.

Soccer's estimated worldwide followers is around 3 billion. Cricket's is estimated at 2.5 billion. And we were first a cricket country until baseball displaced it, so if that held (and conceivably, we would've spread cricket to places where we spread baseball), cricket would be nearly on equal footing to soccer despite being a much less accessible and "less fun" (i.e. standing for hours in the field during a Test match waiting for a ball that never comes to you) sport. I'm just saying soccer isn't inherently more fun/superior, and if the Irish colonized the world at that time, you might be watching the Gaelic Football World Cup right now. If the Aussies did, you might be watching the Aussie Rules World Cup. Soccer does some logistic advantages, though. It's a sport more compatible with average sized humans than a sport like rugby, which helped it spread over rugby. Also, rugby was an elitist university sport back then, while soccer was the working man's game, and many of those Brit expats were working class.

[midnightpulp]

2 goals in 2 games :lmao Fucking povertyball man :lmao

:lmao as Deadly said, one game was decided by an own goal.

1007668343485206528

Truth. The last World Cup was egregious with this shit, as is soccer as a whole.

[DAF86]

Soccer's estimated worldwide followers is around 3 billion. Cricket's is estimated at 2.5 billion. And we were first a cricket country until baseball displaced it, so if that held (and conceivably, we would've spread cricket to places where we spread baseball), cricket would be nearly on equal footing to soccer despite being a much less accessible and "less fun" (i.e. standing for hours in the field during a Test match waiting for a ball that never comes to you) sport. I'm just saying soccer isn't inherently more fun/superior, and if the Irish colonized the world at that time, you might be watching the Gaelic Football World Cup right now. If the Aussies did, you might be watching the Aussie Rules World Cup. Soccer does some logistic advantages, though. It's a sport more compatible with average sized humans than a sport like rugby, which helped it spread over rugby. Also, rugby was an elitist university sport back then, while soccer was the working man's game, and many of those Brit expats were working class.

First of all, Soccer's estimated number of followers is closer to 4 billions than 3. Also, Cricket is only popular in a limited number of countries and the only reason its number of estimated followers is so big is India. It really isn't a close argument, it's like saying Mandarin is a more popular language than English because more people speak it. Unfair, close-minded argument that tries to take advantage of a data singularity to change the focus of the real argument.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

Seriously, though. Why do soccer fanboys constantly insist soccer is the "sport of the future" here? (been hearing this shit since the '94 World Cup, and before that, in the 70s when Pele came stateside). Here's an example. Important World Cup qualifying match between Mexico and the USA last year. This is the biggest rivalry in North American soccer, and the argument I keep hearing is that as Mexican immigration increases, so will soccer's popularity. I would guess there's 15-20 million illegal or 1st generation immigrants living in the States right now (Mexican-Americans who've been here for multiple generations do not give a shit about soccer). And yet, this "big match" that would have everyone in Brazil and Argentina huddled around the village televisions drew a pathetic 2 million (all those Mexicans obviously weren't watching). Worse than: NHL Finals, Horse racing, Random baseball game on Fox, Golf, and Nascar.

http://i68.tinypic.com/2lbf8ld.png

Another example. Seattle is probably the biggest MLS market in the US, with one of the most passionate fanbases. The opening Sounders match drew 2.4 in that market. A terrible Mariners team drew an average of 4.88 last season, and baseball has 600 games.

Is it marginally more popular here than it was 20 years ago? Sure. But it's not poised to displace any of the Big 4.

Don't know what this guy meant whether he meant in the US or worldwide but soccer has been king for years now. Your numbers above only show the US market.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

Hfnqv6e5qK0

For people who don't know fucking shit about soccer history in the US. The USA participated in the early world cups and until Mccarthyism was in full displayed it was a cherished sport in the US. After that time it started being associated with minorities and foreigners and sports like baseball and american football were considered more american. I'm just summarizing. It wasn't as simple as this.

But the US has a rich history in soccer during the first half of 20th century

[midnightpulp]

First of all, Soccer's estimated number of followers is closer to 4 billions than 3. Also, Cricket is only popular in a limited number of countries and the only reason its number of estimated followers is so big is India. It really isn't a close argument, it's like saying Mandarin is a more popular language than English because more people speak it. Unfair, close-minded argument that tries to take advantage of a data singularity to change the focus of the real argument.

Population is population. If India was broken up into 10 different countries, then Cricket magically becomes more worldwide? You don't think China, where soccer is the 1st or 2nd most popular sport inflates soccer's numbers likewise? That said, yes, I agree that soccer won out over a sport like cricket due to the inherent "fun factor," but my point is how a powerful empire influences culture. If we take your argument at face value, then is cricket the 2nd most fun sport to play? (note, any sport can be fun if you invest in it, but cricket obviously has some features that are initially unappealing, like standing around for hours doing nothing or waiting 5 hours to bat). I seriously doubt you'd claim cricket is the 2nd most fun sport to play.

[midnightpulp]

For people who don't know fucking shit about soccer history in the US. The USA participated in the early world cups and until Mccarthyism was in full displayed it was a cherished sport in the US. After that time it started being associated with minorities and foreigners and sports like baseball and american football were considered more american. I'm just summarizing. It wasn't as simple as this.

But the US has a rich history in soccer during the first half of 20th century

:lol no.

2nd bolded. Not really.

[midnightpulp]

Don't know what this guy meant whether he meant in the US or worldwide but soccer has been king for years now. Your numbers above only show the US market.

He was talking about the US market.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

:lol no.

2nd bolded. Not really.

No. You need to read about your own history. That's all. But you are entitled to your own ignorance. I have no issues with that ROLF

[midnightpulp]

No. You need to read about your own history. That's all. But you are entitled to your own ignorance. I have no issues with that ROLF

I know far more about our own history in this case than you do. First of all, we were settled by the English in the 1600s (as I'm sure you know), and the games the colonists brought with them were folk bat-and-ball and football games. Now those football games in question weren't anything like soccer that restricted use of the hands and more resembled a chaotic form of rugby than anything. A picture re-enacting "mob football." Pic is large, so I'm linking it. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/royal-shrovetide-football-match-mob-football-game-one-bloodiest-sporting-customs-uk-1542973

These folk bat-and-ball and football games eventually gave way to cricket and loose forms of rugby, the former being the defacto "national sport" of the US until baseball (refined with the help of a cricketer) displaced it. The first baseball league in this country was founded in 1857, six full years before soccer was even invented. And those informal rugby games eventually started to develop into American football, with the first game played in 1875 (at this point, AmFootball still more resembled rugby). The sport quickly spread throughout East coast universities. The first organized soccer league in the world wasn't founded until 1888, so baseball and Amfootball obviously had a decade head start in organizational structure before soccer started to spread proper around the world.

So by the time soccer arrived fully formed here (beyond pick up games played by universities and such), baseball was firmly entrenched as the professional sport, while American football was the college game. By the turn of the 19th century, soccer would find itself in too much of a crowded sports landscape (that now included tennis and a nascent basketball) to really ascend to national relevancy. Now it's true that in the following years up until the Great Depression, the US had a somewhat successful soccer league, but its relevancy was nowhere close to Major League Baseball and NCAA football/basketball. The final death knell for US soccer at this time was the infighting between USAF and ASL, leading to the collapse of both leagues. Soccer then basically went dormant for 30 years. Had nothing to do with McCarthy or anyone else appealing to American patriotism. Soccer was fighting an uphill battle from the beginning having to compete with other sports and then failing to properly develop a professional league. It should illustrate how fringe soccer really was that the MLB could survive the Great Depression (along with the young NFL), but the pro soccer leagues couldn't. The interest wasn't there to that extent.

[Caltex2]

Furthermore, length of season is a design advantage. You actually need to build a team for depth while also have minor league call ups constantly at ready because you can't just sign 1 or 2 elite players and coast to a sure playoff berth. Ideally I would actually like basketball to have a longer season. The game is too superstar dependent. The logistics won't allow it, but the NBA would be by far a more interesting league.

I agree with your overall argument but you're totally off base here, no pun intended. Basketball needs a way shorter season if anything, for player stamina and fan attention.

I won't even get into baseball, where despite playing so many games, records tend to range within 40-50 games of each other, just as in basketball, which has half as many games. Baseball would do just fine if every team played each other 3-4 times or in each league 6-7 times with some interleague play. They play so much yet don't even play every team every year or settle most tiebreakers via H2H. Both are ridiculous after 162 games.

Still better than countless 0-0 and 1-1 ties but ignorant none-the-less.

[Caltex2]

Soccer was invented in England, so it's obvious that they are the ones that spread it out around, but that doesn't explain why it became, by far, the most popular sport in the World. Why soccer and not rugby or cricket? Why not some sport from other country? Easy, soccer was the funnest one of the bunch for the vast majority of the people, simple as that.

Soccer is the cheapest to play. No equipment except a ball or rolled up newspaper.

[DAF86]

Soccer is the cheapest to play. No equipment except a ball or rolled up newspaper.

Rugby is the same.

[Caltex2]

But far more dangerous and painful, thus soccer wins out. And if you do want to play safe, the price relatively skyrockets.

[FkLA]

but only soccer can be played by the poor :cry


https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20151219_CBP001_0.jpg

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAj9AAAAJDEwMjgwMGM4LTJiNDctNDAzZS04NG MxLWIyM2VhNmJjYTMzMg.jpg

http://blog.sidelinesportsdoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/santo-domingo-dominican-republic-summer-sports-society-baseball-abroad.jpg

[midnightpulp]

I agree with your overall argument but you're totally off base here, no pun intended. Basketball needs a way shorter season if anything, for player stamina and fan attention.

I won't even get into baseball, where despite playing so many games, records tend to range within 40-50 games of each other, just as in basketball, which has half as many games. Baseball would do just fine if every team played each other 3-4 times or in each league 6-7 times with some interleague play. They play so much yet don't even play every team every year or settle most tiebreakers via H2H. Both are ridiculous after 162 games.

Still better than countless 0-0 and 1-1 ties but ignorant none-the-less.

I disagree. What has turned me off the NBA as the years have gone by is how superstar dependent the league has become (which they love from a marketing standpoint of course because it constantly feeds these asinine "hot take" shows content to debate). It bores me from a roster building standpoint and makes the league more uninteresting as a whole due to the lack of parity. If the NBA lengthened the season, I'm not suggesting superstars will be the ones playing every game. What would result is teams now having to build deeper rosters (rosters would have to be expanded) to hold serve when the star players are resting. You would get more lineup variation and more interesting long term strategic planning. This obviously wouldn't happen because fans "pay to see the stars," so there would obviously be a lot of dislike paying for a ticket to watch your club's B-team. I like it because the country and world is too fuckin' celebrity obsessed as it is. Sport over stars is my philosophy, and the NBA becomes a much better sport with a longer season.

Your suggestion to limit the MLB season to that many games would turn baseball into star dependent sport just the same. My team lost its two best players on offense and defense this season, yet they are making a charge because the farm hands they've developed are excelling, so for a fan of any given MLB team, there's no "melting down" when you lose a star, like in the NBA. If your club develops right, you can mitigate the impact of losing a star or multiple stars. Meanwhile, upstairs, it's an Armageddon-level meltdown about Kawhi. Kershaw is all time great pitcher, but if there were drama about him "wanting to leave" I wouldn't give a shit. No single player has a disproportional impact in baseball like in basketball. Shortening the season would place too much value on single players and make it impossible for a team to fade injuries to key players.

[midnightpulp]

but only soccer can be played by the poor :cry


https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20151219_CBP001_0.jpg

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAj9AAAAJDEwMjgwMGM4LTJiNDctNDAzZS04NG MxLWIyM2VhNmJjYTMzMg.jpg

You can make pick up games of all sports out of trash. Difference is, you can play soccer that more closely resembles the real thing far more cheaply than you can play baseball. Find an open field, a ratty hand me down ball, some trashcans to mark off goals, and you have a decent representation of the sport. It can also be played in a variety of different sized spaces (think indoor or street soccer). You need a large space to play baseball. Baseball on a basketball court sized area would be fuckin' stupid. No kid wants to just hit a ball 90 feet. You need decent distance between bases, too short, and you'd never throw anyone out. Balls are a bit harder to come by because make shift balls out of wadded tape, paper, whatever get destroyed practically as soon as they're hit. Tennis balls also don't last long. You want something hard and durable, and then you need gloves.

Soccer is just way more accessible. I live in a pretty wide open suburban neighborhood, with a 150 x 75 foot field next door. That's a decent size space not many people have immediate access too and it's still too small and narrow to really play decent baseball, especially given the fact there's a building on the left and houses and parked cars on the right, so hardball is out of the question. Only baseball you can really play is homerun derby with whiffle balls and every time I take my friend's kid out there to hit, we lose balls to the roof of the building. But it's a perfect area for 5 on 5 soccer.

[K...]

The difference between the NFL, NCAA, and FIFA corruption is the flavor of the mafias who support them and the amount of the $$ pot. The NFL just blackballed a player at it's most important position b/c of politics. That's pretty corrupt. The NFL stadium deals are shamelessly anti city the same way that FIFA is with the world cup. THe NFL went full tobaccco denier on concussions too. The NFL also protects abusive players. The NFL sat on it';s steroid loving ass unlike baseball.

[Caltex2]

I disagree. What has turned me off the NBA as the years have gone by is how superstar dependent the league has become (which they love from a marketing standpoint of course because it constantly feeds these asinine "hot take" shows content to debate). It bores me from a roster building standpoint and makes the league more uninteresting as a whole due to the lack of parity. If the NBA lengthened the season, I'm not suggesting superstars will be the ones playing every game. What would result is teams now having to build deeper rosters (rosters would have to be expanded) to hold serve when the star players are resting. You would get more lineup variation and more interesting long term strategic planning. This obviously wouldn't happen because fans "pay to see the stars," so there would obviously be a lot of dislike paying for a ticket to watch your club's B-team. I like it because the country and world is too fuckin' celebrity obsessed as it is. Sport over stars is my philosophy, and the NBA becomes a much better sport with a longer season.

Your suggestion to limit the MLB season to that many games would turn baseball into star dependent sport just the same. My team lost its two best players on offense and defense this season, yet they are making a charge because the farm hands they've developed are excelling, so for a fan of any given MLB team, there's no "melting down" when you lose a star, like in the NBA. If your club develops right, you can mitigate the impact of losing a star or multiple stars. Meanwhile, upstairs, it's an Armageddon-level meltdown about Kawhi. Kershaw is all time great pitcher, but if there were drama about him "wanting to leave" I wouldn't give a shit. No single player has a disproportional impact in baseball like in basketball. Shortening the season would place too much value on single players and make it impossible for a team to fade injuries to key players.

There are numerous reasons that playing 162 games makes little sense. You wouldn't need as many stars if the season was shortened but you'd still have to build your roster pretty much the same way except less pitching depth. And who, how often, has more than 3-4 really good starting pitchers? Who has more than 1-2 really good pitchers in the bullpen? It would just cut some of the fat out honestly.

And besides, regardless of how you build your roster, baseball is such a luck driven sport. A bounce here, a pitch there, a throw there, a missed opportunity on a bad pitch, a bad swing and a missed opportunity, a hit on a good pitch or lucky infield/bloop single, etc... Even the best of the best go entire games and sometimes multiple games in a row without a hit or making a significant offensive contribution. Like I said, the difference is often 35-40 games between teams, that you need to play that many games to determine the best team is ridiculous and to top it off, they usually break ties with one game playoffs after all of the flights, travel and games in 6 months. Why even play that long? Then the best team from the season usually never makes/wins the World Series.

[midnightpulp]

There are numerous reasons that playing 162 games makes little sense. You wouldn't need as many stars if the season was shortened but you'd still have to build your roster pretty much the same way except less pitching depth. And who, how often, has more than 3-4 really good starting pitchers? Who has more than 1-2 really good pitchers in the bullpen? It would just cut some of the fat out honestly.

And besides, regardless of how you build your roster, baseball is such a luck driven sport. A bounce here, a pitch there, a throw there, a missed opportunity on a bad pitch, a bad swing and a missed opportunity, a hit on a good pitch or lucky infield/bloop single. Even the best of the best go entire games and sometimes multiple games in a row without a hit or making a significant offensive contribution. Like I said, the difference is often 35-40 games between teams, that you need to play that many games to determine the best team is ridiculous and to top it off, they usually break ties with one game playoffs after all of the flights, travel and games in 6 months. Why even play that long? Then the best team from the season usually never makes/wins the World Series.

You're suggesting to shorten it to like 60 games. At that point, the formula is: sign two great starting pitchers and a closer and a couple of good bats.

The difference between bad and good teams can be 40 games, but not between the the top teams in the division. Baseball isn't luck driven.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/SzPh1zcynujtvB_kU3XGTWGydTo=/0x0:1920x1080/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:1920x1080)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8632327/continuum.png

But parity is better because the skill gap between teams is smaller since baseball's talent pool is larger than basketball's.

[Caltex2]

No, the NBA to 58-60. Baseball to 80-100. Basically every Thursday+weekend from April to September or every dayish for about three months.

I'd hate to be a player. Even if I grew up loving playing baseball, would I want to play it every day pretty much for six months? Only the starting pitchers take a sigh of relief, other than the three day recovery from pitching their asses off.

I consider you really intelligent in this debate but that will change if you say things like baseball not being luck driven. Skills are very important, throwing a 100 MPH fastball is nothing to sneeze at nor is hitting one but few sports are more about luck and random chance than baseball. It's just that you statistically expect certain results after a certain period of time.

[midnightpulp]

No, the NBA to 58-60. Baseball to 80-100. Basically every Thursday+weekend from April to September or every dayish for about three months.

I'd hate to be a player. Even if I grew up loving playing baseball, would I want to play it every day pretty much for six months? Only the starting pitchers take a sigh of relief, other than the three day recovery from pitching their asses off.

I consider you really intelligent in this debate but that will change if you say things like baseball not being luck driven. Skills are very important, throwing a 100 MPH fastball is nothing to sneeze at nor is hitting one but few sports are more about luck and random chance than baseball. It's just that you statistically expect certain results after a certain period of time.

It's not any more so than other sports. Stats confirm it, and baseball used to have some of the worst parity in American sports during its golden age. "Luck driven" implies you or I would have equal chance at success during an AB as a professional baseball player, like we would if we all bought a lottery ticket. Even over a 5 pitch sample size, we would not outperform an MLB player. Shifts works because of this fact. Hitters have patterns. Making contact doesn't randomly send the ball anywhere and everywhere. Even over short sample size knockout tournaments like the World Baseball Classic. Japan, the Dominican, and the US have won every tournament, and these are the top 3 baseball countries in the world (Venezuela aside).

[apalisoc_9]

:lmao baseball fans triggered with a reliable source.

[midnightpulp]

I would be okay with a 100 games if they could increase ABs per game. I've said before pro baseball games used to take around 1:30 way back when. 2:30 is a nice time for a sporting event, so if players play with pace, we could theoretically have 90 out baseball over 9 innings, meaning 5 outs to get out of every half-inning. This translates into more balls in play, seeing more of the Mike Trouts, Aaron Judges, Altuves, etc on offense, seeing more great fielding on defense (more balls in play, more chances of a defensive highlight), and less pitching dominance since pitchers would have to pace themselves and pitch to more contact.

[midnightpulp]

:lmao baseball fans triggered with a reliable source.

We're not even talking about your idiotic OP. Povertyball forum is that way>>>. Go watch another thrilling 1-0, 1-1 game.

[Clipper Nation]

:lmao baseball fans triggered with a reliable source.
:lol Cowturd is one of the least reliable sources for anything.

[Caltex2]

@MNP

I think you have some things confused. Just because some average people on the street can't duplicate MLB players (or any major sports except maybe the NBA, golf and soccer) doesn't mean baseball isn't driven by luck. As a matter of fact, every pitch and result is total random chance but you except a certain percentage of results to ensue. There's no skill involved in a check swing infield single other than speed. There's no skill in a fielder standing in front of a very hard hit ball.

[midnightpulp]

@MNP

I think you have some things confused. Just because some average people on the street can't duplicate MLB players (or any major sports except maybe the NBA, golf and soccer) doesn't mean baseball isn't driven by luck. As a matter of fact, every pitch and result is total random chance but you except a certain percentage of results to ensue. There's no skill involved in a check swing infield single other than speed. There's no skill in a fielder standing in front of a very hard hit ball.

There is skill involved in making contact on a check swing. Again, you nor I could check swing and make contact with a Major League pitcher. The skill factor here is the fact the batter made contact at all. so his action was rewarded with a hit. Catching a very hard hit ball and then throwing it accurately over some 60-150 feet is pretty damn skillful. Catching a 110 mph line drive is a skill. We aren't getting up from the chair and doing that either.

I can say the same for all sports. No skill when a shooter chucks a bad shot and the rebound wildly caroms right to a player (something that happens in basketball a lot these days, but since basketball has a large sample size of shots over a game, the luck factor of this event is mitigated somewhat). In soccer, a player can send 3 or 4 wild shots in a row that completely miss the goal and then his 5th shot deflects off a defender into the net. Clipper Nation can tell you all about the "lucky bounces" that happen in a hockey game. But luck is when skill meets opportunity. The soccer player still put himself into position to shoot those shots through skill. The basketball player still had to catch the ball and secure the rebound. The hockey player still had to generate a rebound. The baseball player still had to make contact.

[spurraider21]

nobody talking about missi?

[midnightpulp]

nobody talking about missi?

Who?

[140]

Who?
Mid's first good take on football :wow

[Caltex2]

There is skill involved in making contact on a check swing. Again, you nor I could check swing and make contact with a Major League pitcher. The skill factor here is the fact the batter made contact at all. so his action was rewarded with a hit. Catching a very hard hit ball and then throwing it accurately over some 60-150 feet is pretty damn skillful. Catching a 110 mph line drive is a skill. We aren't getting up from the chair and doing that either.

I can say the same for all sports. No skill when a shooter chucks a bad shot and the rebound wildly caroms right to a player (something that happens in basketball a lot these days, but since basketball has a large sample size of shots over a game, the luck factor of this event is mitigated somewhat). In soccer, a player can send 3 or 4 wild shots in a row that completely miss the goal and then his 5th shot deflects off a defender into the net. Clipper Nation can tell you all about the "lucky bounces" that happen in a hockey game. But luck is when skill meets opportunity. The soccer player still put himself into position to shoot those shots through skill. The basketball player still had to catch the ball and secure the rebound. The hockey player still had to generate a rebound. The baseball player still had to make contact.

Come on though...baseball is about skill, preparation but is half as much about chance and skill. Even the mathematical wizard Billy Beane would tell you how much baseball is about luck as it is anything else. He said that his job was to get a team to the playoffs and anything beyond that is luck.

Obviously baseball players home their skills from childhood on and it's a sizable miracle for most to make it out the minors to the majors but the game itself is based on strategy, plus statistical expectation and random chance. In other words, playing the game itself is almost totally about random chance with a little bit of strategy and Statistics mixed in.

[Clipper Nation]

Come on though...baseball is about skill, preparation but is half as much about chance and skill. Even the mathematical wizard Billy Bean would tell you how much baseball is about luck as it is anything else. He said that his job was to get a team to the playoffs and anything beyond that is luck.
That's just the excuse Beane uses for his teams' lack of playoff success. Other analytics-minded franchises are competing for titles on a yearly basis.

[Caltex2]

That's just the excuse Beane uses for his teams' lack of playoff success. Other analytics-minded franchises are competing for titles on a yearly basis.

And then some win it seemingly totally randomly. Unlike basketball, where only 1 franchise has won a title in the last 30 or so years without an elite superstar, it's hardly routine for the best or second best team from the season to win the World Series. Many don't even advance past the first round, like the Indians last season (it's arguable the Astros were the best or second best team last year because they had nearly the same record but you get the point).

[midnightpulp]

Come on though...baseball is about skill, preparation but is half as much about chance and skill. Even the mathematical wizard Billy Beane would tell you how much baseball is about luck as it is anything else. He said that his job was to get a team to the playoffs and anything beyond that is luck.

Obviously baseball players home their skills from childhood on and it's a sizable miracle for most to make it out the minors to the majors but the game itself is based on strategy, plus statistical expectation and random chance. In other words, playing the game itself is almost totally about random chance with a little bit of strategy and Statistics mixed in.

Despite Beane's comments, the data actually doesn't support him. Read this article. https://www.wired.com/2012/11/luck-and-skill-untangled-qa-with-michael-mauboussin/

Baseball's "luck factor" is in the range of soccer and football's. There's also an interesting phenomenon called the Paradox of Skill, meaning the closer the skill gaps are, the bigger role luck plays in the outcome. As I said, baseball has a deeper talent pool than basketball, so the skill gap between teams isn't as a large. Again, if playing the game is about random chance why has the World Baseball Classic (a short sample size knockout tournament) been won by the 3 best baseball countries? Like many others I debate baseball with here (soccer crew) I don't think you understand how the game works. Does it have its moments of luck? Sure. But not more so than any other sport.

[Caltex2]

There is skill involved in making contact on a check swing. Again, you nor I could check swing and make contact with a Major League pitcher. The skill factor here is the fact the batter made contact at all. so his action was rewarded with a hit. Catching a very hard hit ball and then throwing it accurately over some 60-150 feet is pretty damn skillful. Catching a 110 mph line drive is a skill. We aren't getting up from the chair and doing that either.

I can say the same for all sports. No skill when a shooter chucks a bad shot and the rebound wildly caroms right to a player (something that happens in basketball a lot these days, but since basketball has a large sample size of shots over a game, the luck factor of this event is mitigated somewhat). In soccer, a player can send 3 or 4 wild shots in a row that completely miss the goal and then his 5th shot deflects off a defender into the net. Clipper Nation can tell you all about the "lucky bounces" that happen in a hockey game. But luck is when skill meets opportunity. The soccer player still put himself into position to shoot those shots through skill. The basketball player still had to catch the ball and secure the rebound. The hockey player still had to generate a rebound. The baseball player still had to make contact.

There's NO SKILL INVOLVED in a check swing hit because the hitter accidentally swung at what he thought was a bad pitch. It's like passing the ball and having it go in the hoop in basketball.

[midnightpulp]

There's NO SKILL INVOLVED in a check swing hit because the hitter accidentally swung at what he thought was a bad pitch. It's like passing the ball and having it go in the hoop in basketball.

Why do you keep bringing up events like that? Check swing singles are rare as hen's teeth. And no, a check swing isn't always about trying to hold up. It is also used as a defensive swing to foul a ball off. It that type of swing results in a fluke dribbler, then yes, skill was rewarded because the hitter made contact, even if it was contact he necessarily wasn't trying to manufacture. How about shooting an air ball that winds up as an alley oop "pass?" There's unintended flukes in every sport. Baseball has no more/no less of these.

[Caltex2]

Despite Beane's comments, the data actually doesn't support him. Read this article. https://www.wired.com/2012/11/luck-and-skill-untangled-qa-with-michael-mauboussin/

Baseball's "luck factor" is in the range of soccer and football's. There's also an interesting phenomenon called the Paradox of Skill, meaning the closer the skill gaps are, the bigger role luck plays in the outcome. As I said, baseball has a deeper talent pool than basketball, so the skill gap between teams isn't as a large. Again, if playing the game is about random chance why has the World Baseball Classic (a short sample size knockout tournament) been won by the 3 best baseball countries? Like many others I debate baseball with here (soccer crew) I don't think you understand how the game works. Does it have its moments of luck? Sure. But not more so than any other sport.

The playing field isn't even in the WBC and not all of the best players play. Bad analogy and it still doesn't change the point. Baseball is about chance and luck but the lucky and unlucky breaks statistically even out over time thanks to skill, preparation and quantity.

In football, there's luck but only so much luck is gonna even a game between Michigan and Indiana State. Whereas in baseball, no one would have been surprised if the Royals swept the Astros because despite the Astros having far superior personnel, baseball can be changed by hot/fluky pitching, hot fluky hitting and bad bullpens as well as a play here and there.

[midnightpulp]

The playing field isn't even in the WBC and not all of the best players play. Bad analogy and it still doesn't change the point. Baseball is about chance and luck but the lucky and unlucky breaks statistically even out over time thanks to skill, preparation and quantity.

In football, there's luck but only so much luck is gonna even a game between Michigan and Indiana State. Whereas in baseball, no one would have been surprised if the Royals swept the Astros because despite the Astros having far superior personnel, baseball can be changed by hot/fluky pitching, hot fluky hitting and bad bullpens as well as a play here and there.

Only the US doesn't send its best players. The other International teams do. And we still had a very squad last year. Do you realize why pitching and hitting "gets hot/cold?" It's usually due to better/worse execution. You brought up the Indians earlier. The reason they lost to the Yankees in the ALDS wasn't because of variance, but because their pitching didn't execute up to par. Corey Kluber could not execute his bread-and-butter payoff pitches worth a shit in that series. He was leaving hangers and wasn't getting the movement he usually does. This fact holds true throughout the year in baseball. Every time a pitcher goes through a "slump," it's not because he's cold and luck isn't on his side. When they breakdown pitchers in question on sites like fangraphs trying to diagnose the issue, they usually find a reduction in average velocity, less movement, less accuracy (meaning falling behind in more counts), it could be a mechanical issues, like tipping pitches with different arm slots (a pitcher seeks to make a slider and fastball look identical coming out of the hand. If his body language is different per each pitch, he'll get hammered). When a pitcher is having a bad game, it's exactly the same thing as a QB having a bad game because he's missing open receivers by throwing inaccurate and bad passes. Difference is, you can clearly see a QB fuckin' up when he throws ducks as opposed to a baseball pitcher whose fuck ups come down to missed inches and 2 or 3mph differences, but make no mistake, those differences are big.

Pitchers aren't just trying to "throw strikes," they are trying to locate pitches into very specific areas. The better pitchers hit those small targets more frequently, just like better shooters in basketball hit their targets more frequently. The same thing occurs when hitters slump. They're not executing, not just going cold.

[FkLA]

You can make pick up games of all sports out of trash. Difference is, you can play soccer that more closely resembles the real thing far more cheaply than you can play baseball. Find an open field, a ratty hand me down ball, some trashcans to mark off goals, and you have a decent representation of the sport. It can also be played in a variety of different sized spaces (think indoor or street soccer). You need a large space to play baseball. Baseball on a basketball court sized area would be fuckin' stupid. No kid wants to just hit a ball 90 feet. You need decent distance between bases, too short, and you'd never throw anyone out. Balls are a bit harder to come by because make shift balls out of wadded tape, paper, whatever get destroyed practically as soon as they're hit. Tennis balls also don't last long. You want something hard and durable, and then you need gloves.

Soccer is just way more accessible. I live in a pretty wide open suburban neighborhood, with a 150 x 75 foot field next door. That's a decent size space not many people have immediate access too and it's still too small and narrow to really play decent baseball, especially given the fact there's a building on the left and houses and parked cars on the right, so hardball is out of the question. Only baseball you can really play is homerun derby with whiffle balls and every time I take my friend's kid out there to hit, we lose balls to the roof of the building. But it's a perfect area for 5 on 5 soccer.

Pretty sure space isn't an issue in third world countries.

http://boomsurfandfish.com/uploads/1/1/5/0/115062787/baseball_orig.jpg

https://biaaw.weebly.com/uploads/8/1/1/7/8117464/9310709_orig.jpg

[FkLA]

Truth is, if fatball had anywhere near the popularity soccer does then kids in third world countries would find a way to play it. When I used to go to Mexico as a kid, there were kids from families that were pretty poor but they found a way to have nice soccer cleats. The people that were better off or people that were over in the States would also sponsor youth teams with uniforms for competitions with surrounding small towns.

It already happens in poor baseball crazy countries in the Caribbean or others like Venezuela. The demand just isn't there outside of those select few. Has nothing to do with it being too "expensive".

[Caltex2]

Why do you keep bringing up events like that? Check swing singles are rare as hen's teeth. And no, a check swing isn't always about trying to hold up. It is also used as a defensive swing to foul a ball off. It that type of swing results in a fluke dribbler, then yes, skill was rewarded because the hitter made contact, even if it was contact he necessarily wasn't trying to manufacture. How about shooting an air ball that winds up as an alley oop "pass?" There's unintended flukes in every sport. Baseball has no more/no less of these.

An intentional check swing to foul a pitch off is one thing. I'm more talking about an obvious accidental wind up or safe, slow bat turn that somehow not only finds its way into play but ends up as a hit.

Those are rare but an example of baseball's fluke circumstance. Many hits are about skill but many are just luck/chance and the exact same for outs. The point is that these even out over time thanks to quantity. But there's very little quantity in the playoffs, which is why the best teams from the season basically have a 50/50 shot in any game despite often having the better overall team.

[midnightpulp]

Pretty sure space isn't an issue in third world countries.

http://boomsurfandfish.com/uploads/1/1/5/0/115062787/baseball_orig.jpg

https://biaaw.weebly.com/uploads/8/1/1/7/8117464/9310709_orig.jpg

Nice cherry picks. Brazilian favelas have loads of space, sure.

[midnightpulp]

Truth is, if fatball had anywhere near the popularity soccer does then kids in third world countries would find a way to play it. When I used to go to Mexico as a kid, there were kids from families that were pretty poor but they found a way to have nice soccer cleats. The people that were better off or people that were over in the States would also sponsor youth teams with uniforms for competitions with surrounding small towns.

It already happens in poor baseball crazy countries in the Caribbean or others like Venezuela. The demand just isn't there outside of those select few. Has nothing to do with it being too "expensive".

Nothing changes the fact that baseball is just flat out more expensive to play and requires more space, which not all third world communities have easy access to, despite your cherry picks. I'm not suggesting baseball would be the world's sport or anything if it were cheaper, just that soccer is the "world's sport" for many reasons other than this biased subjective notion that it's inherently "more fun" to play than all other sports. I find that opinion arrogant (not mention an appeal to the popularity fallacy), as if soccer is some flawless gift from the heavens that naturally captivates everyone and anyone as soon as they play it.

[FkLA]

Nice cherry picks. Brazilian favelas have loads of space, sure.

Ironic. Most poor countries aren't as densely populated as Brazilian favelas are. That's cherry picking.

[midnightpulp]

An intentional check swing to foul a pitch off is one thing. I'm more talking about an obvious accidental wind up or safe, slow bat turn that somehow not only finds its way into play but ends up as a hit.

Those are rare but an example of baseball's fluke circumstance. Many hits are about skill but many are just luck/chance and the exact same for outs. The point is that these even out over time thanks to quantity. But there's very little quantity in the playoffs, which is why the best teams from the season basically have a 50/50 shot in any game despite often having the better overall team.

That might be the case, but it's because of the skill gap differences. The top 6 teams will usually have comparable pitching staff and offensive talent. In basketball, there's really only 3 or 4 players who can be said to be championship centerpieces in any given era. The talent gap in baseball won't be as large between the team with the best record and the wild card winner as it is between the 1st and 8th seed in the NBA. Paradox of Skill. Closer talent is in skill, luck plays a bigger role. I'm just countering the idea that whether or not a pitch winds up a good pitch or contact winds up a hit is a random event. It's really not. For us at the batting cages, yes, which is where I think a lot of the misconception about hitting comes from. We us average Joes go to the cages, we're basically just swinging wildly and send the ball unpredictably all over the place. Major league hitting doesn't work like that. They do have a plan and are trying to specific things.

[FkLA]

Nothing changes the fact that baseball is just flat out more expensive to play and requires more space, which not all third world communities have easy access to, despite your cherry picks. I'm not suggesting baseball would be the world's sport or anything if it were cheaper, just that soccer is the "world's sport" for many reasons other than this biased subjective notion that it's inherently "more fun" to play than all other sports. I find that opinion arrogant (not mention an appeal to the popularity fallacy), as if soccer is some flawless gift from the heavens that naturally captivates everyone and anyone as soon as they play it.

Ok, let's say fatball is slightly more expensive. What exactly is the point of mentioning that when poor caribbean kids still find a way to play it? Poor Venezuelan kids do too. Yet you want to talk about arrogance?

I'm not the one that made the comment that soccer is inherently "more fun". But it's also pretty dumb to think soccer has become as big as it has globally because it's cheap to play and because of British imperialism. :lol

[midnightpulp]

Ironic. Most poor countries aren't as densely populated as Brazilian favelas are. That's cherry picking.

The most populated areas in poor countries tend to be urban areas with high population densities. The rural areas where the space is at aren't as populated, and access to these areas by some type of vehicle isn't in the cards for the poor people who live in those urban areas.

[midnightpulp]

Ok, let's say fatball is slightly more expensive. What exactly is the point of mentioning that when poor caribbean kids still find a way to play it? Poor Venezuelan kids do too. Yet you want to talk about arrogance?

I'm not the one that made the comment that soccer is inherently "more fun". But it's also pretty dumb to think soccer has become as big as it has globally because it's cheap to play and because of British imperialism. :lol

Yeah, that idea is so "dumb" they turned a convoluted sport like cricket into the 2nd most popular sport in the world (there's the India factor, but even if you remove India, the cricket player base would still be about half-a-billion). And yes, the cheapest things (even if that cheap thing is a dollar less expensive) tend to be more accessible.

A lot of those poor baseball countries are subsidized by MLB initiatives that set up fields, provide equipment, etc.

Which sport is fatball? American football?

[FkLA]

The most populated areas in poor countries tend to be urban areas with high population densities. The rural areas where the space is at aren't as populated, and access to these areas by some type of vehicle isn't in the cards for the poor people who live in those urban areas.

So there aren't any big fields within urban areas in other poor countries? All of them are set up like Brazilian favelas are?

[Caltex2]

FkLA

It's cheap to play and there are heroes for young kids. There's basically no baseball players outside the Americas and almost none south of the Amazon. You've got a hotspot in East Asia outside the People's Republic and that's pretty much every baseball playing country in the world.

[midnightpulp]

So there aren't any big fields within urban areas in other poor countries? All of them are set up like Brazilian favelas are?

If the urban sprawl in 3rd world countries works like it does in the US, then yeah, big fields are harder to come by. The point is a couple of kids can play a decent game of soccer on the narrow street right outside of their house before dinner. To play baseball and have any fun with it, you need an area where you can at least hit the ball hard, since the thing kids most enjoy about baseball is batting and seeing how far they can hit. In my neighborhood, there's one spot in about a 10 block radius that's simply decent for baseball, and not real baseball or even tennis ball baseball, but something like whiffle ball. There's multiple areas where you can play soccer. There's these grass dividers (about 60 feet wide) that run for about 2 miles. Baseball is a no go. Too narrow, cars and houses nearby. Perfect for soccer.

[midnightpulp]

FkLA

It's cheap to play and there are heroes for young kids. There's basically no baseball players outside the Americas and almost none south of the Amazon. You've got a hotspot in East Asia outside the People's Republic and that's pretty much every baseball playing country in the world.

Soccer also has the advantage of the busy work factor. Even if a kid totally sucks, he can still have a degree of "fun" running around and chasing the ball and kicking it around. A shitty kid will not have any fun playing baseball. He will most likely not even get a foul tip over the course of the Little League season and fuck up every ball hit to him. Seen it myself. I remember this kid who struck out EVERY time up, and the one time he fouled a ball, it was like a fuckin' miracle. There was another kid who did the same and then in his last at bat of the season laced a double. We all cheered him on and coach gave him the game ball. On that point, I will admit that sports like soccer have more of an inherent fun factor than bat-and-ball sports, since bat-and-ball sports (cricket, baseball) punish skill deficiency a lot more than goal sports. I just don't think soccer is that much different conceptually than sports like basketball, handball, Gaelic, Aussie rules, etc, so the reason it ascended over the sports has to do with other factors than soccer just being "more fun to play."

[pookenstein]

Why does the world love it?

I don't think Americans hate soccer generally speaking. I bought the very first FIFA back in '94. I continued to buy soccer video games up until about '99. I've watched every World Cup to some degree since '94 (wont' be watching this year). I simply don't think the sport is worth investing time in over US sports (which I find better designed, and which is an opinion I can write a fuckin' dissertation on vs. soccer, so me turning my nose up at soccer isn't out of Murrican pride). If I'm going to invest time into a soccer-like sport, it would be something like Gaelic or Aussie Rules (more of a Rugby-like sport), which I find better designed. My opinion is that soccer is one sport of many and unlike soccer nuts, I don't think the sport is some proverbial gift from God that is intrinsically superior to other sports.

And no, appeal to popularity is a fallacy. It grew through British imperialism, not because the peoples of the world "saw the light." And if you don't think that was a factor, the Brits managed to make a sport you would find more boring than baseball the 2nd most popular in the world.

:lol rest of the world embracing the NFL? On what planet? They hate it. I get it's popular in Mexico and Canada, but most other countries find it slow, plodding, unskillful, and absolutely despise the fact we call it "football," (even though American football has more of a right to be called football than soccer does).

LMFAO. The time you invest to "educate"/debate/troll the guys around here alone, everytime a Football vs American Football/Baseball thread opens up, says otherwise.

[Silver&Black]

https://i.imgur.com/PNunvJs.jpg

[midnightpulp]

LMFAO. The time you invest to "educate"/debate/troll the guys around here alone, everytime a Football vs American Football/Baseball thread opens up, says otherwise.

Lol. I don't even bring up soccer in those debates. And it's not usually soccer vs baseball anyway, but posters saying dumb shit about baseball, etc that bring me in.

[tholdren]

Lol. I don't even bring up soccer in those debates. And it's not usually soccer vs baseball anyway, but posters saying dumb shit about baseball, etc that bring me in.

Baseball is what you do if you cant play football soccer basketball track or hockey.

[midnightpulp]

Baseball is what you do if you cant play football soccer basketball track or hockey.

That's why there's many more instances of athletes washing out of pro baseball and doing better in another sport than the other way around.

[pookenstein]

Lol. I don't even bring up soccer in those debates. And it's not usually soccer vs baseball anyway, but posters saying dumb shit about baseball, etc that bring me in.

Doesn't matter who brings Football up. You can't resist replying, often in good length. For that you have to invest time in the sport because you want to make a point. By the way, I don't have a problem with you/your takes although I'm a big Football Fan (even work for the German FA) and think that Baseball is boring as fuck...

[midnightpulp]

Doesn't matter who brings Football up. You can't resist replying, often in good length. For that you have to invest time in the sport because you want to make a point. By the way, I don't have a problem with you/your takes although I'm a big Football Fan (even work for the German FA) and think that Baseball is boring as fuck...

Those lengthy replies are talking about baseball not soccer. Read the replies instead of assuming it's something about soccer vs. baseball.

[pookenstein]

Those lengthy replies are talking about baseball not soccer. Read the replies instead of assuming it's something about soccer vs. baseball.

I've read quite a few. And they're not all talking about Baseball. Some have been about Football, in some you compared Football (& players) with Baseball/American Footall (players), which takes an investment of time...

[Pavlov]

Soccer's in a weird spot in the US. It's definitely got grass root growth because fuck having your kid getting multiple concussions playing football. But the USMNT is an absolute embarrassment right now, so no World Cup bump until the women play. The way to make real money is still through TV, and soccer is the absolute worst sport for TV outside of cricket. Also, TV is just going away as something people watch in general, so now what? PPV/subscription is the best way to view but free ad-supported streaming looks to be the future for most. Again, it's a question of monetizing the game for American viewers as is or changing the game to accommodate the way people want to view it. Some indoor leagues tried the latter IIRC, but where are they now?

Good luck.

[Spurtacular]

Soccer is more interesting on the whole; but MLS has to stop being a retirement league. There's definitely gradual improvement if you watch MLS today vs. MLS 90's; but it's still pretty bad.

[midnightpulp]

Soccer is more interesting on the whole; but MLS has to stop being a retirement league. There's definitely gradual improvement if you watch MLS today vs. MLS 90's; but it's still pretty bad.

The only factor that could possibly turn soccer into a major sport are "changing demographics." As it is, the American sports and entertainment landscape is too crowded for really any sport to penetrate the Big 4 right now, especially with how entertainment tastes are more fractured than ever. Sports basically only competed with sitcoms on television back in the day. Now sports have to compete with countless streaming options, video games, social media, etc, etc. I think the percentage of US citizens who have no interest in sports is at an all-time high.

[Spurtacular]

The only factor that could possibly turn soccer into a major sport are "changing demographics." As it is, the American sports and entertainment landscape is too crowded for really any sport to penetrate the Big 4 right now, especially with how entertainment tastes are more fractured than ever. Sports basically only competed with sitcoms on television back in the day. Now sports have to compete with countless streaming options, video games, social media, etc, etc. I think the percentage of US citizens who have no interest in sports is at an all-time high.

I shouldn't say soccer is better than baseball; that's just my current bias because I appreciate sports that require high fitness the most (of the Big Five). Yea, baseball is entrenched in American society and most Americans find it more fun to watch, definitely. I don't see that dynamic changing for a while yet regardless of demographics. The average US fan of anything wants stars. That's not what the MLS is bringing. At some point when that maybe changes, then I think we'll see soccer in America rise. TBH, this is why international factions played havoc on the US in the previous four World Cups. If we had won one, too many millions would've flowed out of Europe.

[midnightpulp]

I shouldn't say soccer is better than baseball; that's just my current bias because I appreciate sports that require high fitness the most (of the Big Five). Yea, baseball is entrenched in American society and most Americans find it more fun to watch, definitely. I don't see that dynamic changing for a while yet regardless of demographics. The average US fan of anything wants stars. That's not what the MLS is bringing. At some point when that maybe changes, then I think we'll see soccer in America rise. TBH, this is why international factions played havoc on the US in the previous four World Cups. If we had won one, too many millions would've flowed out of Europe.

The thing the baseball haters don't get on here (not you, as I know you're a baseball fan) is that they think soccer's rise will somehow claim baseball as its first victim or something. What they don't understand is that baseball fans (who are also hockey, basketball, NFL fans, etc) don't watch baseball for an "action packed" experience in terms of watching players constantly move around. Baseball is very much the dramatic thriller to those other sports action movies. Baseball's comparative uniqueness will always ensure it a place as a "big" sport here. It'll likely be basketball and hockey lowered on the pecking order if soccer were to "rise," since soccer is closest in design to those sports.

[spursistan]

wrong thread..

[Caltex2]

What'll guarantee it a place is that people grew up playing and watching it. Generations of kids have been taken to baseball games in the US, going back 100 if not over 125 years. It's the same with soccer overseas, people grew up playing and watching it, because it's cheap/easy to play and because they wanted to emulate their heroes.

Both are boring games to watch regularly, something soccer has over baseball. At least soccer is usually no more than two matches per team per week, baseball runs thin because they play almost EVERY SINGLE DAY for six months.

[StylisticS]

I seen a poll that baseball is still way more popular with people over the age 55 and over and still the 2nd most popular sport behind football. Under 55, and soccer not only is more popular than baseball, it's up there with basketball. In fact, with people ages 18-34, soccer and basketball are tied. It's hard to say if the sport is growing because of the MLS. It's improved but it still isn't any better than maybe England's League one, let alone the Championship and Premier League.

[Caltex2]

MLS is non-starter. Immigration has played a huge role as has greater global mass communication.

[HarlemHeat37]

I'm loving the WC, watching a ton, but gotta post this one for my man mid:lol

1013807002051579907