There’s long been a connotation that baseball writers (and often also fans) are far more reflective and intellectual than fans of other sports. Where did this idea first pop up? Is there anything in baseball itself that actually lends itself to more refined thoughts, or is it all just image? And in countries where baseball isn’t popular, what is considered the “thinking man’s sport”?
Because it’s slow and boring.
Cricket would fall into the same category. It’s the nuance of it. Sports that can’t be played simply with brute force tend to have intricacies that only the fanatics can truly appreciate.
Only to those ignorant of the sport.
From a data mining perspective- it would be much easier to model.
You are dealing with (effectively) one person at a time - and if memory serves there is a whole bunch more data - I mean isn’t there like 160 baseball games a year vs what 2 dozen for football?
Cricket certainly has that mantle in the UK, it has far more variables than baseball so much more to talk about.
“test match special” is a BBC radio 4 program that is broadcast for the full 5 days of a test match and they never run out of things to think and talk about.
The ability of sports announcers to not-shut-up is not a good indicator of the sport’s quality.
Cakes, buses going past the ground, particularly attractive wildlife nesting near the boundary…
TMS is amazing though, it’s the only speech radio I can have on in the background while working.
Why is it the “Thinking Man’s Game?” - Play the sport and thou will be enlightened.
Are there any sports that are played “simply with brute force”? :dubious:
Or is this one of those things where all the sports somebody likes are deeply strategic and all the sports they hate are simple?
No. That’s football.
Because it’s less active and thus gives you more time to just think and plan.
The same logic should make golf a “thinking man’s sport,” but I guess the lack of direct competition is seen as less “sporty.” Instead, you’re basically just playing multiple separate games simultaneously.
I was oversimplifying to make my point clearer. For example, I know American football has nuances, but a big part of it is running speed, crunching tackles, brutal hitups etc (apologies if I used the wrong terminology). Whereas with baseball or cricket, there are more variables at play.
And I’m a rugby league fan, so I’m not saying all of this to be elitist. But cricket is definately more a thinking man’s game than rugby league.
Many sports, like basketball, soccer, and hockey, have near-constant action but not much of a plot. The spectators are focused on what’s happening right now, not on what’s going to happen.
Hold on…I came just to say that baseball and soccer are actually greatly alike in that if you are well versed in all the players and the game…it’s in no way boring.
Of the 4 major USA sports baseball is the one that requires a larger degree of skill and natural instincts vs actual athletic ability versus the other sports. In addition, as a game, there are a truly infinite number of things that could happen in a given game versus other sports. Finally, its the one of the 4 sports that can be most be defined and coached by pure statistics than any other.
All that said, to me, American Football is also a true “Thinking Mans Game” in that it places a high value on big giant jocks to study and memorize complex plays, as well as make judgements and last minute decisions by reading what their opponents are showing in their formations.
You can be a dumb ass, and with great instincts or a great arm with aim, survive in MLB. Much harder to survive in the NFL if you are a nitwit, even with superior athletic ability.
British writer Frances Edmonds (married to England spin bowler Phil Edmonds) once observed that much of cricket’s charm and intellectual appeal is because it is “best observed through the meniscus of a large gin & tonic”.
Frances is a formidable personality on her own account and early in their marriage in moments of anxiety was inclined to throw crockery at husband Phil, but stopped the practice when he started to throw them back because, Phil being a bowler for England “his line & length were exponentially better than mine”.
Baseball has a 162-game schedule, not counting postseason play. American football plays 16 games, not counting postseason.
Well, no.
Pitchers need much more than a great arm. They need to be able to plan and execute a gameplan against each hitter. Fielders need to reposition per hitter. Batters need to know pitchers tendencies. Baseball isn’t read and react like defensive play in football.
Or their catcher does.
With direction from their manager or defensive coach.