How can the World Series be as big as the Super Bowl?

[JimH5]

Baseball's problems have nothing to do with the NFL. They're the same problems that have been talked about for years.

 

The games take too long. The pace is too slow. They start too late. It's just not a great game for television.

 

For all the problems that the NFL has, it's still a very compelling spectacle. It's predictable that on every play that there will be a lot of activity, and there's a mystery in what the offensive play will be, and how the defense will react. With baseball, there are so many pitches that just result in something unspectacular. And really, the number of variables that can happen until there is action, is very limited. The pitcher can either throw the ball to home, or to a base. The baserunner can either steal, bluff, or stay put. The hitter can either swing away, bunt, or take a pitch. Beyond that, nothing really happens until bat meets ball.

 

I'm a baseball fan exclusively, but the game often plays better in the background than as the centerpiece of excitement.

[Fatter than Joey]

A bunch of male erotic testastrone touching braniacs

 

Your spelling needs work.

 

skill and beauty every time.

 

You saw what Santonio Holmes and James Harrison did? I am not sure I ever seen anything more skilled on a baseball diamond, or beautiful for that matter.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

You saw what Santonio Holmes and James Harrison did? I am not sure I ever seen anything more skilled on a baseball diamond, or beautiful for that matter.

Hitting a 95 mph fastball from a guy who has a devastating off speed pitch takes more skill that what either of those players did. If you want to talk about athletic ability, then that's a different story. Thank goodness that the NFL season is over unless you can't wait to watch that Pro Bowl on Sunday!

[Fatter than Joey]

Hitting a 95 mph fastball from a guy who has a devastating off speed pitch takes more skill that what either of those players did.

 

False. Hitting a 95 mph fastball is certainly not the hardest thing to do in the realm of professional sports, ask Derrick Turnbow -- and if the pitcher has good off-speed -- it is then really a function of guessing correctly and not skill as much. Furthermore, hitting a fastball, is primarily an athletic function of how quickly you move your hands through the strike zone. If hitting a baseball was reliant on skill more so than athletic ability, you wouldn't have players peaking at the age of 26-27 much like golf or curling. Hitting is an athletic function.

 

No one would say baseball is void of skill, however it takes a lot of skill to play any professional sport, football is no exception.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

False. Hitting a 95 mph fastball is certainly not the hardest thing to do in the realm of professional sports, ask Derrick Turnbow

You must have missed the part where I said "with good offspeed stuff". If hitting a 95 mph fastball is so easy, than how come it can only be done 30% of the time by the stars of the game? If a receiver doesn't catch a football more than 90% of the time when the ball is in his hands (as it was in Holmes' hands yesterday) he is considered a failure. That might put things in perspective.

[And That]

You must have missed the part where I said "with good offspeed stuff".

You must have missed the part where FtJ said:

 

and if the pitcher has good off-speed -- it is then really a function of guessing correctly and not skill as much.

I do tend to agree with you, though... hitting a baseball is an incredibly difficult thing to do. Even when Turnbow was throwing batting practice last year, almost 60% of batters were still getting out when they (incorrectly?) decided to not take the walk. Guessing definitely goes in to it, but I would say that guessing in the batter's box is a skill in and of itself. Rickie Weeks is terrible at guessing and Albert Pujols is great at guessing.

[Patrick425]

As many as mentioned, the WS will never be able to compete with the Super Bowl because of 1 game vs a series. Add to that the 2 week build up and the fact it that it takes place in the dead of Winter, I'm not really sure what baseball could do. I do favor starting the games a little earlier (7pm vs 7:40). I would not be in favor of adding a 7th inning stretch show. This would only push back the end of the game even further and be unfair to the starting pitcher who is pitching a gem in a close game.

 

Regarding the complexity of Football vs. Baseball. I'm not sure which is more complex. I do know that people who do not have a clear understanding of baseball tend to over simplify the game. Peavy, not to question your baseball knowledge, but "don't see how the country's IQ has to rise to appreciate 'throw ball, hit ball" is an example of the type of thing I hear from non-basball fans when questioning why anyone enjoys baseball.

 

People who think baseball is simple, should read the book "Three Nights in August" or try coaching the game sometime. Even at the youth level.

[joepepsi]

Baseball's problems have nothing to do with the NFL. They're the same problems that have been talked about for years.

 

The games take too long. The pace is too slow. They start too late. It's just not a great game for television.

 

For all the problems that the NFL has, it's still a very compelling spectacle. It's predictable that on every play that there will be a lot of activity, and there's a mystery in what the offensive play will be, and how the defense will react. With baseball, there are so many pitches that just result in something unspectacular. And really, the number of variables that can happen until there is action, is very limited. The pitcher can either throw the ball to home, or to a base. The baserunner can either steal, bluff, or stay put. The hitter can either swing away, bunt, or take a pitch. Beyond that, nothing really happens until bat meets ball.

 

I'm a baseball fan exclusively, but the game often plays better in the background than as the centerpiece of excitement.

I agree with everything here, except your last sentence. I watch baseball intently, but I admit to be the only person I know who does.

 

I think the main problem with the World Series is the games start too late and move too slow. Weekend games should start at 5 or 5:30 just like the Super Bowl. Weeknight games should start immediately after the local 6 o'clock news.

 

I watched most of the Super Bowl last night, one of the few times ever for me. I was struck by how quick the actual game was played. It started about 5:30 or 5:45 and was over by, what, 9:15?It took forever to start and the halftime extravaganza is long, but the actual game seems to move along at the same pace as a regular season game. This just isn't true with baseball. Baseball needs to be a 3 hour game, tops. It should be over by 9:30 unless it moves to extra innings.

[Fatter than Joey]

I do tend to agree with you, though... hitting a baseball is an incredibly difficult thing to do.

 

I absolutely agree -- however, I believe it is a function of generating batspeed -- which is an athletic ability.

 

I think the reason why most people fail at hitting fastballs, is that they cannot coordinate their body to move their hands fast enough -- just like I think why most RBs fail at running the ball effectively, is that they are not fast enough to evade tacklers.

 

Golf is a skill sport to me -- Baseball is an athletic sport, which definitely requires skill.

 

Guessing definitely goes in to it, but I would say that guessing in the batter's box is a skill in and of itself

 

Agreed -- skills generally you can improve on, (like QBs recognizing blitzes), athletic ability, you either have or you don't -- and you lose as you get older.

 

If hitting a 95 mph fastball is so easy, than how come it can only be done 30% of the time by the stars of the game?

 

Because there are guys standing around catching balls, i.e. a defense. A player can hit the ball as best as he can and still generate outs.

[Gobias Industries]

If the NFL follows through with the rumored lockout in 2010 (which during a recession, will be a PR nightmare), I could see baseball being the biggest sport for a couple of years. But the World Series has so much working against it. (Length, No halftime show, Weekday games, more strategic than football). I doubt it will ever happen.

 

On a side note, I think the NBA could really gain some steam by doing a bracket type system like NCAA Tourney. Top 16 teams, single game elimination would be really exciting.

[CheezWizHed]

I was thinking about the baseball vs. football thing last night and trying to figure out how baseball would sound if announcers broke down the plays like they do in football. One some of the better broadcasts, you will see a breakdown of pitches. But rarely do you see them talking about the route someone took to a fly ball. Or the footwork in turning a double play. Seems like the time between plays in football is very well used to explain what the offense/defense IS doing or what they SHOULD be doing.

 

Couple other general thoughts:

- Football is generally more popular. Simply because baseball is an expensive sport (you need a field big enough, ball, bat and every kid needs a glove). Football, you only need the ball. Even backyards are big enough to play some type of game. Kind of like watching kids play soccer in less fortunate countries. Sometimes, they don't even have a ball, just a rolled up wad of paper.

- Whoever said football requires beer hasn't been to a baseball game lately! If it weren't for beer, the Cubs would only have 1/2 their attendance! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

- Definately agree with needing patience for baseball. Baseball is a more relaxing game. Best served in person. Football is a more hype game, so many times the TV broadcast is just as good or better than live (although if I ever sat at the 50 YL, I might change my mind...). Just to see better angles, instant replays, etc...

 

Personally, I'm a fan of both. Not die-hard, but not casual either. I watched a little last night. About the same as the WS last year. If the Brewers or Packers aren't playing, I'm more of a casual fan.

[JohnBriggs12]

Back in the day when baseball had no playoffs and went into the World Series, the Series took place in early October. Not only is the weather in early October more conducive to thinking baseball than it is around Halloween, neither the NFL nor college football (which both started later in those days), weren't in the middle of their seasons. Nor was there anywhere near the TV exposure for pro and college football. If your baseball team was eliminated in August, you've had nearly 2 months to get into football.

 

The Super Bowl is played during an otherwise quiet time for sports, especially pro sports. The NBA and NHL seasons are so long that one doesn't have to pay strict attention to them on a daily basis. Nascar hasn't started. The PGA tour is just getting started and no big tournaments have been played.

[Patrick425]

Baseball, more than other sports imho, really speeds up when you are playing or coaching it vs. when you are watching it.

In football, the offense and defense calls a play on each snap of the ball. Each player knows what there role is for that play. They know who they are supposed to block and which direction to block them, what route to run, who they need to cover, etc. In baseball, it's not as planned out. You can be in the field and not have a ball hit at you for 5 innings. Suddenly the ball is coming towards you and you need to know what you should be doing. Even when the ball is not hit at you, you need to know what you should do (take a cut off, back up, cover a base for a throw, etc). You have no idea where the ball will be hit next or what will happen next, but you need to know what your role is in all possible situations that could possibly occur at that time (bunt, fly ball, pick off, steal, etc). Most of the time, professional ball players make this look so simple.

[And That]

skills generally you can improve on, (like QBs recognizing blitzes), athletic ability, you either have or you don't -- and you lose as you get older.

I agree that baseball is an athletic sport, certainly more athletic than golf. However, I think you'd agree that baseball is a much less athletic sport than football - say, halfway in between football and golf on the athletic continuum, and is also less athletic than basketball, hockey or soccer.

 

Would it also be fair to say that the skill level to play baseball or football at a high level is more or less equal, although the skill set needed for either is quite a bit different?

 

With those assumptions, I think it would be fair to say that that skill plays a more important role in baseball than it does in football, based on it's relationship to the athleticism needed in the two sports.

 

And that's what makes baseball much more interesting to me - the skill of the players shine through and is not lost (at least to some degree) in the morass of 21 other large athletes on the field.

[Patrick425]

And that's what makes baseball much more interesting to me - the skill of the players shine through and is not lost (at least to some degree) in the morass of 21 other large athletes on the field.

 

Agreed. Also, errors on the football field are not as readily evident to the average fan as they are in baseball. If you make an fielding error, strike out, don't cover a base, make a base running error, etc...pretty much everyone who is paying attention to the game knows it. I think this is partially the reason why soccer became so popular among kids over the past 20 years (no one played soccer when I was a kid). Parents were not comfortable with seeing there kid strike out or drop a fly ball. In soccer they can just run around, and although many parents and players may mumble under their breaths about such players, the spot light is not as glaring as it is in baseball.

[Fatter than Joey]

However, I think you'd agree that baseball is a much less athletic sport than football

 

Agreed, -- although -- I think hitting is primarily an athletic endeavor. Pitching, however, is certainly a more skill-oriented effort.

 

Would it also be fair to say that the skill level to play baseball or football at a high level is more or less equal, although the skill set needed for either is quite a bit different?

 

Sure.

 

I think it would be fair to say that that skill plays a more important role in baseball than it does in football, based on it's relationship to the athleticism needed in the two sports.

 

Agreed -- however, my initial beef was the idea that baseball is for people that appreciate skill, and FB is for people that appreciate athleticism. Just because baseball as a sport demands less athleticism than FB does not mean that FB demands less skill than baseball.

 

And that's what makes baseball much more interesting to me - the skill of the players shine through and is not lost (at least to some degree) in the morass of 21 other large athletes on the field.

 

I can appreciate the more isolated one-on-one matchups in baseball -- and certainly, that is a neat feature of the sport.

 

Parents were not comfortable with seeing there kid strike out or drop a fly ball. In soccer they can just run around, and although many parents and players may mumble under their breaths about such players, the spot light is not as glaring as it is in baseball.

 

Interesting --

[PeaveyFury]

A bunch of male erotic testastrone touching braniacs trumps skill and beauty every time.

 

I think this statement is interesting, considering the horrible image problem baseball has with regards to (artificial) testosterone....

[topper09er]

World Series becomes as popular as the Super Bowl when the collective intelligence level of the country rises by about 50 points. Baseball is a thinking mans game. It takes intelligence and patience to enjoy and understand. Americans love football because it doesnt take a lot of thought to like it.

 

I would absolutely disagree with this. Football is a much more complicated sport. Understanding what is happening in a FB game is probably harder to do for any fan dumb or smart. Let's not pretend that baseball doesn't have its "casual fans", as this site rips on them throughout the year -- football just happens to have a lot more of them.

 

For a lot of people it takes beer to enjoy baseball.

 

Football is more entertaining to more people. It is as simple as that.

Do you think the average person who likes sports overall is above or below the average intelligence level of the country, I would say below. And what is the most popular sport among the masses, football because it appears like more is going on every play. What else appeals to more people, MTV or the History Channel, youtube or cnn.com?? I think you get the point.

 

I would say they are very close in terms of complexity. What should you do if you are pitching in a tied game and the leadoff hitter just got and he has stolen 50 bases this season at a clip of 85%, the hitter is a contact hitter who does not stike out much and is a good bunter. You have your starting pitcher in who has struck out the hitter 3 times this game but appears to be struggling now because the runner on first got a hit off of hanging slider. The current hitter is a righty, with 2 leftys on deck. Who should you get up in the bullpen, how should you position the defense? Say the hitter is an inside out type guy but you struck him out on soft away stuff 3 times this game. Is the other team going to try to hit and run? If so you should not pitch outside because that is what the hitter wants. Are they going to try to straight up steal? Should you pitch fastballs to try to give the catcher extra time to throw out the runner, what if the batter is a good fastball hitter? Should you pitch out, do you think the other manager is expecting you to pitch-out so he is not going to put a play on until the batter has a strike against them. Do you think they will bunt, how will you play your bunt defense? Do you want your entire infield moving only to have the batter slash and hit and run with 2 huge holes in the defense because of your rotation. Do you think maybe the batter will bluff a bunt to see your defensive rotation so maybe you run the wheel for the first bunt attempt but then charge the fist baseman next time. What pitch should you throw with the 0-0 count? As a fan, would you appreciate the difference between strike one vs. ball one. Say the batter was totally taking and it is now 1-0, you dont know what the offense is thinking, are they thinking nothing until strike one so maybe you can get away with piping a fastball now, or maybe they have a hit and run on now so you should throw some off speed pitch in the dirt. Can you afford to thorw the ball in the dirt at all, is the runner fast enough to get to 2nd if the pitch is not handled perfectly by the catcher? Say the batter fouls off the next pitch and it is now 1-1, can you appreciate the importance of this next pitch? The difference between 1-2 vs. 2-1?? If you can get the hitter to 1-2 you can start to throw your slider/curve to try to induce a grounder for a doubleplay (which Brain Anderson just reminded you would be great for the brewers in this situation), but now the runner may be expecting a pitch in the dirt so he will take off and easily steal the base if the catcher has to block the ball....what if you walk him and you have 2 lefties in the pen, you have one shouse-like ground ball pitcher and say some hard throwing strikeout guy, who do you bring in?

 

And it goes on forever, you can say the same thing about how a quarterback needs to recognize that when the safety comes up to the line he should audible out of a run and that maybe if you send the slot receiver in motion he will have the other safety on him M2M which is a good matchup up for you so the receiver should change from a slant to a corner route because it will be open...but if you do all that and throw an incomplete pass it is just 2nd and 10, but if you figure out you can throw a fastball for a strike when it is 2-1 and miss your spot it is now 3-1 instead of 2-2 and everything changes...

[Fatter than Joey]

Do you think the average person who likes sports overall is above or below the average intelligence level of the country, I would say below. And what is the most popular sport among the masses, football because it appears like more is going on every play. What else appeals to more people, MTV or the History Channel, youtube or cnn.com?? I think you get the point.

 

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Popular things are liked by people with below average intelligence? Point attempt failed.

 

I would say they are very close in terms of complexity.

 

I wouldn't. Football is much more intricate and complex game to understand for the fan.

 

Baseball fans tend to think that the double switch is great complicated strategy. Baseball fans tend to overstate the strategy that goes into a game.

[topper09er]

If you have even played football you may have heard the expression "its not the x's and the o's, its the jimmys and the joes." This means that it doesnt matter if in theory Larry Fitzgerald is double covered and should not be open during a particular play, if you throw him the ball he will catch it anyways even if there are 2 DBs there. This is why the Cardinals lost, because they did not go to him early or often enough. Its not that complicated, all you need to do is send him deep, protect teh QB and throw it there, not too complicated. At the end of the day the teams that wins football games almost always comes down to who controls the line a scrimmage best and who control field position best. There are some complicated thing, for the quarterback or middle linebacker, but not too much for everyone else. You have a blocking assignment, just do it, if you move the other guy more than he moves you then you win, if not you lose. What is so complicated for the WR, here is a route to run, run it. If there is no help over the top change to a fly route, if the ball comes to you catch it. Or the RB, here is the hole, hit it hard and get what you can after. Besides Qb decision making i really do not think it is any more complicated than the scenario i presented earlier. And yes, i think most people would agree that the most popular things in our culture are most liked by comparitively dumb people.

I think the strategy decisions in baseball have a bigger effect on the outcome of the game then in football where the physical ability of the players has a greater outcome on the result. A baseball manager can just intentionally walk the cleanup hitter, a football coach cant tell the other team they are not allowed to throw the ball to their best reciever or they can run the ball to the weak side of the D-Line.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I wouldn't. Football is much more intricate and complex game to understand for the fan.

I don't agree. Football just moves at a faster pace so it looks a lot more complex than it is. If football moved at the same pace as baseball, it would look just as simple. Pace is the fundamental reason for football getting more popularity. It's a fast paced society and the general American population doesn't have much patience for things that they don't have a passion for. The fast pace of football allows for more violent hits and acrobatic plays per game. That's why America likes football so much. But I find it interesting that the rest of the world could give a lick about American Football, but yet baseball is popular in many more regions of the world. So how does baseball win over in those areas? All interesting questions.

[Fatter than Joey]

comparitively dumb people.

[Fatter than Joey]

If baseball was so smart, it wouldn't have canceled one of its World Series.

[topper09er]

Sorry, im an engineer and my brain thinks too logically and i suck at spelling, but if i reduced you to needing to criticize my spelling instead of addressing my arguement i think that shows you are wrong.

[Fatter than Joey]

Sorry, im an engineer and my brain thinks too logically and i suck at spelling, but if i reduced you to needing to criticize my spelling instead of addressing my arguement i think that shows you are wrong.

 

Really? what train?

 

I don't generally like to criticize spelling, (no "e" in argument by the way), however, I do think if one does construct an argument calling out the intelligence of others -- then one should make certain to not make obvious spelling errors. Certainly, one should make sure that the word preceding "dumb people" is spelled correctly.

 

Your logic fails, and your arguments are lacking.