spoot wrote:

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Be advised that activities such as table tennis, knot tying, and the beautiful biathlon have been deemed SPORT, while wresting, swimming and marathon running are NOT A SPORT.

I'm very excited to learn about "wresting," even though it's not a sport. A combination of wrestling and resting, I assume. As I understand it, it starts off with the two competitors squaring off, circling the ring... then they tackle each other, get all tied up, and take a nap.

SPOOT OF CHICAGO!!! SALUT, SPOOT!!!

"Wresting" is actually an interesting combination of poor spelling, suspect fashion choices (i.e., "singlets") and latent homosexuality.

Baseball is better than almost any other game/sport because I once watched this happen:


White Sox/Red Sox last July. Pedro Martinez v. Frank Thomas. 8th inning, two-outs, runner (I forget who) on 2nd.

Pitch One: Pedro has his A-game today, so Thomas knows that an inside fastball is coming. Frank jumps on it (he rarely swings at first-pitches) and rips a towering foul ball down the left field line. 0-1.

Two: Martinez move Frank off the plate with a little chin music. A little 94 mph chin music. 1-1.

Three: With two inside pitches, Thomas knows that the next pitch will be outside. Pedro puts it right over the outside corner, and Frank doesn't move. The umpire calls it a ball. 2-1.

Four: The next pitch is anybody's guess, but Pedro decides to get Frank to chase the high heat. Again, Frank keeps the bat on his shoulder. 3-1.

Five: Thomas has cut the strike zone to about the size of a dinner plate. Another fastball outside, but this time with a little more of the plate than pitch 3. Thomas watches strike two go by. 3-2.

Six: Knowing that Thomas may have to swing at an outside pitch, Pedro comes inside again. Thomas fouls it off, way up and over the backstop. 3-2.

Pitches 7-9: Martinez throws ever piece of junk in the book, all of which Thomas pulls foul.

Pitch 10: Pedro unleashes a 12-6 curve that buckles Thomas, Jason Varitek and the jibbering idiots in the WGN booth. The umpire isn't fooled, however, and calls a strike a strike. He gawn.



What's great about this exchange, however, is it's combination of raw athletic ability and pure game theory. And what's even better, is that in baseball it happens all the time. It is the quintessential nature of the game. Every MLB hitter has put together an AB like this one, and every pitcher has managed to out-think a great hitter like Thomas. This admixture of skill, gamesmanship, and blind luck make baseball the most perfect, or perfectly compelling game in the world.

baseball IS boring if you think of it as pitch ball/hit ball/run/catch

and if you don't watch and think about it enough to develop a knowledge of the game, that is what it is, and that's why they have beer gardens

but once you know how to watch it...i could watch any two teams of people above the age of, say, 10 play for a few hours and like it. anyone who really loves baseball would probably say the same thing.

and watching professionals play is a pure form of pleasure unlike that offered by any other sport. there are many reasons for this, a few of which might be:

the game does not unduly reward individual effort and often requires sacrifice on the part of players to achieve team goals. you cannot hog the ball in baseball.

being 'totally amped' is almost never an advantage, outside of power pitchers. as a result, showboating and breast-beating machismo are at a minimum.

it is one of the very few games in which the defense has control of the ball

it unfolds slowly, yet you can miss a game's pivotal moment by simply turning your head

except for DHs and AL pitchers, all players must perform the same basic tasks. no discrete offense and defense.

the number of skills required are great, but the total athletic requirement may not be

as suggested by others, the strategy of the game is ongoing and shifts on a pitch-by-pitch basis. and strategy is field-wide, and it extends to the dugouts and bullpens. it's more complex than any other team sport except perhaps cricket, which i leave out simply b/c i do not understand it at all

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Baseball is better than any other competitive or recreational endeavor that man has ever played.

Baseball is better than chess.
Baseball is better than hockey.
Baseball is better than hot dog eating contests.
Baseball is better than "Jeopardy".
Baseball is better than basketball.
Baseball is better than any Nordic or Alpine sport.

And baseball is better than soccer.

This one is not a close call.

I think you're out of your mind. Especially with the hockey thing. Dude, that is the Xtreme sport. It's one of the only sports where homicidal maniacs can do what they do best and not get in legal trouble. Er... maybe that's not totally correct. Anyway, it's violent!

FMajcinek wrote:What's great about this [Pedro Martinez/Frank Thomas] exchange, however, is it's combination of raw athletic ability and pure game theory.

There is another level to the greatness of this exchange in that Thomas' "failure" set the stage for his team's ultimate triumph.

Although Thomas struck out, this at-bat, which actually included SEVEN foul balls, forced Boston to remove a fatigued Pedro Matrinez from the game. The White Sox then took advantage of Boston reliever Ryan Rupe and won the game. The final was 4-2.

The Martinez-Thomas chess match was a great thing. Thomas extending his at-bat, and the role of these foul balls -- these non-plays-- in the outcome of the game, was another.

So great.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Baseball is better than any other competitive or recreational endeavor that man has ever played.

Baseball is better than chess.

This is not true. Baseball is great, but chess is probably the most perfect game invented. Its far less predictable and relies so much more on strategy. The two shouldn't be compared.

Baseball is better than football, whether American or Australian Rules.

I like Baseball better than Football(as played in the NFL), but Football is probably the best combination of violence, strategy, and athletic demonstration. Its fucking great.

Good man the tmidgett - that was exactly what I was looking for! Now I'm sufficiently intrigued to go watch some baseball tonight. Your 600+ posts have gained you wisdom-imparting abilities.

And yeah, cricket is tough going. My dad was stuck in bed for a month with an injury and spent the time watching test matches between the behemoths of the game (England, India, etc.). At the end of it he could say things like "342 over, not out" like the best of 'em, and he said that the more he learned, the more he loved it.

I think I know what you mean by subtle pivotal moments too - when the Red Sox were playing the Yankees last year in the qualifiers for the World Series, Pedro was doing great for a good number of innings (8?), and the coach came out and was seen asking him, "are you good to keep goin?".

Even with my dismal knowledge of the game, I knew this was key - the coach was letting a tired player make *his* judgement call on the game. I got a bad feeling, and it panned out as I expected - Pedro sucks armadillo balls for the rest of the game, the Red Sox go back dejected to Haahvahhd Yahhhd and NY go home happy.

But soccer still rules. Ireland v. Romania in the 1990 World Cup second round - the farthest Ireland had ever reached (and we had beaten England to get there, not an easy task). Not a criminal nor cop on the streets during it. The game goes to penalty shootout, and Packie Bonner saves the last shot with a gigantic dive. The entire country, already drunk, got drunker. Ok, so it's not as strategic and deep as baseball, but it was memorable as hell.

soccer is a great sport

i grew up playing soccer, and being in europe during the '96 euro championship was a great sports experience

we don't see much top-flight soccer 'over here,' do we?

This is not true. Baseball is great, but chess is probably the most perfect game invented. Its far less predictable and relies so much more on strategy. The two shouldn't be compared.

i'm not a chess player, but if this is so, why do some chess experts seem to know if certain games among top players have been lost after the fifth or sixth move? is this grandstanding?

if it's not, baseball is never that predictable

it's much much less predictable than basketball or football

hockey, it's not very predictable

anyway, regardless, the strategy of baseball is immensely complicated and probably the equal of any endeavor this side of war. none of us will ever know everything there is to know about baseball.

i dunno why folks are all talking about baseball this and chess that... isn't it painfully clear that pool is the best sport possible? art, science, strategy, a little randomness for good measure... what's missing?

that being said, i can't get into doudes playing soccer (but chicks, and specifically sweden, hells yeah). of these two, baseball for sure.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

FMajcinek wrote:What's great about this [Pedro Martinez/Frank Thomas] exchange, however, is it's combination of raw athletic ability and pure game theory.

There is another level to the greatness of this exchange in that Thomas' "failure" set the stage for his team's ultimate triumph.

Although Thomas struck out, this at-bat, which actually included SEVEN foul balls, forced Boston to remove a fatigued Pedro Matrinez from the game. The White Sox then took advantage of Boston reliever Ryan Rupe and won the game. The final was 4-2.

The Martinez-Thomas chess match was a great thing. Thomas extending his at-bat, and the role of these foul balls -- these non-plays-- in the outcome of the game, was another.

So great.

Didn't mean to diminish Thomas' endless at-bat as "insignificant" or "non-plays." To the contrary, I meant to illustrate that everything that occurs within the confines of the batter's box is meaningful, and should be treated as such.

Thanks for correcting me as to what actually happened. I just couldn't believe that an at-bat against Pedro Martinez could last 15 pitches.

Go you Cubbies.