What opinion do you have about the Houston Astros and the cheating scandal? (I personally consider them to be in baseball hell until all of the ages run their courses and God is all in all - and even then I am only hopeful for their ultimate reconciliation.) Also interested in your opinion about analytics vs. gut instinct - most specifically “the shift.” I also find it amazing that the Rays (100/62) won the AL East on such a limited budget. I guess baseball proves that money can’t buy everything (even for the Yankees). And even low market teams have a charm to them - especially when they are spoilers! I also wonder about your thoughts on better minor league development of players as a way to thwart the dominance of high market teams. The Rays seem to really develop great pitching in their minor league system. Maybe developing and supporting minor league pro ball is something we could all do to make the game more equitable at the top.
I think the Astros have suffered shame commensurate with the deed. If they had been unique in cheating--rather than merely uniquely enterprising--it would seem more egregious. Why a team with that kind of talent bothered with such tactics, I can't say.
The thing that amazes me about the shift is that modern hitters seem to have so much trouble altering their swing. Even through most of the live-ball era, hitters were adept at shortening their swings or pulling their hands in and going the other way; and everyone practiced bunting. In the age of "launch angels" and tactics organized around the statistical mean (which, incidentally, is a statistical fiction that bears fruit only in the aggregate, which is also a fiction), these basic skills seem to have atrophied.
Swinging “for the seats” seems to have replaced getting base hits and advancing runners that way. Also there seems to be more tracking of exit velocity. Basically, just hit the ball as solidly as you can. They even seem to use the shift to entice power hitters to dump the ball the other way for a base hit rather than risk them swinging hard and getting a home run. So, I guess just swing with all your might and pray for the kindness of launch angels!
The poverty of baseball analytics is that it can predict only the mean, never the exception; but a team is made up of exceptional players. If Lou Brock is on your team, you steal like mad. Analytics in that situation is a lead weight tied around your team's ankles.
Actually, "sport-relevant" theological question. DBH, if you had to design a game/sport, what would you want the relevant ratio of luck to skill to be? Would you prefer a totally "fair" game where everyone starts out on equal footing and winning and losing is determined purely on skill? Or would you be ok with some randomness and environmental factors (the weather for example, or an asymmetrical playing field) allowing "luck" to muck with things?
Just thinking about it, I guess a "purely skill based" competition could feel quite "pure", but also be boring, repetitive, predictable. Whereas adding in a touch of fortune could spice things up, for example the guy on top who's just about to win, suddenly the wind changes and he has to clutch harder to maintain the lead.
All of this is relevant to the earlier thread about e-sports. Game developers really have to think this stuff through deeply. Would definitely be curious to hear any Hartian quips on the topic.
So in summary, what ratio of luck to skill is required to maximise the theological aesthetic of a sport?
I believe that sport is that realm in which natural superiority, skill, and resolve should shine as brightly as possible without exciting envy, but only eliciting admiration. Just as I believe a great artist ennobles us all by allowing us to delight in the divine "spark" that dwells in all of us.
That said, there will always be luck in every endeavor. Though, of course, luck is sometimes another name for grace.
It is interesting to me that you specified that sport should avoid "exciting envy," because to excite envy seems to be one of the defining aspirations of modern American culture. I would be interested to hear a little more about envy, specifically as it pertains to sport. I am in total agreement that spectator sports can, and often do, appeal to our vices--the example which comes most readily to mind, of course, is the brutality of American football (and other combat sports), and the shrieks of protest which arise at any new suggestion of some rule change or minuscule safety measure introduced, in conformity with the 5th Commandment, no less, to protect the athlete from grave harm. But I am having a harder time thinking of a sport that makes special appeal to a spectator's envy. Was there one you had in mind?
I interpreted your answer about sport in general as the statement of an ideal that a given sport or game might fall short of--that is, you might have in mind sports that are not sufficiently capable of eliciting admiration (such as golf), or that might err in appealing to a spectator's envy (or other vices) in one way or another.
No. I was just answering the question as asked. As for golf, assuming one can actually call anything that torpid and tedious a sport, it is depraved of course, and may in fact excite envy, but I have no insight there.
David, you are simply wrong when it comes to Baseball being the most beautiful sport. It's a pretty game, but the most beautiful sport in the world is this
This is where I confess that I am nothing more than a fair-weather friend of the Cardinals: Game 6 of the 2011 World Series was the last time I was seriously invested in baseball. I was sixteen, it was a Thursday, I had to go to school the next day, and I didn't care: I was up watching with my roommate, the sporting fate of the polis consuming my mind.
Would DBH happen to have an appreciation for Cricket? Here in Oz it's more or less the national sport. I suspect the theological analysis of Cricket might be comparable to the sunyatta and samsara of baseball. Just for the information of anyone reading, Cricket looks drastically different depending on if the game goes for 6 hours, 24 hours or 7 days. The shorter matches tend to have more advertising and flame throwers and cheer leaders and special effects, plus the batsmen tend to take more risks. Whereas the long, drawn out, week long campaigns are much more refined and respectable: no advertising, either the Governor General or her royal majesty the Queen herself officially starts the game, everyone dressed in traditional vestments etc, that sort of thing. The longer games also are much more psychological and strategic (nationalistic too: India, Pakistan, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK, and Oz put much pride behind their success at international test cricket matches)
All that said I'm not a sports guy and tend to find whatever game i'm watching unintelligible unless i'm watching it with my Sports Journo Ex-Flatmate "Little Alex Blair." I need him to explain it to me otherwise it's all meaningless tohu wa bohu to me.
I do in fact like cricket, and even find it intelligible. As a child of the land that produced Sir Donald Bradman, you should cultivate a devotion to the game. But—for reasons I have rehearsed in hundreds of arguments with my British friends—I regard baseball as the more beautiful and compelling game.
(oh also, feel compelled to share that Little Alex my sports journo buddy also shares DBH's disdain for soccer and football, for much the same reasons)
(retro e-sports however, I could make money as a commentator XD. Top rung Starcraft league battles and 1-on-1 Unreal Tournament deathmatches are my bread and butter. Nothing gets my adrenaline pumping faster than a UDamage+Superhealth+FlakCannon+wall-jump-quick-switch-shombo last minute score-board reversal with incredibly unfortunate respawns for the other guy.)
Finally, someone who might understand what I mean when I claim that the South Korean Brood War scene represents the best undiscovered sport in the world.
Watching youtube recordings of A-List players duking it out is a trip. When I played the game as a kid I didn't appreciate the hyper-competitive ultra-balanced dimensions of the game. I always treated it as a sci-fi fantasy escapism haha
Oh, the Yankees and the Holy Roman Empire function as one in the universe where the poor Old Cubs are Judea at best.
I am a born and raised Yankee fan from CT and I love this article.
Doug Stanhope described Yankees fans as being the sort who go to casinos and cheer for the House.
An apt if still overly generous characterization.
What opinion do you have about the Houston Astros and the cheating scandal? (I personally consider them to be in baseball hell until all of the ages run their courses and God is all in all - and even then I am only hopeful for their ultimate reconciliation.) Also interested in your opinion about analytics vs. gut instinct - most specifically “the shift.” I also find it amazing that the Rays (100/62) won the AL East on such a limited budget. I guess baseball proves that money can’t buy everything (even for the Yankees). And even low market teams have a charm to them - especially when they are spoilers! I also wonder about your thoughts on better minor league development of players as a way to thwart the dominance of high market teams. The Rays seem to really develop great pitching in their minor league system. Maybe developing and supporting minor league pro ball is something we could all do to make the game more equitable at the top.
I think the Astros have suffered shame commensurate with the deed. If they had been unique in cheating--rather than merely uniquely enterprising--it would seem more egregious. Why a team with that kind of talent bothered with such tactics, I can't say.
The thing that amazes me about the shift is that modern hitters seem to have so much trouble altering their swing. Even through most of the live-ball era, hitters were adept at shortening their swings or pulling their hands in and going the other way; and everyone practiced bunting. In the age of "launch angels" and tactics organized around the statistical mean (which, incidentally, is a statistical fiction that bears fruit only in the aggregate, which is also a fiction), these basic skills seem to have atrophied.
Launch angles. Not good with my thumbs, but not bad as some kind of accidental joke.
Swinging “for the seats” seems to have replaced getting base hits and advancing runners that way. Also there seems to be more tracking of exit velocity. Basically, just hit the ball as solidly as you can. They even seem to use the shift to entice power hitters to dump the ball the other way for a base hit rather than risk them swinging hard and getting a home run. So, I guess just swing with all your might and pray for the kindness of launch angels!
Do I take this to mean that you are (in clear violation of analytics) pro bunt!?!
Passionately.
The poverty of baseball analytics is that it can predict only the mean, never the exception; but a team is made up of exceptional players. If Lou Brock is on your team, you steal like mad. Analytics in that situation is a lead weight tied around your team's ankles.
The archons of analytics are arrayed against thee.
Actually, "sport-relevant" theological question. DBH, if you had to design a game/sport, what would you want the relevant ratio of luck to skill to be? Would you prefer a totally "fair" game where everyone starts out on equal footing and winning and losing is determined purely on skill? Or would you be ok with some randomness and environmental factors (the weather for example, or an asymmetrical playing field) allowing "luck" to muck with things?
Just thinking about it, I guess a "purely skill based" competition could feel quite "pure", but also be boring, repetitive, predictable. Whereas adding in a touch of fortune could spice things up, for example the guy on top who's just about to win, suddenly the wind changes and he has to clutch harder to maintain the lead.
All of this is relevant to the earlier thread about e-sports. Game developers really have to think this stuff through deeply. Would definitely be curious to hear any Hartian quips on the topic.
So in summary, what ratio of luck to skill is required to maximise the theological aesthetic of a sport?
I believe that sport is that realm in which natural superiority, skill, and resolve should shine as brightly as possible without exciting envy, but only eliciting admiration. Just as I believe a great artist ennobles us all by allowing us to delight in the divine "spark" that dwells in all of us.
That said, there will always be luck in every endeavor. Though, of course, luck is sometimes another name for grace.
It is interesting to me that you specified that sport should avoid "exciting envy," because to excite envy seems to be one of the defining aspirations of modern American culture. I would be interested to hear a little more about envy, specifically as it pertains to sport. I am in total agreement that spectator sports can, and often do, appeal to our vices--the example which comes most readily to mind, of course, is the brutality of American football (and other combat sports), and the shrieks of protest which arise at any new suggestion of some rule change or minuscule safety measure introduced, in conformity with the 5th Commandment, no less, to protect the athlete from grave harm. But I am having a harder time thinking of a sport that makes special appeal to a spectator's envy. Was there one you had in mind?
I didn’t suggest that there is a sport that appeals to envy. I suggested precisely the opposite.
I interpreted your answer about sport in general as the statement of an ideal that a given sport or game might fall short of--that is, you might have in mind sports that are not sufficiently capable of eliciting admiration (such as golf), or that might err in appealing to a spectator's envy (or other vices) in one way or another.
No. I was just answering the question as asked. As for golf, assuming one can actually call anything that torpid and tedious a sport, it is depraved of course, and may in fact excite envy, but I have no insight there.
David, you are simply wrong when it comes to Baseball being the most beautiful sport. It's a pretty game, but the most beautiful sport in the world is this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW6z5TyU8QA
Nothing beats a well thought out game of extreme tactical team based "tag you're it"
That’s terrifying.
This is where I confess that I am nothing more than a fair-weather friend of the Cardinals: Game 6 of the 2011 World Series was the last time I was seriously invested in baseball. I was sixteen, it was a Thursday, I had to go to school the next day, and I didn't care: I was up watching with my roommate, the sporting fate of the polis consuming my mind.
Would DBH happen to have an appreciation for Cricket? Here in Oz it's more or less the national sport. I suspect the theological analysis of Cricket might be comparable to the sunyatta and samsara of baseball. Just for the information of anyone reading, Cricket looks drastically different depending on if the game goes for 6 hours, 24 hours or 7 days. The shorter matches tend to have more advertising and flame throwers and cheer leaders and special effects, plus the batsmen tend to take more risks. Whereas the long, drawn out, week long campaigns are much more refined and respectable: no advertising, either the Governor General or her royal majesty the Queen herself officially starts the game, everyone dressed in traditional vestments etc, that sort of thing. The longer games also are much more psychological and strategic (nationalistic too: India, Pakistan, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK, and Oz put much pride behind their success at international test cricket matches)
All that said I'm not a sports guy and tend to find whatever game i'm watching unintelligible unless i'm watching it with my Sports Journo Ex-Flatmate "Little Alex Blair." I need him to explain it to me otherwise it's all meaningless tohu wa bohu to me.
I do in fact like cricket, and even find it intelligible. As a child of the land that produced Sir Donald Bradman, you should cultivate a devotion to the game. But—for reasons I have rehearsed in hundreds of arguments with my British friends—I regard baseball as the more beautiful and compelling game.
I would be curious to see a précis of the abovementioned reasons - I could always use more ammunition in my own debates with Aussie and Indian mates.
(To be clear, I'm in your corner - and as a Twins fan quite sympathetic to the article topic!)
Perhaps matter for a future article.
Fair enough.
(oh also, feel compelled to share that Little Alex my sports journo buddy also shares DBH's disdain for soccer and football, for much the same reasons)
(retro e-sports however, I could make money as a commentator XD. Top rung Starcraft league battles and 1-on-1 Unreal Tournament deathmatches are my bread and butter. Nothing gets my adrenaline pumping faster than a UDamage+Superhealth+FlakCannon+wall-jump-quick-switch-shombo last minute score-board reversal with incredibly unfortunate respawns for the other guy.)
Finally, someone who might understand what I mean when I claim that the South Korean Brood War scene represents the best undiscovered sport in the world.
Watching youtube recordings of A-List players duking it out is a trip. When I played the game as a kid I didn't appreciate the hyper-competitive ultra-balanced dimensions of the game. I always treated it as a sci-fi fantasy escapism haha