NBA: Baseball is devoid of creativity and Imagination...

[apalisoc_9]

tbh.....

[midnightpulp]

Define creativity and imagination as it relates to sports.

[Mitch]

Sounds like you'd prefer to watch male gymnastics and figure skating, tbh

[Avante]

Who watchs baseball looking for creativity and imagination? That's what pro rasslin' is for.

[midnightpulp]

Sounds like you'd prefer to watch male gymnastics and figure skating, tbh

[hater]

Its not devoid of fat asses thou

[midnightpulp]

Who watchs baseball looking for creativity and imagination? That's what pro rasslin' is for.

Soccer is like pro wrestling. I have to agree with Apa. Soccer players are the most imaginative and creative actors in sports.

[Spurtacular]

Sounds like you'd prefer to watch male gymnastics and figure skating, tbh

He probably would if gay porn was ever outlawed.

[midnightpulp]

Anyhow, I think this will be my last post in the soccer vs. baseball debate unless someone comes up with something interesting to say. It's a stupid debate anyhow, since only a complete idiot would think to compare a bat-and-ball sport to a sport like soccer. It's like comparing film to music, impossible to compare. Two different experiences. That said, here's the best sports on the planet (time for some nerd-dom):

Best "eggball" sport. American football. Overall, probably the best designed guys on a rectangle sport there is.

Best bat-and-ball sport. Baseball (cricket is nice, but limited overs is gimmicky in' and Test cricket can have a end game).

Best "goal sport." Ice hockey. More impressive passing than soccer (which is the main selling point of soccer), more impressive one-on-one play, higher scoring, better penalty system, greater tension since a shot-on-goal is produced like every minute. More tactical due to having to build line-shifts. Basketball is also a goal sport, but basketball, as much as I like it, is hugely flawed (not just talking about the 3 point line, either).

Best net sport. Tennis.

Best combat sport. Boxing. MMAGAY

No other sport like it: Golf.

[jehawk81]

Anyhow, I think this will be my last post in the soccer vs. baseball debate unless someone comes up with something interesting to say. It's a stupid debate anyhow, since only a complete idiot would think to compare a bat-and-ball sport to a sport like soccer. It's like comparing film to music, impossible to compare. Two different experiences. That said, here's the best sports on the planet (time for some nerd-dom):

Best "eggball" sport. American football. Overall, probably the best designed guys on a rectangle sport there is.

Best bat-and-ball sport. Baseball (cricket is nice, but limited overs is gimmicky in' and Test cricket can have a end game).

Best "goal sport." Ice hockey. More impressive passing than soccer (which is the main selling point of soccer), more impressive one-on-one play, higher scoring, better penalty system, greater tension since a shot-on-goal is produced like every minute. More tactical due to having to build line-shifts. Basketball is also a goal sport, but basketball, as much as I like it, is hugely flawed (not just talking about the 3 point line, either).

Best net sport. Women's volleyball

Best combat sport. Boxing. MMAGAY

No other sport like it: Golf.

FIFY

[Robz4000]

Is this a record low for handjobball? I think so.

[Pelicans78]

Its not devoid of fat asses thou

Neither is American football.

[Splits]

The tens of posts in the MLB forum this season begs to differ...

[K...]

Op is the baseball of trolls, always using the most vanilla takes over and over. Always going way too long with a bit. Comes up with one good take after dozens of attempts ( "my sources...lol")

[midnightpulp]

Op is the baseball of trolls, always using the most vanilla takes over and over. Always going way too long with a bit. Comes up with one good take after dozens of attempts ( "my sources...lol")

Don't insult baseball like that.

[Down Under]

Anyhow, I think this will be my last post in the soccer vs. baseball debate unless someone comes up with something interesting to say. It's a stupid debate anyhow, since only a complete idiot would think to compare a bat-and-ball sport to a sport like soccer. It's like comparing film to music, impossible to compare. Two different experiences. That said, here's the best sports on the planet (time for some nerd-dom):

Best "eggball" sport. American football. Overall, probably the best designed guys on a rectangle sport there is.

Best bat-and-ball sport. Baseball (cricket is nice, but limited overs is gimmicky in' and Test cricket can have a end game).

Best "goal sport." Ice hockey. More impressive passing than soccer (which is the main selling point of soccer), more impressive one-on-one play, higher scoring, better penalty system, greater tension since a shot-on-goal is produced like every minute. More tactical due to having to build line-shifts. Basketball is also a goal sport, but basketball, as much as I like it, is hugely flawed (not just talking about the 3 point line, either).

Best net sport. Tennis.

Best combat sport. Boxing. MMAGAY

No other sport like it: Golf.

Can't say I've watched much baseball, but cricket (despite the fact Test cricket is dying) seems as though you can play orthodox scoring shots for 270 degrees around the bat. Also, the way batsmen are able to time & place the ball, seems more consistent than baseball. Obviously in terms of explosive hitting, baseball is a lot better, though there have been a few 6's hit in excess of 500 feet which is good for athletes who aren't strong. T20 is crap (too much luck), but 50 over cricket has some balance between the two.

[midnightpulp]

Can't say I've watched much baseball, but cricket (despite the fact Test cricket is dying) seems as though you can play orthodox scoring shots for 270 degrees around the bat. Also, the way batsmen are able to time & place the ball, seems more consistent than baseball. Obviously in terms of explosive hitting, baseball is a lot better, though there have been a few 6's hit in excess of 500 feet which is good for athletes who aren't strong. T20 is crap (too much luck), but 50 over cricket has some balance between the two.

Well yes, the sweet spot of a cricket bat is much wider than a baseball bat and is flat. Funny enough, I found a cricket bat here in So Cal cleaning out a garage. It's really, really easy to make contact and "direct" the ball. But that's the way cricket is designed, as you know. It's supposed to be hard as for the bowlers/fielders to get a batsman out. Cricket and baseball are very much inversions of each other. Cricket batsman (especially your middle order batters) are kind of like baseball pitchers in the sense they're expected to stay at the crease for a good while and run up a score to put pressure on, while bowlers take turns at him. A pitcher is expected to run up his score via getting batters out while batters take turns going at him.

Where I find fault in cricket is obviously the T20 format (glorified homerun derby with small boundaries) and even ODI. Even with 50 overs, it's still possible for a couple of batsmen to win the game by themselves, so you never get to see any other batters and all the additional tactics and strategy that come with that. I also think bat-and-ball games shouldn't have a "clock" on them, which limited overs essentially are. Test cricket is the purest form of the sport, but as I'm sure you know, its end game can be sketchy when a team is getting slaughtered run wise and plays defensively for 8 hours to squeak out a draw.

Great sport, though. I just think it needs a proper form. Some more sports nerdom here. There's actually never been a cricket shot over 500 feet. Good read.

http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/sto...e-longest-shot

We had that kind of mythologizing in baseball too, with Ruth hitting 600 footers and the like. Just not possible.

[Down Under]

Well yes, the sweet spot of a cricket bat is much wider than a baseball bat and is flat. Funny enough, I found a cricket bat here in So Cal cleaning out a garage. It's really, really easy to make contact and "direct" the ball. But that's the way cricket is designed, as you know. It's supposed to be hard as for the bowlers/fielders to get a batsman out. Cricket and baseball are very much inversions of each other. Cricket batsman (especially your middle order batters) are kind of like baseball pitchers in the sense they're expected to stay at the crease for a good while and run up a score to put pressure on, while bowlers take turns at him. A pitcher is expected to run up his score via getting batters out while batters take turns going at him.

Where I find fault in cricket is obviously the T20 format (glorified homerun derby with small boundaries) and even ODI. Even with 50 overs, it's still possible for a couple of batsmen to win the game by themselves, so you never get to see any other batters and all the additional tactics and strategy that come with that. I also think bat-and-ball games shouldn't have a "clock" on them, which limited overs essentially are. Test cricket is the purest form of the sport, but as I'm sure you know, its end game can be sketchy when a team is getting slaughtered run wise and plays defensively for 8 hours to squeak out a draw.

Great sport, though. I just think it needs a proper form. Some more sports nerdom here. There's actually never been a cricket shot over 500 feet. Good read.

http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/sto...e-longest-shot

We had that kind of mythologizing in baseball too, with Ruth hitting 600 footers and the like. Just not possible.

I wouldn't believe any distances quoted from 20+ years ago, the bats have changed so much since then (the credible 450 feet hit in 2005 I was actually at that game ) .Another thing which is good, is the difference in pitches. The fastest ones here & South Africa, the Aussie bowlers ball a lot of short stuff, which can be pretty intimidating, especially as cracks open up on the 4th and 5th day of a test & it's funny watching the poms and teams from sub continent often struggle with the pace (in excess of 90mph when the ball is flying at their head). Conversely, when we play on the dustbowls in the sub-continent we are crap because the ball dies and & the temptation to hit a horizontal bat shot, which our players are almost raised on, is too high. Placement & timing, which is obviously easier with flat bats, is always going to be my biggest issue with baseball, but there's nothing you can really do about it, it's pretty in hard with a round bat.

[midnightpulp]

I wouldn't believe any distances quoted from 20+ years ago, the bats have changed so much since then (the credible 450 feet hit in 2005 I was actually at that game ) .Another thing which is good, is the difference in pitches. The fastest ones here & South Africa, the Aussie bowlers ball a lot of short stuff, which can be pretty intimidating, especially as cracks open up on the 4th and 5th day of a test & it's funny watching the poms and teams from sub continent often struggle with the pace (in excess of 90mph when the ball is flying at their head). Conversely, when we play on the dustbowls in the sub-continent we are crap because the ball dies and & the temptation to hit a horizontal bat shot, which our players are almost raised on, is too high. Placement & timing, which is obviously easier with flat bats, is always going to be my biggest issue with baseball, but there's nothing you can really do about it, it's pretty in hard with a round bat.

The Brett Lee shot, right? He was using a carbon fiber reinforced bat for that one, and it's still not confirmed if it flew that far in the air. Note, not trying to take cricketers to task for their "lack of power" or anything. I just think when you consider the aerodynamics and wood construction of a cricket bat to a baseball bat and the power hitting mechanics of cricketers, a 450 foot shot seems highly, highly unlikely.

Indeed. But like I said, it's interesting how the two sports are mirrored reversals of each other. Pitchers relative to bowlers have the greater placement and timing control since they're not required to run up and don't have to bounce the ball on pitches that can play unpredictably. In baseball, the batter is handicapped, while cricket handicaps the bowlers/fielders (360 degree field, no gloves, batters don't have to run).

Also, batting in baseball is actually more about the "eyes" than pure bat control. Where the batter tries to control the situation is through the count. If/when you watch baseball, focus on that. Here's a example.



One problem with baseball from a spectator POV is the perception that Stanton swung at a terrible pitch (TV is really, really bad showing the true movement of pitches). "How could he swing at that!?" So people just conclude a batter wildly swings and hopes for the best, and chalks up contact to luck. From Stanton's POV, that pitch looked like a sure fastball strike all the way until the last milliseconds. The pitcher also got CREATIVE (re: le of the OP) throwing that on a 3-2 count. Stanton is a good hitter, but the best hitters would be able to lay off that pitch (most of the time) and draw a walk. Basically, when a hitter is able to lay off a nasty out-of-the-zone pitch like that and regain control of the count, you appreciate it much in the same way as Tendulkar playing a nice defensive cover drive on a tough spinner for a run.

[dabom]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=267594&page=2

I got my paypal ready dude.

[midnightpulp]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=267594&page=2

I got my paypal ready dude.

You double-or-nothing'ed me on the Warriors/Spurs WCF.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post9010090

[dabom]

You double-or-nothing'ed me on the Warriors/Spurs WCF.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post9010090

I don't think so. Where is that post or message?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...m+midnightpulp

I see this thread that was locked. But you can see I wasn't thinking of betting.

I might have. I might not. But you need to find that post, not me...

[midnightpulp]

I don't think so. Where is that post or message?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...m+midnightpulp

I see this thread that was locked. But you can see I wasn't thinking of betting.

I might have. I might not. But you need to find that post, not me...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post9010090

[dabom]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post9010090

Your right.

Sorry for the bump.

[dabom]

Couldn't tell if that was last year or this year. We had similar bets.