RANT : Baseball is a lame sport with phony athletes

[deep]

Every time I see someone arguing the way you do on the internet, I know it's a lost cause. All you can do is attack single sentences and try to deconstruct others' arguments.

You say that only pro scouts and managers make decisions that matter, but then you say that how much they decide to pay a player is meaningless. (And I chose Cecil and Rickey because they both made their peak money in 1994-1996)

The argument being made is that you can be one-dimensional (provided that one dimension is hitting or pitching) and still make it in baseball. You don't need to be a well rounded (er...not in the Cecil sense) athlete to make it. You have yet to address this, despite picking at almost every sentence of every post that disagrees with your point of view.

You suddenly are talking about skill level, rather than importance to a team. The simple fact is that players who can hit get PAID, even if they're fat bastards. Fast guys who can't hit get nothing. This is the final, definitive answer. Athletes get jack, athletes who can hit get millions.

[Mintmaster]

Webslinger, why are you so friggin bent on finding isolated cases? We're talking about baseball as a sport and the MLB, not a couple of people. We're talking about general trends, average case, etc.

I just showed you the stats for the top 10 stolen base results for each class of player in a span of 5 years. The ~50 of the best base stealing results, selected from a field of 1300 player-years involving at least 200 at-bats, could not prove your point. Your examples of 9th inning stolen bases happen how many times per year? And in how many of those does the stolen base make a difference? And how is that relevant in the context of over 2400 games played per season? Exactly.

You want cherry picked data from stolen base leaders? I found that Alex Sanchez, with Detroit in 2003, had the highest stolen bases per at-bat of anyone in those five years. Sanchez got 44 in 412 at-bats. His runs per at-bat? 0.104. Crawford, the AL stolen base leader in 2003, got 55 in 656 at-bats. His runs per at-bat? 0.122. Average in the league? 0.135. Boy, those stolen bases helped a ton, didn't they?

You want to tell me how my stats are faulty? Are they too complicated for you? You can't pick single examples because that's worthless, as I just showed you.

10,000 names? Where am I going to get names from? Do you know how amazing you have to be to be in the top 10,000 in North America? There are probably 70 million people between the age of 16 and 30, half of which are male. If I picked a random sample of 3,000 men, in this age group, you'd have to be NUMBER ONE to have a good chance at being in the top 10,000 in the continent. I do not know nearly as many as 3000 people in that age group, but do I know someone who does the 40 yard dash in 4.4, and others that are nearly as fast. I was aghast, and said "Damn, isn't that world class speed?" He said world class is more like 4.1 or 4.2. That's the difference you're talking about. A few tenths is the difference between world class and not being able to earn a cent with your athletic gift.

World class in the 60 yard dash is something like 5.8 (Greene did the 60m, i.e. 10% more distance, in 6.39 officially). This guy you're talking about is an anomaly and a newcomer in baseball, and from what I've just read he says he could have developed into a world record long jumper; furthermore, 6.1 seconds is not official or in competition as far as I can see. The other examples were 6.3 seconds. Between 6.3 seconds and the 5.8 second limit of mankind we can easily fit the top 0.03% of men in their athletic prime. Before you start arguing with me, make sure you have an idea of what you're talking about. You don't seeem to be very good at numbers.

As for throwing, I think that would be a lot easier to find. Throwing accurately, though, is a lot harder. I would not expect to find many people who could though a 100mph fastball (BTW, is Nolan Ryan playing right now? Didn't think so. I wasn't talking about he best athletes ever in the history of baseball), but given how many people play baseball in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if there were that many that could launch a ball that fast, albeit uncontrolled. Anyways, this part of the argument doesn't matter, because I've always been amazed by the pitcher, especially starters. That position is the only athletic one in baseball.

I'm talking more about the throwing from the outfield. For home runs, singles (not infield), and 90% of doubles, there will be no different outcome between the best outfielder throw in the league and the worst, so long as it isn't an error. An amazing, world class throwing arm has minimal impact on the outcome of most games. Finding people with throwing arms as good as the top in MLB won't be too hard, because MLB can only have those with skill. Look at golf. There are thousands of people in the world who can drive over 300 yards, and much farther than nearly all of the PGA tour players. The difference is skill, not athletic ability. The same is true for baseball.

Oh yeah, regarding football and the throwing arm, I was strictly talking about myself. I don't have good enough throwing strength to field in MLB because I don't happen to throw much. Most of my friends are quite good at it, though. <shrug>

And if you want to make it into the MLB, you absolutely have be able to (pick one): run, hit, field, or throw.

The key here is pick ONE. Thank you for proving my point. Actually, if you can only run, then you'd be one sh1tty baseball player. In soccer, if you can't run fast enough, too bad. There's nothing else that can make up for it. If you're not agile, too bad. People would be able to walk around you like you're a pylon. If you have poor endurance, then you can be a substitution only, which is not representative of the majority of players. No amount of other skills will make up for those, period. You MUST be athletic to play pro soccer. Nearly all other sports are similar in that requirement, with some modifications. In baseball, neither of those (agility, speed, or especially endurance) is a must. I would say hitting is a must, because that correlates most strongly with production and winning, but that's a skill like a golf stroke.

[Webslinger]

Every time I see someone arguing the way you do on the internet, I know it's a lost cause. All you can do is attack single sentences and try to deconstruct others' arguments.

I'm addressing points you're raising as I come to them. The only reason I don't sit back at the end of your post and write some long diatribe is because I'd end up having to quote you anyway. The only reason it's a lost cause for you is because you are unable to offer a definition of sport that you can defend.

from dictionary.com

"Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively."

According to the English language, then, baseball is a sport. But I'll play according to your rules, mainly because I'm bored . . .

By the way, and this is the real, intellectual problem here: arguing that baseball isn't a sport is akin to an art critic trying to tell me the Voice of Fire painting is objectively worth one million dollars. It's a bunch of subjective nonsense. If I feel (and I don't) that in order for a baseball player to be a great athelete, all he has to do is hit well, then I'm right; I'm using my own critieria. Any criteria anyone here comes up with will be (relatively) subjective (I admit, we don't all live in a vacuum, but it's still subjective criteria nonetheless) criteria, no matter how many people agree with you. This isn't a point I'm interested in debating either; it's a fact.

You say that only pro scouts and managers make decisions that matter, but then you say that how much they decide to pay a player is meaningless. (And I chose Cecil and Rickey because they both made their peak money in 1994-1996)

I would probably have to backpeddle here. I'm not sure it's entirely meaningless, but salary is certainly not the be-all and end-all for determining a player's skill, and it's not scouts and managers who are dishing out the money; that responsibility lies with the owners/GMs, who are more important in that decision making process than they are at the draft level (which is where the 60 yard dash trials are more heavily relied upon). I think you would agree that some athletes (in professional sports) are not worth what they are getting paid (based on market value). I mean, I constantly hear fans complaining about certain athletes being overpaid in relation to other athletes in the same sport, and I read columns about "bargain players". Moreover, factors like players taking less money to play with contenders, close to home, or somewhere they just prefer (owners have less money to shell out than other owners) to play also skew the the reliability of using salary to determine skill level.

The argument being made is that you can be one-dimensional (provided that one dimension is hitting or pitching) and still make it in baseball. You don't need to be a well rounded (er...not in the Cecil sense) athlete to make it. You have yet to address this, despite picking at almost every sentence of every post that disagrees with your point of view.

OK, look . . .

I agree that there are one-dimensional athletes in baseball. I, as a baseball fan, do not respect them as athletes. This is one reason why I prefer the National League where players are less likely to hide behind the DH rule. I'm not saying I think Cecil Fielder is a bad or evil man or anything. I'm just saying I don't respect him, because I feel he is a one dimensional baseball player (I bet Cecil is stronger than some other profesional athletes outside of baseball though). That said, to suggest that most baseball players are one dimensional, is, I feel, an unfair assertion. I like(d) to watch players (when they were in their prime) like Ken Griffey Jr., Larry Walker, Wille Mays, Ozzie Smith, Roberto Alomar--even Bo Jackson (although, I didn't feel he was a great hitter; he was exciting to watch), etc. No one can tell me these guys aren't athletes. There are also players in MLB who could have pursued careers in other sports.

You suddenly are talking about skill level, rather than importance to a team.

I honestly don't feel I'm suddenly doing anything. You guys are talking about athletes in terms of skill. Granted, I haven't gone back to the beginning of this thread and re-read everything (and I can't be bothered), but to the best of my knowledge, you're the one suddenly talking about team MVPs.

The simple fact is that players who can hit get PAID, even if they're fat bastards. Fast guys who can't hit get nothing. This is the final, definitive answer. Athletes get jack, athletes who can hit get millions.

Well, except you're calling baseball players "athletes" now . . . ;-)

Definitive, for you perhaps . . .
I conceed that fat baseball players who can only hit get paid millions. However, that doesn't prove the following:

1. Baseball isn't a sport
2. The majority of baseball players are "fat bastards"
3. That "fat" athletes don't exist in American football, boxing, basketball, and in other sports
4. That one dimensional players don't exist in other sports

[Webslinger]

Webslinger, why are you so friggin bent on finding isolated cases? We're talking about baseball as a sport and the MLB, not a couple of people. We're talking about general trends, average case, etc.

Probably because you wrote,

"I'd wager that there are at least 10,000 people in North America who have the same speed, agility, or throwing arm of the top player in each of those categories in MLB."

You're not very good with logic, are you? Are your own words too difficult for you to understand? Pick one, and I'll explain it for you.

Just scrolled past some more idiocy where you complained about a baseball player potentially developing into a world-class long jumper, so I guess that definitely proves he's not an athlete.

And I've already explained why your statistical analysis is faulty. It would be futile for me to repeat myself, considering you can't even follow your own arguments (as illustrated aptly above where you whine about "average"s, yet forget you intially argued for the "top"), but suffice it to say, I find it odd for someone espousing the virtue of "averages" to then limit satistical data to a 5 year period (plus completely gloss over what I wrote previously . . . that was also a nifty trick where you dismissed a trial time and raised it to 6.3; too bad we can't do that to your i.q. as well).

And if you think you're going to have problems finding 10,000 people in North America that can throw 100mph+ (claims of fast radar guns aside and without having Guinness present, Mark Wohlers has been clocked at 103 mph; Randy Johnson 102 mph; Rob Nenn 102 mph; Eric Gagne 101 mph; Billy Koch 101mph, etc . . .), I agree with you. Let me repeat, "you can't be taken seriously while debating an issue if you make idiotic assertions. Consequently, I couldn't possibly care less about anything else you have to say on this topic."

because I've always been amazed by the pitcher, especially starters. That position is the only athletic one in baseball.

lololol

Just not worth my time . . .

Won't be posting again

[Mintmaster]

I did not say that the top players are not athletes, I'm talking about league as a whole. Obviously that guy is, and I wasn't aware of him, who played only a handful of games so far. I'm not complaining about him being an athlete, I'm saying he's probably the first player in years with that ability. If I started this argument just one year ago, you couldn't use him. But anyway, I'll concede on that.

Fine, you want me to make a more realistic argument? How about this. There are 10,000 in each athletic category better than 99% of the players in MLB. It's too easy to find statistical anomalies. Now I'm saying players #4 to #300-whatever are worse than at least 10,000 other people in their best athletic ability. I still think the top 0.03% of males between 16 and 30 could run the 60y dash in 6.1, but let's make it the 4th fastest player now.

Do you know what the top 0.03% is? You take 1000 people. From this huge herd of people you get just 10 finalists. Then you take 10 groups of 10 finalists (that's 100 people, all in the top percentile), and now you take the top 3. These are damn fast people, yet most of them won't make a dime off their abilities. A lot of people can sprint as fast as you're saying, especially since the real divergence in sprinting occurs over longer distances like 100m or 200m when the top speed matters.

You're completely ignoring the holistic point as deep pointed out. So now that I made this change, I'm talking about 99% of baseball players as opposed to 99.7%, hardly weakening my point. Their best athletic skills are a dime a dozen. Still, some of those 99% I'll still call athletes, because being in the top 10,000 is very very good. However, if you look at, say, the lower 70%, which is a large majority, those I would not call athletes.

I already told you I'm not talking about pitchers, I mentioned that in my first post, as well as in another thread. Unfortunately, we don't have throwing speed stats for fielding.

And no, you didn't explain why my stats are faulty. You gave a couple of hand picked stats. The vast majority of fast runners don't acheive the success of Ricky Henderson or Ty Cobb. I also answered your challenge about looking at base stealing leaders. You said base stealers take over games, implying that it's a very important skill. I proved that you're full of crap, and my evidence is based on hard statistics. Going from .300 to .350 with your on base percentage has 10 times the benefit to the team than tripling your stolen bases so that you're near the top of the MLB in base stealing. That doesn't include the benefit of increased RBI's with a higher OBP. Am I making myself clear now? Over 10 times more impact.

Since there is a strong correlation between stolen bases and speed, I can do some stats between zone rating and stolen bases. I know other factors like timing and judgement matter, but clearly speed is the most important, since a slow runner will never get a decent number of stolen bases. Besides, timing and judgement are important for fielding as well. Then I can show you that speed's effect on fielding is minimal as well.