76ers: Is fatball aka baseball the least strategically and tactically demanding sport ever?

**midnightpulp** · 07-27-2016

I probably will sometime. Won't do 100 throws but I'll do 10/10 which should be enough to prove my point tbh.

You've proven that hitters study arm angles and the spin of the ball to make better guesses. Nothing else.

You've also talked about the fact that fatball players have only a split second to read a pitch in a positive light then turned around and ridiculously tried to compare it to QBs reading defenses. QBs have multiple second to make reads. I think it's safe to say they are making much more conscious decisions than fatball players.

So? You re edly claimed that hitters don't have time to make "adjustments" to alter a pre-pitch read. I proved that wrong, and now you're moving the goal posts. "Uh, well, um, yeah, but they're still guessing!"

There's an element of guessing, sure, like in every sport, and it's why hitters get fooled (they also get fooled because they read the pitch wrong).

Quit reaching because you want to make baseball look tactically shallow when it's not and because you dislike baseball because there's not enough aimless running around.

.950 is only part of the challenge. You're going to need to be throwing in the 80-90mph range to beat MLB baserunners.

You can't throw 80mph with .950 accuracy from 110 feet.

We can bet on this, too. Entry level radar gun is 60.00. I'll paypal you the money to buy it. If you throw an accurate ball harder than 80, I'll give you 100.00. You don't. You pay me the cost of the gun and give me an addition 40.00.

If you're up for it, we do (privately) have to figure out a way to verify your iden y, so you don' find a ringer. Maybe if you can PM me your facebook so I see a picture of you (if you're not up for it, I understand not wanting to share personal info.

We will also have to setup a timeline so you can't work on it for 6 months.

**ElNono** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by FkLA

A 30% success rate is considered exceptional.

This is an underrated point, tbh... you're basically watching a sport where 70% of the time, or more, the "exciting" part doesn't happen. And this is every game on long ass games.

A poorball team that only makes 30% of the passes right, has 30% of the possession in a game, or shoots under 30% on goal is probably an absolutely terrible team, and a sandwich to watch.

You do get boring games in poorball too though, here or there, especially teams that dominate possession a lot like Barca, Spain or even Argentina when playing ty teams, but on average, you just get a lot more action for your 90 mins.

With that said, I have no problem with beisbol fans, tbh, they enjoy the sport, they like to get into it and watch it, that's fine with me.

**Caltex2** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by resistanze

Keep up with your agile + quickness? LMAO. I'd bet my salary this year LeBron is quicker and more agile than you

Why in God's name do you think 1-on-1 gives you a better chance than an actual team game? Or think he'd ever need to gamble against you? I don't know if you've seen LeBron or any top athlete play in real time man. LeBron would blow by you with every first step and would score 100 straight dunks, he wouldn't even bother shooting. You can't be serious.

That's not a safe bet (you betting your salary). I'm not the fastest person in the world but I'm quick, agile and I know how to lull defenders to sleep, which has led to many easy layups because people lost focus while I quietly and quickly broke to the hoop while they were looking the other way. I say I'd have a better shot of scoring (not beating) LeBron in 1-on-1 because he'd have no backup if I somehow got by him. The only way I'd beat LeBron in a game is with other teammates playing.

That said, LeBron would eat my lunch at 1-1 and probably to the tune of 15-0 (or whatever number we would go to under 22 or so). But could I score on him in 1,000 tries? yeah, I have the athleticism, agility and intelligence to make myself a factor enough to score a point. I'd be virtually helpless on defense, even with all of the intelligent tactics I employ. He's just too big, too quick, too strong and too crafty. But LeBron wouldn't be the first player that was clearly superior to me that I scored on, though he'd be by far the best.

I'd have far more problems with Steph Curry. Curry would better neutralize many of the things about me that would give me any chance against LeBron, though I could actually post him up and maybe quickly move by him if he fell asleep. I'd have to respect his shot and if I fell for a fake, that's an easy layup or dunk as he blows by me.

**midnightpulp** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by ElNono

This is an underrated point, tbh... you're basically watching a sport where 70% of the time, or more, the "exciting" part doesn't happen. And this is every game on long ass games.

A poorball team that only makes 30% of the passes right, has 30% of the possession in a game, or shoots under 30% on goal is probably an absolutely terrible team, and a sandwich to watch.

You do get boring games in poorball too though, here or there, especially teams that dominate possession a lot like Barca, Spain or even Argentina when playing ty teams, but on average, you just get a lot more action for your 90 mins.

With that said, I have no problem with beisbol fans, tbh, they enjoy the sport, they like to get into it and watch it, that's fine with me.

A batter who hits .300 doesn't strike out the other .70 percent of the time.

Plays like this wind up as outs and count against the batter's average:

Baseball teams also average about 5 runs per game each, so 10 runs per game total. The average goals scored per team in the EPL is 1.25, and 30% of the games wind up in ties.

Since you're the first sincere person in this debate, where is this "action" soccer fans talk about?

I consider "action events" that produce a likelihood of scoring (or a defense of an attempted score. Blocks/steals in basketball, tackles in football, outs in baseball). In basketball, for example, I don't consider Tony Parker dribbling the ball from the backcourt to the front court undefended "action," even though the ball is in play.

Soccer's action seems to be limited to:

- Shot attempts (EPL average: 30 per game [not per team]. And only 30% are on target)
- Corners (EPL average: 10 per game)
- Saves (6 per game)
- Tackles/Interceptions within 30 yards of the goal (and unless it's a tackle/interception in the box, these aren't very exciting. Interceptions aren't game changing events every time they happen like in the NFL, for example).

Looking at the stats, it seems play happens in the mid-field 50% of the time, and when I watch soccer, mid-field play usually goes like this: pass, pass, lost ball to other team, pass, pass, lost ball to other team, pass, pass, over pass, out of bounds, rinse/repeat until something breaks down. And I suppose this is what keeps soccer fans engaged, waiting for the "breakdown" to happen (just like I wait for the pitcher to "breakdown" and leave something fat).

I just don't get the "our sport is filled with action, action, action!" idea I hear from soccer fans. Compared to other goal sports like basketball and ice hockey, soccer is stuck in molasses. Even soccer fans admit it's boring and they're waiting, like addicts, for that one moment of brilliance that might not come today, tomorrow, next week, but it will come sometime (when I watched the Euro, I didn't see any brilliant moments, so waiting forever for it to happen makes sense).

So why do soccer fans do this? Assuming we follow sports for something like entertainment, what do we get out of a game for which the potential for tedium is so high that some of its most famous inspirational quotes are simply about not being dull?3

I keep thinking about this question lately, maybe because I’ve been finding myself drawn to more and more boring games.

But I think there’s more to the relationship of fans and boredom than just magic moments. I want you to like soccer if you don’t already, so I probably shouldn’t admit this. But the game gets in your head. Following soccer is like being in love with someone who’s (a) gorgeous, (b) fascinating, (c) possibly quite evil, and (d) only occasionally aware of your existence.5 There’s a continuous low-grade suffering that becomes a sort of addiction in its own right.6 You spend all your time hoping they’ll notice you

http://grantland.com/features/brian-...occer-boredom/

And no doubt the continuous nature of the game helps that doesn't involve commercials. I think if soccer were broken up into 4 22 minutes quarters, with coaches being allowed to call timeouts, the sport would be completely unwatchable.

**Caltex2** · 07-27-2016

I've said it a million times, relax offsides or eliminate it altogether.

**ElNono** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

A batter who hits .300 doesn't strike out the other .70 percent of the time.

Plays like this wind up as outs and count against the batter's average:

Baseball teams also average about 5 runs per game each, so 10 runs per game total. The average goals scored per team in the EPL is 1.25, and 30% of the games wind up in ties.

Since you're the first sincere person in this debate, where is this "action" soccer fans talk about?

I consider "action events" that produce a likelihood of scoring (or a defense of an attempted score. Blocks/steals in basketball, tackles in football, outs in baseball). In basketball, for example, I don't consider Tony Parker dribbling the ball from the backcourt to the front court undefended "action," even though the ball is in play.

Soccer's action seems to be limited to:

- Shot attempts (EPL average: 30 per game [not per team]. And only 30% are on target)
- Corners (EPL average: 10 per game)
- Saves (6 per game)
- Tackles/Interceptions within 30 yards of the goal (and unless it's a tackle/interception in the box, these aren't very exciting. Interceptions aren't game changing events every time they happen like in the NFL, for example).

Looking at the stats, it seems play happens in the mid-field 50% of the time, and when I watch soccer, mid-field play usually goes like this: pass, pass, lost ball to other team, pass, pass, lost ball to other team, pass, pass, over pass, out of bounds, rinse/repeat until something breaks down. And I suppose this is what keeps soccer fans engaged, waiting for the "breakdown" to happen (just like I wait for the pitcher to "breakdown" and leave something fat).

I just don't get the "our sport is filled with action, action, action!" idea I hear from soccer fans. Compared to other goal sports like basketball and ice hockey, soccer is stuck in molasses. Even soccer fans admit it's boring and they're waiting, like addicts, for that one moment of brilliance that might not come today, tomorrow, next week, but it will come sometime (when I watched the Euro, I didn't see any brilliant moments, so waiting forever for it to happen makes sense).

http://grantland.com/features/brian-...occer-boredom/

And no doubt the continuous nature of the game helps that doesn't involve commercials. I think if soccer were broken up into 4 22 minutes quarters, with coaches being allowed to call timeouts, the sport would be completely unwatchable.

Not hating at all, tbh... and I'm not even claiming the game is filled with "action, action, action"... comparatively with basketball, for example, I can completely see the argument that it can be an snorefest.

Which teams you're watching also go a long way in soccer. Top teams are closer to 50% ratio on shots vs shots on goal (at least in La Liga, which is probably the top league in the world at the moment). And then, within those teams, you can have snoorefests too because sometimes they're so dominant and possessive with the ball. It turns into a monologue, which can be completely boring.

But overall the sport, in it's purest form, I feel, when you watch leagues from all over, lends itself generally to substantially more action than baseball. Corner kicks, through balls, even what counts as shots not on target could be a header 10 feet from goal, and that in itself is exciting until you get depressed with the result. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "ceiling" for the sport is much higher action-wise, even though, due to defensive tactical shenanigans, can be a chore sometimes to watch (something that's closer to recent times, and why FIFA has been changing rules). We're talking game design, and possibly challenge-level. I actually think what probably goes against baseball the most is that it's extremely challenging, at least the batting part. That's why what you would consider low percentages in anything else are indeed stellar. I'm not going to use that to knock baseball, but it undoubtedly plays a role in the argument I was making.

Lastly, and this is not a knock on you or your argument, but the EPL is the WNBA of soccer, tbh... you can actually read my posts over the last few years on the Soccer forum, and you'll see this is not some new opinion from me. Their league and national team truly are an embarrassment to soccer. Like I said, not your fault, and they're a soccer league after all, so it's not a knock on you or your argument, but frankly, it's certainly a black eye on soccer, IMO.

**Killakobe81** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by resistanze

Lebron would snatch the soul outta your body on the first possession, you are living in a fantasy world. You might actually die on the court...15-4?

There was no average Joe beating LeBron 1 on 1, thats just ficiton. There was the video of Jordan Crawford (who played in NBA) 'dunking on' LeBron in a scrimmage team game.

Lebron is destroying pretty much anyone on spurstalk. And every college player drafted this year.
Be Simmons has size and speed in the ballpark of JAmes and he might beat him 15-4.
I dont think anyone here could score more than a couple fluke baskets on Lebron.
When he wants to defend he is lockdown ...

And on offense he would put everyone on this forum in the hospital or dominate even the small school college ballplayers that post here.

**Killakobe81** · 07-27-2016

i think sean higgins used to post here. He was one of the better HS players I ever saw live (talent not production) and he has no shot at James 1 on 1.

Dude was like 6 foot 8 with range.

LeBron would ether him.

**midnightpulp** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by ElNono

Not hating at all, tbh... and I'm not even claiming the game is filled with "action, action, action"... comparatively with basketball, for example, I can completely see the argument that it can be an snorefest.

Which teams you're watching also go a long way in soccer. Top teams are closer to 50% ratio on shots vs shots on goal (at least in La Liga, which is probably the top league in the world at the moment). And then, within those teams, you can have snoorefests too because sometimes they're so dominant and possessive with the ball. It turns into a monologue, which can be completely boring.

But overall the sport, in it's purest form, I feel, when you watch leagues from all over, lends itself generally to substantially more action than baseball. Corner kicks, through balls, even what counts as shots not on target could be a header 10 feet from goal, and that in itself is exciting until you get depressed with the result. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "ceiling" for the sport is much higher action-wise, even though, due to defensive tactical shenanigans, can be a chore sometimes to watch (something that's closer to recent times, and why FIFA has been changing rules). We're talking game design, and possibly challenge-level. I actually think what probably goes against baseball the most is that it's extremely challenging, at least the batting part. That's why what you would consider low percentages in anything else are indeed stellar. I'm not going to use that to knock baseball, but it undoubtedly plays a role in the argument I was making.

Lastly, and this is not a knock on you or your argument, but the EPL is the WNBA of soccer, tbh... you can actually read my posts over the last few years on the Soccer forum, and you'll see this is not some new opinion from me. Their league and national team truly are an embarrassment to soccer. Like I said, not your fault, and they're a soccer league after all, so it's not a knock on you or your argument, but frankly, it's certainly a black eye on soccer, IMO.

Thanks for the thought reply.

And I agree that goal sports played on a field or court have a greater "action/per minute" ratio than bat-and-ball sports like baseball and cricket, especially action that consists of players "doing stuff" like running, jumping, dribbling, etc.

But I don't watch baseball for that kind of action, even though incredible athletic feats do happen every game (a home run is just as impressive an athletic feat as a dunk, for example). I have basketball and sometimes football and hockey for that. I watch it for the tension.

And yes, other sports have tension, but baseball, imo, takes the cake here. In other sports, teams can only do so much damage when they have possession. Most a basketball team can score is 4 points (made 3 + foul), NFL team 8 points, hockey/soccer one goal.

A baseball inning is unpredictable, and it's mathematically possible to score an infinite amount of runs in an inning because there's no clock (this is not obviously going to happen, but it demonstrates the scoring variation possible), so every inning, feels kind of like "crunch time," because a team can score a deluge of runs in one inning to "seemingly" put the game away and/or come back from huge deficits, at any time.

All clock based sports have a point where it's mathematically "impossible" to win. Baseball doesn't, which is unique and why it sits well next to "fast sports" like basketball, hockey, and even soccer.

**apalisoc_9** · 07-27-2016

To be fair to baseball, Id rather watch it over handegg...never ending commercials. How do americans even enjoy that .?

**midnightpulp** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

To be fair to baseball, Id rather watch it over handegg...never ending commercials. How do americans even enjoy that .?

It's gotten sickening to the point where it's made me more of a casual NFL fan these days when I use to be a hardcore fan. Not to mention all the penalties in a single game.

And I'm not going to "buy" Redzone to deal with that problem.

**Arcadian** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by Killakobe81

Lebron is destroying pretty much anyone on spurstalk. And every college player drafted this year.
Be Simmons has size and speed in the ballpark of JAmes and he might beat him 15-4.
I dont think anyone here could score more than a couple fluke baskets on Lebron.
When he wants to defend he is lockdown ...

And on offense he would put everyone on this forum in the hospital or dominate even the small school college ballplayers that post here.

The thing is, if Lebron played 1v1 against any non-NBA player, he obviously wouldn't go at 100% intensity. Somebody might be able to score a point or two because he would let them. He wouldn't want to be a complete . But if he actually played at max NBA Finals level (which would be hilarious), any challenger would be left mangled and crying on the ground.

**Arcadian** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

All clock based sports have a point where it's mathematically "impossible" to win. Baseball doesn't, which is unique and why it sits well next to "fast sports" like basketball, hockey, and even soccer.

How common are comebacks from large deficits in MLB? (Like the equivalent of an NBA team coming back from 20 down or something.)

Of course it's technically never impossible to come back from any deficit in a clockless sport, but how often does it actually happen?

**midnightpulp** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by Arcadian

How common are comebacks from large deficits in MLB? (Like the equivalent of an NBA team coming back from 20 down or something.)

Of course it's technically never impossible to come back from any deficit in a clockless sport, but how often does it actually happen?

It's hard to relate baseball scoring to basketball scoring because win probabilities change depending on who is pitching and who's due up to bat. As a team attempts to comeback in the NBA, the team's best players will be on the court 100% of the time.

In baseball, the team's best hitter might not even get a chance to bat. I would say a one run deficit in the 9th with the bottom of the order coming up against a shut-down closer is equivalent to a 15 point 4th quarter lead with like 10 minutes to play.

In a vacuum, though, A 4 run lead is probably like a 20 point lead.

See here. A first inning 4 run lead for the visiting team has about a 83% of holding up.

http://gregstoll.dyndns.org/~gregsto...tml#V.-3.1.0.1

A first quarter 19 point lead holds up a similar amount of the time.

http://stats.inpredictable.com/nba/wpCalc.php

How often? Unsure. They seem to happen at least a few times every post season and a lot throughout the regular season.

Astros has a 97% win probability (in a vacuum, of course).

The calculator tells me a win prob of 100% ^^^

But I've seen rallies like that a few times, once against my Dodgers where they blew a 9 run 9th inning lead.

**ElNono** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

Thanks for the thought reply.

And I agree that goal sports played on a field or court have a greater "action/per minute" ratio than bat-and-ball sports like baseball and cricket, especially action that consists of players "doing stuff" like running, jumping, dribbling, etc.

But I don't watch baseball for that kind of action, even though incredible athletic feats do happen every game (a home run is just as impressive an athletic feat as a dunk, for example). I have basketball and sometimes football and hockey for that. I watch it for the tension.

And yes, other sports have tension, but baseball, imo, takes the cake here. In other sports, teams can only do so much damage when they have possession. Most a basketball team can score is 4 points (made 3 + foul), NFL team 8 points, hockey/soccer one goal.

A baseball inning is unpredictable, and it's mathematically possible to score an infinite amount of runs in an inning because there's no clock (this is not obviously going to happen, but it demonstrates the scoring variation possible), so every inning, feels kind of like "crunch time," because a team can score a deluge of runs in one inning to "seemingly" put the game away and/or come back from huge deficits, at any time.

All clock based sports have a point where it's mathematically "impossible" to win. Baseball doesn't, which is unique and why it sits well next to "fast sports" like basketball, hockey, and even soccer.

I tried to get into baseball back in the day when I set foot here into the US, and would've been easy to bandwagon, since the Yankees were winning everything all the time, and I'm here in NJ... just couldn't get into it. Same thing with eggball... although eggball I can enjoy here or there (if I can skip the commercials). Fandom has a lot to do with this stuff too, tbh...

**resistanze** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

Forgot about ey. If the knuckler isn't working, it's a 75mph grapefruit.

Off topic, but what's your take on Bonds tbh? Honestly that was one of the funniest eras in baseball for me personally, before the hindsight, retroactive sanctimony that people apparently didn't have at the time. He was arguably the greatest player of his generation before the alleged used even began.

**midnightpulp** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by resistanze

Off topic, but what's your take on Bonds tbh? Honestly that was one of the funniest eras in baseball for me personally, before the hindsight, retroactive sanctimony that people apparently didn't have at the time. He was arguably the greatest player of his generation before the alleged used even began.

Can't stand him, since he's a Giant, but he's the greatest hitter maybe ever. He was a great hitter before the roids and the best hitter in the roid era in which much of his compe ion were on roids too, so I can't discount his accomplishments.

He was a force of nature. You literally could not pitch to him.

**midnightpulp** · 07-27-2016

Originally Posted by ElNono

I tried to get into baseball back in the day when I set foot here into the US, and would've been easy to bandwagon, since the Yankees were winning everything all the time, and I'm here in NJ... just couldn't get into it. Same thing with eggball... although eggball I can enjoy here or there (if I can skip the commercials). Fandom has a lot to do with this stuff too, tbh...

Yeah. Baseball is a tough sell to sports fans who like motion and teamwork (there's "passing" in baseball, but a fielder "passing" the ball to another fielder to get a runner out isn't as visually exciting as a string of soccer passes or basketball passes that thread the needle. I do think a moonshot homer is the most aesthetically pleasing singular event in sports, though. Crack of the bat, ball soaring 100 feet high against a night sky).

But as much fun as these debates are, baseball shouldn't even be compared to a goal sport. Two dramatically different game designs.

**Splits** · 07-28-2016

Tension!

http://m.mlb.com/video/v978697183/ar...g-his-shoulder

**Thread** · 07-28-2016

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

Yeah. Baseball is a tough sell to sports fans who like motion and teamwork (there's "passing" in baseball, but a fielder "passing" the ball to another fielder to get a runner out isn't as visually exciting as a string of soccer passes or basketball passes that thread the needle. I do think a moonshot homer is the most aesthetically pleasing singular event in sports, though. Crack of the bat, ball soaring 100 feet high against a night sky).

But as much fun as these debates are, baseball shouldn't even be compared to a goal sport. Two dramatically different game designs.

Yep, those homers by Jackson in the '77 WS against that nite sky remain.

---

Seager hit one about a month ago one nite in Atlanta. The place was a like a tomb when he connected so you got the full worth of the impact. Just a savage rip, and the crowd responded with an audible gasp that was impressive.