Reply With Quote
I'll be back to check on this thread later on
Because it's horse . Favorite doesn't mean followed. If you polled ten people and asked them to name their two favorite sports, and 9 said football/baseball while the tenth said basketball/football, you could frame it as basketball being more popular than baseball, but that's not the case. Most American sports fans have football/baseball 1 and 2. And the real actual in' sources here to cut through the bull polls and opinions are ratings. And soccer ratings blow here. Deal with it.
I'll be back to check on this thread later on
Mid with the ultra spin
I remeber whe he was talking about committed fans
"Nope" what?
You are basically making my point. You call it "parity", reality and facts call it "randomness". Basketball has a socialist cap space to prevent teams from hoarding all the talent. Yet there's always dynasties, because basketball it's designed in a way that rewards talent and good systems. Baseball has no cap space, yet any team can win on any given season because it's random as . Simple as that. You can twist and spin your way around this fact all you want, but it won't make it any less true.
How'd that MLS Final do? Yeah, lost to the WNBA FinalsMid with the ultra spin
I remeber whe he was talking about committed fans
Spin that.
"But real soccer fans watch EPL and the other Euroleagues."
They still don't beat the WNBA.
But I got polls too. Harris Poll, an industry in' standard.
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-...-the-us-2016-3
Only 5% call the NBA their favorite. Guess it's dying? No. NBA is usually 3rd on the list of sports American follow. That simple fact in' escapes your tiny brain for some reason. Favorite doesn't mean "only sport a person follows."
I like the NFL because it's fun, unlike baseball. I don't give a about biased perceptions of "design". I only bring it up because you do.
Randomball
Luckball
Still being in' re ed?"Nope" what?
You are basically making my point. You call it "parity", reality and facts call it "randomness". Basketball has a socialist cap space to prevent teams from hoarding all the talent. Yet there's always dynasties, because basketball it's designed in a way that rewards talent and good systems. Baseball has no cap space, yet any team can win on any given season because it's random as . Simple as that. You can twist and spin your way around this fact all you want, but it won't make it any less true.
Did you even pay attention to the video you watched? Luck playing a role in an outcome doesn't mean a sport is any more or less "luck based" than another. In the NBA, players can control possession much easier than they can in the NHL, meaning it's a lot easier to feed your best players possessions than it is in hockey. NBA stars can also conceivably play the entire game. In hockey, even the best players only play about 30 minutes per game (in a 60 minute game). In baseball, you can't send up your best hitters every at bat. Star pitchers can only pitch every 5 days. In both the NHL and MLB, you can't dominate through star power alone (which translates into more moving parts and thus more variance). The "study" was also context free. Many times, a bubble team in the MLB will make a run if they make good midseason trades and if their farm call ups deliver. Furthermore, injury rate for pitchers might be the highest in all of sports, so if a team loses a key starter/reliever near the post-season, their chances at winning obviously decline.
What you also didn't consider is they are comparing an EPL season where the winner who has the best record after the season wins the le to sports that have a tournament playoff structure (more variance in the latter). You also didn't consider the paradox of skill, which you would understand if you bothered to read the article on which the video was based.
Quit being re ed.
Outside of pitchers, do you even need skill in baseball?
No wonder most failed athletes Join baseball d-leagues.
Skilllessball
He thinks a single context free study proves anything. Are you seriously this dumb? Your logic would also have you deeming ice hockey 50% random and 50% skill. No. That's not how it works. Try thinking about what the study says on a deeper level (it's doubtful you can, which is why I'm not surprised you don't consider the designs of sports and just latch on to whatever is the most superficially entertaining).I like the NFL because it's fun, unlike baseball. I don't give a about biased perceptions of "design". I only bring it up because you do.
Do you even need skill in soccer? Lightly jog around, throw yourself to the grass, and miss a penalty shotOutside of pitchers, do you even need skill in baseball?
No wonder most failed athletes Join baseball d-leagues.
Skilllessball
You do realize you are just listing a bunch of reasons as to why baseball is more random than other sports, right?
Do you even need skill in soccer? Lightly jog around, throw yourself to the grass, and miss a penalty shot
This guy
Yeah, a playoff caliber team trading for an ace at the deadline and then going on to the win the World Series despite not having the league's best record at the end (when everyone with a brain knows this team is now the favorite) is an example of "randomness." The study is also , but you're too biased to see the problems with it. To make it a "fair study" why didn't they correlate EPL/La Liga/Bundesliga/Italian League/French league success with Champions League success? In the most recent CL, the two finalists didn't win their in' league.You do realize you are just listing a bunch of reasons as to why baseball is more random than other sports, right?
And you're still not understanding the heart of the study. Paradox of skill is more responsible for luck emerging in sports than anything else. When two/five/eleven players are closer in skill, luck begins to play a larger role. Baseball and hockey have relatively deep talent pools. Basketball doesn't (the nature of the sport excludes 99% of the general population from having any hope of being an NBA player). American football doesn't. Soccer obviously does, but the dip author of the "study" compared a full soccer season to the other sport's playoffs. in' stupid. I might have to waste the time and correlate League success to CL success just to blow you out once again (how many times will this have been now?)
Sure son, do that.
Bo Jackson was a HS decathlete. I can see Deion being able to do most track and jumping events.
I shouldn't have to do it. Analyze the you think about posting before you hit submit.Sure son, do that.
The NFL has had Olympic decatletes, long jumpers, sprinters, hurdlers, shot putters.
A hand picked NFL team would trounce any other sports team in some best athletes compe ion. YES....all soccer players, basketballers are superior to 300 pounders, but not talking about them.
I did see that the two World Cup matches today......
Baseball still sucks, but gotdamn soccer is gay. How can a mini-game decide who advances this far into "The biggest sport in the World"?
Remember our insult for soccer as TicTacTrot? That's why they need minigames. One characteristic of a poorly designed sport or game is, for lack of a better term, scoring equilibrium. Soccer falls into a scoring equilibrium far, far more than other sports, this leads to more ties and less scoring variation. Soccer really isn't that dynamic of a sport. It just looks dynamic because they're jogging around and the lack of controlled possession leads to chaotic outcomes (i.e. a ty shot deflecting off the heel of a player into the goal). They need these minigames to resolve the outcome because there's a possibility of the match literally never ending.I did see that the two World Cup matches today......
Baseball still sucks, but gotdamn soccer is gay. How can a mini-game decide who advances this far into "The biggest sport in the World"?
Never seen a World Series decided by arbitrary penalty swings.
But I heard soccer was awfully designed.
Japan went through to the knockout stage on, get this, "fair play" (they had less yellow cards than Senegal). So this basically means you're penalized for playing hard/aggressive in povertytie. More to the point, DAF was once again being intellectually dishonest and tried to make it look like baseball has a much larger random factor than soccer. No.
And that's comparing a situation where 38 games decide the champion to a playoff tournament structure. study (although has some good points, about paradox of skill).
lol son. Then you acusse me of not watching or reading what you post. The video explicitly says that playoffs were taken out of the equation. If playoffs were taking into consideration, baseball would fare a lot worse, since MLB playoffs are "the worst at ensuring the best team wins".Japan went through to the knockout stage on, get this, "fair play" (they had less yellow cards than Senegal). So this basically means you're penalized for playing hard/aggressive in povertytie. More to the point, DAF was once again being intellectually dishonest and tried to make it look like baseball has a much larger random factor than soccer. No.
And that's comparing a situation where 38 games decide the champion to a playoff tournament structure. study (although has some good points, about paradox of skill).
They're both gy sports, but soccer is more boring and has a larger fanbase.
You're right, which makes the study even more problematic since he now doesn't have a quantifiable baseline to compare results against. It makes sense if you're trying to correlate regular season success with playoff success and then establish a "luck factor" from there, but you can't simply use something like Vegas odds or last season results as a coherent baseline. The study is even tier now. And
But who gives a ? What exactly is your point? The author himself basically concluded that luck begins to play a bigger role when the skill gaps are closer. I agree.
Hockey's "randomness" in this case is easily explained by the fact stars only get 30 minutes of ice time, so the relative skill gap between teams will be a lot closer since role players have a larger impact on the outcome than in a sport like basketball. Not to mention hockey's talent pool is much larger than basketball's.“Okay, you have gotten the memo on improving skill: 10,000 hours, hard work, deliberate practice, grit, and attentive teacher. We’ve all heard it. You also recognize that in many of life’s activities, the results you achieve combine skill and luck. No debate there. Now, what if I told you that in many cases improving skill leads to results that rely more on luck? That’s right. Greater skill doesn’t decrease the dependence on luck, it increases it. If you have an interest in sports, business, or investing, this lesson is for you.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
