Saw this on a West Wing re-run...discuss
Darren Barefoot
See, I think Americans like to savour situations. One down, bottom of
the ninth, one-run game, first and third left-handed batter,
right-handed reliever, infield at double play depth, here's the pitch.
But scoring in hockey seems to come out of nowhere! The play-by-play
guy doesn't even know what's happening! 'LePeltier crosses the blue
line and passes to Dale Huckenchuck. Huckenchuck, of course, was
traded from Winnipeg for a case of LaBatt's after sitting out oh my
God he scored!'"
Is there truth to this theory? DB.
Petter H
nowhere score" in hockey compared to "One down, bottom of the ninth,
talked about quantum physics for my part.)
Besides, I've noticed that curling is pretty big in Canada during my
trips to Montreal. "Scoring" in curling can NOT be considered "out of
nowhere". (As a comment to the national preferences thought.) Oh, and
what about basketball? Do Americans only like the FT's?
Theory conclusion: no truth in it.
(This is important, right? Hoynes is what, the Vice President?)
//Petter
EarthQuake Blake
news:b873a4d5.02120...@posting.google.com...
<troll>
I always put it down to the Americans not being able to think fast enough to
keep up with the flow of the game.
</troll>
I don't know. It's weird. All the games the folks from the USofA like move
slower and have more breaks than hockey. With many it seems the only time
they get fired up during a game is when a fight breaks out.
On the other hand I know a fellow from Dallas who's family all enjoy hockey,
so of course like all generalizations this one is not valid.
EarthQuake
'Have an excellent day.'
Ruskie
<petter.h...@telia.com> wrote:
>He he, truth? I'm Swedish - I haven't got a clue about baseball: "Out of
>nowhere score" in hockey compared to "One down, bottom of the ninth,
>one-run game, first and third left-handed batter, right-handed reliever,
>infield at double play depth, here's the pitch."? lol! (he could've
>talked about quantum physics for my part.)
>
>Besides, I've noticed that curling is pretty big in Canada during my
>trips to Montreal. "Scoring" in curling can NOT be considered "out of
>nowhere". (As a comment to the national preferences thought.) Oh, and
>what about basketball? Do Americans only like the FT's?
Heh, but there's so many stopages in basketball, it -feels-
situational. I mean, every time out sets the stage, as does every
free throw.
--
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case... coincidence?
feeniksŠ
"Ruskie" <rus...@my-deja.com> wrote
> Heh, but there's so many stopages in basketball, it -feels-
> situational. I mean, every time out sets the stage, as does every
> free throw.
>
> --
> 24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case... coincidence?
Which is exactly why I stopped watching basketball a few years ago, I used
to really like it. It seemed like a lot of games began to regress into
clutch/whistle/freethrow, and it slowed the game down to the speed of pro
football, which I also can't watch for the same reason. College ball is much
more exciting.
feeniksŠ
I can always remember that he slept through a lot of games too. Hockey is
fast, physical and full of players that are fun to watch, even if you hate
them, as that is part of it, or so it seems.
"Darren Barefoot" <darren....@capeclear.com> wrote
Bryce Fountain
Personally, I've never been able to get into basketball because it
seems likei t's more into flash than it is into substance. Scoring
poitns isn't just about scoring points, it's about scoring points in
the DOPEST, FLASHIEST WAY! A layup is worth two points, just like a
two handed tomahawk dunk, but all anyone cares about is the dunk....
it makes basketball feel less like a competitive sport, and more like
a performance based sport... to me, in my limited experience with the
NBA, the epitomy is the slam dunk contest.... it seems to me that, if
they just had slam dunk contests every night, all the fans would walk
away happy...
Compare that to a sport like hockey. In hockey, every goal is
important. It doesn't matter if it's a spinorama pass with a one timer
top shelf or a puck that goes in off somebody's butt. Both are just as
important, and both elicit the same type of response from the fans....
a goal's huge regardless of how it goes in. But, in basketball, if
Vince Carter for example scores on a layup rather than some fancy ass
dunk, all the Raptors fans are disappointed. Why? It's still two
points!
In my very limited experience, I also find the first three and a half
quarters of most basketball games a little pointless.... most games
seem to come down to the last 2 or 3 minutes, which is exciting I
suppose, but kinda makes everything that happened for the first 3 and
a half quarters kinda meaningless... if 90% of the games come down to
the last 2 or 3 minutes anyways, why not just tune in at the end of
the game and see the outcome decided?
Like I said, I haven't watched a ton of NBA (maybe 7 or 8 games in the
last couple of years), so some of these may not be fair complaints.
But, they're the reasons why I, personally, can never get into the
NBA. It has too much flash and not enough substance. I'd sooner watch
the NFL (well, aside from their incredibly long game times <g>)
Will
"Darren Barefoot" <darren....@capeclear.com> wrote in message
news:b873a4d5.02120...@posting.google.com...
I think that the problem with hockey in the US is that there is less time to
stuff your face with hot dogs and nachos and not miss any action. It's
amazing, people are eating in the parking lot before the game, eating while
walking from the parking lot to the stadium, then immediately hit the
concession stand when they walk in.
PooPooHead
> quarters of most basketball games a little pointless.... most games
> seem to come down to the last 2 or 3 minutes,
Perhaps, but same goes for most hockey games, check out _any_ teams stats
when leading after 2 periods.... most of the teams are 10-0, 11-0, 10-1
etc...
you can really say this about alot of sport...
Josh Pfrimmer
matter very often (when one team leads going in)
Bryce is saying only the last few minutes matter.
Which, by the way, is a stat that pisses me off every time I hear it. "New
Jersey is undefeated when leading after 2 periods." Just like when
AsianFlow 'called' the game depending on the outcome of the first period
(which I wouldn't even have had to read if you guys didn't respond to it).
What's next: "The canucks are undefeated when leading by 3 or more going
into the final 12 seconds." If I could find a bookie who would take bets on
the last minute of a hockey game, I'd bet everything I owned.
JP
"PooPooHead" <PooPooHead@ PooPooHead.com> wrote in message
news:YR9I9.112405$ea.19...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Dave Roy
<yeah_s...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>that's a direct contradiction.... you're saying that the last period doesn't
>matter very often (when one team leads going in)
>
>Bryce is saying only the last few minutes matter.
>
>Which, by the way, is a stat that pisses me off every time I hear it. "New
>Jersey is undefeated when leading after 2 periods." Just like when
>AsianFlow 'called' the game depending on the outcome of the first period
>(which I wouldn't even have had to read if you guys didn't respond to it).
>What's next: "The canucks are undefeated when leading by 3 or more going
>into the final 12 seconds." If I could find a bookie who would take bets on
>the last minute of a hockey game, I'd bet everything I owned.
If you take it to that absurd an extreme, then I can see your point.
But if you go by period, then it gives an indication of how they're
playing, whether or not they can shut the door on teams once they are
up. What's wrong with that stat? If somebody is 2-13-2 when leading
after 2 periods, then it's a sign that they can't put teams away.
Dave Roy
Josh Eades
news:vnm2vugv6c6n815ir...@4ax.com...
Certainly, but the problem with the statistic is that the term "leading
after 2 periods" can be highly variable. For instance, one team may have 10
instances where their "lead after 2 periods" is only one goal, whereas
another team may have 10 instances where their "lead after 2 periods" is 4
goals. It is highly unfair, and inaccurate, to compare the two teams with
respect to the result at the end of these games.
Josh
foamy
, Dave Roy <hi...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>If you take it to that absurd an extreme, then I can see your point.
>But if you go by period, then it gives an indication of how they're
>playing, whether or not they can shut the door on teams once they are
>up. What's wrong with that stat? If somebody is 2-13-2 when leading
>after 2 periods, then it's a sign that they can't put teams away.
>
>Dave Roy
I agree. Stats like you mention are informative. Where I go nut, I would
go nutS but I just got a recall notice from db's lawyer, is when the
announcer's quote stats like, " The Orange Blossoms are 4 and 1 when
Timmy scores 7 goals ", or " The Flamingos have only lost one game
out of 15 when they score 5 power play goals in the first period ".
Those are the duh stats, one step removed from the blah blah's are
8 and 0 when they score more goals than the opposition.
Jim
Peca Fan
<blake...@deathtospamhotmail.com> wrote:
><troll>
>I always put it down to the Americans not being able to think fast enough to
>keep up with the flow of the game.
></troll>
>
>I don't know. It's weird. All the games the folks from the USofA like move
>slower and have more breaks than hockey. With many it seems the only time
>they get fired up during a game is when a fight breaks out.
Damn, you took my theory. I do think it's basically true though.
Baseball, football, basketball, the big three, all have massive
delays.
--
Peca Fan
"I'm going for fearsome here, but I just don't feel it. I think I'm just coming off as annoying" - Rex, Toy Story