Reply With Quote
maybe in logarithmic scale tbh.
jim duncan.gif
Soccer fans have to be the most insecure bunch out there. Give it up, we don't care about your boring ass sport and we never will.
Fifa is fun to play tho
Numbers disagree, as usual. On that note, where's your stats showing the win percentage/win expectancy of teams facing a one man deficit? That's right. You don't have any, per usual.
Again, numbers, stats, something besides your bull qualitative arguments. And once again, you show your lack of understanding how baseball works. Do you not understand what a 100% guaranteed free out would do to a lineup? It's not the same as a legit player going 0-4.Teams that play with a man down lose the vast majority of the time, whereas in baseball games multiple guys are constantly going hitless. How much more simple do you want it than that?
Not for the entire game, at least in hockey. I don't watch those other two ty sports, though.There are several games where you are left with a man down son: hockey, rugby, handball, etc. All way more entertaining and better than baseball. That's what you can do with sports where you actually have to move and run.
SureWhiffle ball games or not a flyball is a flyball and that isn't really hard to do, tbh.
Except he isn'tJust think: Messi is the GOAT of your "sport"
I can't find any numbers but i can tell you from experience, why don't you post some numbers?Again, numbers, stats, something besides your bull qualitative arguments. And once again, you show your lack of understanding how baseball works. Do you not understand what a 100% guaranteed free out would do to a lineup? It's not the same as a legit player going 0-4.
Not for the entire game, at least in hockey. I don't watch those other two ty sports, though.
Sure
You made the claim. Onus is on you. I simply countered your idea that an "average Joe" wouldn't affect a team's winning chances on a per game basis that much. Pujols example again. Him in the lineup (and only in the offensive portion of the lineup) reduces his team's production by .26 runs per game or about 6%. Let's put that 6% in a context you can understand. The Boston Celtics currently have a +4.5 point differential, averaging 102 points per game. A 6% hit in production to that team would bring down their per game average to about 96 points per game, translating into around a -2 point differential per game. Yes, a 6% dip affects winning chances that much.
And to reiterate, an Average Joe in the lineup on both offense and defense isn't at any all similar to a legit player. Even when legit players go hitless, they can still work pitch counts, trigger pitching changes, etc. An average Joe, being a 100% free out, would mean teams could attack other parts of the lineup more aggressively and pitch around others to ensure the Average Joe has more ABs in leverage situations (i.e. walking players to get to the average Joe). Defensively, a team knowing they have a schulb in right would be forced to do things like play their 2nd baseman deeper, shift their centerfielder over to the gap, it would take away half the strikezone from pitchers and limit their attack versatility. In you little Messi video, we saw he accelerated on the level of an NFL running back. Guess what? You want to play the outfield, you need that same acceleration.
Honestly, I have no idea what is a larger deficit: Average Joe in an MLB lineup, Average Joe in a pro soccer lineup. Given the similar roster sizes in both sports, I would say the win expectancy is probably similar. I'm just debunking your claim that you in the lineup wouldn't affect winning chances that much. If Pujols on offense alone is responsible for a 6% decline, imagine how an Average Joe would affect things.
so the viewership stats show it, yet you come here saying the stats are wrong ("nobody cares") and that we are insecure for just pointing out reality
see this https://www.forbes.com/sites/filipbo.../#738977093c53
Last edited by dfens; 01-27-2018 at 06:39 AM.
No they don't. See my latest reply in the other thread. And the info you linked is full of . If you can't see the flaw in that polling methodology to gauge overall fan interest in a sport, I don't know what to say. Even the author admits such.so the viewership stats show it, yet you come here saying the stats are wrong ("nobody cares") and that we are insecure for just pointing out reality
see this https://www.forbes.com/sites/filipbo.../#738977093c53
Gallup's more comprehensive poll (also done this year) shows just that.Not all is cut-and-dried. There are several important caveats that should be mentioned regarding these numbers. For one thing, Gallup did not ask participants to list their favorite sports in descending order. Perhaps few respondents who chose football as their No. 1 sport even bother to follow soccer at all, and might follow basketball or baseball. And none of the top three sports appear on their death bed. Major League Baseball, in particular, has made strides in attendance and TV ratings recently, demonstrating some zip in the old pastime after all.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/220562/p...campaign=tiles
The MLS gets crushed in fan interest by other (superior) sports, as well.
"But EPL, La Liga, International soccer!"
EPL: Women's golf numbers.
La Liga ratings: Late night bowling numbers.
International soccer (outside of the world cup): Pro Lumberjack level ratings.
Where are these "huge viewership" numbers than portend soccer's exponential growth into a major pro sport?
LeGOAT: 6'8"
Jim Brown: 6'2"
Barry Bonds: 6'2"
Gretzky: 6'0"
Messi: 5'7"
They might also say Maradona is the GOAT, and he's like 5'2" (real height). Messi is probably around 5'5" real height, since they measure in shoes today. I don't hate, though. Short people need sports they can become GOAT at, too.LeGOAT: 6'8"
Jim Brown: 6'2"
Barry Bonds: 6'2"
Gretzky: 6'0"
Messi: 5'7"
Except that wasn't my original comment and you know it. You just started to talk about an entire season to make it fit into your argument.You made the claim. Onus is on you. I simply countered your idea that an "average Joe" wouldn't affect a team's winning chances on a per game basis that much. Pujols example again. Him in the lineup (and only in the offensive portion of the lineup) reduces his team's production by .26 runs per game or about 6%. Let's put that 6% in a context you can understand. The Boston Celtics currently have a +4.5 point differential, averaging 102 points per game. A 6% hit in production to that team would bring down their per game average to about 96 points per game, translating into around a -2 point differential per game. Yes, a 6% dip affects winning chances that much.
And to reiterate, an Average Joe in the lineup on both offense and defense isn't at any all similar to a legit player. Even when legit players go hitless, they can still work pitch counts, trigger pitching changes, etc. An average Joe, being a 100% free out, would mean teams could attack other parts of the lineup more aggressively and pitch around others to ensure the Average Joe has more ABs in leverage situations (i.e. walking players to get to the average Joe). Defensively, a team knowing they have a schulb in right would be forced to do things like play their 2nd baseman deeper, shift their centerfielder over to the gap, it would take away half the strikezone from pitchers and limit their attack versatility. In you little Messi video, we saw he accelerated on the level of an NFL running back. Guess what? You want to play the outfield, you need that same acceleration.
Honestly, I have no idea what is a larger deficit: Average Joe in an MLB lineup, Average Joe in a pro soccer lineup. Given the similar roster sizes in both sports, I would say the win expectancy is probably similar. I'm just debunking your claim that you in the lineup wouldn't affect winning chances that much. If Pujols on offense alone is responsible for a 6% decline, imagine how an Average Joe would affect things.
And no, I don't need to bring any numbers to make the claim that teams that get players sent off lose the vast majority of the time, if you weren't talking out of your ass, like you claim you aren't doing, you would know this.
Read again. I clarified "per game." A 6% knock to overall team production per game is that much, and that was from a player who hit 22hrs/101 rbis who doesn't even play defense.
I never said teams that have players sent off don't lose the vast majority of the time. I said there's countless examples of teams that incur that situation winning the game or holding serve, which you can't claim for baseball since baseball doesn't send players off, so we really can't quantify it. Best we can do is look how ty players (like Pujols) affect production on a per game basis and extrapolate from there.
Just admit that you were talking out of your ass saying sticking you in right field wouldn't "hinder a team's winning chances that much" and we can move on. You would not catch routine fly balls with a +95 percentage. You would not be able to convert 2, 3, 4, 5 star defensive opportunities into outs. Matt Kemp's defensive inep ude cost his team .12 runs per game last season (a 12th of a run). And he was a Gold Glove winner not too long ago. Just imagine how many runs you or some average Joe would give up on defense? Could your team pick up your non-existent slack? Sure. But same can be said for any team sport, especially ones with bigger rosters.
Also, multipe players go hitless on a game and teams win those games anyway, so no, the sending off of a player can't be compared to going 0-4 which is what you first tried to do to counter muy original comment.
Just admit it son: on baseball is much easier to make up for the presente of a non professional player.
Tbh civilized countries play sports where teamwork and intelligence are more important than nigging. Since nigs can't work together and also can't think too much (probably hard with all that NFL brain damage) y'all left with a sport played by nigs for a nig audience in a nig country tbh.LeGOAT: 6'8"
Jim Brown: 6'2"
Barry Bonds: 6'2"
Gretzky: 6'0"
Messi: 5'7"
0-4 doesn't mean non-impact. A professional going 0-4 (or many going 0-4) isn't the same in' thing as an average Joe going 0-4 or there being no one in the lineup at all. Get it through your head.
And even if the bolded is true, what's that supposed to prove? That baseball is more of a team sport (it would be if the team could better make up for the presence of a non-pro)? Great argument there. Try thinking about the stupid you want say before you press the keyboard.
Oh, we finally got some numbers:
Some rough math:Home teams won an average of 1.69 points per game across the four seasons Greenberg analysed when a match was 11 versus 11.
When the away team went down to 10 men, home teams won an average of 2.05 points per game - a difference of 0.36 points.
However, when the home team had a player sent off the average number of points they won was 0.83 - a difference of 0.86 points.
Greenberg thinks a home team suffers badly when it has a player sent off because the pressure not to lose in front of its own fans is so great.
The away team, on the other hand, is not expected to win - so when it gains an extra player it is emboldened to attack and try to win the game.
Away team loses man, they are 21% less likely to come away with a win/tie.
Home team loses man, they are 51% less likely to come away with a win/tie.
Overall, it appears a team is 36% worse (win percentage wise, not production wise). when they play with a man down. Furthermore, we don't know the context of those situations. A man could've sent off while his team was down/up 2 or 3 goals, so his absence wouldn't have likely affected the outcome either way. I wish we could see how a man down impacts goal expectancy and goals allowed expectancy. That would be a better gauge.
Keith Hernandez's 0-5 performance in this game made his team 75% worse per win probability added (that basically means if the Mets were 50/50 to win the game prior, Hernandez's performance shifted that number to 86/14 in favor of the Phillies. That's a bigger win probability drop than when the home team loses a man in soccer). Now you see how bad 0-4, 0-5 (especially if those non-productive ABs come in leverage situations, which our proverbial Joe would be forced into) can be in a semi-vacuum.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/b...98508140.shtml
And Keith had no defensive ups this game. Doesn't look like your last sentence holds any factual water at all, per par with you.
The most violent countries in the world have soccer as their number 1 sport
And
i
also, teenagers playing in soccer has nothing to do with them being ready, on the contrary. Its purely economical. I dont feel like teaching you the difference between salary structures, transfers, formation rights, etc etc etc, but small soccer teams are basically farm teams for big ones, they survive by developing and selling players, they dont have american sports socialism in caps and redistributions and drafts to save them. They have every incentive to make kids look like pros so they can sell them off, that list you posted are a bunch of nobodies. The fact is that none of the teenage phenoms in soccer ever did anything more than a fancy highlight here or there (messi, ronaldihno, etc), later on they grew up and accomplished things but its not like 16 year old are top players in top leagues, the closest you could come to that is pre injury Ronaldo and even that one is iffy because barcelona werent good enough for UCL and he was already 20 by then. ronaldo, dihno, messi, pele, all of these guys got to there national teams as teenagers and warmed the bench for older players. if you find a guy actually starting every game under 20 for a national team, its either because that team sucks and they are hoping that exposing that kid will allow him to keep improving, or his agent is bribing the coach / federation to inflate his clients price.
I'm not comparing any Bolivian League to anything. Those 16-17 year old debuts were EPL players. And Jack Wilshere is pretty good. Also, the Latin American baseball infrastructure operates exactly the same as the soccer academy infrastructure, with feeder teams/camps and such "making their prospects look good" so they can get sold off to MLB clubs. And they are often signed as young as 16, but they likely won't debut until 19 at the earliest. You also don't know much about the MLB. It doesn't have a salary cap and a franchise's future outlook is entirely dependent on how well they develop players in their respective farm systems. There's 3 to 6 levels of baseball to get through before you're even considered for a call up.i
also, teenagers playing in soccer has nothing to do with them being ready, on the contrary. Its purely economical. I dont feel like teaching you the difference between salary structures, transfers, formation rights, etc etc etc, but small soccer teams are basically farm teams for big ones, they survive by developing and selling players, they dont have american sports socialism in caps and redistributions and drafts to save them. They have every incentive to make kids look like pros so they can sell them off, that list you posted are a bunch of nobodies. The fact is that none of the teenage phenoms in soccer ever did anything more than a fancy highlight here or there (messi, ronaldihno, etc), later on they grew up and accomplished things but its not like 16 year old are top players in top leagues, the closest you could come to that is pre injury Ronaldo and even that one is iffy because barcelona werent good enough for UCL and he was already 20 by then. ronaldo, dihno, messi, pele, all of these guys got to there national teams as teenagers and warmed the bench for older players. if you find a guy actually starting every game under 20 for a national team, its either because that team sucks and they are hoping that exposing that kid will allow him to keep improving, or his agent is bribing the coach / federation to inflate his clients price.
Does this prove one sport is "harder" than the other? Of course not. "Harder" is relative (i.e. a 12 year old Messi would find soccer easier than baseball because his body type is tailormade for the game [this is assuming he hasn't played either sport yet], a lanky 12 year old Clayton Kershaw would find baseball easier than soccer) and impossible to quantify. I just like challenging you and the soccercrew's dumb ass arguments that only judge the difficulty of a sport by how much running around (or in soccer's case, jogging around) there is. When we look at the facts, like aging curves and development times, the sports seem to be equally difficult.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 01-28-2018 at 06:32 AM.
but everywhere they went they brought prosperity and democracy, look at all these democracies with human rights and high living standards: iraq/syria/afghanistan/lybia/yemen/somalia
son midnight's hobby is to scour pornographic sites ... wasting your breath tbh.i
also, teenagers playing in soccer has nothing to do with them being ready, on the contrary. Its purely economical. I dont feel like teaching you the difference between salary structures, transfers, formation rights, etc etc etc, but small soccer teams are basically farm teams for big ones, they survive by developing and selling players, they dont have american sports socialism in caps and redistributions and drafts to save them. They have every incentive to make kids look like pros so they can sell them off, that list you posted are a bunch of nobodies. The fact is that none of the teenage phenoms in soccer ever did anything more than a fancy highlight here or there (messi, ronaldihno, etc), later on they grew up and accomplished things but its not like 16 year old are top players in top leagues, the closest you could come to that is pre injury Ronaldo and even that one is iffy because barcelona werent good enough for UCL and he was already 20 by then. ronaldo, dihno, messi, pele, all of these guys got to there national teams as teenagers and warmed the bench for older players. if you find a guy actually starting every game under 20 for a national team, its either because that team sucks and they are hoping that exposing that kid will allow him to keep improving, or his agent is bribing the coach / federation to inflate his clients price.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
