the Penguins are STILL gonna suck

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:

there are an average of 125 "plays" in each football game, so 250 plays called including offense and defense on each play … each of those plays involve more "strategy" (which, if you understand the definition, is quantifiable) than every other sport

so. . here's a question then. . .if there are, say, 235 pitches thrown in a baseball game, does each pitch qualify as a "strategy"? and what about the strategy of the batter facing those pitches??

sorry, but saying that because football has more plays called than, supposedly, every other sport and is therefore more strategic is just foolish.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so. . here's a question then. . .if there are, say, 235 pitches thrown in a baseball game, does each pitch qualify as a "strategy"? and what about the strategy of the batter facing those

i don't have any stats off the top of my head, but i would venture to guess that there are more pitches thrown in an average game, but that there is less strategy going on in directing the movements and responsibilities of the 10 people on the field for the single pitch than there is in a single play on the football field … the reason for this is that many pitches the strategy will simply be much the same as the previous pitch (outfield shifted to the right, infield in, 2 outs, play's at 3rd, etc)

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
sorry, but saying that because football has more plays called than, supposedly, every other sport and is therefore more strategic is just foolish.

i'd rather not further belabor the point, but my argument was not centered around the fact that football has more plays called than other sports, therefore has more strategy … i was simply pointing out the sheer volume of intricate discrete strategies employed in each game

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
my argument was not centered around the fact that football has more plays called than other sports, therefore has more strategy

oh my god!!!! it was like the ENTIRE substance of 3/4 of your posts here!!!!

:D :D :D :D :eek:

you need a beer dude, you've been working too hard this week!!!!

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
i don't have any stats off the top of my head,

hahahahahahah

Originally posted by sonickteam4:
oh my god!!!! it was like the ENTIRE substance of 3/4 of your posts here!!!!

man, you sure like to create these exaggerated versions of the truth on here for yourself, don't you?

guess it works for some folks …

Yea, to be fair, it was really only one small facet of Hoya's argument. To also be fair, it was a flawed facet and a convoluted, distorted argument, but still.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so. . here's a question then. . .if there are, say, 235 pitches thrown in a baseball game, does each pitch qualify as a "strategy"? and what about the strategy of the batter facing those pitches??

Don't forget throwing to bases with runners on. Those count as a play too, so lets look at about 260.

Yes, in his attempt to quantify strategy, he fell well short.

Originally posted by sonickteam4:

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
i don't have any stats off the top of my head,

hahahahahahah

sorry for dissapointing sonick, there were an average of 285 pitches per nine-inning game in 2001, i assume it's relatively similar today

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1118

Originally posted by vansmack:
Don't forget throwing to bases with runners on. Those count as a play too, so lets look at about 260.
Yes, in his attempt to quantify strategy, he fell well short.

look back at it, I never tried to say that "there are more plays per game in football than there are in baseball, therefore it's more complex", i was just pointing out the sheer # of "set pieces" in american football

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so. . here's a question then. . .if there are, say, 235 pitches thrown in a baseball game, does each pitch qualify as a "strategy"? and what about the strategy of the batter facing those

i don't have any stats off the top of my head, but i would venture to guess that there are more pitches thrown in an average game, but that there is less strategy going on in directing the movements and responsibilities of the 10 people on the field for the single pitch than there is in a single play on the football field … the reason for this is that many pitches the strategy will simply be much the same as the previous pitch (outfield shifted to the right, infield in, 2 outs, play's at 3rd, etc)

that would, of course, be assuming that there is no one on base, and giving no consideration to who that runner is. i think you are short-changing baseball strategy simply because there are less moving parts, but there is certainly no less strategy involved.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
that would, of course, be assuming that there is no one on base, and giving no consideration to who that runner is. i think you are short-changing baseball strategy simply because there are less moving parts, but there is certainly no less strategy involved.

sure, strategies change pitch-by-pitch, especially depending on the type of pitcher on the mound, but i'm really not short-changing the sport, there's a bunch going on in baseball and i'll be the first to defend it to people who rip on it for being boring … we're really not getting anywhere here …

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
sure, strategies change pitch-by-pitch, especially depending on the type of pitcher on the mound

vs.

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
i don't have any stats off the top of my head, but i would venture to guess that there are more pitches thrown in an average game, but that there is less strategy going on in directing the movements and responsibilities of the 10 people on the field for the single pitch than there is in a single play on the football field … the reason for this is that many pitches the strategy will simply be much the same as the previous pitch (outfield shifted to the right, infield in, 2 outs, play's at 3rd, etc)

Originally posted by sonickteam4:

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
that's why i love this forum …

i thought you liked it cause no one can smack the shit out of you when you say ridiculous things and act like a twerp?

i actually have these kind of friendly "bar debates" with friends all the time … whether football is more strategic than basketball, or which band is better than another … but usually they're just that, friendly, and don't lead to people "smacking the shit" out of each other

what world do you live in?

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
vs.

your point? i said that on many pitches the strategy will be similar to the last pitch, and i'd venture to say that that's right … sure there are little shifts depending on the count, but things like lefty-on-lefty and the hitter's tendencies don't really change that much

Can we talk about hockey again? Anyone else think that the NHL's new logo is completely pointless?

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
vs.

your point? i said that on many pitches the strategy will be similar to the last pitch, and i'd venture to say that that's right … sure there are little shifts depending on the count, but things like lefty-on-lefty and the hitter's tendencies don't really change that much

little shifts? so are you saying that baseball has discrete strategies involved too? all i'm saying is that simply because one sport has more pieces doesn't mean that it involves more strategy.

Originally posted by pip:
Anyone else think that the NHL's new logo is completely pointless?

It will sell well in the ghettos, hockey's largest untapped fan base, but I'll tell you, orange is making a comeback. I would have stuck with it.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
little shifts? so are you saying that baseball has discrete strategies involved too? all i'm saying is that simply because one sport has more pieces doesn't mean that it involves more strategy.

fair enough, well said …

Originally posted by pip:
Can we talk about hockey again? Anyone else think that the NHL's new logo is completely pointless?

courtesy of page 2's uni watch:

Why Pierre Can't Read
Anyone else think the NHL totally blew it when revising its logo from this to this? The silver motif is fine, the beveled effect is cool, and Uni Watch doesn't even mind the typeface. But having the lettering flow up instead of down (no doubt intended to make us all believe the league is moving onward and upward, oh boy!) is such a total joke that you've gotta wonder who's running the show over there. Oh, right – Bettman and Goodenow.

Memo to all involved: Just as our eyes are acculturated to reading from left to right, they're also used to reading from top to bottom. That's why the first line of this article is at the top of the page instead of the bottom, why beauty pageant contestants wear their sashes like this, and why the NHL has uniforms like this and this – you're not planning to change those designs, are you? (Uni Watch hastens to add that this question is purely rhetorical.) As it stands now, all you've done is reinforce the idea that the NHL is amateur hour. Nice going.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by pip:
Can we talk about hockey again? Anyone else think that the NHL's new logo is completely pointless?

courtesy of page 2's uni watch:

Why Pierre Can't Read
Anyone else think the NHL totally blew it when revising its logo from this to this? The silver motif is fine, the beveled effect is cool, and Uni Watch doesn't even mind the typeface. But having the lettering flow up instead of down (no doubt intended to make us all believe the league is moving onward and upward, oh boy!) is such a total joke that you've gotta wonder who's running the show over there. Oh, right – Bettman and Goodenow.

Memo to all involved: Just as our eyes are acculturated to reading from left to right, they're also used to reading from top to bottom. That's why the first line of this article is at the top of the page instead of the bottom, why beauty pageant contestants wear their sashes like this, and why the NHL has uniforms like this and this – you're not planning to change those designs, are you? (Uni Watch hastens to add that this question is purely rhetorical.) As it stands now, all you've done is reinforce the idea that the NHL is amateur hour. Nice going.

What I thought was cool about the old logo that's now missing is that, whether intentional or not, the "L" had the effect of looking like a hockey stick (someone had to point it out me… I wasn't smart enough to figure it out on my own). Going bottom to top, that's no longer the case.