Super Bowl Edition
About a year ago I stumbled across an article in the Nov 26, 1950 New York Times written by Stanley Woodward entitled: Football vs. Baseball vs. The Fans with the “big game” coming up next week I figured it was a good time to dust it off, and share some key points, the full version is available on proquest to SABR members:
“The autumnal furor emphasizes the great difference, at least from the view point of the spectator between baseball, which appeals primarily to the intellectual processes, and football which, generally speaking, does not.
For football is a game to inflame the mind and to rouse the underlying chauvinism of those who watch it, alumnus and non alumnus alike. The fierce body contact, the speed, the recklessness, give it something that baseball never had even in the day when Ty Cobb’s spikes were flashing
Football is a game of emotion. A team can be big, fast and well-drilled, yet it is nothing unless it has an inner drive which impels it to play with reckless abandon. Football is a hard rough dangerous game played without regard for personal safety or that of the enemy. It is war without weapons and, and though it is basically scientific, it can’t be played as a game of pure science.”
“These qualities tend to make football an esoteric sport to all but a relatively small group of initiates (MHS note: Gambling must not have existed in the 50’s). The strategy, the defensive alignments, the intricate ball-handling and deception go on, in effect, behind the scenes. They are obscured by the immediate visable results – as when a favorite half back breaks through the line, cuts to the left and runs seventy yards for a touchdown, or is downed in the open field by a spectacular tackle.”
“The play goes off so fast, the scene seems so confused and the blockers are so anonymous, in spite of the numbers on their backs, that even an experienced scout would have trouble charting the course of every man who figured into the play. Even to the initiate a football plays frequently looks like a jumble. So why bother about the intricacies when there is spine-tingling action and primitive drama of physical conflict?”
“In contrast with this emotion-straining activity baseball is a relatively mental sport. It is a game of artistry and supreme neuro-muscular control, simple t watch and not too difficult to understand. It lacks both the complexity and the savagery of football. Baseball has its crashes, and certain number of players get hurt each year, but it is a tea dance compared to football.”
“Everything takes place in the open for all to see. The outcome of a key play, instead of depending on the activities of twenty-two players, is likely to involve only two or three, and that in a sequence is easily followed.”
“The difference between the two games and their spectator appeal are reflected, quite naturally, in the differences between football and baseball fans. The two groups are as unlike as it possible to be. Where the baseball fan is likely to have a skilled appreciation for the finer points of his game and to enjoy it with the air of a connoisseur, the football fan is likely to be aglow with the excitement of the occasion and to know little of what is actually happening.”
Mister High Standards
Posted: January 29, 2006 at 12:38 PM |
34 comment(s)
Related News:
History
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Sure, it might seem this way when you compare a sterotypical yahoo football fan to someone who understands baseball and the strategy involved.
But if you know football, then you know there is a lot going on. It's a complex game, not the mindless action that pro-baseball people want you to believe it is.
And come on, this article was written in 1950, fer crissakes. There were probably still people pining for the good old days before the forward pass ruined football.
The real problem is that he's trafficking in generalizations, which is folly. Of course there are football fans who don't wear foam cheese on their heads and spend all Sunday swilling cheap beer and eating nachos, thinking as little as possible about their sport. And there are plenty of baseball fans who are exactly like that. And of course, there's an intersection set, as well. But there is some kernel of fact in it. I'm not saying that football fans are dunces; it's that baseball lends itself to geekery. When you search "baseball numbers" at Amazon books, you get 180 hits, and the first page is all things like the Hardball Times Annual and Baseball Between the Numbers. Search for "football numbers" and many of the first ten hits consist of schedules and rosters. Baseball lends itself to collation and study; football is very hard to quantify. I'm not contending that people don't do it. I'm just saying that more people do it with baseball.
Carlin thing
It is not possible for a layman to watch a football game and have any clue as to why the team that won, actually won.
Football is a far more complex game than baseball, and while easier to follow - it is far more difficult to understand. In fact it is impossible for almost anyone to understand what happened in a game if they only watched it live.
I watch football, I enjoy football for what it is, a good way to waste a Sunday if the Pats or a Saturday if the Irish are playing.
Anyway - I thought it was an interesting take -which is why I published it. To me its amazing what people thought 50 years ago and how far football has come as an American past time.
With that said I still don't think 99% of people who watch football have a clue what is happening.
Don't you think this is just a bit much? It's probably true that a layman is unlikley to ever really understand all the intracacies of how, say, a Cover-2 zone defense works. But the advent of numerous camera angles, instant replay, and breakdown shows such as "Inside the NFL" have really opened the game up for dissection for the average fan.
In the NFL in particular, the games seem to increasingly hinge on just a few big plays more so than ever before. If a team scores the game winning touchdown because the cornerback fell down and the wide receiver got wide open, you don't really have to be a genius to notice that in this day and age.
“Baseball is dull only to dull minds.”
Red Barber
I believe this applies to any kind of book about either sport. For some reason, Baseball has gained a literary following over the years that is unmatched in any sport in the world, as far as I can tell. Even despite frequent allegations that football is the nation's true "National Pastime," the football section at any bookstore pales in comparison with the baseball section. I wonder why that is.
Football is better as a TV sport than baseball, and the more TV you watch, the less you read.
Also, (perhaps related to the TV thing) with one game per week, football is more of a "spectacle" event, rather than an daily evolving drama like baseball.
I recall a story--I think it was in this book--where a football reporter was with Chuck Noll and they were watching some game on TV (not a Steelers game). The reporter pointed out that the running back seemed to hit the hole too slow on the most recent play. Noll ground his teeth and replied, "On that play he is supposed to hit the hole slow." After I read that, I gave up trying to understand anything about football aside from missed blocks and tackles.
10 seconds of action
40 seconds off
10 seconds of action
40 seconds off
10 seconds of action
40 seconds off
Comerical
Punt
Comerical
replay.
The worst is on the touchdown.
Comerical
extrapoint
comerical
kickoff
comerical
10 seconds of action
40 seconds off
10 seconds of action
40 seconds off
10 seconds of action
40 seconds off
Comerical
Punt
Comerical
replay.
"Football incorporates the two worst elements of American society: violence punctuated by committee meetings. "
It's the only thing he ever said that I agree with. In baseball, the downtime is invested with dread and anticipation. In football, you might as well watch the artificial turf grow during the downtime. Of which there is a lot.
The TV-friendliness of football, tied up with the cost/infrequency of the games, is probably the biggest factor in it being a less "literary" sport than baseball. Also this ties into the relative "modernity" of the game itself -- instant replay in COLLEGE games, for cryin' out loud, plus the "two minute warning" etc.
Delorians, your right no comercial before a punt. Though there are often comericals before Xpts.
MLB fans, by and large, are of the opinion that Batting Average, stolen bases, locker room presence and a good defensive player at 1B are essential attributes to a winning team. It is the rare stat geek who gets the intricacies of what is valuable (e.g. OPS) and what is not (# of charitable events attended by your catcher). I would go so far as to say lots of GM's in baseball still do not get it. Worse, many so-called stat geeks would have absolutely no idea if a pitcher had or did not have "stuff" on a given day. Is that ball breaking, or is it flat? Does it have movement in 2 planes or just 1? I watch a lot of baseball and attend a lot of games, but I would have no idea.
Football on the other hand, you can get at a very basic level. I want to run to open up the pass. I want to run a draw play when the defense expects the pass. I want to blitz to sack the QB. I want to fake blitz to get the QB to react quickly and make a bad pass. Sure there are more subtle aspects to it, but everyone with even a modicum of football knowledge knows what it takes to win. The same cannot be said for MLB.
And, anyone who thinks football fans are somehow less refined than baseball fans has never been to a game in the bleachers at Fenway Park, or in the outfield at Jacobs field (or Municipal Stadium before that), or anywhere at Wrigley field. In contrast, a game at the RCA dome is like a visit to the Queen's palace.
Sports fans, all sports fans, get emotionally tied into a game. By definition, sports involves a physical element that the fan should become involved in. If you miss that, you are missing the "athletic" aspect of the sport.
I reccomend you go to a superbowl party, or to an actual game, or perhaps a sports bar, and watch how the average fan reacts.
Your out of your mind my friend.
I think you guys are both right to a point. We may be spoiled on sites like this and similar sites (like many of the excellent team blogs) where there is excellent numbers analysis, etc. We know (dodger fan alert) that guys like Jason Repko shouldn't be much more than a 5th outfielder or a AAAA type of guy. Visit an ESPN board or any place where an average fan hangs out and they'll act like Repko is the next great superstar for the Dodgers.
I think more people are starting to understand the nuances of football a little bit better because of games like Madden (or NCAA) where you have to somewhat understand basic defensive and offensive sets. For the most part though, I think most football fans (as with most sports fans in general) don't really understand what is actually going on with the game and stuff.
"The definition of an intellectual in America is someone that has discovered something more interesting than footbal"....
"The definition of an intellectual in America is someone that has discovered something more interesting than football"....
But seriously, football is fairly complex but what it boils down to is achieving a "local superiority" and properly executing...And as far as general understanding of the game by the fan, ask the following question of the cognescenti and the "unwashed masses"
"Who would be the first player you picked to build a team around?"
There are fans in both sports (even in hockey, as a matter of fact) that are very knowledgable and that can explain you every single thing that's happening on the field (baseball or football field, I mean). And there are casual fans of both sports as well who don't give a dawm about what exactly happens. They want to enjoy a homerun by Pujols, a nice cut-back run by Alexander, a great tackle by Ray Lewis or a 6-4-3 double-play by their home team without analysing everything in details. They just want to get entertained, that's all. Please, stop saying that baseball fans are smarter (or the opposite) based on whatever prejudice you have against them. That makes no sense.
I am a great baseball and football fan, which is quite something in an anti-USA and hockey oriented country like mine (Canada). In fact, I don't really like hockey and I always have to justify myself because of this. The thing though is that I like both baseball and football for different reasons (baseball for its beauty and history; football for its strategies and instantaneity - you know something is going to happen now, which is not the case in baseball). What I'm pretty sure about though is that I don't feel more or less intelligent when I watch baseball of football. I just don't focus on the same aspect of the game.
Please stop with those poor analysis. And by the way, if you want to read, take time to do so. Don't say a sport is better or is a better tv sport because you have less time to read. This would make hockey the best tv sport (no time to read at all...) which might be true up here, but not don't where most of you guys are from. Total nonsense.
you're not talking about the guy at the bar, MHS. you're talking about anyone who isn't a coach level expert. which is certified ########. if you'd like to modify your statement to what you said in your second post, then i'll agree with you.
- Jim Bouton.
1. The U.S. is better than Canada.
2. You'll be kicked out of Quebec with orthography like that.
You cannot play the following positions in football and be an idiot:
Linebacker
Quarterback
Offensive lineman
Safety
Tight end
Running back
Each of those positions requires a deep understanding of the playbook. Football is all about covering your responsibilities. On any play, if even one player fails to cover his responsibility, the whole team suffers greatly. For example, if a linebacker or safety does not understand his role in a defensive scheme, the offense will pick that defense apart. The only positions that can be filled by real idiots in football are defensive lineman, wide reciever, cornerback and special teams positions (and even these players have to have some understanding of the playbook).
I think the only baseball position you cannot play if you are an idiot is catcher. Every other position depends more on hand-eye coordination, physical power, control and reflex. There is a place in baseball for great intelligence (like Cal Ripken's positioning), but it's not necessary -- we can all think of examples of frankly stupid players at almost every position. Besides, the manager (or coach, or a teammate) can tell you where to stand. Jim Edmonds doesn't have to think "how am I going to get to this fly ball" -- he has to start from the right place, get a great jump and run like hell. Nuke Laloosh famously has to stop thinking to be effective in Bull Durham, and I think there's a truth in that.
For fans too, I think football is more difficult to truly understand than baseball. You don't need X and O whiteboards to explain what's going on on the diamond. Baseball has no playbook. Baseball probably doesn't have more than two dozen set plays in total (like the hit and run, etc.). It's a simple sport whose best coaches (Casey Stengel, Leo Mazzone) are effective because they make it simpler. In football, the great coaches often come up with a complicated scheme that outerperforms the other coaches' schemes. How many fans can really explain why Buddy Ryan's defense made the Bears world-beaters in 1985, or how the adjustments Bill Walsh and Joe Gibbs came up with allowed their offenses to beat Buddy Ryan's defense in subsequent years?
Baseball's relative simplicity makes it much more fun to study baseball statistics than football statistics. How can you possibly compare two football plays? The personnel, coverage schemes, offensive package, etc. are almost always different from play to play. But in baseball, every play starts with a pitch. There is always exactly one right fielder, one third baseman, etc. So many more variables are controlled in baseball because the same thing happens over and over again with only minor variations. And through it all, there's always the chance for a beautiful defensive play or a dramatic string of three great (or lucky) hits that turn a game around.
In short, baseball's simplicity is part of what makes it attractive to intellectuals. In that apparent simplicity is a wealth of complexity born of 100+ years of box scores that all describe the same game in basically the same way. The patterns are right there, ready for whoever can come up with a better way of sifting and analyzing the data. And the statistical study of baseball can make the real thing much more fun to watch or play.
1. Dan Hampton.
2. Mike Singletary.
3. Wilber Marshall.
4. Richard Dent.
5. Gary Fencik.
6. Otis Wilson.
7. Etc.
That was easy.
1. Mike Ditka.
With the huge number of specialized coaches at the pro level, analyizing every play from above with multiple video feeds and relaying instructions to keys players via headsets, I don't know if it requires more intelligence of the players anymore, even at the positions you mentioned. Speed, strength, and good coaching can get dumb players pretty far, even at relative "skill" positions.
You also ignored the offensive side of baseball -- there is a lot of strategy on both sides of the batter-pitcher matchup. And virtually all of that strategy is left up to the pitcher/catcher and the batter, not coaches.
Jim Edmonds doesn't have to think "how am I going to get to this fly ball" -- he has to start from the right place, get a great jump and run like hell.
Outfielders learn to run routes too, and need to be aware of the batter's tendencies, wind, location of teammates, positioning for the throw back to the infield, etc. Do they go through this checklist like a computer on every fly ball? Of course not, but does that mean they didn't learn it? Or that they're not currently doing it? Or that they're less intelligent? I don't think any pro footballer, even at a skill position, is thinking through every possible variable while a play unfolds either.
I think in any sport, intelligence (just like physical attributes) will vary from player to player, and from coach to coach, and it doesn't always correspond to success. And there are probably too many other factors at play in team sports to make sweeping generalizations in comparing their relative "intelligence" levels.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main