Baseball
#21
(04-07-2015, 08:05 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-07-2015, 06:34 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-07-2015, 03:48 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-07-2015, 02:09 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-07-2015, 01:56 PM)tvguy Wrote: I think just about everything you explain is why baseball is special a great sport to play but IMO to watch on TV ? Not so much.

You said.. At 100 feet, very few would reach base on ground balls and the games would be boring and end in 1-0 scores.

It's already too often boring, few do reach base on ground balls and many games do indeed end up to be 1-0 scores.

You zeroed right in on that.
And of course you are "right" as far as that goes. Then you neglected the rest of the game.
So I'm guessing this is not "your game". Does not have to be. Is this a great country, or what!
(PS: I seldom watch it on TV. I most enjoy "watching" baseball on the radio)

Still, I'm glad I had the chance to voice my views about the game. Forums are a great thing, right?

Yes I too think it's a great game to watch on the radio. Because that means I'm doing something else and not bored by so much inaction.
I said WATCHING baseball is not that great so I don't know how that equates to it not being my game.
I love fishing but I don't watch fishing shows.




I played softball as a pitcher for about 14 years and I loved it. No it isn't fast pitch hardball. But contrary to what a lot pf people think it aint just few guys slurping beer.
It's actually a game with a LOT more action in a shorter amount of time than major league hardball.
Virtually every single person up to bat will get a hit. Strike outs are very rare.

NO ONE can hit 15 foul balls in a row. A foul counts as a strike.

And I didn't at all neglect all of the things you said about baseball. There was nothing you said that was news to me. I agree there is a LOT to baseball that many people don't apreciate.
But to me that still doesn't mean the game isn't too slow for me.Smiling

There is no clock. 27 outs and the game is over.


Yeah and no clock is something you mention as a positive for spectators??

It's recognized in the sporting world that hitting a pitched baseball is the most difficult thing in major league sports. The very best are successful about a third of the time. This is a hard game to master.

Again that's not much of a good thing for a spectator.When the hitter is successful about a third of the time that means that 2/3 of the time they fly out ground out are get struck out.

I'll post this and then wrap it up as I'm sure the rest of the folks here are bored to death with this BB talk. But..
The reason good hitters average only around .300, is that it's SO hard to center up the ball. Remember (as you well know) it's a round ball and a round bat. Off by only about a half and inch and the ball is either a weak fly, a pop up, or a ground ball to an infielder.

Alright then You are a proponent for square ballsRazz Wow that will be hell as far as bad hops for infieldersBig Grin

Yep. This thread dead. As a doornail. Smiling
Reply
#22
Okay, one more thing.

From an opinion piece in the NYT.

Don’t Let Statistics Ruin Baseball


I enjoyed this and agree!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/opinio...pan-region

(Still not sure how this works...I subscribe to the NYT and don't know if this link will open to others or not. If someone would take the time, please let me know)
Reply
#23
Arguing about baseball? Really? Well, if there ever was a doubt... This is proof that the people of RVF will argue about anything and everything.
Reply
#24
(04-08-2015, 08:12 AM)Scrapper Wrote: Arguing about baseball? Really? Well, if there ever was a doubt... This is proof that the people of RVF will argue about anything and everything.

And what did you add with this post?

I was simply explaining why the game is not very interesting to watch. Wonky took that to mean I don't understand the game and followed with saying he guesses it's not my game.
I tried to explain that I didn't play the game for 14 years because it's not my game.

By the way , YOU are one of the people of RVF who will argue about anything and everything. OR BITCH about anything or everything.
You just made that 100% clear. Even you should be able to figure that out.
You had ZERO to add and probably care less about baseball. So why did you have to open your big mouth?


This thread was about baseball the "Argument" seemed polite enough to me and addressed both sides of who some like the game and why some don't.

You had ZERO to add and probably care less about baseball. So why did you have to open your big mouth?
Reply
#25
(04-08-2015, 11:19 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-08-2015, 08:12 AM)Scrapper Wrote: Arguing about baseball? Really? Well, if there ever was a doubt... This is proof that the people of RVF will argue about anything and everything.

And what did you add with this post?

I was simply explaining why the game is not very interesting to watch. Wonky took that to mean I don't understand the game and followed with saying he guesses it's not my game.
I tried to explain that I didn't play the game for 14 years because it's not my game.

By the way , YOU are one of the people of RVF who will argue about anything and everything. OR BITCH about anything or everything.
You just made that 100% clear. Even you should be able to figure that out.
You had ZERO to add and probably care less about baseball. So why did you have to open your big mouth?


This thread was about baseball the "Argument" seemed polite enough to me and addressed both sides of who some like the game and why some don't.

You had ZERO to add and probably care less about baseball. So why did you have to open your big mouth?
What did I add? See post #9. I did add... without an argument.
Reply
#26
It might make sense to read a thread before making rude and argumentative comments. Just sayin'....
Reply
#27
(04-08-2015, 11:43 AM)Scrapper Wrote: It might make sense to read a thread before making rude and argumentative comments. Just sayin'....

You should practice what you preach. If I cared enough I would post a picture of your face next to the definition of "hypocrite"


Your comment was pointless stupid and inaccurate and you had the nerve to complain about what Wonky and I were debating?


I said...And what did you add with "THIS" post?

The word "this" should have been a clue that I wasn't referring to any other post.
Reply
#28
Bwahahaha! Hilarious!
Reply
#29
Strike two.
Reply
#30
And what about the animal cruelty?

Reply
#31
(04-08-2015, 04:48 PM)Hugo Wrote: And what about the animal cruelty?


Plucked and tenderized before it hit the groundBig Grin
Reply
#32
A sure sign the world is going to hell.

The "powers that be" in MLB are considering introducing the designated hitter (DH) to the National League. 

Dear God don't let that happen!

The game is very different when played with a DH and different in a negative way in my view. 

I'm considering inviting all of you to a back yard prayer meeting in hopes Our Lord will prevent this from happening. Cletus1 will be leading the prayers and refreshments will be served if you bring them. 

Later edit: (Forget it until I had posted this).

Scrapper: In a previous post you chided us for arguing about baseball. Arguing about the game is one of the true joys of baseball. Argument being, in this case, a good thing. (And genuine argument should always be a good thing). For instance, the sacrifice bunt to advance a runner from 1st base to 2nd and put that runner in "scoring position" is a debate (argument ) that is historical. Earl Weaver who managed for years thought it was insane give up an out when the team has only 27 outs a game to surrender. Sparky Anderson argued with some passion that it was a successful strategy when seen in the light light of 1,000 attempts. 
And so it goes. Those of us who enjoy the game love to break down the many options (intentional base on balls as another example) and argue our opinions about the strategy of the game within the game. 
Reply
#33
(04-29-2015, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: A sure sign the world is going to hell.

The "powers that be" in MLB are considering introducing the designated hitter (DH) to the National League. 

Dear God don't let that happen!

The game is very different when played with a DH and different in a negative way in my view. 

I'm considering inviting all of you to a back yard prayer meeting in hopes Our Lord will prevent this from happening. Cletus1 will be leading the prayers and refreshments will be served if you bring them. 

Later edit: (Forget it until I had posted this).

Scrapper: In a previous post you chided us for arguing about baseball. Arguing about the game is one of the true joys of baseball. Argument being, in this case, a good thing. (And genuine argument should always be a good thing). For instance, the sacrifice bunt to advance a runner from 1st base to 2nd and put that runner in "scoring position" is a debate (argument ) that is historical. Earl Weaver who managed for years thought it was insane give up an out when the team has only 27 outs a game to surrender. Sparky Anderson argued with some passion that it was a successful strategy when seen in the light light of 1,000 attempts. 
And so it goes. Those of us who enjoy the game love to break down the many options (intentional base on balls as another example) and argue our opinions about the strategy of the game within the game. 

Without getting in to having a designated hitter or not having one I think it would be better for both leagues to play by the same rules.
Reply
#34
For the first time in MLB history, a game will be played today with ZERO fans present, in Baltimore.

From what I have seen, it's been close a few times before, though......
Reply
#35
Is that supposed to be humor or
Genius insight?
Reply
#36
(04-29-2015, 09:55 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-29-2015, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: A sure sign the world is going to hell.

The "powers that be" in MLB are considering introducing the designated hitter (DH) to the National League. 

Dear God don't let that happen!

The game is very different when played with a DH and different in a negative way in my view. 

I'm considering inviting all of you to a back yard prayer meeting in hopes Our Lord will prevent this from happening. Cletus1 will be leading the prayers and refreshments will be served if you bring them. 

Later edit: (Forget it until I had posted this).

Scrapper: In a previous post you chided us for arguing about baseball. Arguing about the game is one of the true joys of baseball. Argument being, in this case, a good thing. (And genuine argument should always be a good thing). For instance, the sacrifice bunt to advance a runner from 1st base to 2nd and put that runner in "scoring position" is a debate (argument ) that is historical. Earl Weaver who managed for years thought it was insane give up an out when the team has only 27 outs a game to surrender. Sparky Anderson argued with some passion that it was a successful strategy when seen in the light light of 1,000 attempts. 
And so it goes. Those of us who enjoy the game love to break down the many options (intentional base on balls as another example) and argue our opinions about the strategy of the game within the game. 

Without getting in to having a designated hitter or not having one I think it would be better for both leagues to play by the same rules.

I'd be curious to know why you feel that way. 
Reply
#37
(04-29-2015, 07:12 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-29-2015, 09:55 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-29-2015, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: A sure sign the world is going to hell.

The "powers that be" in MLB are considering introducing the designated hitter (DH) to the National League. 

Dear God don't let that happen!

The game is very different when played with a DH and different in a negative way in my view. 

I'm considering inviting all of you to a back yard prayer meeting in hopes Our Lord will prevent this from happening. Cletus1 will be leading the prayers and refreshments will be served if you bring them. 

Later edit: (Forget it until I had posted this).

Scrapper: In a previous post you chided us for arguing about baseball. Arguing about the game is one of the true joys of baseball. Argument being, in this case, a good thing. (And genuine argument should always be a good thing). For instance, the sacrifice bunt to advance a runner from 1st base to 2nd and put that runner in "scoring position" is a debate (argument ) that is historical. Earl Weaver who managed for years thought it was insane give up an out when the team has only 27 outs a game to surrender. Sparky Anderson argued with some passion that it was a successful strategy when seen in the light light of 1,000 attempts. 
And so it goes. Those of us who enjoy the game love to break down the many options (intentional base on balls as another example) and argue our opinions about the strategy of the game within the game. 

Without getting in to having a designated hitter or not having one I think it would be better for both leagues to play by the same rules.

I'd be curious to know why you feel that way. 

Because it makes no sense for a sport to be played two different ways. Is there any other sport where half of the USA plays one way and the other half plays another way?
Reply
#38
(04-30-2015, 12:07 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-29-2015, 07:12 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-29-2015, 09:55 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-29-2015, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: A sure sign the world is going to hell.

The "powers that be" in MLB are considering introducing the designated hitter (DH) to the National League. 

Dear God don't let that happen!

The game is very different when played with a DH and different in a negative way in my view. 

I'm considering inviting all of you to a back yard prayer meeting in hopes Our Lord will prevent this from happening. Cletus1 will be leading the prayers and refreshments will be served if you bring them. 

Later edit: (Forget it until I had posted this).

Scrapper: In a previous post you chided us for arguing about baseball. Arguing about the game is one of the true joys of baseball. Argument being, in this case, a good thing. (And genuine argument should always be a good thing). For instance, the sacrifice bunt to advance a runner from 1st base to 2nd and put that runner in "scoring position" is a debate (argument ) that is historical. Earl Weaver who managed for years thought it was insane give up an out when the team has only 27 outs a game to surrender. Sparky Anderson argued with some passion that it was a successful strategy when seen in the light light of 1,000 attempts. 
And so it goes. Those of us who enjoy the game love to break down the many options (intentional base on balls as another example) and argue our opinions about the strategy of the game within the game. 

Without getting in to having a designated hitter or not having one I think it would be better for both leagues to play by the same rules.

I'd be curious to know why you feel that way. 

Because it makes no sense for a sport to be played two different ways. Is there any other sport where half of the USA plays one way and the other half plays another way?

You logic seeped out. Of course a sport can be played two different ways. The AL adopted the DH in 1973. Seems long enough to prove the point. 
Reply
#39
(04-30-2015, 06:03 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-30-2015, 12:07 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-29-2015, 07:12 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-29-2015, 09:55 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-29-2015, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: A sure sign the world is going to hell.

The "powers that be" in MLB are considering introducing the designated hitter (DH) to the National League. 

Dear God don't let that happen!

The game is very different when played with a DH and different in a negative way in my view. 

I'm considering inviting all of you to a back yard prayer meeting in hopes Our Lord will prevent this from happening. Cletus1 will be leading the prayers and refreshments will be served if you bring them. 

Later edit: (Forget it until I had posted this).

Scrapper: In a previous post you chided us for arguing about baseball. Arguing about the game is one of the true joys of baseball. Argument being, in this case, a good thing. (And genuine argument should always be a good thing). For instance, the sacrifice bunt to advance a runner from 1st base to 2nd and put that runner in "scoring position" is a debate (argument ) that is historical. Earl Weaver who managed for years thought it was insane give up an out when the team has only 27 outs a game to surrender. Sparky Anderson argued with some passion that it was a successful strategy when seen in the light light of 1,000 attempts. 
And so it goes. Those of us who enjoy the game love to break down the many options (intentional base on balls as another example) and argue our opinions about the strategy of the game within the game. 

Without getting in to having a designated hitter or not having one I think it would be better for both leagues to play by the same rules.

I'd be curious to know why you feel that way. 

Because it makes no sense for a sport to be played two different ways. Is there any other sport where half of the USA plays one way and the other half plays another way?

You logic seeped out. Of course a sport can be played two different ways. The AL adopted the DH in 1973. Seems long enough to prove the point. 

For one thing you didn't answer my question. For another...your words..... The game is very different when played with a DH and different in a negative way in my view.

So according to you half of all the baseball games since 1973 have been in a "negative way" and you say Of course a sport can be played two different ways.
 


I didn't say it couldn't be. I said I think it would be better for both leagues to play by the same rules. You are the one claiming half of the sport is being played in a negative way. Not me.
Reply
#40
(04-30-2015, 07:24 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-30-2015, 06:03 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-30-2015, 12:07 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-29-2015, 07:12 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-29-2015, 09:55 AM)tvguy Wrote: Without getting in to having a designated hitter or not having one I think it would be better for both leagues to play by the same rules.

I'd be curious to know why you feel that way. 

Because it makes no sense for a sport to be played two different ways. Is there any other sport where half of the USA plays one way and the other half plays another way?

You logic seeped out. Of course a sport can be played two different ways. The AL adopted the DH in 1973. Seems long enough to prove the point. 

For one thing you didn't answer my question. For another...your words..... The game is very different when played with a DH and different in a negative way in my view.

So according to you half of all the baseball games since 1973 have been in a "negative way" and you say Of course a sport can be played two different ways.
 


I didn't say it couldn't be. I said I think it would be better for both leagues to play by the same rules. You are the one claiming half of the sport is being played in a negative way. Not me.

Time and space prevent me from a full and lengthy explanation of why I hold the view I do. 

And example: In the NL, the pitcher doing well might have to be removed for a pinch hitter when there are men in scoring position late in the game with that pitchers team down a run or two. The odds are much better that a position player pitch hitting will drive in a run (or runs). So, a pitcher who has been performing well is removed from the game in hopes that runs will be scored. 
When there is a DH hitting for the pitcher this interesting and tactical problem never comes up. The manager has a much simpler job of making decisions about how he runs the game. The manager is concerned ONLY about the performance of the pitcher, not the game situation.

There are other examples: I won't bother. 
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)