RANT : Baseball is a lame sport with phony athletes

[Degenerate]

http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/rant2.gif I'm no longer a baseball fan anymore. First because our team is not competitive. Secondly I've grown up since 92/93. I don't get how these winos get paid so much money to swing a darn stick at a ball and run around a baseball diamond. Can you honestly tell me that these players actually work up a sweat during the game? How much work do they actually do?? The pitcher is the MVP and he works the hardest of the bunch. Backcatchers I'd put second because the enormous stress they put on their knees after years and years of crouching. Yes you need to have great hand eye coordination to hit a 95mph fastball but that doesn't justify a player being paid 25 million dollars a year. What other sport in the world would you find over sized men (ie Cecil Fielder, Manny Ramierz, Kirby Puckett etc) other than sumo wrestling? I've played baseball and it's a great game to play, when you're actually playing. How often are you playing?? You wait 2 innings before you get to hit. When you're on the field you stand there waiting for a ball to be hit towards you. You take the couple of steps, throw the ball and that's the exercise you get. The other 80% of the time you don't do a damn thing. The most work I see these guys do is the pre-game work out. You see a group of guys that might jog around for a bit and throw the ball around. Yippie!!! These guys are the least active among any professional sports and yet they get paid so much money. The worst part to is our neighbours down south have the gull to say that Baseball is the greatest game in the world. I can understand during post season the games could be exciting to watch. Every pitch you're into it so it's different from watching the NHL where there's a constant flow to the game. This sport isn't for everyone I understand that but for someone to tell me how Baseball is a better sport than hockey, basketball, football is beyond me. Only in America can you glorify a sport where each person puts in like 10 minutes of actually play time and say it's the greatest past time.

There is no way of convincing me that baseball players are real athletes. Sure Derek Jeter, A-Rod, Carlos Beltran are great baseball players I would never dispute that. I dare any mofo out there to even try convincing me that these guys deserve to be paid the amount of money they make for the amount of work they actually put forth day in and day out.

That's my rant for today. http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/rant2.gif

Heading home to play some vids. http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/biggthumpup.gif

[gman]

How does how much they were paid have anything to do for how much you like it? If they are paid less, will you enjoy it more? I don't think so.

If you don't like it, you don't like it.

[jerryhung]

You do know there's still Hockey right?
The reason for strike - salary

At least I liked the ALCS Division Title series (Red Sox vs. Yankees 0-3 comeback)
World Series isn't so exciting except Game 1

There's NBA too........ look at Lebron Jame's "commercial" deal @@

[jalaram]

Only in America can you glorify a sport where each person puts in like 10 minutes of actually play time and say it's the greatest past time.

Are you referring to Latin America? :D Granted, it's not as popular as futbol, but many kids down south (south of US, that is) love baseball. I hear it's also popular in Japan and South Korea. Does your rant on the US apply to them as well?

Seriously, it's not the most athletic sport, but some of the best baseball players were very athletic (e.g. Mays). Plus, most sports writers agree that hitting a major league pitcher is one of the hardest skills in sports.

Finally, thanks to the strikes, baseball trails football (and maybe basketball) in popularity. Thus, very few people in the US call it the greatest sport.

[gman]

Finally, thanks to the strikes, baseball trails football (and maybe basketball) in popularity. Thus, very few people in the US call it the greatest sport.

With or without the strike, hockey is the 4th sport in US. Baseball is #3. Football and basketball are sharing #1 and #2 depends on the year.

[Ryan]

It's called supply and demand. If everyone could hit or throw a 90mph slider then baseball players would be paid minimum wage.

If salaries concern you so much, why don't you go watch the minor leagues? Those guys get don't get paid that much at all.

[Montague]

With or without the strike, hockey is the 4th sport in US. Baseball is #3. Football and basketball are sharing #1 and #2 depends on the year.
thought NASCAR was number four with hockey falling further behind?

anyway the only thing lame about baseball is the DH.

usually filled in by over the hill fat players who do not have it anymore to play a regular position.

[jalaram]

thought NASCAR was number four with hockey falling further behind?.

That's what I've heard as well.


anyway the only thing lame about baseball is the DH.

usually filled in by over the hill fat players who do not have it anymore to play a regular position.

I hate the DH as much as anyone, but I still have a lot of respect for Rod Carew and Edgar Martinez.

[KennyX]

With or without the strike, hockey is the 4th sport in US. Baseball is #3. Football and basketball are sharing #1 and #2 depends on the year.


Well, even before the baseball strike, I think football was still the #1 sport (for good reason I might add :D ).

And isnt bowling more popular than hockey?

[airblade90]

Meh, it is simply all opinion. One person may hate baseball the other love it. Golf is my number 1 sport...

[shadowfighta]

Isn't Nascar either the second or third most popular "sport" in the US?? Also, I think Arena Football is ahead of the NHL in the USA.

[deity_me]

The average american is a dumb%$&

[ForthEarlingas]

you shouldn't have called baseball a sport. Its more a way to get a good nap.
Or to check out the racks and camel toe on some of the cheerleaders and player wives and gf.

and for those that put hockey (NHL) up in the top 10 of viewing in the States, well your way off.
Sometime last year in the news a anchor stated the NHL had numbers that places the viewership at around the top 40s for watched events, even behind *sigh* golf (PGA and double *sigh* LPGA) another non sport.

A lot of you forgot that NCAA football and NCAA basketball get way more viewership than the NHL

[dvdvideo]

The only thing baseball is good for is to fall asleep to on a lazy Sat or Sunday afternoon nap.....knocks me out every time.

[Mok]

actually baseball is good since there is no hockey now, but world series over, now what? only basketball on...and GOLF all year round on tv hehe...

[gman]

you shouldn't have called baseball a sport. Its more a way to get a good nap.
Or to check out the racks and camel toe on some of the cheerleaders and player wives and gf.

and for those that put hockey (NHL) up in the top 10 of viewing in the States, well your way off.
Sometime last year in the news a anchor stated the NHL had numbers that places the viewership at around the top 40s for watched events, even behind *sigh* golf (PGA and double *sigh* LPGA) another non sport.

A lot of you forgot that NCAA football and NCAA basketball get way more viewership than the NHL

May be my impression came from how sport web sites organize the sports.

e.g. www.sportsline.com: NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, NCAA....
www.foxsports.com: NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, Nascar...
www.cnnsi.com: NFL, NCAA Football, MLB, NBA, NCAA Basketball, Golf, NHL

[Mintmaster]

gman, of course those websites will call it a sport. It's been called a sport for 100+ years, and they have no reason to change it now, especially since they want baseball fans to go to their websites.
EDIT: Whoops, looks like you were addressing the viewership, not validating it's status as a sport. Sorry.

Degenerate, there is a simple solution to this itch of yours: Baseball is not a sport, and the players are not athletes. It's a game/past-time that for some reason stirs up passion across the US. If you don't like it, just ignore it as much as you can. It's one of those self-feeding things, where it's popular now because it has a history, and will be popular in the future because it's popular now. My theory is that it epitomizes the real American dream: Earn truckloads of cash for sitting on your ass.

I totally agree with your points. I think you're numbers are generous, too. 80% of the time doing nothing? It's got to be a lot higher than that. 10 minutes of play time? On a busy day, I guess it's possible. The pitchers are the only ones I'd be willing to call athletes (aside from select cases). As for deserving their pay, well, that's what America wants, so that's what they'll get. Supply and demand in it's ugliest form.

Just one more franchise left in Canada. Hopefully it'll also go bankrupt :cheesygri
Then a real sport, like soccer or rugby (though it's rather similar to football), can take its place.

[Degenerate]

Just one more franchise left in Canada. Hopefully it'll also go bankrupt :cheesygri Then a real sport, like soccer or rugby (though it's rather similar to football), can take its place.

I was going to say that you are a very intelligent indivdual until you added that lame arse comment ;)

[jalaram]

I was going to say that you are a very intelligent indivdual until you added that lame arse comment ;)

I don't know about that. After being in T.O. the past 2 years, it seems quite clear that Canadians would be much happier to be rid of baseball. Plus, MLB could then move them to a place that would at least appreciate it (e.g. Puerto Rico).

[gman]

I don't know about that. After being in T.O. the past 2 years, it seems quite clear that Canadians would be much happier to be rid of baseball. Plus, MLB could then move them to a place that would at least appreciate it (e.g. Puerto Rico).

What do you mean? It is Toronto; not Montreal. Even people in Montreal is not exactly dislike Expo. It was the owner who purposely "tried" their best to SELL Expo out of Montreal.

[untaka]

I agree with you baseball isn't a sport its a ....hobbie? Plus really much only kids like or really old people, nothing really exciting about the game.

[Webslinger]

When you're on the field you stand there waiting for a ball to be hit towards you.

You should be moving as every pitch thrown--crouching on the balls of your feet, anticipating where the ball will be hit, and moving. You need to be crouching as each pitch is thrown--and you need to be prepared to sprint (you have to judge where the pitch is going to the batter, watching where the ball will likely make contact on the bat, etc.). If you aren't moving with the pitches, then you suck. Moreover, if you aren't backing up the throws, the plays, the other fielders, then you suck. If you're an outfielder not backing up plays to the infield, then you suck. The people who whine that baseball is boring to play are the people who suck and are lazy (or they never grew up with baseball and don't know how to play properly). If you're just standing there, "waiting for a ball to be hit to you", then frankly, you suck and don't know how to play. On competitive teams, these types are the first to be cut, because they don't have a clue how to play properly.

The big, huge, fat baseball players tend to excel in the American League where they end up being DHs (or otherwise playing first base), which is another reason I dislike the American League.

No one can tell me Larry Walker, Alex Rodriguez, etc., aren't athletes. These guys can hit, run, throw, and field--probably 10x better than anyone posting here.

[dgmorr]

It takes SOME skill to hit and catch a ball, come on.

Take basketball for instance. That is the dumbest sport I have ever seen. And dog, kat or monkey can put a ball into an undefended net and cry when they get pushed over :cry:


http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/rant2.gif I'm no longer a baseball fan anymore. First because our team is not competitive. Secondly I've grown up since 92/93. I don't get how these winos get paid so much money to swing a darn stick at a ball and run around a baseball diamond. Can you honestly tell me that these players actually work up a sweat during the game? How much work do they actually do?? The pitcher is the MVP and he works the hardest of the bunch. Backcatchers I'd put second because the enormous stress they put on their knees after years and years of crouching. Yes you need to have great hand eye coordination to hit a 95mph fastball but that doesn't justify a player being paid 25 million dollars a year. What other sport in the world would you find over sized men (ie Cecil Fielder, Manny Ramierz, Kirby Puckett etc) other than sumo wrestling? I've played baseball and it's a great game to play, when you're actually playing. How often are you playing?? You wait 2 innings before you get to hit. When you're on the field you stand there waiting for a ball to be hit towards you. You take the couple of steps, throw the ball and that's the exercise you get. The other 80% of the time you don't do a damn thing. The most work I see these guys do is the pre-game work out. You see a group of guys that might jog around for a bit and throw the ball around. Yippie!!! These guys are the least active among any professional sports and yet they get paid so much money. The worst part to is our neighbours down south have the gull to say that Baseball is the greatest game in the world. I can understand during post season the games could be exciting to watch. Every pitch you're into it so it's different from watching the NHL where there's a constant flow to the game. This sport isn't for everyone I understand that but for someone to tell me how Baseball is a better sport than hockey, basketball, football is beyond me. Only in America can you glorify a sport where each person puts in like 10 minutes of actually play time and say it's the greatest past time.

There is no way of convincing me that baseball players are real athletes. Sure Derek Jeter, A-Rod, Carlos Beltran are great baseball players I would never dispute that. I dare any mofo out there to even try convincing me that these guys deserve to be paid the amount of money they make for the amount of work they actually put forth day in and day out.

That's my rant for today. http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/rant2.gif

Heading home to play some vids. http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/biggthumpup.gif

[Degenerate]

You should be moving as every pitch thrown--crouching on the balls of your feet, anticipating where the ball will be hit, and moving. You need to be crouching as each pitch is thrown--and you need to be prepared to sprint (you have to judge where the pitch is going to the batter, watching where the ball will likely make contact on the bat, etc.). If you aren't moving with the pitches, then you suck. Moreover, if you aren't backing up the throws, the plays, the other fielders, then you suck. If you're an outfielder not backing up plays to the infield, then you suck. The people who whine that baseball is boring to play are the people who suck and are lazy (or they never grew up with baseball and don't know how to play properly). If you're just standing there, "waiting for a ball to be hit to you", then frankly, you suck and don't know how to play. On competitive teams, these types are the first to be cut, because they don't have a clue how to play properly.

The big, huge, fat baseball players tend to excel in the American League where they end up being DHs (or otherwise playing first base), which is another reason I dislike the American League.

No one can tell me Larry Walker, Alex Rodriguez, etc., aren't athletes. These guys can hit, run, throw, and field--probably 10x better than anyone posting here.

YOU SUCK!

[deep]

Baseball has one of the most taxing and important positions in all of pro sports - the pitcher. It also has the single most difficult skill in all of pro sports - trying to hit off of a pro pitcher. Beyond that, it has one of the most limited skill sets among sports.

You need to crouch as each pitch is thrown? Who can handle THAT kind of exertion? You need to "be prepared" to sprint? Fine, but you don't ACTUALLY sprint more than a few times per game. Can you believe they actually keep track of "errors" in the sport? My god, things are so routine that when someone makes a mistake, it's an event! How many errors are made in football or hockey or soccer or basketball? Dozens...because things are moving faster, you're more tired due to honest-to-god exertion, and there are actual variations on plays and defensive/offensive sets.

And dgmorr, I formally challenge you to a game of one-on-one basketball. I'll show you how undefended that net is, and if you want to bring your dog, kat (sic) or monkey, they can play with you. You've got one part right, however...you WILL be crying by the time it's over.

[Webslinger]

You need to crouch as each pitch is thrown? Who can handle THAT kind of exertion?

No. You need to be CONSTANTLY moving with each pitch. Short, fast, movements . . . If you're just standing straight up and down with each pitch, you're doing something wrong. The best players in the game have excellent jumps on the ball and for good reason (they move with the pitch).

Beyond that, it has one of the most limited skill sets among sports.

Completely inane comment . . . You need speed to steal a base and to cover the field. You need to be extremely agile to play shortstop or second base. And the most taxing position in baseball is behind the plate (catcher)--not the pitcher (unless you're talking pre 1950s era). Arm strength and accuracy are required to be effective in the field. Can you throw a ball from center or right field on the fly to the catcher (or even third base)? I doubt it.

Granted, I suspect people do burn more calories playing basketball or hockey. I'm not convinced, however, that burning more calories makes one a superior athlete. And regardless, most of those athletes cannot play MLB well (and vice versa). Completely different skill sets (except for speed). I find the people who whine the most about baseball sucking are the ones who are frustrated by how difficult it is to excel at baseball. I've seen huge muscle builders look like little girls trying to hit baseball, or field, or throw properly . . .
But I have no doubt they can bench more than the average MLB player.

[untaka]

YOU SUCK!
lol baseball blows I agree Degenerate

[sleepyguy]

LoL! I gonna have to agree... Baseball is the most boring sport of all time... I actually enjoy watching golf more :) Not that I watch either very much. I prefer watching sports with constant 'flow'. Mind you... playing is a different story... then again... in 'birby' you get to bat at least 3 times an inning (1on1) :)

[Degenerate]

LoL! I gonna have to agree... Baseball is the most boring sport of all time... I actually enjoy watching golf more :) Not that I watch either very much. I prefer watching sports with constant 'flow'. Mind you... playing is a different story... then again... in 'birby' you get to bat at least 3 times an inning (1on1) :)

See that's when it's fun! http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/biggthumpup.gif

[Mintmaster]

I was going to say that you are a very intelligent indivdual until you added that lame arse comment ;)
Hehe, okay, I was a bit out of line, but it was in jest (notice the grin?). Just a little frustration that few if any of my friends from my childhood years played soccer, and I was bored out of my mind playing baseball. I guess I just placed the blame on baseball.

[Degenerate]

Hehe, okay, I was a bit out of line, but it was in jest (notice the grin?). Just a little frustration that few if any of my friends from my childhood years played soccer, and I was bored out of my mind playing baseball. I guess I just placed the blame on baseball.

Actually you weren't out of line at all. I misread your post. I originally thought you were knocking God's team, the Leafs. :cheesygri

[Mintmaster]

Webslinger, the problem with your arguments is that the level needed for each of those abilities are a dime a dozen. The only thing that sets baseball players apart is their ability to bat. I'd wager that there are at least 10,000 people in North America who have the same speed, agility, or throwing arm of the top player in each of those categories in MLB.

What's more is that in baseball, those abilities make a marginal difference. Being a 13 second runner vs a 11 second runner will make very little difference in a baseball game, and only on the rarest of occasions will the former get an extra base or catch another ball. However, these times are probably a couple of standard deviations apart. It's the very nature of the game that requires only good (as opposed to exceptional) athletic abilities.

And regardless, most of those athletes cannot play MLB well (and vice versa). Completely different skill sets (except for speed). I find the people who whine the most about baseball sucking are the ones who are frustrated by how difficult it is to excel at baseball. I've seen huge muscle builders look like little girls trying to hit baseball, or field, or throw properly . . .
But I have no doubt they can bench more than the average MLB player.
I think this comment comes from someone who sucks at all sports except baseball. ;)

You ever see NHL players deflect pucks and bat them or trap them out of the air? That a lot harder than hitting a baseball. I rarely play baseball, but when I did a few years ago after a long hiatus, I hit a home-run on my first at bat. No, I can't throw exceptionally, but I just don't use that motion in any other sport.

During my years in high-school and junior school, good all-round athletes were always good baseball players. However, the converse was often not true. If you're a poor runner, you can be a good baseball player, but you can't a be a good (outdoor) soccer player. If you have poor endurance, you can be a good baseball player, but you can't be a good soccer, hockey, or basketball player (unless your a sub). The same holds for agility (except in extreme cases, like Shaq). The only time you can make the opposite statement is for specific skills, like hitting a ball or throwing well. Hence baseball has a closer resemblance to golf, bowling, even throwing darts.

If the athletic baseball players lost some of their athletic ability, like speed, agility, or endurance, there would be a very small drop in their effectiveness, all else being equal. Baseball players get athletic for their own reasons, not because the sport requires it. I worked two summers at ATI technologies, and did not see one fat engineer (honestly!), and saw lots of people go to the workout room. Does that mean the work needs fit people? Obviously not. The athletes you mentioned are not athletic because of the marginal effect on their baseball abilities.

[Fezuki]

Baseball should not even be considered a sport. Players stand around more than running around. When you have "obese" players, that's when you know it's not a sport anymore. You don't see players with triple chin, big stomachs and what not playing hockey(a real sport).

[Webslinger]

I completely missed this reply.


Webslinger, the problem with your arguments is that the level needed for each of those abilities are a dime a dozen.


Yeah, and that's why you're making millions with the Yankees, right?


The only thing that sets baseball players apart is their ability to bat. I'd wager that there are at least 10,000 people in North America who have the same speed, agility, or throwing arm of the top player in each of those categories in MLB.

I don't know who the fastest MLB baseball player is (conclusively), but most baseball scouting/recruiting for speed is done based on the 60 yard dash, which several players have run under 6.3 seconds. Joey Gathright (Tampa Bay Devil Rays) has been clocked at 6.1 seconds in the 60 yard dash. So you better start listing 10,000 people from North America who "have the same speed". :lol:

And you better start finding 10,000 people in North America who can toss a 100mph fastball like Nolan Ryan while you're at it.

What's more is that in baseball, those abilities make a marginal difference.

You've grown up watching blowouts in the American league?

Being a 13 second runner vs a 11 second runner will make very little difference in a baseball game

This comment is completely insane. The fastest basestealers can dominate games; guys like Rickey Henderson; Tim Raines, (going back a long time ago) Ty Cobbs, even Vince Coleman, etc., could completely change the tide of games and win close games entirely with their speed alone.


I think this comment comes from someone who sucks at all sports except baseball. ;)

lol

You ever see NHL players deflect pucks and bat them or trap them out of the air? That a lot harder than hitting a baseball

According to whom? You?

I rarely play baseball, but when I did a few years ago after a long hiatus, I hit a home-run on my first at bat.

And you were facing minor-league calibre (or better) pitching? If so, grats . . .

No, I can't throw exceptionally, but I just don't use that motion in any other sport.

Play quarterback much? Still need arm strength . . .

During my years in high-school and junior school, good all-round athletes were always good baseball players.

Your conclusions are based on personal experience, which is hardly conclusive evidence of much of anything.

If you're a poor runner, you can be a good baseball player,

Not in my books . . . If you're slow, you suck: you can't cover your position; you're prone to running into double plays and force outs; you can't go for the extra base. I have very little respect for one-dimensional guys like Cecil Fielder.


The same holds for agility (except in extreme cases, like Shaq).

It's apparent from your posting that you have a limited knowledge of what it takes to excel at baseball. Ever watched Ozzie Smith play shortstop? Ever watch Howard Johnson play shortstop? Can you recognize the difference?

The only time you can make the opposite statement is for specific skills, like hitting a ball or throwing well. Hence baseball has a closer resemblance to golf, bowling, even throwing darts.

:lol:

Good evening

[Mintmaster]

You know, you seem to have a real problem understanding a lot of my points.

There's a difference between "can" and "will". If you want to play pro soccer, you absolutely CANNOT be a poor runner. Nor can you have poor agility. You will be a great liability defensively for the team if you are, regardless of how good your ball skills or kick is. Even offensively you'd be unlikely to get in good position. However, you can be a baseball player if you're a poor runner, provided your hitting skills are okay. You see it all the time. Your example of, Howard Johnson, who was a MLB player, proves my point.

I went to http://www.baseball1.com to get some baseball statistics, and looked at data from 2000-2004 using Perl scripts and Excel. You are definately overrating the value of stolen bases. Here are my findings:

I divided the results into 4 groups:
A: On base percentage below .300
B: OBP from .300-.350
C: OBP from .350-.400
D: OBP over .400

For groups B and C, exceptional base stealers (approx. top 10 results in those 5 years) gets a stolen base about every 12 at-bats or better. By "at-bat", I'm including walks. For group A, the best stealers get one every 20 at bats (due to fewer chances) or better. For group D, it's similar - one SB every 20 at bats (due to their generally increased bulk, I guess).

What I'm going to do is compare the scoring rate (i.e. runs per at bat) between exceptional base stealers (EBS) as defined above, and average base stealers (ABS), with one third the steal rate, i.e. 1/36 for B & C, 1/60 for A and D.

EBS ABS
A .117 .123
B .130 .133
C .156 .159
D .168 .154

Clearly, you can see a very weak relationship between stolen bases and runs scored, and for group D (>.400 OBP), good base stealers were actually less likely to score (don't know why). The standard deviation in the scoring average was about 0.02 for each group, making this correlation even more irrelevant.

The last thing to see is that going between OBP classes make a much MUCH larger difference in scoring rate. Not only that, but RBI's will obviously go up much faster with good batting than good base stealing, lessing further the impact of the latter in determining a player's value. Basically, don't work on stealing bases unless you've absolutely plateaued on your batting ability.

I'm basically giving proof to this (http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1436661.html) article. Your counter argument of how speed gives you stolen bases may have some merit, but as I said earlier, it makes very little difference in your effectiveness as a player and for the team.

Looking at other aspects of baseball, speed is almost useless. Rarely will extra speed let you get another out that a slower player wouldn't get. The nature of baseball also makes it very hard to get infield singles no matter how fast you are (with the exception of Ichiro), and a fast runner hardly gets any more doubles than slow runners would on simple hits to the outfield, which is why you see players jog nearly all the time. For the harder to get balls, like off the wall, along the foul line, etc., most slow runners can get to second, and few fast ones can get to third occasionally. We're talking about a 50% increase in running distance between a double and a triple, so 30% extra speed (which is a LOT, e.g. between my average speed and Donovan Bailey's) will rarely cover you for that distance. Even so, it's impact on a player's overall game is very little, not only because the number of triples hit by nearly all batters has low statistical impact, but also because a double is usually just as good for getting a guy home (from any base), and a hit should bring you home whether you're on second or third. It'll only really help for sacrifices.

Face it: Speed is very low on the list of priorities for a baseball player. That's why many are fat and slow. Once you get to average speed, say 14 or 15 seconds for 100m (I can't compare 60-yard data very easily as it's not standard, but I see sub-6.0s times all over google, and your 6.1 time doesn't even seem to be official/competition), the returns dimish greatly.

If you want to see the data, PM me with your email address and I'll send you the Excel file. I'll address the rest of your points some other time, but many of them are misinterpreting what I said.

[Degenerate]

sleep > watching baseball

[Mintmaster]

sleep > watching baseball
Damn straight. I don't know why I'm doing all these stats, but I think I'll make a web page one day that scientifically proves baseball isn't a sport. :cheesygri

[gman]

However, you can be a baseball player if you're a poor runner, provided your hitting skills are okay. You see it all the time. Your example of, Howard Johnson, who was a MLB player, proves my point.


Well, it needs to be better than okay in hitting. If you are useless in any catagory, you have to bat better than okay. At least, it is better than somebody who can run and field from minor league. When you are old and you can't run or field and you are still in the roster, it is because you can hit better than okay. By the way, Micheal Jordan could not hit or field.

[Mintmaster]

Granted, but "better than okay" covers a large portion of the MLB. I'm saying speed has very little value, comparatively speaking. If I wanted results on my team, I'd choose a 15 second runner with a .300 average over a 12 second runner with a .270 average. Only a third of players on the field need to be outfielders, and if you randomly picked 9 people from, say, the top quartile of male athletes in any old high-school, you'd be unlucky not to get 3 runners with enough speed.

In Michael Jordan's case, wasn't it more a lack of skill that hurt him so much? I never watched him play.

[Webslinger]

You know, you seem to have a real problem understanding a lot of my points.

I'm confused. Which point would that be? The one where you claimed you could find 10,000 people in North America who can run 60 yards in 6.1 seconds or throw 100 mph? Anything else you care to wager?


There's a difference between "can" and "will". If you want to play pro soccer, you absolutely CANNOT be a poor runner. Nor can you have poor agility.

And if you want to make it into the MLB, you absolutely have be able to (pick one): run, hit, field, or throw.


You will be a great liability defensively for the team if you are

If you're a starter playing in baseball, in the national league, you are an absolute liability if you have no range (aren't quick) and can't hit.

However, you can be a baseball player if you're a poor runner, provided your hitting skills are okay. You see it all the time. Your example of, Howard Johnson, who was a MLB player, proves my point.

Howard Johnson's career merely lasted 14 seasons, and for the last four of them he was primarily "riding the pine" and was a complete liability to whatever team he played on during that time. Why? Well, he couldn't field, for one . . .

I went to http://www.baseball1.com to get some baseball statistics, and looked at data from 2000-2004 using Perl scripts and Excel. You are definately overrating the value of stolen bases.

Hate to break it to you; but the guy with the most caeer runs scored also holds the record for the most stolen bases. That guy's name is Rickey Henderson (who was covering 90 feet in approximately 3 seconds). And if you watch a baseball game, when the score is tied in the bottom of the ninth, the manager doesn't find the guy with the highest OBP on his bench to come in to pinch run; the fastest guy comes in. I think I'll trust the professional scouts who use speed as a factor when drafting, than your faulty statistical analysis.

Who are the top two run scorers in the history of baseball? Rickey Henderson and Ty Cobb. Speed doesn't matter? lol

I'm basically giving proof to this (http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1436661.html) article. Your counter argument of how speed gives you stolen bases may have some merit, but as I said earlier, it makes very little difference in your effectiveness as a player and for the team.

Again, this assertion is completely inane. Speed just doesn't translate into stolen bases. Speed translates into more runs scored (being able to take the extra base matters), more outs made in the field (defensivley), and more errors produced by the opposing team.


Looking at other aspects of baseball, speed is almost useless.

Right. And people who get paid money to draft must be all incredibly stupid.


Rarely will extra speed let you get another out that a slower player wouldn't get.

lol
lololololol

Are you serious?

That actually made me laugh outloud. You should write a paper entitled "Speed doesn't really matter in baseball" and forward a copy to Rickey and every single scout for MLB. Make sure you mention that "rarely will extra speed let you get another out that a slower player wouldn't get". Also, mention that you can find 10,000 people in North America that can run the 60 yard dash in 6.1 seconds or better (also I just read about a Cinci Reds draft pick that ran in it 6.05s).

Here's a more intelligent stat analysis for you; compare MLB's stolen base leader's runs scored for each year to the league average for runs scored by a starter with at least 400 ABs for any given year. Furthermore, examine how that relationship changes when the stolen base leader steals at least 50 bases in a given season.

Let me remind you what prompted you to respond to me. You began by writing:

"Webslinger, the problem with your arguments is that the level needed for each of those abilities are a dime a dozen. The only thing that sets baseball players apart is their ability to bat. I'd wager that there are at least 10,000 people in North America who have the same speed, agility, or throwing arm of the top player in each of those categories in MLB."

Just some general advice . . . you can't be taken seriously while debating an issue if you make idiotic assertions. Consequently, I couldn't possibly care less about anything else you have to say on this topic.

[deep]

Of course they're looking at speed, because they have a huge number of people to consider....therefore they have a huge number of good hitters, and can differentiate based on the other factors. However, if you think for a second that they will pick a guy who runs a 7.0 60 and hits .250 over a guy who runs an 8.0 60 and hits .300, you're fooling yourself.

Rickey was THE BEST base stealer of all time. Not a good one, not a great one, but THE BEST. Good longevity, too. Trying to base an analysis on him is ridiculous. He IS the statistical anomaly. I'll rebut with, oh, the guy you left out of your analysis, conveniently enough, Pete Rose, who stole fewer than half as many bases as Cobb, and about a fifth as many as Rickey, yet managed to score about as many runs.

I like your question about who comes in to pinch run.....that's hilarious. Do you think he's the same guy who comes in to pinch hit? Oh, right. There are two unique and rare skills in baseball....pitching and hitting. If you can do either of those exceptionally well, you WILL play professional baseball. If you do everything else exceptionally well, you MIGHT play pro ball.

In none of the other sports we're comparing can someone get by without great quickness and agility. Do you think there will ever be "designated kickers" in soccer or guys in hockey who barely manage to skate to one spot and then shoot blistering slapshots?

[deep]

Not in my books . . . If you're slow, you suck: you can't cover your position; you're prone to running into double plays and force outs; you can't go for the extra base. I have very little respect for one-dimensional guys like Cecil Fielder.

And the fact that you have little respect for him really seems to have hurt his baseball career. You'll pardon me for almost quoting you, but I think I'll trust baseball scouts' opinions over yours.

By the way, in half the length of time Rickey played, Cecil scored only 1/3 the runs Rickey did, yet drove in more runs. At their peaks, Cecil was also paid more than double what Rickey was, and his career average salary was more than double Rickey's as well.....now what do think that says about professional baseball scouts' managers' and owners' opinion about the value of abilities?

[Webslinger]

However, if you think for a second that they will pick a guy who runs a 7.0 60 and hits .250 over a guy who runs an 8.0 60 and hits .300, you're fooling yourself.

I'd like you to show me where I stated hitting is less important than raw speed.

Rickey was THE BEST base stealer of all time. Not a good one, not a great one, but THE BEST.

This is somewhat debatable, but I agree with you.

Good longevity, too.

Yes

Trying to base an analysis on him is ridiculous.

Why? He wasn't fast?

He IS the statistical anomaly.

He was a MLB player. He was fast. Our discussion includes MLB who are fast. Furthermore, some guy wrote "I'd wager that there are at least 10,000 people in North America who have the same speed, agility, or throwing arm of the top player in each of those categories in MLB."

Rickey is certainly a top player.

I'll rebut with, oh, the guy you left out of your analysis,

I'll just rebute you with your own words:

Good longevity, too.

and

He IS the statistical anomaly.

if plate appearances matter . . .

Pete Rose, who stole fewer than half as many bases as Cobb, and about a fifth as many as Rickey, yet managed to score about as many runs.

Yeah, the only problem is your use of the word "almost" and the fact that you don't examine the sheer number of Rose's plate appearances.

I like your question about who comes in to pinch run.....that's hilarious. Do you think he's the same guy who comes in to pinch hit?

I'd like you to show me where I stated hitting is less important than raw speed.

Oh, right. There are two unique and rare skills in baseball....pitching and hitting. If you can do either of those exceptionally well, you WILL play professional baseball. If you do everything else exceptionally well, you MIGHT play pro ball.

Actually, if all you can do is hit, then you might play baseball, but you'll probably end up a DH in the American League. That is, the guy who can hit and field is going to see more playing time, overall than the guy who can only hit. Being able to hit, just by itself, isn't good enough, if you don't want to sit on the bench.


In none of the other sports we're comparing can someone get by without great quickness and agility.

Lol, so I have to judge athletes now based on another sport's requirements?


Do you think there will ever be "designated kickers" ?


Ok. So American football isn't a "real" sport either? Rugby isn't a real sport?

:lol:

In none of the other sports we're comparing can someone get by without great quickness and agility.

You simply can't get by at either shortstop or second base without being agile; otherwise, you are a serious detriment to your team.

Do you think there will ever be "designated kickers" in soccer or guys in hockey who barely manage to skate to one spot and then shoot blistering slapshots?

Again, so American football isn't a "real" sport either? Rugby isn't a real sport?

There aren't players in hockey whose primary role is to be an enforcer? Are all enforcers skilled players? By the way, on certain nights, it looked to me as though the enitre Leafs' defensive unit couldn't skate to "a spot". ;-)

[aquariaguy]

Us Canadians know real sports. Thats why baseball sucks here. You wouldn't believe how many free tickets the jays were giving away...and i didn't go to a single game.

Btw, i think only the pitcher and the catchers are real players.

[Webslinger]

And the fact that you have little respect for him really seems to have hurt his baseball career. You'll pardon me for almost quoting you, but I think I'll trust baseball scouts' opinions over yours.

Well, if he ever makes someone's top ten firstbasemen list of all-time, perhaps we can have this discussion again (time lost in Japan, notwithstanding).

By the way, in half the length of time Rickey played, Cecil scored only 1/3 the runs Rickey did, yet drove in more runs.

Rickey hit leadoff; Cecil didn't. (Cleanup-type hitters are going to get more RBIs just by virtue of where they hit in the batting order).

At their peaks, Cecil was also paid more than double what Rickey was

This is pointless. I can name a few players who make more than others right now and are generally considered to be worse players.

his career average salary was more than double Rickey's as well.....now what do think that says about professional baseball scouts' managers' and owners' opinion about the value of abilities?

Comparing players' salaries as the primary indication of their skill level is just asinine. Moreover, provided one accepts that type of anaylsis, you would have to have two players reach their prime and negotiate contracts at the same time.

I'm not sure I'd compare the two players, but Rickey Henderson is a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame; Cecil isn't.

[deep]

Every time I see someone arguing the way you do on the internet, I know it's a lost cause. All you can do is attack single sentences and try to deconstruct others' arguments.

You say that only pro scouts and managers make decisions that matter, but then you say that how much they decide to pay a player is meaningless. (And I chose Cecil and Rickey because they both made their peak money in 1994-1996)

The argument being made is that you can be one-dimensional (provided that one dimension is hitting or pitching) and still make it in baseball. You don't need to be a well rounded (er...not in the Cecil sense) athlete to make it. You have yet to address this, despite picking at almost every sentence of every post that disagrees with your point of view.

You suddenly are talking about skill level, rather than importance to a team. The simple fact is that players who can hit get PAID, even if they're fat bastards. Fast guys who can't hit get nothing. This is the final, definitive answer. Athletes get jack, athletes who can hit get millions.

[Mintmaster]

Webslinger, why are you so friggin bent on finding isolated cases? We're talking about baseball as a sport and the MLB, not a couple of people. We're talking about general trends, average case, etc.

I just showed you the stats for the top 10 stolen base results for each class of player in a span of 5 years. The ~50 of the best base stealing results, selected from a field of 1300 player-years involving at least 200 at-bats, could not prove your point. Your examples of 9th inning stolen bases happen how many times per year? And in how many of those does the stolen base make a difference? And how is that relevant in the context of over 2400 games played per season? Exactly.

You want cherry picked data from stolen base leaders? I found that Alex Sanchez, with Detroit in 2003, had the highest stolen bases per at-bat of anyone in those five years. Sanchez got 44 in 412 at-bats. His runs per at-bat? 0.104. Crawford, the AL stolen base leader in 2003, got 55 in 656 at-bats. His runs per at-bat? 0.122. Average in the league? 0.135. Boy, those stolen bases helped a ton, didn't they?

You want to tell me how my stats are faulty? Are they too complicated for you? You can't pick single examples because that's worthless, as I just showed you.

10,000 names? Where am I going to get names from? Do you know how amazing you have to be to be in the top 10,000 in North America? There are probably 70 million people between the age of 16 and 30, half of which are male. If I picked a random sample of 3,000 men, in this age group, you'd have to be NUMBER ONE to have a good chance at being in the top 10,000 in the continent. I do not know nearly as many as 3000 people in that age group, but do I know someone who does the 40 yard dash in 4.4, and others that are nearly as fast. I was aghast, and said "Damn, isn't that world class speed?" He said world class is more like 4.1 or 4.2. That's the difference you're talking about. A few tenths is the difference between world class and not being able to earn a cent with your athletic gift.

World class in the 60 yard dash is something like 5.8 (Greene did the 60m, i.e. 10% more distance, in 6.39 officially). This guy you're talking about is an anomaly and a newcomer in baseball, and from what I've just read he says he could have developed into a world record long jumper; furthermore, 6.1 seconds is not official or in competition as far as I can see. The other examples were 6.3 seconds. Between 6.3 seconds and the 5.8 second limit of mankind we can easily fit the top 0.03% of men in their athletic prime. Before you start arguing with me, make sure you have an idea of what you're talking about. You don't seeem to be very good at numbers.

As for throwing, I think that would be a lot easier to find. Throwing accurately, though, is a lot harder. I would not expect to find many people who could though a 100mph fastball (BTW, is Nolan Ryan playing right now? Didn't think so. I wasn't talking about he best athletes ever in the history of baseball), but given how many people play baseball in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if there were that many that could launch a ball that fast, albeit uncontrolled. Anyways, this part of the argument doesn't matter, because I've always been amazed by the pitcher, especially starters. That position is the only athletic one in baseball.

I'm talking more about the throwing from the outfield. For home runs, singles (not infield), and 90% of doubles, there will be no different outcome between the best outfielder throw in the league and the worst, so long as it isn't an error. An amazing, world class throwing arm has minimal impact on the outcome of most games. Finding people with throwing arms as good as the top in MLB won't be too hard, because MLB can only have those with skill. Look at golf. There are thousands of people in the world who can drive over 300 yards, and much farther than nearly all of the PGA tour players. The difference is skill, not athletic ability. The same is true for baseball.

Oh yeah, regarding football and the throwing arm, I was strictly talking about myself. I don't have good enough throwing strength to field in MLB because I don't happen to throw much. Most of my friends are quite good at it, though. <shrug>

And if you want to make it into the MLB, you absolutely have be able to (pick one): run, hit, field, or throw.
The key here is pick ONE. Thank you for proving my point. Actually, if you can only run, then you'd be one sh1tty baseball player. In soccer, if you can't run fast enough, too bad. There's nothing else that can make up for it. If you're not agile, too bad. People would be able to walk around you like you're a pylon. If you have poor endurance, then you can be a substitution only, which is not representative of the majority of players. No amount of other skills will make up for those, period. You MUST be athletic to play pro soccer. Nearly all other sports are similar in that requirement, with some modifications. In baseball, neither of those (agility, speed, or especially endurance) is a must. I would say hitting is a must, because that correlates most strongly with production and winning, but that's a skill like a golf stroke.

[Webslinger]

Every time I see someone arguing the way you do on the internet, I know it's a lost cause. All you can do is attack single sentences and try to deconstruct others' arguments.

I'm addressing points you're raising as I come to them. The only reason I don't sit back at the end of your post and write some long diatribe is because I'd end up having to quote you anyway. The only reason it's a lost cause for you is because you are unable to offer a definition of sport that you can defend.

from dictionary.com

"Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively."

According to the English language, then, baseball is a sport. But I'll play according to your rules, mainly because I'm bored . . .

By the way, and this is the real, intellectual problem here: arguing that baseball isn't a sport is akin to an art critic trying to tell me the Voice of Fire painting is objectively worth one million dollars. It's a bunch of subjective nonsense. If I feel (and I don't) that in order for a baseball player to be a great athelete, all he has to do is hit well, then I'm right; I'm using my own critieria. Any criteria anyone here comes up with will be (relatively) subjective (I admit, we don't all live in a vacuum, but it's still subjective criteria nonetheless) criteria, no matter how many people agree with you. This isn't a point I'm interested in debating either; it's a fact.

You say that only pro scouts and managers make decisions that matter, but then you say that how much they decide to pay a player is meaningless. (And I chose Cecil and Rickey because they both made their peak money in 1994-1996)

I would probably have to backpeddle here. I'm not sure it's entirely meaningless, but salary is certainly not the be-all and end-all for determining a player's skill, and it's not scouts and managers who are dishing out the money; that responsibility lies with the owners/GMs, who are more important in that decision making process than they are at the draft level (which is where the 60 yard dash trials are more heavily relied upon). I think you would agree that some athletes (in professional sports) are not worth what they are getting paid (based on market value). I mean, I constantly hear fans complaining about certain athletes being overpaid in relation to other athletes in the same sport, and I read columns about "bargain players". Moreover, factors like players taking less money to play with contenders, close to home, or somewhere they just prefer (owners have less money to shell out than other owners) to play also skew the the reliability of using salary to determine skill level.


The argument being made is that you can be one-dimensional (provided that one dimension is hitting or pitching) and still make it in baseball. You don't need to be a well rounded (er...not in the Cecil sense) athlete to make it. You have yet to address this, despite picking at almost every sentence of every post that disagrees with your point of view.


OK, look . . .

I agree that there are one-dimensional athletes in baseball. I, as a baseball fan, do not respect them as athletes. This is one reason why I prefer the National League where players are less likely to hide behind the DH rule. I'm not saying I think Cecil Fielder is a bad or evil man or anything. I'm just saying I don't respect him, because I feel he is a one dimensional baseball player (I bet Cecil is stronger than some other profesional athletes outside of baseball though). That said, to suggest that most baseball players are one dimensional, is, I feel, an unfair assertion. I like(d) to watch players (when they were in their prime) like Ken Griffey Jr., Larry Walker, Wille Mays, Ozzie Smith, Roberto Alomar--even Bo Jackson (although, I didn't feel he was a great hitter; he was exciting to watch), etc. No one can tell me these guys aren't athletes. There are also players in MLB who could have pursued careers in other sports.


You suddenly are talking about skill level, rather than importance to a team.

I honestly don't feel I'm suddenly doing anything. You guys are talking about athletes in terms of skill. Granted, I haven't gone back to the beginning of this thread and re-read everything (and I can't be bothered), but to the best of my knowledge, you're the one suddenly talking about team MVPs.

The simple fact is that players who can hit get PAID, even if they're fat bastards. Fast guys who can't hit get nothing. This is the final, definitive answer. Athletes get jack, athletes who can hit get millions.

Well, except you're calling baseball players "athletes" now . . . ;-)

Definitive, for you perhaps . . .
I conceed that fat baseball players who can only hit get paid millions. However, that doesn't prove the following:

1. Baseball isn't a sport
2. The majority of baseball players are "fat bastards"
3. That "fat" athletes don't exist in American football, boxing, basketball, and in other sports
4. That one dimensional players don't exist in other sports

[Webslinger]

Webslinger, why are you so friggin bent on finding isolated cases? We're talking about baseball as a sport and the MLB, not a couple of people. We're talking about general trends, average case, etc.

Probably because you wrote,

"I'd wager that there are at least 10,000 people in North America who have the same speed, agility, or throwing arm of the top player in each of those categories in MLB."

You're not very good with logic, are you? Are your own words too difficult for you to understand? Pick one, and I'll explain it for you.

Just scrolled past some more idiocy where you complained about a baseball player potentially developing into a world-class long jumper, so I guess that definitely proves he's not an athlete.

And I've already explained why your statistical analysis is faulty. It would be futile for me to repeat myself, considering you can't even follow your own arguments (as illustrated aptly above where you whine about "average"s, yet forget you intially argued for the "top"), but suffice it to say, I find it odd for someone espousing the virtue of "averages" to then limit satistical data to a 5 year period (plus completely gloss over what I wrote previously . . . that was also a nifty trick where you dismissed a trial time and raised it to 6.3; too bad we can't do that to your i.q. as well).

And if you think you're going to have problems finding 10,000 people in North America that can throw 100mph+ (claims of fast radar guns aside and without having Guinness present, Mark Wohlers has been clocked at 103 mph; Randy Johnson 102 mph; Rob Nenn 102 mph; Eric Gagne 101 mph; Billy Koch 101mph, etc . . .), I agree with you. Let me repeat, "you can't be taken seriously while debating an issue if you make idiotic assertions. Consequently, I couldn't possibly care less about anything else you have to say on this topic."

because I've always been amazed by the pitcher, especially starters. That position is the only athletic one in baseball.

lololol

Just not worth my time . . .

Won't be posting again

[Mintmaster]

I did not say that the top players are not athletes, I'm talking about league as a whole. Obviously that guy is, and I wasn't aware of him, who played only a handful of games so far. I'm not complaining about him being an athlete, I'm saying he's probably the first player in years with that ability. If I started this argument just one year ago, you couldn't use him. But anyway, I'll concede on that.

Fine, you want me to make a more realistic argument? How about this. There are 10,000 in each athletic category better than 99% of the players in MLB. It's too easy to find statistical anomalies. Now I'm saying players #4 to #300-whatever are worse than at least 10,000 other people in their best athletic ability. I still think the top 0.03% of males between 16 and 30 could run the 60y dash in 6.1, but let's make it the 4th fastest player now.

Do you know what the top 0.03% is? You take 1000 people. From this huge herd of people you get just 10 finalists. Then you take 10 groups of 10 finalists (that's 100 people, all in the top percentile), and now you take the top 3. These are damn fast people, yet most of them won't make a dime off their abilities. A lot of people can sprint as fast as you're saying, especially since the real divergence in sprinting occurs over longer distances like 100m or 200m when the top speed matters.

You're completely ignoring the holistic point as deep pointed out. So now that I made this change, I'm talking about 99% of baseball players as opposed to 99.7%, hardly weakening my point. Their best athletic skills are a dime a dozen. Still, some of those 99% I'll still call athletes, because being in the top 10,000 is very very good. However, if you look at, say, the lower 70%, which is a large majority, those I would not call athletes.

I already told you I'm not talking about pitchers, I mentioned that in my first post, as well as in another thread. Unfortunately, we don't have throwing speed stats for fielding.

And no, you didn't explain why my stats are faulty. You gave a couple of hand picked stats. The vast majority of fast runners don't acheive the success of Ricky Henderson or Ty Cobb. I also answered your challenge about looking at base stealing leaders. You said base stealers take over games, implying that it's a very important skill. I proved that you're full of crap, and my evidence is based on hard statistics. Going from .300 to .350 with your on base percentage has 10 times the benefit to the team than tripling your stolen bases so that you're near the top of the MLB in base stealing. That doesn't include the benefit of increased RBI's with a higher OBP. Am I making myself clear now? Over 10 times more impact.

Since there is a strong correlation between stolen bases and speed, I can do some stats between zone rating and stolen bases. I know other factors like timing and judgement matter, but clearly speed is the most important, since a slow runner will never get a decent number of stolen bases. Besides, timing and judgement are important for fielding as well. Then I can show you that speed's effect on fielding is minimal as well.