Yankee Stadium Fan Plunges From Upper Deck

[Winston]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The batter is only a hitter, if he hits it.

Maybe he's a swinger?

My real gripe with baseball is it all seems so random. If the batter hits the ball or not - and how he manages to hit it - seems more a matter of chance than anything else. Many times it will go over the side lines and into where the fans are seated, and more often than not he won't hit it at all.

Of course it takes great skill to bat and to pitch, and I think the players' skills are quite impressive, but still the outcome of the pitchings (or what they're called) - and by extension the entire game - seems wholly arbitrary.

And boring.

[Dis]

now that you mention it, there are too many foul balls in baseball. The game would be sped up incredibly if there were no foul balls. Put up hockey glass all along the edges and have the ball bounce off and the ball will be in play.

[DanS]

My real gripe with baseball is it all seems so random. If the batter hits the ball or not - and how he manages to hit it - seems more a matter of chance than anything else. Many times it will go over the side lines and into where the fans are seated, and more often than not he won't hit it at all.

In baseball, a .240 hitter will get demoted to the minor leagues while a .340 hitter is near tops in the league. Only 10 percentage points between them. So that perception isn't so far from the truth.

However, if you can handle a game that consists of mostly failure for even the best players, then that's not bad per se.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the batter hits the ball or not - and how he manages to hit it - seems more a matter of chance than anything else.

If you do it so many times in a row often enough, how can it be mere chance? Someone that can hit the ball 30% of the time is doing far better than simply acting on chance. How can it be considered 'arbitrary' when they can do it that well over time.

[q=Dis]now that you mention it, there are too many foul balls in baseball. The game would be sped up incredibly if there were no foul balls. Put up hockey glass all along the edges and have the ball bounce off and the ball will be in play.[/q]

Uh... no . Foul balls serve a good purpose. They keep the at bat alive. When you are just missing what pitch it is or where it is going, getting some wood on the ball allows you to stay alive and have the pitcher waste pitches... until you can a pitch to hit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DanS
In baseball, a .240 hitter will get demoted to the minor leagues while a .340 hitter is near tops in the league. Only 10 percentage points between them. So that perception isn't so far from the truth.

However, if you can handle a game that consists of mostly failure for even the best players, then that's not bad per se.

But when a player can consistently hit over .300, how can you chalk it up merely to chance? The 162 game season takes away chance.

[Asher]

The problem with baseball is simple: too much downtime, too much of the time people are standing around with fingers up their asses.

The game moves slowly, the action consists usually of a man staring at the catcher and preparing to pitch. Then he throws the ball, and an umpire makes a hand motion, then 5 minutes later they try again.

If you get lucky, someone will hit the ball...but it'll be a fly ball that's caught and we're back to square one.

Too little goes on in baseball over too long a period. It's a terrible sport, the only reason it's so huge is it's an "American past time" that kids grow up with.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How did I know I could count on a simplistic explination from Asher?

There are tons of baseball fans that didn't grow up with the game because of their parents' liking of the game. Not just in the US, but in the Caribbean and Japan especially.

Hell, you can find plenty of people who can similarly say that hockey is only a Big 4 sport because it's the "Canadian Pastime" and kids have grown up with it.

[SlowwHand]

Baseball is American as apple pie, but it's still boring for the most part.
Basketball bytes until the last minute.
Hockey is a cage match on ice.
Soccer is for little French school girls.


Give me American football and keep the rest.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


But when a player can consistently hit over .300, how can you chalk it up merely to chance? The 162 game season takes away chance.

I hear you, but for someone who picks up a game here and there, indeed it does appear random.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you do it so many times in a row often enough, how can it be mere chance? Someone that can hit the ball 30% of the time is doing far better than simply acting on chance. How can it be considered 'arbitrary' when they can do it that well over time.

You miss my point, Imran. I'm not dissing the batters and their ability. I'm quite impressed with their skill, as I said. What I'm getting at is how this 'randomness' affects the game itself. You only get so many batting attempts in a game, and whether the final score is 2-1 for the home team or 4-2 for the away team seems to me to be more of a coincidence resulting from the combined good luck of the batters on that particular day, than anything else. Not like in basketball or soccer, where you get the play going back and forth, producing scoring opportunities (most of the time) directly dependant on the relative strengths of the two sides.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How did I know I could count on a simplistic explination from Asher?

Because the reasoning is simple.

Americans are slow people who like slow games. They like having the downtime because it prevents them from having heart attacks due to being massively overweight with poor diets.

Slow games suck. That's why the NHL doesn't do very well in the States, it's too fast. And God forbid there's violence in the sport, and as we all know -- Americans do not buy into violence in video games, so why would they in sports?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DanS
I hear you, but for someone who picks up a game here and there, indeed it does appear random.

Ahhh, I get you now. Yeah, I guess I can agree with that, but I find with any sport that people are unfamilar with it appears random (ie, not that much skill) and boring. That is what it seems to me when you discuss soccer with Americans sometimes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course American football is faster and more violent than hockey, but don't let that stop your uninformed rant, Asher .

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course American football is faster and more violent than hockey, but don't let that stop your uninformed rant, Asher .

Err...how do you figure?

American football has tons of stoppage of plays. And they certainly don't run faster than players can skate.

I don't see how football is, in any way, faster than hockey. It's considerably slower with far more breaks.

And it's not more violent either. They wear enough protection and padding that it's pretty much a joke. How many fights are there in football?

[Winston]

Originally posted by Asher
The problem with baseball is simple: too much downtime, too much of the time people are standing around with fingers up their asses.

The game moves slowly, the action consists usually of a man staring at the catcher and preparing to pitch. Then he throws the ball, and an umpire makes a hand motion, then 5 minutes later they try again.

If you get lucky, someone will hit the ball...but it'll be a fly ball that's caught and we're back to square one.

Too little goes on in baseball over too long a period. It's a terrible sport, the only reason it's so huge is it's an "American past time" that kids grow up with.

I agree with this completely. This is my impression of the game also, admittedly as an outsider. But it is a very slow and protracted game with little action to it, compared to other sports.