Synchronicity. Or psychic prediction. Just yesterday I wrote about the new world of IPL cricket and suggested that the basic attractions of the game were very similar to baseball. And I noted that although I still love the game(s), there should be at least three major disciplines involved, and the increasing prevalence of sixes (home runs) was disrupting it. Both cricket and baseball need to restore that balance.
And the title of today's article on Freakonomics: Ideas for Making Baseball More Interesting
Lots of good ideas there, some overlap with mine. Even better, Scott Adams just wrote today about America's Favorite Pastime:
Yesterday I went to a Giants baseball game. It was Little League Day, so there were about ten thousand young boys running wild in the stands. It was also free bat day, courtesy Bank of America ...
Do you know what happens when you hand an 8-year old boy a new bat, sit him behind the exposed heads of several adults, and ask him to sit patiently for four hours while nothing much happens on the big field in front of him?
Very funny. A lot of fans with sore heads the next morning. And another demonstration of the great decision making of the top executives in the US banking sector.
Finally, another quote from Scott:
I wish someone would invent a device that allowed you to watch sporting events from your home. I think that would be popular.
Showing posts with label baseball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label baseball. Show all posts
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Running Home
The last post was a personal indulgence. But on the same subject, time for a practical suggestion.
I spent a while living in America, but although I think I understand the game, their version of football never interested me. But for some reason baseball instantly appealed. I went to see both the Yankees and the Mets during my time there, and more than that, I loved the fact that there always seemed to be a first class game on TV, even though a hundred other channels were spewing rubbish.
Why do I like baseball? Despite what you may think, it's not about the stats. It may be the pace of the game. About 120 pitches per side spread over about 3 hours ... sorry, that's 20:20 cricket again.
But what I don't particularly like, funnily enough, are home runs. To me they spoil the flow of the game. Batting bowling and fielding should all be part of it. What I like are the balls smacked to far left field, the cheeky singles, the fly balls parried and caught. It's about "runs batted in", not "runs walked in".
Which brings me to my suggestion for cricket. The general lament from the traditionalists is that the new game favours the batsman. It's not easy to legislate on batting technology or to control the pitch. But at the very least keep the ground as big as possible, stop bringing the boundaries in.
I spent a while living in America, but although I think I understand the game, their version of football never interested me. But for some reason baseball instantly appealed. I went to see both the Yankees and the Mets during my time there, and more than that, I loved the fact that there always seemed to be a first class game on TV, even though a hundred other channels were spewing rubbish.
Why do I like baseball? Despite what you may think, it's not about the stats. It may be the pace of the game. About 120 pitches per side spread over about 3 hours ... sorry, that's 20:20 cricket again.
But what I don't particularly like, funnily enough, are home runs. To me they spoil the flow of the game. Batting bowling and fielding should all be part of it. What I like are the balls smacked to far left field, the cheeky singles, the fly balls parried and caught. It's about "runs batted in", not "runs walked in".
Which brings me to my suggestion for cricket. The general lament from the traditionalists is that the new game favours the batsman. It's not easy to legislate on batting technology or to control the pitch. But at the very least keep the ground as big as possible, stop bringing the boundaries in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
