While researching some baseball and football related inquiries, I stumbled upon this list from 1987, written by baseball columnist Thomas Boswell. As one who doesn’t hold much of an opinion on either sport, I was curious what fans of each think of the list.
Here’s the list:
Are there any items the writer forgot? Anything factually incorrect? Reasons why things he cites as negative may actually be positive? And what about the inverse: what does football do better than baseball?
The bit about Super Bowls not producing drama is certainly wrong. Over the last decade-plus there have been some very exciting ones and not too many blowouts.
George Carlin did it better.
Ignoring the stuff that comes down to personal preference or just jokiness, these are wrong or no longer applicable:
Supposedly, Lombardi claimed he was misquoted, and what he intended to say was What he intended to say was “Winning isn’t everything. The will to win is the only thing.”
This no longer stands after the baseball steroids scandals.
This also no longer stands up.
No longer stands now that baseball has a wild card too.
No longer stands.
This was highlighted in the excellent Lombardi documentary on HBO this month. It’s was basically a bullshit bit of retconning by Vince. He said it and meant it at the time, however he disliked the way it took on a life of it’s own and tried to backpedal away from it.
I only read the first 20 or so but it seems like a lot of his reasons for baseball being better stem from football being more popular. (Baseballs better because it can’t fill the stadium)
Based on his SB observations, I’m fairly sure the list is 20 years old.
Hmmm… Well, I guess I could argue that this shows Lombardi was ashamed of saying it. Thanks for the correction, though.
It seems like a lot of these are “Why Baseball is Better (If You’re a Sports Writer)” like:
I’m not sure how a team sport is more about the team is a bad thing.
Which was stated in the OP.
Baseball is my first love but I have a strong attachment to football too. I really enjoyed this list and only had a few issues.
This one just isn’t true anymore. On the whole, a lot of teams have a unique style that is based on their talent pool. I like that because it reminds me of playing in high school. If a team had an excellent QB, they threw a lot. If they had multiple running backs who are talented, they used the option.
In at least Pittsburgh, tailgating before a baseball game is a big deal. Of course, a significant factor in this is that the Pirates are awful. It’s definitely easier to sit through the Bucco’s making errors if you’re tipsy. I also love that all pro Pitt teams are black and gold but that is for another discussion.
Sorry, but experience has taught me that football is significantly easier to explain to newcomers. I will fully admit that most of this is due to the fact that I grew up playing catcher, so I explain pitch selections and field shifts too, but to me that is integral to a better understanding of the game. Football is easy to appreciate on a basic level because there is constant and clear action. People might understand shifts for different handed hitters but try to explain the tendency of hitters to pull the ball and you get blank looks.
In my opinion, baseball and hockey are the “must see in person” sports. Football is better in the comfort of my home but I’m also a northeast boy who knows how cold the Meadowlands can get in December and the months following. Why pay money if you cannot see action at the other end of the field? Maybe if I lived in a warmer climate I would have a different outlook.
The casual and relaxed nature of taking in a baseball game at the park should not be overlooked. I could never go to a football game after school (money and planning) but my friends and I routinely met our folks in the city (NYC), after they got out of work, for Mets games. Those were easily my fondest memories of high school.
:smack: just noticed that it said 1987!
Hi, I’m a Diamondbacks fan*. I think this list is fucking bullshit.
*-Replace with any of the other dozen or so teams that won’t have a chance at competing but for once every decade or so.
A kinder way to look at it would be that in his twilight years he matured and gained perspective. The documentary played the radio interview in which he “explained” what he really meant. He didn’t make a very convincing case and his supposed miswording didn’t make a whole lot of sense.
I would have thought that Marilyn Monroe and Joe Dimaggio would have been the example here.
It’s ASTRO turf. For the Houston Astros. If it were football turf, they could have called it Oiler turf.
The best reason baseball is better than football…cause you can listen to it on the radio and not miss a thing.
I love that about baseball. When I am driving somewhere far and I can only listen to the radio, baseball is always my pick over football. It makes more sense and you definitely understand what is going on.
It’s called AstroTurf because the first professional stadium it was installed in was the Astrodome, not because it was specifically named after the Astros. I’ve been trying to find out what teams - baseball or football - played on it first, but it’s not mentioned on either Wikipedia or the AstroTurf website.
Regardless, the list has its points, though I could only wade through a third of it, despite the fact that I love baseball much more than any other sport.
Joe
I read the first five items and they all sounded like reasons why football is better than baseball.*
Come on, football having cheerleaders is a reason that baseball is better? Are you on drugs?
*With the exception of Up with People of course, but the Blue Angels pull that out out.
Seriously? Mean Joe Green vs. Pete Rose? (To be fair, the list was written BEFORE it all came out just what a slimeball Rose is. But still, MEAN JOE??? What’s wrong with Mean Joe?)
(I’m cracking up about all the steroid crap, though. Oh, if only the author could have seen into the future…)
nm