|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 27, 2009 11:40:54 GMT -5
I have in the past described my classification of sports. I use three broad categories: 1) Goal sports 2) Target sports 3) Baseball So, is cricket a "baseball sport"?
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 27, 2009 11:42:53 GMT -5
Yep
Regardless, the most fascinating aspect to me is that still, baseball gets it's own category. I love that.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 27, 2009 11:44:42 GMT -5
I have in the past described my classification of sports. I use three broad categories: 1) Goal sports 2) Target sports 3) Baseball So, is cricket a "baseball sport"? Aye Although I suspect that over in Britain and its colonies, they call the third category "Cricket" and consider baseball to be part of it.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 27, 2009 11:59:01 GMT -5
Interesting idea.
Goal sports: net sports, football-type sports, basketball-type sports
Higher, farther, faster sports: racing, field events
Target sports: shooting, bowling, golf, darts (But what about curling, where you can mess with the other team's shots?)
Baseball/cricket sports: baseball, cricket, softball, derivatives
Combat sports: boxing, judo, wrestling, etc.
Judged against a standard sports: gymnastics, skating, most horse sports
And what about a sport like biathalon? It's clearly both a race and a target sport.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2009 12:20:26 GMT -5
But what other sport, besides baseball and its ilk, has rotations?
I tell ya, that's unusual.
Then there's the whole clock, no clock division.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 27, 2009 12:51:35 GMT -5
Interesting idea. Goal sports: net sports, football-type sports, basketball-type sports Higher, farther, faster sports: racing, field events Target sports: shooting, bowling, golf, darts (But what about curling, where you can mess with the other team's shots?) Baseball/cricket sports: baseball, cricket, softball, derivatives Combat sports: boxing, judo, wrestling, etc. Judged against a standard sports: gymnastics, skating, most horse sports And what about a sport like biathalon? It's clearly both a race and a target sport. This is why the biathalon is so challenging to score, because it combines two things that are basically separate axes. The scores are essentially complex numbers, which are not comparable in a <> sense (there's a word for that, but I don't remember it). Hence, scoring is just an arbitrary combination of the two (even in complex numbers, the "magnitude" isn't a meaningful descriptor of more or less)
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 27, 2009 12:52:24 GMT -5
But what other sport, besides baseball and its ilk, has rotations? I tell ya, that's unusual. Then there's the whole clock, no clock division. Rotations are pretty common in target sports, like archery and bowling. Actually, they are also common in doubles net sports, like tennis. If you want to see a really bizarre example of "rotation" look at doubles table tennis, where players have to alternate who hits the ball. That is actually more akin to baseball than volleyball is. (I modified at the same time as bearclause posted)
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Sept 27, 2009 13:03:14 GMT -5
But what other sport, besides baseball and its ilk, has rotations? I tell ya, that's unusual. Then there's the whole clock, no clock division. Rotations are pretty common in target sports, like archery and bowling. Tennis and badminton. They have to switch positions on the court at the time of service. Doubles gets really interesting and there are combinations of servers/receivers. There are also some really funky patterns. Try table tennis doubles, where the players have to take turns hitting the ball. It creates some interesting play as partners try to avoid bumping into each other.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 27, 2009 13:14:20 GMT -5
Team wrestling is technically a rotation event, too.
You want a whacky example? Try team tennis (like collegiate teams). How crazy does it have to be that coaches have to be honor bound to not play the best strategy to win?
Consider a match where the teams are very close, in that the #1s are similar, the #2s are similar, all the way down to #6. At the same time, all the #1s are better than the #2s, the #2s are better than the #3s, etc. In that case, the optiimal strategy, is to try to sacrifice the match to the opponent's #1 (by using your #6), and get your #1 against their #2, your #2 against their #3, etc. However, the coaches are always expected (I don't know if it's by rule or by honor) to put their best player into #1 and so on, even if it doesn't maximize the chance to win.
The closest in volleyball is that teams ALWAYS have to start the rotation the same, regardless of whether they want to or not.
|
|
|
Post by bkedane on Sept 27, 2009 13:50:58 GMT -5
Wouldn't a better strategy be to sacrifice your #6 to their #1 and your #5 to their #2, while matching your 1, 2, 3, and 4, against their 3, 4, 5, and 6?
I suppose it depends on the exact chances of winning each of the matchups, but this might maximize the chance of a 4-2 match win.
But good luck trying to get either of these matchups if your opponent is trying to get the same matchups.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 27, 2009 15:11:58 GMT -5
Wouldn't a better strategy be to sacrifice your #6 to their #1 and your #5 to their #2, while matching your 1, 2, 3, and 4, against their 3, 4, 5, and 6? I suppose it depends on the exact chances of winning each of the matchups, but this might maximize the chance of a 4-2 match win. Sure. But even so, either way is verboten.
|
|
|
Post by bkedane on Sept 27, 2009 16:05:37 GMT -5
Right. You had said the other strategy was "optimal".
And yes, neither is allowed. My local tennis fan friend is telling me now that both high school and college tennis have rules, with college having firmer rules, about who can play in what position.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 27, 2009 16:20:28 GMT -5
the advantage of my approach is that you don't have to bag the doubles (assuming they use a three doubles approach, although I'm not sure they do that anymore)
|
|
|
Post by macroman on Sept 27, 2009 18:35:30 GMT -5
That's the problem with the sport's stats: to *really* get at what happened, you pretty much have to rate every touch. Not the easiest thing to do, of course, although many teams do it I bet. Not to ignore or diminish the wonderful discussion on the 4th page, but what Ruffda says here is the essence of why coaches, players and sophisticated fans watch the game and then sometimes the film afterword to understand what happenend in the match rather than rely on statistics. Stats can tell you a lot but they will never tell you everything.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 27, 2009 20:13:28 GMT -5
That's the problem with the sport's stats: to *really* get at what happened, you pretty much have to rate every touch. Not the easiest thing to do, of course, although many teams do it I bet. Not to ignore or diminish the wonderful discussion on the 4th page, but what Ruffda says here is the essence of why coaches, players and sophisticated fans watch the game and then sometimes the film afterword to understand what happenend in the match rather than rely on statistics. Stats can tell you a lot but they will never tell you everything. While that is true, Ruffda's post does not imply it. A "touch rating" is also a statistic. What the post does say is that you need a more sophisticated statistical analysis than what is in the boxscore, but do not confuse that for "not relying on statistics." Not relying on statistics involves other stuff.
|
|