Reply With Quote
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/224479...-on-the-mound/
This running outta room for hanging all of the Ls taken, tbh.
Yeah, throwing curveballs, sliders, 100mph fastballs with pin point accuracy takes "no skill." Neither does hitting those pitches. Neither does throwing runners out from 300 feet away. You'd be able to kick a ball around in the World Cup before you'd be able to do any of that, since your tiny weak arms lack the athleticism to swing a bat decently or throw a ball hard.
Game for "re s." You wouldn't even know what to begin to look for in analyzing baseball, which is why you stick to the easier soccer (a game actually short on strategy and tactics, as confirmed by a renown coach) and basketball.
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/224479...-on-the-mound/
This running outta room for hanging all of the Ls taken, tbh.
Here's the complete knockdown argument I have that baseball is on another level of difficulty compared to soccer. Soccer players are often ready for the TOP pro leagues by 18, even going as low as 16.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...t-ever-6231729
And that's with soccer having the largest talent pool by far out of any world sport, so for 16 year olds to make it to the EPL shows how actually undemanding it is from a skill and athleticism standpoint. Here's the first round of the 2015 MLB draft:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/d...rom_type_unk=0
Only 4 players have seen time in the MLB. Yeah, soccer trains its players in academies from very young ages, but so does baseball. So that point is moot.
Soccer simply "looks" dynamic, because the goal is the size of a in' house, so it can result in a lot of cute, creative looking plays, but at the expense of precision. The field is also huge, meaning players have oceans of space to execute their cute tap dancing moves with the ball. It's literally the And-1 of sports.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 08-30-2017 at 08:33 PM.
I love how you compare the highest level of baseball to intramural in everything else. That's totally fair and not biased at all.
Everything is difficult when you're going up against the elite of the elite, bro. Not just fatball. I have no chance in of hanging around with a pro gamer, dart player, or bowler. If I try to cover a pro winger in soccer they'll have taken 3 or 4 steps with the ball before I'm done with my first step. Again, the problem isn't that MLF isn't difficult. The problem is that outside of pitchers everyone else does jack for 95% of the long ass, dull game. There's a reason they're the only ones that need actual rest (understandably so as they are putting their arms through every time they pitch).
You're right, fatball is so demanding that it's players outside of pitchers play 20+ days in a row without breaking a sweat.
As far as your argument against football, there's match-ups going on at all times during any given play. It's not like fatball where it's just a pitcher/hitter and everyone stands around or sits in the dugout the large majority of the time.
You can quantify learning curve somewhat. The routine action in baseball is hitting. Pro level pitching we know reaches anywhere from 85-105 mph. Take a decent athlete who played basketball and baseball in high school, but hasn't played either in 15 years. He can easily go out and likely hit 3 pointers from NBA range at a 30%/40% clip. He can at least dribble the basketball competently.I love how you compare the highest level of baseball to intramural in everything else. That's totally fair and not biased at all.
Everything is difficult when you're going up against the elite of the elite, bro. Not just fatball. I have no chance in of hanging around with a pro gamer, dart player, or bowler. If I try to cover a pro winger in soccer they'll have taken 3 or 4 steps with the ball before I'm done with my first step. Again, the problem isn't that MLF isn't difficult. The problem is that outside of pitchers everyone else does jack for 95% of the long ass, dull game. There's a reason they're three only ones that need actual rest (understandably so as they are putting their arms through every time they pitch).
Put him in a 95 mph cage, and he's whiffing every time.
"Well, the comparison isn't fair. A fair comparison is if he could get off his shot against an NBA defense."
No. Both are practice situations. He doesn't have to worry about beating MLB fielders, either.
A complete neophyte if he isn't a total spastic is likely coordinated enough to throw 80 in bowling, which is about 40% of a professional average. A complete neophyte looks like this in baseball:
Those are 20 mph lobs, too. A neophyte fresh off the couch has no chance of being "40% as good as a professional." We can also quantify baseball's difficulty by looking at how quickly draft picks are ready. In all other sports, the first round draft picks will typically see time in their first season. In baseball, they're lucky if they get there within 4 or 5 years.
This isn't bias. Everyone who has played a variety of sports, analyzes sports, pretty much agrees that baseball's learning curve is the steepest out of at least the team ball sports. I don't think you realize how hard hitting is. There's a reason rec league "baseball" is slow pitch softball, while rec league basketball and soccer are still the same sport as the professional versions.
Why does every sport need its players to move around all the time? (they also aren't doing jack . Fielders are constantly alert, watching signs for which pitch is being thrown, since the pitch has an effect on where the ball could wind up, watching the batter's stance, his adjustments, and being prepared for how to read the ball off the bat). Bat-and-ball sports are battles between the hitter and pitcher at their core, and there's plenty happening within that matchup.The problem is that outside of pitchers everyone else does jack for 95%
You need your jumping and running around. Fair enough. Ain't going to tell you what to like. But your preferences don't undermine the world class skill and athleticism it takes to play baseball at the highest levels.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 08-30-2017 at 09:42 PM.
Your "days in a row" criterion is nonsense.You're right, fatball is so demanding that it's players outside of pitchers play 20+ days in a row without breaking a sweat.
"Breaking a sweat" doesn't equal "demanding." It's physically a of a lot more demanding to hit a golf ball straight (you have execute a variety of small movements throughout your body in a mechanically precise way) than it is to do wind sprints. Why is your only definition of "physically demanding" is how tired you get? What, because playing tired and fatigued is some great measure of athleticism? Guess what? If you're tired and/or fatigued, you don't have a chance of hitting a golf ball straight, since your motor skills need to be optimal to do it correctly. This is why they were smart enough to not make golf a "running around" game. You can be fatigued and still get off a good jumpshot because the skill really isn't that mechanically demanding.
Basketball can also easily be played 20 days in a row. AC Green played 1200 straight games. The reason basketball isn't everyday is because people over 6'5" are at much higher risk of injury. And the thing that actually tears up NBA players in 4 games 5 nights situations is travel more so than in game demands.
That's why, to me, it makes no sense to compare the physical demands of baseball to basketball, soccer, etc. None of the those sports are actually physically demanding to the point where a comparison really places one above another. Demanding is Tour De France, Triathlons, Cross Country marathon skiing, 50K race walk where compe ors routinely themselves.
Soccer is the "most demanding" ball sport and its cardio demands are in the range of Richard Simmons' Sweating to the Oldies. Big in' deal.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 08-30-2017 at 09:30 PM.
Bro Mid, professional league soccer in europe and south america has more attendance than hockey, baseball, and basketball.
It's a lower league
They play in a 32K capacity stadium for a reason. And lower leagues draw pretty well.
Tell something though, for example, if baseball season was shortened to approximately 100 games, do you think it will be in financial difficulty?
Socerr fans getting triggered hard.
No. Baseball "only" gets about 20 percent of its revenue from ticket sales.
Less games also means less supply which means more demand.
I have no idea where this silly "baseball is dying" notion comes from? Better ratings than the NBA, better all-star game ratings, homerun derby ratings better than the slam dunk contest, higher merchandise sales, 5% growth in fan interest over the last 20 years. Is it because World Series ratings were poor for a few years? The World Series has to go against the NFL and had a stretch of matchups featuring the likes of the Tampa Bay Rays and Detroit Tigers.
What I actually like about baseball's "slowness" as a change of pace from basketball, football, is that when things like this happen, it has far more impact:
If they happened every game, they'd lose their novelty. That's one problem with basketball. A dunk, a crossover, a 28 footer doesn't even raise my eyebrows anymore since those events happen 800 times per game. Of course those events are exciting when done by your team, since you're invested, but watching Lebron do it for the thousandth time is "dull."
You're just not objective, bro. A pitching machine can simulate that 95 mph pitch that you'll see from a pitcher. Shooting open jumpers doesn't simulate game action. Of courthe latter is much easier. It's an apples to oranges comparison.You can quantify learning curve somewhat. The routine action in baseball is hitting. Pro level pitching we know reaches anywhere from 85-105 mph. Take a decent athlete who played basketball and baseball in high school, but hasn't played either in 15 years. He can easily go out and likely hit 3 pointers from NBA range at a 30%/40% clip. He can at least dribble the basketball competently.
Put him in a 95 mph cage, and he's whiffing every time.
"Well, the comparison isn't fair. A fair comparison is if he could get off his shot against an NBA defense."
No. Both are practice situations. He doesn't have to worry about beating MLB fielders, either.
A complete neophyte if he isn't a total spastic is likely coordinated enough to throw 80 in bowling, which is about 40% of a professional average. A complete neophyte looks like this in baseball:
Those are 20 mph lobs, too. A neophyte fresh off the couch has no chance of being "40% as good as a professional." We can also quantify baseball's difficulty by looking at how quickly draft picks are ready. In all other sports, the first round draft picks will typically see time in their first season. In baseball, they're lucky if they get there within 4 or 5 years.
This isn't bias. Everyone who has played a variety of sports, analyzes sports, pretty much agrees that baseball's learning curve is the steepest out of at least the team ball sports. I don't think you realize how hard hitting is. There's a reason rec league "baseball" is slow pitch softball, while rec league basketball and soccer are still the same sport as the professional versions.
Why does every sport need its players to move around all the time? (they also aren't doing jack . Fielders are constantly alert, watching signs for which pitch is being thrown, since the pitch has an effect on where the ball could wind up, watching the batter's stance, his adjustments, and being prepared for how to read the ball off the bat). Bat-and-ball sports are battles between the hitter and pitcher at their core, and there's plenty happening within that matchup.
You need your jumping and running around. Fair enough. Ain't going to tell you what to like. But your preferences don't undermine the world class skill and athleticism it takes to play baseball at the highest levels.
I do think hitting is hard. It's probably what I struggled to do most in any sport. I could field and throw pretty well but couldn't hit worth a . At the same time, I put alot less time into it than other sports. My gf has a background in softball and she does relatively well at batting cages. I think like anything, with practice and repi ion comes improvement. If you're argument is that hitting is tougher than just shooting uncontested shots then I can concede that. That's meaningless though.
I'm not saying the fielders aren't alert, that's a given. But they aren't exerting themselves or entertaining the viewer by being alert. In football for example, a CB and WR are battling and the ball might not even be thrown their way. I can focus on that match-up or an elite DE vs an elite LT and still be entertained. That doesn't exist in fatball.
But when goals "only" happen a handful of times per game in soccer they aren't more impactful but instead it's a problem. Your lack of objectivity is showing again.What I actually like about baseball's "slowness" as a change of pace from basketball, football, is that when things like this happen, it has far more impact:
If they happened every game, they'd lose their novelty. That's one problem with basketball. A dunk, a crossover, a 28 footer doesn't even raise my eyebrows anymore since those events happen 800 times per game. Of course those events are exciting when done by your team, since you're invested, but watching Lebron do it for the thousandth time is "dull."
Not even close. I don't think you understand how much movement live pitchers generate. A pitching machine also won't change your eye level, mix up locations, nor throw you off speed.
It's not meaningless. Hitting is the core baseball action. If you can't hit, you can't play, nor will you have "fun" playing. Shooting is the core action in basketball (or dribbling) and both are much easier to perform than baseball's core action. You can also play basketball and have fun with it even if you can't shoot. Those typical rec league players who are athletic and quick enough to play defense, grab rebounds, and such. You can't "hide" like that in baseball, even in rec league softball.
I'm talking abut athletic events, not scoring. My issue with the lack of scoring in soccer is because it denies the match a decent back-and-forth dynamic and things like huge collapses and comebacks. Yeah, I know soccer teams have occasionally blown 3 goal leads, and within soccer's context, that's huge, but end of the day, it's only 3 scores. On the other hand, I think basketball actually has too much "back and forth" and scores begin to feel meaningless and routine.But when goals "only" happen a handful of times per game in soccer they aren't more impactful but instead it's a problem. Your lack of objectivity is showing again.
Football and baseball have the perfect balance. Just my opinion, though. And for what it's worth, I think those sports are the best designed major team sports on the planet. I'm just kind of boycotting football because the NFL is garbage.
ffs Im talking strictly about the velocity. I get that facing an actual pitcher is harder, not just because of the movement but because you don't know what type of pitch is coming or the location of it. It's still a much closer simulation than shooting open jumpers is though.
Not to the extent youre trying to paint with your apples to oranges comparison, but I do actually agree that hitting on it's own is a harder skill than shooting. But again, the argument isn't that fatball isn't difficult.
DoubleHandJobball debate has been finished tbh. Not sure why the fans of which still try.
tbh a fatball fan began this whole thing (2nd post)
Both are "empty gym" scenarios. In a cage, you don't have to worry about hitting the ball through fielders, just like when shooting open jumpers you don't have to worry about defenders contesting. Shooting in a gym gets you familiar with the distances involved in basketball, just like hitting in a cage gets you familiar with the velocities involved. It's not apples to oranges. Each simulates the activity about the same. It just seems like apples to oranges because hitting is a of a lot harder than shooting and pretty much any basketball action you can think of.
Baseball is harder than basketball. Almost everyone who's played both sports for some period of time at the same level would agree. This isn't me favoring baseball out of any personal reason, it's just a fact. The core baseball action (hitting) is built around something that is on the edges of human reaction times.
What's the argument? That you don't have to be "athletic" to play it? Wrong.But again, the argument isn't that fatball isn't difficult.
That it's slow? Fair enough. But why even build an argument around "slowness?" What does that prove?
Take gymnastics. The slowest, "least athletic" event is the balance beam. But many gymnasts would consider it the most difficult. The fastest and most athletic event is the floor. And it's considered the easiest. Valuing sports (or athletes) on how much superficial "moving around" there is is dumb. Consider football. Aside from the QB, I think the hardest position to play is kicker, who are often derided as "non-football" players. Coming in cold and then nailing a 54 yarder with the wind moving left to right in a pressure situation is a more impressive feat to me than jumping real high and catching the ball in the endzone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
