PDA

View Full Version : Football vs. Baseball


lotas
01-01-2008, 11:00 PM
So among the stew of drunken debates from New Years Eve, one of the most interesting I thought was the debate about which sport is more tactical football or baseball? The other question was which is harder, physically? I was defending the view that football is much more tactical, in the sense that every player has to do their job in order for 1 single play, which is a formerly practiced scheme, to work. Also defended that football is MUCH harder physically. Not only must the execution run smoothly but each player is exerting aerobic AND anaerobic force. Baseball players do a lot of standing, short sprints, and short anaerobic work (hitting, or throwing). But for instance in baseball, there could be an entire inning when half of the players on the field do nothing (strikeouts, flyouts etc).

That situation would never present itself in football, to my knowledge.

So id like to pass the flame of this debate onward...
Just so you guys know I was at a table of baseball players and fans, and I was just getting flamed and ripped on! :sofunny:

Godfather
01-01-2008, 11:19 PM
But for instance in baseball, there could be an entire inning when half of the players on the field do nothing (strikeouts, flyouts etc).

That situation would never present itself in football, to my knowledge.



Never present itself in football? You've never watched the Saints secondary :sofunny:

stlrtruck
01-02-2008, 10:23 AM
All good arguments but take into consideration the length of the baseball season and that proves to be physically challenging day in and day out...don't get me wrong, I'm not defending baseball but just wanted to throw that out there...

Because like Roy Firestone once said on ESPN, "Football is truly America's past time, while baseball is just past it's time!"

lilyoder6
01-02-2008, 11:18 AM
nice one... i think baseball's season is just too long... i guess it would get prety tired playing 3 games in 1 town in 3 days then fly half way around the states to play the same day and so on and so on.. barely no byes... so i guess it would get pretty tired... but when it comes to playing,, they don't get hit evryone play and so on..

The Duke
01-02-2008, 01:33 PM
I'm not too high on baseball. season is just too long

So I'll say football is better just because it is more physical :tt02:

But when I want something less physical I just tune into my good ole knicks :dang:

revefsreleets
01-02-2008, 08:10 PM
I read an article about this awhile back. The gist was that baseball has become so specialized due to a heavy football influence. When the NFL overtook the MLB as America's true pastime, baseball adjusted. You started to see more situational pitching and hitting. Middle relief expanded. Teams started platooning positions. That's not at all what old time baseball was like.

Stlrs4Life
01-02-2008, 09:34 PM
Football by far. Yes baseball is long. But they still practice 3 other days of the week also in football.

jjpro11
01-03-2008, 05:11 AM
the only time i felt any kind of pain/fatigue from baseball was when i pitched. that can really take a toll on your body, especially if you throw 90+ mph like the pros. i'd imagine catching is another tough position, although i have never played it. catchers can develop more knee problems throughout their career than running backs. they take a lot of foul balls and home plate collisions as well. but the other positions i can honestly say are not really physically demanding. other than pitchers and catchers, i wouldnt say there is much of an argument between the two sports, even counting the length of the baseball season.