Certainly I'm not saying playing baseball requires the same endurance as a sport like soccer or basketball, where they are constantly in motion. But it does most certainly require stamina, albeit in different ways. And if you play through to the end of the season, I'd wager that after 162 games, these players are every bit as gassed as any other player in any other sport. So while they may not exert as much energy during the actual game as other sports, we have to keep in mind they play almost every single day for 6 months.
Winning 100 games sounds impressive but it's only a ~60% winning percentage. In the NBA, that equates to 50 wins which is usually middle-of-the-pack, or in last year's case, the 8th seed in the West.
Based on last year's standings: 50 wins gets you tied for 6th seed in the West and tied for 4th seed in the East.
You CAN NOT compare the two sports like this. Winning 100 games in baseball is special because of the grind that it takes, much like a marathon. If you want to make a valid comparison then 100 games in MLB is like 62 wins in the NBA, only the elite can get there.
In a marathon, finishing is an accomplishment because you can simply collapse beforehand. In baseball, someone has to win every game - and the other team is just as tired as yours, so it's always an even matchup. Because of that, the grind really isn't a major factor. The real reason 100 wins in baseball is more impressive than 50 in basketball is simply because there's a huge element of luck to baseball. Lower scoring means flukes happen more often. Pitchers having such a big influence on the game and being sporadic creates a lot more uncertainty, etc. Simply put, the better team is just less likely to win an individual game in baseball than in basketball or football.
Cubs had the 3rd highest payroll this season, Mets were #5. Spending lots of money doesn't guarantee anything in baseball.
Sorry can't agree, with 162 games everything evens out so luck has very little to do with teams who are successful. Both teams are not equally tired because of bullpens and schedules so there is a difference, plus injury plays a HUGE part of many outcomes. Pitchers do control a great deal of certain games but because the sport has become so specialized, one bad outing by the bullpen can change EVERYTHING. Now in the playoffs, then yes, luck comes into play especially in a 5 game series. During a full 7 gamer then it usually plays out okay but in a short series, crazy things tend to happen.
I agree that baseball requires a different kind of stamina. It requires the stamina to put up with standing around playing a really boring game for several hours every day.
Winning 72 games in the NBA sounds impressive but its only a 88% winning percentage. In college football, you likely won't be playing for the BCS National Championship with a winning percentage that low.
2010 Opening Day Team Payrolls No. Team Payroll 1. New York Yankees $206,333,389 2. Boston Red Sox $162,747,333 3. Chicago Cubs $146,859,000 4. Philadelphia Phillies $141,927,381 5. New York Mets $132,701,445 6. Detroit Tigers $122,864,929 7. Chicago White Sox $108,273,197 8. Los Angeles Angels $105,013,667 9. Seattle Mariners $98,376,667 10. San Francisco Giants $97,828,833 11. Minnesota Twins $97,559,167 12. Los Angeles Dodgers $94,945,517 13. St. Louis Cardinals $93,540,753 14. Houston Astros $92,355,500 15. Atlanta Braves $84,423,667 16. Colorado Rockies $84,227,000 17. Baltimore Orioles $81,612,500 18. Milwaukee Brewers $81,108,279 19. Cincinnati Reds $72,386,544 20. Kansas City Royals $72,267,710 21. Tampa Bay Rays $71,923,471 22. Toronto Blue Jays $62,689,357 23. Washington Nationals $61,425,000 24. Cleveland Indians $61,203,967 25. Arizona Diamondbacks $60,718,167 26. Florida Marlins $55,641,500 27. Texas Rangers $55,250,545 28. Oakland Athletics $51,654,900 29. San Diego Padres $37,799,300 30. Pittsburgh Pirates $34,943,000 How is the most talented team making it in the playoffs in baseball any different from any other sport? As you can see from this year's opening day payroll, spending a lot hardly guarantees you a trip into the playoffs. The Padres were also in it until the very last day of the regular season.
In baseball, it is more evident than in any other sport, that on any given day a bad team can beat a good team. For example, Tampa Bay had the best record in the AL, the Orioles had the second worst, yet the Orioles won 7 out of 18 games against them. Do you think if the Lakers played the Wolves 18 times that the Wolves would win 7 of those games? The Astros beat the Phillies 4 in a row in Philadelphia. Do you think the Bobcats could win 4 straight in Miami? It is much more difficult to win 60% of your games in baseball than it is in basketball.
College football is not a good comparison. The season is so short and many of the games played by the best teams are against vastly inferior competition, where the disparity is much greater than in any pro sport. That really only leaves a handful of tough games for the national championship contenders to win. Also, if you look at the NBA, most championship caliber teams do go on streaks where they win something like 10 games in a row and that's the entire length of the college football season.
You just perfectly illustrated his point. You cannot compare winning percentages between different sports. Too many different factors at play.
