Try convincing the players of that when it is 120 degrees on the field in July and August and they are playing their 20th game in 20 days in their 5th different city.
Sure... Any guy off the couch can go outside and throw a football 10 yards, hit a golf ball, hit a tennis ball with a racket, and shoot a basketball. Not every person can hit a 90+ mph fastball, nor can they throw a 90+ mph fastball. And forget about breaking balls. Yes, you can play baseball everyday because it may not be as physically demanding... but that doesn't mean its easy.
much like baseball, the nba season length really is to get a good sample size for player progression, dominance, or over all effectiveness. Basketball is, believe it or not, a game of averages and advantage. With a shorter season players would be over or under valued for the effectiveness in time played. With such, 82 games gives even distribution between games played in and out of conference with a majority of games played inner division. Remove games and extra weight would be skewed highly to division games, where then most games would literally become meaningless.
How is the NBA season any more meaningless than the MLB season? Yes, more than half the teams in the NBA make the playoffs, but in the end, the championship almost always goes to a team with one of the top few records in the league. It's not like teams are really coasting through the season, finishing in 8th place and turning it on in the playoffs.
What a novel concept. The most talented teams win. Think you'd be hard pressed to find any other sport where a team is as excited as those in baseball just for making the playoffs. Since the inclusion of the Wild Card, seems more often than that playoff eligibility comes down to the final games of the season. Of course you're gonna have teams that have been out of contention since the All-Star break, but you'll find that in every sport.
I just hate waiting 8 turns to get my chance to help my team in offense. So... what happened to the remaining 2 games...? They disappear?
In MLB, only 4 of the teams make the playoffs in each league, and you need the regular season to determine that. You play half the games, and you don't necessarily have the same teams in the playoffs at the end of the season that you did at the beginning (see this year... where the Cards, Red Sox, Dodgers, and White Sox were all looking good at mid-season... and the Braves, Giants, and Twins end up being the better teams). Yes, you need a basketball season to get to the playoffs... but with so many teams making the playoffs, you could just as easilly play half the games, end up with the same teams (give or take 2 or 3 of the lower seeds), and end up with both the same teams in the playoffs and the same results at the end of the playoffs.
If a team "coasts" in baseball, they won't even make the playoffs. That's a big difference right there.
You could likely get the same results in a 40 game season that you end up with an 82 one. The best teams are usually evident from day ONE of the season, and the ones that aren't usually get their act together by mid-season. And, regardless, the quality team likely makes the playoffs anyways. I didn't see much of a sample size effect in the locked out 50 game season (but you do get outliers in the playoffs, like the Knicks making the finals). Sure, you could argue that you need more games to truly determine home court advantage, and to get the most even playoff matchups... etc. In the end, basketball really only becomes relevant come playoff time, and you don't need 82 games to find out which teams are the best teams.
That's pretty laughable. Forget the fact that baseball is not timed and never ends in ties and hence can last twice as long if not more than other timed sports. You don't think it requires stamina to be a catcher and to play your position in a crouch the whole game. Or how bout throwing 100+ pitches. How bout having enough energy to cover an expansive outfield for 9+ innings. It's like the same argument I hear against Nascar drivers, but people fail to forget that they have to drive in a 100+ degree conditions for over 300 miles and 3 hours without taking a break.
Can't see how a 100 or 120 game leader would be any less valid then a 162 one. (or why 162 is necessarily better then 182). (though seasons with 100 game winners would be less common -- do I get a prize for bringing this back on topic?). Just for giggles, I checked the August 31 standings per the link above -- and the playoff teams were the same with the exception of San Diego in place of San Fran. And baseball does take less stamina. Huge talent, at that level, but, except for pitchers and possibly catchers, not as much stamina. Couldn't have double headers and 20 games in 20 days if it did. 162 games is a function of tradition and what they can sell.
The 2004 and 2005 Astros (and 07 Rockies) would disagree that you have no effect on the final outcome by shortening the season. There were also bigger ramifications when only TWO teams per league made the playoffs. And, 154 games was the tradition... season was expanded due to expansion and to allow teams in each league/division to play each other a fair amount. I don't see how they can shorten the season, especially if they want to keep the divisions meaningful (hence unbalanced schedules). As it is, teams not in the same division with each other only play ~ 2 series (or ~ 6 games). The Astros only go to Atlanta, San Francisco, and Los Angeles once a year... sad to see from the old NL West days.
Yeah well in baseball talent doesn't necessarily have to be acquired in a semi-intelligent manner like the NFL or the NBA. A lack of salary cap means teams can spend more and improve. I really don't like that about baseball. I like the parity in the NFL and watching the shrewd dealings in the NBA (Morey, the Spurs, OKC, etc...). I really don't disagree with your points, I just don't get as excited about the things you do. I agree getting to the playoffs is an accomplishment in baseball, that being said I find that being an accomplishment unexciting.
The best baseball teams have the best farm systems. The big spenders can spend more on their farm systems, or more at the big leagues to mask the mistakes of the farm system, but it doesn't always translate into success. One could argue that it takes far more leg work/scouting/luck/dilligence to build a good baseball team than it does in any of the other sports... where you can re-load/build through draft/free agency and be competitive pretty soon. And I'm not even going to start with how the Lebron fiasco applies to your "shrewd dealings" theory of the NBA. That whole charade was embarassing for the league... in fact, I'll take a Yankees/Red Sox high payroll winner any day over the Lebron/Wade/Bosh collusion-fest.
In 2008, I looked into this, and at that time, over the past 30 seasons, there were 30 100-win teams. I don't know why I picked 30 years, but meh...here is what I found at that time: Over the past 30 baseball seasons, there has actually been 30 100-win teams; an average of one team per season. However, during only 18 of those seasons did a team reach that mark. Here are some more interesting facts about this: - 12 teams have reached the 100-win plateau. NYY 6 times, ATL 6 times, OAK 4 times, STL 3 times, NYM 2 times, SF 2 times, BAL 2 times, and Astros, DET, CLE, ARI and SEA (116 wins) 1 time each. - In 1980, Baltimore was 100-62 and did not make the playoffs. In 1993, San Francisco was 103-59 and did not make the playoffs! - 3 seasons saw 3 teams reach 100 wins; 1998, 2002, and 2003. Of course one of those seasons, 1998 was when the Astros won 102 games, but both the Braves and Yankees had better records. -Out of these 30 teams, only 12 went on to win their respective league. Out of those 12 teams, only the 1978 Yankees, 1984 Tigers, 1986 Mets, and 1998 Yankees went on to win the World Series. -Overall, only FOUR out of the 30 100-win teams over the past thirty seasons have gone on to become World Series Champions.
The last true pennant race ever (thanks to the wild card). Same thing could have happened in 2001 with the Astros/Cards, or this year with the Yankees/Rays... but since both were guaranteed the playoffs due to the wild card, it didn't have any drama what-so-ever. Also, the fact that more 100 win teams don't win the championshiop than do furhter strengthens the "small sample size effect" of playoff baseball.
Exactly....I could care less about college basketball and March Madness. It all really comes down to personal taste.
Pitchers and catchers certainly do a lot of work during a baseball game. Everyone else? Not so much. Of a 3 hour game, each player is sitting in a shaded dugout drinking gatorade and munching on sunflower seeds for about 1.5 hours. There are 27 outs per game, plus let's say 10 hits on average. If you assume about 8 strikeouts as well, that's about 29 balls being put in play. Taking out the catcher and pitcher who don't field many plays, that leaves 7 defensive players fielding 27 balls - or about 4 per player. Add the fact that they back up some plays near them, and an average player is chasing about 6-8 balls over the course of 3 hours - or one every 20-30 minutes. Plus being at-bat about 4 times a game and running the bases about once or twice on average. Compared to virtually any other major sport - football, basketball, hockey, soccer, tennis, swimming, cycling, etc - that's a fairly minor workload. It's also the reason that baseball players play to a later age and can often function being in worse shape (see Carlos Lee) than players in other sports.
