[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
DJHT, I don’t disagree those guys are huge…but they are still wearing armor.
[/quote]
Have you ever played American football with padding (armor lol) ?[/quote]
He was to busy taking balls to the face. His words not mine.[/quote]
Only on cold mornings.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
DJHT, I don’t disagree those guys are huge…but they are still wearing armor.
The argument is not very serious anyways, just that I don’t really like this general feeling that “soccer is for pussies”…especially when it’s freezing and you get hit by the ball in the face…[/quote]
I played for 8-10 years of soccer and no it is not for pussy’s and can be a contact sport. I know I got a lot of red cards. My opinion was more on the fact if you didnt have pads on for Football these guys wouldnt last one game. Serious physical damage would be done. Like I said I played both for a long time and its not just that they are huge, they are huge and FAST. I really recommend someday if you ever get a chance to watch a NFL game live do watch it. On TV it is not the same as in real life, the speed of the game is really really scary. [/quote]
I believe you. I’ve watched few NFL matches, but never live, but yeah, I know the sports are not comparable. There’s no “clash” and “block” in rugby, in example.
So you’re a dirty one uh? All my cards were for complaining. I started playing when I was 9 and I was very short and agile. I was terribly fast, so defenders would just knock me down at any chance…and that hurt.
It didn’t change when I was 16 either. Waking up at 6 to go to some random town, at 5-6Ã?º (Celsius) to get beaten by guys 30kg heavier than me was not fun. [/quote]
It hurt when you got knocked down? Try getting knocked out. Or running full speed and having a running back dive at your knees (cut)
Soccer is no more physical then basketball is, with just as much floping.
[quote]hushmalon wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
DJHT, I don’t disagree those guys are huge…but they are still wearing armor.
The argument is not very serious anyways, just that I don’t really like this general feeling that “soccer is for pussies”…especially when it’s freezing and you get hit by the ball in the face…[/quote]
I played for 8-10 years of soccer and no it is not for pussy’s and can be a contact sport. I know I got a lot of red cards. My opinion was more on the fact if you didnt have pads on for Football these guys wouldnt last one game. Serious physical damage would be done. Like I said I played both for a long time and its not just that they are huge, they are huge and FAST. I really recommend someday if you ever get a chance to watch a NFL game live do watch it. On TV it is not the same as in real life, the speed of the game is really really scary. [/quote]
I believe you. I’ve watched few NFL matches, but never live, but yeah, I know the sports are not comparable. There’s no “clash” and “block” in rugby, in example.
So you’re a dirty one uh? All my cards were for complaining. I started playing when I was 9 and I was very short and agile. I was terribly fast, so defenders would just knock me down at any chance…and that hurt.
It didn’t change when I was 16 either. Waking up at 6 to go to some random town, at 5-6Ã??Ã?º (Celsius) to get beaten by guys 30kg heavier than me was not fun. [/quote]
It hurt when you got knocked down? Try getting knocked out. Or running full speed and having a running back dive at your knees (cut)
Soccer is no more physical then basketball is, with just as much floping.
[/quote]
Right.
I have played both and they are not even in the same league. In basketball, when defending, you are quite limited since you don’t want to foul the other guy. In soccer you can tackle, push, etc. and if you touch the ball first or don’t use your arms, you should be fine.
How often do players get substituted for injury in basketball? Or miss half season due to a bad tackle? Rarely.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]hushmalon wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
DJHT, I don’t disagree those guys are huge…but they are still wearing armor.
The argument is not very serious anyways, just that I don’t really like this general feeling that “soccer is for pussies”…especially when it’s freezing and you get hit by the ball in the face…[/quote]
I played for 8-10 years of soccer and no it is not for pussy’s and can be a contact sport. I know I got a lot of red cards. My opinion was more on the fact if you didnt have pads on for Football these guys wouldnt last one game. Serious physical damage would be done. Like I said I played both for a long time and its not just that they are huge, they are huge and FAST. I really recommend someday if you ever get a chance to watch a NFL game live do watch it. On TV it is not the same as in real life, the speed of the game is really really scary. [/quote]
I believe you. I’ve watched few NFL matches, but never live, but yeah, I know the sports are not comparable. There’s no “clash” and “block” in rugby, in example.
So you’re a dirty one uh? All my cards were for complaining. I started playing when I was 9 and I was very short and agile. I was terribly fast, so defenders would just knock me down at any chance…and that hurt.
It didn’t change when I was 16 either. Waking up at 6 to go to some random town, at 5-6Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?º (Celsius) to get beaten by guys 30kg heavier than me was not fun. [/quote]
It hurt when you got knocked down? Try getting knocked out. Or running full speed and having a running back dive at your knees (cut)
Soccer is no more physical then basketball is, with just as much floping.
[/quote]
Right.
I have played both and they are not even in the same league. In basketball, when defending, you are quite limited since you don’t want to foul the other guy. In soccer you can tackle, push, etc. and if you touch the ball first or don’t use your arms, you should be fine.
How often do players get substituted for injury in basketball? Or miss half season due to a bad tackle? Rarely.
[/quote]
All I know is that at the pro levels, I would MUCH rather play against professional soccer players than giant 6 foot 8 basketball players, wouldn’t you? Basketball Is more physical at the pro levels than soccer in my opinion
Hopefully that fixed it
And I agree with you on the injury factor, although I’d like to see some statistics
Your answer is inside the quote, bit hard to see.
My point of earlier stands. Compare the amount of injuries, in example.
Don’t talk shit about hockey.
If there’s anything wrong with hockey is there’s too much hitting and fighting. I miss the old days when they didn’t have helmets and wouldn’t fight as much.
That and the Hanson brothers.
DOUG’S A KILLER!
[quote]Nards wrote:
Don’t talk shit about hockey.
If there’s anything wrong with hockey is there’s too much hitting and fighting. I miss the old days when they didn’t have helmets and wouldn’t fight as much.
That and the Hanson brothers.[/quote]
i want the old bruins back
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The thing about rugby is, as bad-ass as those guys are, they generally throw the ball to someone else to avoid getting tackled. In American football the ball carrier looks to avoid getting tackled obviously, but sometimes they try to run right over guys and they certainly don’t chuck the ball to someone else to avoid getting hit.[/quote]
Hmmm, maybe rugby players in America? It’s frowned on, the decision would never be to pass off to avoid a hit, only if it got you good yards. If you didn’t get kicked off the team, you’d probably leave.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
I dont watch rugby or Australian rules football, HOWEVER I will say that if these sports had the same type of athletes as NFL then I would watch. Obviously they dont or they would be coming to America to play in the NFL and make millions. Just my .02[/quote]
Well, you know, some do…
But of course they have different types of athletes, they are different sports. If the salaries in AFL were higher than in NFL, I doubt you’d see too many players coming back the other way. If AFL paid better than NFL, America would be churning out some of the best AFL players in the world.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The thing about rugby is, as bad-ass as those guys are, they generally throw the ball to someone else to avoid getting tackled. In American football the ball carrier looks to avoid getting tackled obviously, but sometimes they try to run right over guys and they certainly don’t chuck the ball to someone else to avoid getting hit.
Obviously rugby players aren’t tossing the ball to avoid getting hit purely to avoid injury or anything like that. But the distinction should be made that in American football the ball carrier generally does not try to avoid getting tackled to the same extent that they do in rugby. And in rugby almost all tackles are just guys trying to wrap someone up, whereas in football you have guys literally launching themselves right through the ball carrier.
They’re both still bad-ass motherfuckers either way though, and baseball players, American football players and hockey players are all generally tougher and less pansy-like than soccer players. I’ve played all of the aforementioned sports, including varsity soccer for 4 years in high school, and from my anecdotal experience soccer players tend to play up their injuries as much as possible and the other athletes downplay theirs. That doesn’t necessarily say anything about their comparative tolerance for pain, but it does say something about the mindset of those athletes.[/quote]
Okay so American football is more ‘brutal’ than rugby, but is that really a good thing? American football is more action packed - at a cost to the players. Concussions happen in both sports but the type and volume of concussions in American football are borderline deadly as consequence long-term. Studies are coming out showing brain damage even in high-school players and earlier. The NFL really needs to start paying attention to this issue - thats is, if they value ethics anywhere nearly as important as money.[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the inherent level of danger present in football. And no, I don’t think that is a good thing. In fact, I’ve been meaning to start a thread about how/why football (in general, not just the NFL) is an inherently flawed sport for this very reason, along with a couple other reasons. Maybe I’ll start it tomorrow. If you don’t see it in this forum by the end of the day tomorrow, PM me because I probably forgot about it.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
I dont watch rugby or Australian rules football, HOWEVER I will say that if these sports had the same type of athletes as NFL then I would watch. Obviously they dont or they would be coming to America to play in the NFL and make millions. Just my .02[/quote]
Well, you know, some do…
But of course they have different types of athletes, they are different sports. If the salaries in AFL were higher than in NFL, I doubt you’d see too many players coming back the other way. If AFL paid better than NFL, America would be churning out some of the best AFL players in the world.
[/quote]
Not hating on Rugby or AFL. Just a statement of fact IMO. Look what is happening to Pro Baseball, less and less top athletes are playing baseball. I always watch the college world series, there are some tall pitchers but most of those kids are around 6’1" 200 pounds on average. Then look at college football and basketball by comparison.
NFL and NBA attract all the biggest, fastest most athletic kids. So the money is going there from a business perspective. Again so I am solely basing my opinion on the current landscape, NFL is top dog due to multi factors.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
I dont watch rugby or Australian rules football, HOWEVER I will say that if these sports had the same type of athletes as NFL then I would watch. Obviously they dont or they would be coming to America to play in the NFL and make millions. Just my .02[/quote]
Well, you know, some do…
But of course they have different types of athletes, they are different sports. If the salaries in AFL were higher than in NFL, I doubt you’d see too many players coming back the other way. If AFL paid better than NFL, America would be churning out some of the best AFL players in the world.
[/quote]
Not hating on Rugby or AFL. Just a statement of fact IMO. Look what is happening to Pro Baseball, less and less top athletes are playing baseball. I always watch the college world series, there are some tall pitchers but most of those kids are around 6’1" 200 pounds on average. Then look at college football and basketball by comparison.
NFL and NBA attract all the biggest, fastest most athletic kids. So the money is going there from a business perspective. Again so I am solely basing my opinion on the current landscape, NFL is top dog due to multi factors.
[/quote]
The reason the players in the College World Series are generally smaller than football or basketball players is because of the nature of the sports. If you’re really tall, you’re going to find out from an early age that you’re best suited for basketball and you’ll end up focusing on that sport more. If you’re bigger or stronger than most kids your age, you’ll find that football is the sport you can excel at the most at an early age and that is where your focus will be.
Besides, baseball doesn’t lend itself well to tall people. It’s rare to see anyone much taller than 6’4" because long arms make it harder to hit. Pitchers generally tend to be tall, and many are above 6’4", but that’s different because the physical requirements for being a pitcher are so much different than any other position. We’re also seeing a HUGE influx over the last several years of very, very good pitchers, so I would argue that in this respect baseball is NOT seeing a talent drain.
Also, the most talented 20-22 year old baseball players in this country aren’t in the College World Series; they’re already playing in the minor leagues and in some cases are already in the bigs.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
I dont watch rugby or Australian rules football, HOWEVER I will say that if these sports had the same type of athletes as NFL then I would watch. Obviously they dont or they would be coming to America to play in the NFL and make millions. Just my .02[/quote]
Well, you know, some do…
But of course they have different types of athletes, they are different sports. If the salaries in AFL were higher than in NFL, I doubt you’d see too many players coming back the other way. If AFL paid better than NFL, America would be churning out some of the best AFL players in the world.
[/quote]
Not hating on Rugby or AFL. Just a statement of fact IMO. Look what is happening to Pro Baseball, less and less top athletes are playing baseball. I always watch the college world series, there are some tall pitchers but most of those kids are around 6’1" 200 pounds on average. Then look at college football and basketball by comparison.
NFL and NBA attract all the biggest, fastest most athletic kids. So the money is going there from a business perspective. Again so I am solely basing my opinion on the current landscape, NFL is top dog due to multi factors.
[/quote]
The reason the players in the College World Series are generally smaller than football or basketball players is because of the nature of the sports. If you’re really tall, you’re going to find out from an early age that you’re best suited for basketball and you’ll end up focusing on that sport more. If you’re bigger or stronger than most kids your age, you’ll find that football is the sport you can excel at the most at an early age and that is where your focus will be.
Besides, baseball doesn’t lend itself well to tall people. It’s rare to see anyone much taller than 6’4" because long arms make it harder to hit. Pitchers generally tend to be tall, and many are above 6’4", but that’s different because the physical requirements for being a pitcher are so much different than any other position. We’re also seeing a HUGE influx over the last several years of very, very good pitchers, so I would argue that in this respect baseball is NOT seeing a talent drain.
Also, the most talented 20-22 year old baseball players in this country aren’t in the College World Series; they’re already playing in the minor leagues and in some cases are already in the bigs.[/quote]
Okay to a certain extent that makes sense on the pitchers and the CWS due to the structure of MLB.
How tall is Derek Jetter? Rodriquez?
Is there still an huge influx of foreign players?
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
I dont watch rugby or Australian rules football, HOWEVER I will say that if these sports had the same type of athletes as NFL then I would watch. Obviously they dont or they would be coming to America to play in the NFL and make millions. Just my .02[/quote]
Well, you know, some do…
But of course they have different types of athletes, they are different sports. If the salaries in AFL were higher than in NFL, I doubt you’d see too many players coming back the other way. If AFL paid better than NFL, America would be churning out some of the best AFL players in the world.
[/quote]
Not hating on Rugby or AFL. Just a statement of fact IMO. Look what is happening to Pro Baseball, less and less top athletes are playing baseball. I always watch the college world series, there are some tall pitchers but most of those kids are around 6’1" 200 pounds on average. Then look at college football and basketball by comparison.
NFL and NBA attract all the biggest, fastest most athletic kids. So the money is going there from a business perspective. Again so I am solely basing my opinion on the current landscape, NFL is top dog due to multi factors.
[/quote]
The reason the players in the College World Series are generally smaller than football or basketball players is because of the nature of the sports. If you’re really tall, you’re going to find out from an early age that you’re best suited for basketball and you’ll end up focusing on that sport more. If you’re bigger or stronger than most kids your age, you’ll find that football is the sport you can excel at the most at an early age and that is where your focus will be.
Besides, baseball doesn’t lend itself well to tall people. It’s rare to see anyone much taller than 6’4" because long arms make it harder to hit. Pitchers generally tend to be tall, and many are above 6’4", but that’s different because the physical requirements for being a pitcher are so much different than any other position. We’re also seeing a HUGE influx over the last several years of very, very good pitchers, so I would argue that in this respect baseball is NOT seeing a talent drain.
Also, the most talented 20-22 year old baseball players in this country aren’t in the College World Series; they’re already playing in the minor leagues and in some cases are already in the bigs.[/quote]
Okay to a certain extent that makes sense on the pitchers and the CWS due to the structure of MLB.
How tall is Derek Jetter? Rodriquez?
Is there still an huge influx of foreign players? [/quote]
I’m not sure about Jeter. I think he’s about 6’2". A-Rod is 6’4", which is tall by baseball’s standards. Look at a guy like Richie Sexson. He was 6’6" and had a LOT of talent, but he just wasn’t quick enough to get his hands through on an inside pitch. Hitters want to get their arms extended through the swing, but the longer the arms are the harder it is to do that. When I was a pitcher in college we had scouting reports on guys and all that, but for the most part I pitched based on body types. I pounded taller hitters with fastballs on the inner half.
The only advantage that taller hitters really have at the plate is that they tend to handle pitches down better. But if you can consistently plant fastballs at the belt on the inside corner, you’ll eat them up all day. 6’4" seems to be about as tall as you ever see hitters in the bigs these days. There are exceptions, but they’re just that, exceptions. I think Aubrey Huff is the tallest hitter on the Giants and he’s a lanky 6’4", but right now he couldn’t hit water if he fell out of a boat.
And yeah, there’s still a huge influx of foreign players. I watched the Futures Game yesterday and the World team was running pitcher after pitcher out there who threw mid-90s. I think the slowest fastball I saw was still 92mph. The foreign talent is also coming from more varied places. There’s more and more players from Asia and there are also a lot more Latin players coming from places other than the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
I dont watch rugby or Australian rules football, HOWEVER I will say that if these sports had the same type of athletes as NFL then I would watch. Obviously they dont or they would be coming to America to play in the NFL and make millions. Just my .02[/quote]
Well, you know, some do…
But of course they have different types of athletes, they are different sports. If the salaries in AFL were higher than in NFL, I doubt you’d see too many players coming back the other way. If AFL paid better than NFL, America would be churning out some of the best AFL players in the world.
[/quote]
Not hating on Rugby or AFL. Just a statement of fact IMO. Look what is happening to Pro Baseball, less and less top athletes are playing baseball. I always watch the college world series, there are some tall pitchers but most of those kids are around 6’1" 200 pounds on average. Then look at college football and basketball by comparison.
NFL and NBA attract all the biggest, fastest most athletic kids. So the money is going there from a business perspective. Again so I am solely basing my opinion on the current landscape, NFL is top dog due to multi factors.
[/quote]
The reason the players in the College World Series are generally smaller than football or basketball players is because of the nature of the sports. If you’re really tall, you’re going to find out from an early age that you’re best suited for basketball and you’ll end up focusing on that sport more. If you’re bigger or stronger than most kids your age, you’ll find that football is the sport you can excel at the most at an early age and that is where your focus will be.
Besides, baseball doesn’t lend itself well to tall people. It’s rare to see anyone much taller than 6’4" because long arms make it harder to hit. Pitchers generally tend to be tall, and many are above 6’4", but that’s different because the physical requirements for being a pitcher are so much different than any other position. We’re also seeing a HUGE influx over the last several years of very, very good pitchers, so I would argue that in this respect baseball is NOT seeing a talent drain.
Also, the most talented 20-22 year old baseball players in this country aren’t in the College World Series; they’re already playing in the minor leagues and in some cases are already in the bigs.[/quote]
Okay to a certain extent that makes sense on the pitchers and the CWS due to the structure of MLB.
How tall is Derek Jetter? Rodriquez?
Is there still an huge influx of foreign players? [/quote]
I’m not sure about Jeter. I think he’s about 6’2". A-Rod is 6’4", which is tall by baseball’s standards. Look at a guy like Richie Sexson. He was 6’6" and had a LOT of talent, but he just wasn’t quick enough to get his hands through on an inside pitch. Hitters want to get their arms extended through the swing, but the longer the arms are the harder it is to do that. When I was a pitcher in college we had scouting reports on guys and all that, but for the most part I pitched based on body types. I pounded taller hitters with fastballs on the inner half.
The only advantage that taller hitters really have at the plate is that they tend to handle pitches down better. But if you can consistently plant fastballs at the belt on the inside corner, you’ll eat them up all day. 6’4" seems to be about as tall as you ever see hitters in the bigs these days. There are exceptions, but they’re just that, exceptions. I think Aubrey Huff is the tallest hitter on the Giants and he’s a lanky 6’4", but right now he couldn’t hit water if he fell out of a boat.
And yeah, there’s still a huge influx of foreign players. I watched the Futures Game yesterday and the World team was running pitcher after pitcher out there who threw mid-90s. I think the slowest fastball I saw was still 92mph. The foreign talent is also coming from more varied places. There’s more and more players from Asia and there are also a lot more Latin players coming from places other than the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico. [/quote]
So you think due to the effective pitching this keeps baseball as a general rule set to a certain size and shape? The same probably could have been said about Football back in the day.
That is kind of my point though DB, someone that is above average baseball size is not choosing to go into baseball, that being American kid. Thus the influx of foreign players. They are choosing to go into football and basketball, thus leaving the not as athletic vs size going into baseball.
You used A-Rod as an example, guy I used to work with his son-in-law was a pitcher in the Rangers farm league. He actually got to practice with A-Rod a few times, his comments were that he had never seen someone that big move with such grace and speed.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
I dont watch rugby or Australian rules football, HOWEVER I will say that if these sports had the same type of athletes as NFL then I would watch. Obviously they dont or they would be coming to America to play in the NFL and make millions. Just my .02[/quote]
Well, you know, some do…
But of course they have different types of athletes, they are different sports. If the salaries in AFL were higher than in NFL, I doubt you’d see too many players coming back the other way. If AFL paid better than NFL, America would be churning out some of the best AFL players in the world.
[/quote]
Not hating on Rugby or AFL. Just a statement of fact IMO. Look what is happening to Pro Baseball, less and less top athletes are playing baseball. I always watch the college world series, there are some tall pitchers but most of those kids are around 6’1" 200 pounds on average. Then look at college football and basketball by comparison.
NFL and NBA attract all the biggest, fastest most athletic kids. So the money is going there from a business perspective. Again so I am solely basing my opinion on the current landscape, NFL is top dog due to multi factors.
[/quote]
The reason the players in the College World Series are generally smaller than football or basketball players is because of the nature of the sports. If you’re really tall, you’re going to find out from an early age that you’re best suited for basketball and you’ll end up focusing on that sport more. If you’re bigger or stronger than most kids your age, you’ll find that football is the sport you can excel at the most at an early age and that is where your focus will be.
Besides, baseball doesn’t lend itself well to tall people. It’s rare to see anyone much taller than 6’4" because long arms make it harder to hit. Pitchers generally tend to be tall, and many are above 6’4", but that’s different because the physical requirements for being a pitcher are so much different than any other position. We’re also seeing a HUGE influx over the last several years of very, very good pitchers, so I would argue that in this respect baseball is NOT seeing a talent drain.
Also, the most talented 20-22 year old baseball players in this country aren’t in the College World Series; they’re already playing in the minor leagues and in some cases are already in the bigs.[/quote]
Okay to a certain extent that makes sense on the pitchers and the CWS due to the structure of MLB.
How tall is Derek Jetter? Rodriquez?
Is there still an huge influx of foreign players? [/quote]
I’m not sure about Jeter. I think he’s about 6’2". A-Rod is 6’4", which is tall by baseball’s standards. Look at a guy like Richie Sexson. He was 6’6" and had a LOT of talent, but he just wasn’t quick enough to get his hands through on an inside pitch. Hitters want to get their arms extended through the swing, but the longer the arms are the harder it is to do that. When I was a pitcher in college we had scouting reports on guys and all that, but for the most part I pitched based on body types. I pounded taller hitters with fastballs on the inner half.
The only advantage that taller hitters really have at the plate is that they tend to handle pitches down better. But if you can consistently plant fastballs at the belt on the inside corner, you’ll eat them up all day. 6’4" seems to be about as tall as you ever see hitters in the bigs these days. There are exceptions, but they’re just that, exceptions. I think Aubrey Huff is the tallest hitter on the Giants and he’s a lanky 6’4", but right now he couldn’t hit water if he fell out of a boat.
And yeah, there’s still a huge influx of foreign players. I watched the Futures Game yesterday and the World team was running pitcher after pitcher out there who threw mid-90s. I think the slowest fastball I saw was still 92mph. The foreign talent is also coming from more varied places. There’s more and more players from Asia and there are also a lot more Latin players coming from places other than the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico. [/quote]
So you think due to the effective pitching this keeps baseball as a general rule set to a certain size and shape? The same probably could have been said about Football back in the day.
That is kind of my point though DB, someone that is above average baseball size is not choosing to go into baseball, that being American kid. Thus the influx of foreign players. They are choosing to go into football and basketball, thus leaving the not as athletic vs size going into baseball.
You used A-Rod as an example, guy I used to work with his son-in-law was a pitcher in the Rangers farm league. He actually got to practice with A-Rod a few times, his comments were that he had never seen someone that big move with such grace and speed.[/quote]
There’s no way to quantify where the talent is going in this country. I think that baseball, like any other sport, lends itself well to certain body types. I don’t think baseball players are any less athletic than any sport either, and if you don’t agree with me take a look at John Wall’s pitiful attempt to throw out the first pitch at a recent Nationals game.
Even if you look at players such as Jeff Szmardja (spelling?) who could have played professional football OR professional baseball, what sport they choose isn’t an indicator of anything other than where their talent is best used. What makes a kid physically-talented anyways? If you go based purely on size, height or strength, then yes, you will think that football or basketball is stealing talent from baseball. But that would mean that a guy like Shaun White, who is a superior athlete to most baseball, basketball AND football players would not be considered to be a talented athlete.
Baseball is simply not attracting the taller kids with athletic talent and the bigger kids with athletic talent. Baseball requires a much different type of talent than football or basketball. The eye/hand coordination required is by far superior to the other two. The game is also by far the fastest of the three.
Think about it: everything happens at extreme rates of speed. John Elway threw the football about 60mph, about as fast as the ball EVER travels in football and far faster still than a basketball travels, yet that is about the speed of a hard hit, routine groundball in baseball. You could even argue that the increase in big hits in the NFL is partially a result of the athletes with the best eye/hand coordination and reaction times going to MLB.
The point is that if you narrowly define what athletic talent is so that it is identified purely by size or height then you’ll naturally find that particular type of talent going to basketball and baseball. But athletic talent is SO much more than that. It’s also about endurance, and in that respect baseball trumps the other two since the season is ten times longer than the NFL’s and twice as long as the NBA’s.
It’s about body control, eye/hand coordination, foot speed, hand speed, agility and so forth. Baseball has just as much of that as any sport. Watch the WebGems on Baseball Tonight: I’ve never seen so many players make the play at SS deep in the hole look so routine as I have in the last 5-7 years. Take a look at Troy Tulowitzki sometime.
Regarding foreign players: there is a huge influx of them because MLB has actively promoted the game in other countries in an attempt to grow the game. As it has become more popular in Asia we’ve seen more and more Asian players enter the bigs. But that isn’t an indicator of a dropping talent level in America; it’s simply an indicator of a growing talent level overseas.
Besides, most of those players come over here and aren’t nearly what they’re hyped up to be. Most of the Asian players who have come over here have ended up not being very good compared to their American counterparts. Ichiro is an exception, not the norm.
^ Okay, I do have a slanted view and will not argue that point. I played all three sports in HS and loved baseball and football the most (couldnt play at next level due to being a father the day I graduated HS).
I do remember in the late 90’s and early 2000’s a growing trend of what appeared to be out of shape baseball players (I know this is position based of course). Nice to hear that trend did not continue, cant argue any of your other points since I stopped watching MLB 15 years ago.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Okay, I do have a slanted view and will not argue that point. I played all three sports in HS and loved baseball and football the most (couldnt play at next level due to being a father the day I graduated HS).
I do remember in the late 90’s and early 2000’s a growing trend of what appeared to be out of shape baseball players (I know this is position based of course). Nice to hear that trend did not continue, cant argue any of your other points since I stopped watching MLB 15 years ago.
[/quote]
You should start watching it again. It’s a much cleaner, tighter game now. The emphasis on the home run had watered the game down to the point where fundamentals and good defense were overlooked because of the constant possibility of a 3-run bomb.
Now, with really good pitching being so much more prevalent, every run counts that much more. As a result, teams are putting much more focus on playing fundamentally-sound at all aspects of the game. Can’t get a runner from 2nd to 3rd? You’re not playing. Can’t hit the cut-off man? You’re not playing. Have a tendency to botch a routine grounder every once in a while? Work on it in the minors. Can’t get a bunt down in a 1-run ballgame? Can’t get you into the lineup. Aren’t fast enough to go 1st to 3rd on a hit-and-run? Sorry pal, hit the road.
I can’t say for certain whether or not baseball is losing significant American talent to other sports, but I CAN say that the overall talent level in the bigs is higher than I’ve ever seen it. Combine that with a renewed emphasis on playing the game the right way, a shitload of pitchers with nasty stuff and you’ve got a recipe for a new Golden Age in baseball. This is the perfect time to get back into The Game.
Also, I think that the “growing trend of out of shape players” is really just a negative fallout from John Kruk’s comment about not being an athlete but a baseball player while smoking a cigar in the clubhouse during a postgame interview in 1992. Are there out of shape players in the bigs? Sure, just like every other sport. In this respect they’ve got nothing on Zack Randolph or Shaq or virtually any offensive lineman in the NFL.
^ Kruk was a prime example that came to mind. I will not watch much of regular season, once the post season gets closer I might start watching some to see for myself.