Jump to content

Can football do this?


Frobby

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Seriously? That isn't a very good argument on why baseball is better than football.

Oh yes it is! If you're down 6-1 in the ninth, you still have a chance. In football, if you're down by 17 in the fourth quarter, you are done. Big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite part about Baseball, and I think this comes from an Earl Weaver quote, is that you can never not play baseball. You can't coast, you can't keep the ball away from the other team. At the end of the day, you have to throw the ball to other team and see what happens, so you always have a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes it is! If you're down 6-1 in the ninth, you still have a chance. In football, if you're down by 17 in the fourth quarter, you are done. Big difference.

No, Earl's quote totally disregards the rest of the game. Besides, I would think there are just as many if not more 17 point comebacks in the fourth quarter as there are 5 run comebacks in the ninth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is true, Roy. But, baseball doesn't have have game winning drives with less than two minutes remaining like the Ravens had against the Steelers last year. IMO, it doesn't get anymore tense than that. Each sport has something the other doesn't. They are both great.

Not really the same. But it is ok that you like football. Very different sports with very different gambling action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Earl's quote totally disregards the rest of the game. Besides, I would think there are just as many if not more 17 point comebacks in the fourth quarter as there are 5 run comebacks in the ninth.

I disagree again. Time runs out in football. In baseball, as inconceivable as it is to you, a ten run lead can be overcome in the ninth inning alone. Football does not have that built into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite part about Baseball, and I think this comes from an Earl Weaver quote, is that you can never not play baseball. You can't coast, you can't keep the ball away from the other team. At the end of the day, you have to throw the ball to other team and see what happens, so you always have a chance.

You can't kneel down, you can't run three into the pile. Every man get's his chance to beat you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earl said it best. "You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."

And Earl is right. He really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree again. Time runs out in football. In baseaball, as inconceivable as it is to you, a ten run lead can be overcome in the ninth inning alone. Football does not have that built into it.

But, does that make it a better game? Like you said, they are very different sports. Both great the way they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, does that make it a better game? Like you said, they are very different sports. Both great the way they are.

I really enjoy football. But I agree with the deeper meaning that Frobby alluded too. Some of it has to do with our generation, when football belonged to someone else for a while, but we always had our baseball team. It's ok to me that you feel as you do. One of the things I love about Baltimore Baseball fans is they act a bit like college football fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football not only is missing the day-to-day thing, but it also has a clock. So if you're up 14 or 21 with 3:00 left you're a little nervous, but not even a tiny fraction as nervous as I was in the late innings last night. In football eventually you just go home because the clock ran out. In baseball there's always a chance.

To expand on this, there is baseball's own internal time factor that just adds to tension. An example is when a team slowly builds up a rally when they're behind over the course of an inning, with each pitch, foul balls, etc., slowly turning the screws of tension, going to full counts, realizing that the inning could be over on the next pitch or five batters later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Oh, I don't know. I thought when accusing someone of wild malpractice over possibly, maybe, slightly speeding up highlights that kind of opened the door to a little goofy exaggeration.
    • I was going to post something about this after reading about that on MLBTR this morning. That gives me a lot of hope for Bradish if this kid can come back from a UCL sprain and throw 103. Obviously, reliever vs. starter so who knows. But uplifting to read nonetheless. 
    • Hollocher hit almost exclusively 2nd in the order. The Cubs' 3rd hitters (and it was the Cubs, not the Indians as I previously stated) were mostly Marty Krug, Zeb Terry, and John Kelleher. Krug was awful for a 1922 3rd-place hitter, with an 83 OPS+ in his only season as a MLB regular, but he only struck out 43 times in 524 PAs. Terry was worse, OPS+ing 74, but with just 16 Ks in 571 PAs. And Kelleher was the worst of the bunch, OPS+ing 60, while striking out 14 times in 222 PAs. Cubs manager Reindeer Bill Killefer stuck hard and fast to the old rule of thumb that the catcher should bat 8th, even if it's Bob O'Farrell and he hit .324 with an .880 OPS. Ray Grimes had a 1.014 OPS and batted cleanup. But Hack Miller and his .899 OPS batted mostly 6th. Statz wasn't a terrible leadoff hitter, was one of only a couple players who had a SB% higher than 50%, but was 6th among their regulars in OBP. That's as bad a bunch of #3 hitters as I've seen in a while, yet the Cubs finished 80-74-2. Just goes to show you batting order doesn't really matter. Anyway, back to the main point... yes, I'm sure some of Hollocher's CS were busted hit-and-runs. But nobody that regularly batted behind him struck out in even 7% of PAs so they shoulda been putting the ball in play the vast majority of the time.    
    • Bobby needs to git gud. 
    • How many people actually said they were one of the greatest teams ever?   They did hit the snot out of the ball the first 9 games of the year, mostly in a 6 game series in a very hitter-friendly ball park against a bad pitching staff.  That said, they’re still second in the league in runs per game.  Their pitching has been problematic, yielding 6.50 runs per game.  
    • Gunnar’s base running is in the 99th percentile.  That mess is in the 98th percentile.
    • Yeah, the highlighted section here is really why I agree that the O's will look to minimize losing players to waivers just yet. Things could blow up on them pretty quick. There's a ton of risk with these moves, but they have to find out. The best way to do that is to utilize the options for Akin and Tate, IMO. We'll see! 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...