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

[Clipper Nation]

baseball fans triggered with a reliable source.

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

[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 les 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 les on a yearly basis.

And then some win it seemingly totally randomly. Unlike basketball, where only 1 franchise has won a le 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-a...el-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-a...el-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 quan y.

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 quan y.

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 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 in' up when he throws ducks as opposed to a baseball pitcher whose 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 in' 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.

[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 compe ions 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 cir stance. 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 quan y. But there's very little quan y 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.

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 compe ions 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 cir stance. 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 quan y. But there's very little quan y 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.

[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.

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?