Yuck. Go ahead and take baseball out of this year's Olympics.

The should just play HR derby after the 12th inning, like they do in the World Cup.

I think it's a great idea.

Considering the fact that only the home team can win in a walk-off fashion this rule seems to favour one team to an almost ridiculous extent. Seriously, just give the game to whoever bats last and be done with it.

Guess they decided not to have Olympic baseball this year after all.

This is kind of like college overtime.

Considering the fact that only the home team can win in a walk-off fashion this rule seems to favour one team to an almost ridiculous extent. Seriously, just give the game to whoever bats last and be done with it.

Indeed. If they're going to do this, they should at least alternate "last licks".

Why not just let the medal rounds continue with the real rules and have ties declared during pool play?

Considering the fact that only the home team can win in a walk-off fashion this rule seems to favour one team to an almost ridiculous extent.

Why?

I think it's kind of silly for real games. I don't know that I'd consider the Olympics real games. This would be a great idea for the All-Star Game though. Also, I think being able to adjust the batting order is overkill. I think two on none out is a pretty good leg up already.

>Considering the fact that only the home team can win in a walk-off fashion this rule seems to favour one team to an almost ridiculous >extent.

>Why?


I think the argument is that the away team cannot play for just one run since that is not guaranteed to win and their optimal strategy is to play for somewhat more than one run. The home team has the advantage of knowing how many runs they need to score and can tailor their strategy accordingly so should have an advantage. Usually this will be to play for just one run.

The only thing that I'm not quite sure about is whether having men on first and second alters this advantage in any way...

I think the argument is that the away team cannot play for just one run since that is not guaranteed to win and their optimal strategy is to play for somewhat more than one run.

Is this not true in every extra inning, and every tied 9th inning? What are home teams' records in extra inning games. I'll bet I could look that up if I weren't kind of wrapped up in SpongeBob Squarepants right now.

Is this not true in every extra inning, and every tied 9th inning? What are home teams' records in extra inning games. I'll bet I could look that up if I weren't kind of wrapped up in SpongeBob Squarepants right now.


The difference is that the teams are likely to score runs in the new format even if you pitch well. So you can't just score a run and hope to shut the other team down, even if you have Mariano Rivera. You have to go for more runs, and then if you fail, the other team will bunt in a guy.

Didn't some writer for Yahoo! write a column early this month crying how Baseball is being cut from the Olympics and tried to blame MLB for it by not allowing its best players to play in it?

Whatever. #### the Olympics. It makes little to no sense for sports that have *serious professional leagues to participate fully in it. *The NHL is not a serious league, thus it partakes in the Winter Games.

Baseball doesn't belong in the Olympics since a relatively small percentage of the world plays it.

Then again, a lot of sports don't belong. Although I'm sure synchronized swimming is big in sub-Saharan Africa.

But synchronised swimming is really cheap to stage (you need swimming pools for the swimming and diving etc), and I'm quite sure all the best synchronised swimmers in the world compete in the Olympics. Neither is true of baseball.

EDIT for Misirlou: All also very cheap sports to stage where all the top competitors compete at the Olympics. The only exception as to cost would be the equestrian sports, but that's actually more widespread than you might think. By my count about 35 countries participated in 2004 - and I don't know how many more wanted to send teams but didn't qualify.

Baseball doesn't belong in the Olympics since a relatively small percentage of the world plays it.

Isn't that true of many sports in the Olympics? Badminton, Table Tennis, Greco-Roman Wrestling, Weightlifting, Tae Kwon Do, Equestrian, Sculling...

...team handball...rhythmic gymnastics...biathalon...

.biathalon

I specifically left out an winter sports, because the winter games weren't meant to be all inclusive. They were designed to be exclusive, Jamacian Bobsled team notwithstanding.

I think it's better for the Olympics to have sports that nobody on earth except Olympic athletes play, like race-walking and sculling, than to have sports that are played seriously, but only in less than a dozen countries around the world, like baseball, cricket and badminton. The world's best badmintoneers are almost all at the Asian Games, right? The Olympics just complicate matters.

Baseball should be a winter Olympic sport instead of summer. The problem would be solved then. The Winter olympics would get a marquee American sport to help with TV ratings and the best players could play in the Olympics instead of working out or playing in winter leagues.

I don't really think baseball should be an Olympic sport because only 6-7 countries play it seriously (America, Japan, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Canada, maybe Panama), but if baseball people want it to be, I think winter would make more sense.

Baseball should be a winter Olympic sport instead of summer. The problem would be solved then. The Winter olympics would get a marquee American sport to help with TV ratings and the best players could play in the Olympics instead of working out or playing in winter leagues.

Good luck getting a Lillehammer or an Albertville, or an Innsbruck to build a baseball stadium. Moreover, the Winter Olympics require every sport to be "played" on snow or ice.

Moreover, the Winter Olympics require every sport to be "played" on snow or ice.

I'm sure they could make an exception if it was decided it would make everybody enough money.

Also, I would have put the quotation marks around 'sport' rather than 'played', but I agree that building a domed stadium might be a tough sell to the crap towns that they generally stage the winter olympics in.

I'm sure they wouldn't. If you think the summer games are Euro-centric...

If you think the summer games are Euro-centric...

For example, didn't Europe get as many baseball teams in the last games as "the Americas"? I think it was 3 Europe, 3 Americas, and 2 Asia.

The reason synchronized swimming is in the Olympics is because people watch it. (I don't, and probably most people here don't, but other people* do.) The Olympic committee doesn't care about how many countries play a particular sport, or anything like that. What matters is how much viewership, and thus advertising money, a sport can generate.


* - By "other people," I really mean, "women."

The Olympic committee doesn't care about how many countries play a particular sport, or anything like that. What matters is how much viewership, and thus advertising money, a sport can generate.

I can see how this explains ballroom dancing, snowboarding, and girls on trampolines, but why did they add "skeleton" a couple years ago?

What is this blasphemy! Skeleton is awesome. It's like X-Treme Luge, which is pretty X-Treme in its own right.



EDIT: Doubles luge, however, can die a quick death. That is just simply gay. No other way to describe that.

That part's not so bad..but then it's the hot dog eatin contest using the guys on base. So want to make sure you pick a couple of REALLY fat slugs from the stands...

I don't really think baseball should be an Olympic sport because only 6-7 countries play it seriously (America, Japan, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Canada, maybe Panama), but if baseball people want it to be, I think winter would make more sense.

I think people are really underselling the global-ness of baseball.
Korea, Cuba, US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Venezuela and the Dominican all have professional leagues of some sort... and I think Italy might as well. Columbia, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Panama all have enough interest, participation and talent at the youth level to produce MLBers and minor leaguers and I believe there are semi-pro teams representing towns that draw crowds.
A fair amount of Australians play it and there are low-level pro leagues there. Taiwan plays, although I don't know much else about baseball there other than the fact that their chewing tobacco habits are MLB caliber. There is some interest in South Africa and New Zealand and the Netherlands has an active youth scene even before you count in guys from Curacao and their other Caribbean islands.

So you have Asia and the Americas loving the game, which is lot more global interest than many Olympic sports, and there is some interest in Australia and a couple Euro locales.

The bottom line is... if Europeans liked baseball (even if few others liked it), it would still be Olympic.

The bottom line is... if Europeans liked baseball (even if few others liked it), it would still be Olympic.

This is true. And the proof is team handball. It's a ball game, it's played by teams of 7 guys, it's sort of like lacrosse, and it was created about a hundred years ago.

There were three qualifying tournaments for this year's Olympics, held in the following globe-spanning locations: France, Croatia, and Poland. The teams playing in the Olympics are France, Spain, Russia, Croatia, Poland, and Iceland. And only four non-European teams were among the twelve at the qualifying tournaments (Japan, Argentina, Tunisia and Algeria).

Since 1954, all the gold, silver and bronze medals at the men's world handball championships have been European teams. Tunisia finished fourth once. South Korea seems to have crept in among the powers in women's handball.

if Europeans liked baseball (even if few others liked it), it would still be Olympic.


It's popular enough tnat NASN actually paid money for the broadcast rights in Europe. Though I guess most of the viewers are Englishmen getting their gambling fix in the Prem's offseason.

Do you play team handball in Sweden, or is it only popular in mainland Europe and Tunisia?

Sweden was one of the great nations in men's handball until a few years ago. Now the national team is mostly noted for bad performances and drunken scandals. Still it's less of a joke than the Swedish basketball team.

Handball is a fairly popular club sport with a kinda professional league and attendances around 1500-2000. Hockey and football are of course much more popular.

And in the swedish baseball league, the best hitter has a .562 BA.

I've played handball before, in what I would assume is a very simplified version. It was lots o' fun.

The only thing that I'm not quite sure about is whether having men on first and second alters this advantage in any way...

It sure didn't seem to help in the recent All-Star Game. There were a lot of runners on base in extra innings.

A few remarks:

They have had a similar rule for women's softball for many years. Of course, women's softball is completely dominated by pitching, so there is a risk of a game going on forever with nobody ever scoring. I don't remember Olympic baseball getting into epic extra-inning contexts however, so this rule addresses a problem that doesn't even exist.

Women's softball is in fact one of the main reasons baseball is being kicked out of the Olympics. The IOC wants only new sports that are practiced by both men and women, and the only way baseball got around that rule was by proposing women's softball as its female counterpart (not taking into account that they're different sports). And women's softball is a joke as an international sport.

I agree with the fact that baseball would be in a more solid position if it was more popular in Europe. It's not just handball that's outrageously Europe-centric. Water polo is just as bad, and it doesn't even make for good television...

First, let me say this is an idea I never want to see in regulation North American professional baseball. However, on the international tournament level, it does make some sense for some logistical reasons -- with a little tinkering:

* alternate last at-bats, similar to possessions in college football OT (the analogy someone made to this was a good one).

* have both teams start with the #3 batter, #1 at second and #2 at first in the 11th inning. If it goes to the 12th, make it the #4 hitter, with #2 at second and #3 at first, and so on.

Under those rules, I wouldn't be averse to it as an experiment in the WBC next year, or even seeing it as an "emergency" All-Star Game rule if one league runs out of position players. But that's as far as I'd go.