Friday, March 15, 2013
The Cascade: Scoular: Why America’s pastime trumps Canada’s bloodsport
(cupwire.ca)
Mission and hope, Mission and hope…
To compare baseball to hockey is to risk that same mentality – that one is tougher, that the athletes of one sport aren’t even athletes. It’s a mixture of defensiveness from fans of a less popular sport and false bravado. But this relies on another television twisting – the knowledge of the sport through highlight reels. The emphasis of home runs and diving catches, although exciting, falls into that same trap of predictability and replay. Where baseball lives is in between, the so-called “boring” parts where “nothing’s happening.”
Baseball broadcasts aren’t groundbreaking, but they don’t have the problem of failing to show – everything is before and visible, the pitcher-catcher-batter relation clearly defined and observable. When runners reach base, the imperfect but still effective solution of splitting the screen, showing multiple perspectives, with base-running coaches in the background, cuts to managerial direction and the different plate positions all held on the screen until the last possible second, when the pitch is released, the early jump of a stealing runner or stop at the realization of a strikeout just registering at the corner of the frame.
A friend that helped re-introduce me to baseball offered one observation that also helped when it comes to season and game length: with a game every day, there is less dwelling on the past, an allowance for losses because every team will with such a packed schedule.
What it also means is just more to watch – there are those that try to see everything, but the overabundance means that there’s the routine of there always being a game on, to turn on for a few innings as inoffensive backdrop for an evening of trying-to-but-not doing homework.
Baseball extends through days, timeslots and pre-conceptions. Surely the greatest experience of watching hockey is playoff overtime when the game doesn’t end until a goal, with no commercials to interrupt. With baseball, there is the possibility for this with every game.
Every half-inning is defined this way; it could be over in regular 1-2-3 fashion, or take an hour, with nothing to break in and advertise. Sure, there’s always the signage in sight, and required broadcaster mention, but it’s a pleasant feature, and better yet an outcome of the eternal possibility in baseball – a sport unrestricted by time, where victory is always an open chance.
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.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >So there.
Isn't it a complaint around here that baseball broadcasts focus too much on the pitcher-batter and don't show us fielder positioning?
Like #1 I like both sports and don't see any problem comparing them. (They are very different sports, which are both very fun to watch).
There is quite a different dynamic in Canada though. I know of several Jays fans who seem to have a chip on their shoulder about the Leafs and hockey, because they are the more popular sport and get more coverage.
EDIT: The writer's also coming from a problematic point of view as he appears to be a Canucks fan. So it's really no surprise he's finding hockey doesn't appeal to him.
This is me. I can't stand the fact that in August a morning Sportsnet broadcast will lead with an update on the contract negotiations of a Martin Brodeur or a Rick Nash before they even show highlights of the previous nights' Jays game. Its ridiculous.
All of which means absolutely nothing, because those are just my opinions. I watch what I like, don't watch what I don't like, and don't really worry about what other people are watching.
Come to the US, where every sports broadcast talks about the NFL, whether in-season or not, and hockey doesn't exist. Also, the game has changed radically since 2000, though it is always in danger of slipping back.
Anyway, I love both. Baseball is played from April - October. Hockey is played from October - June. They don't compete at all. And if hockey ended in May like it should, it'd be even better.
From a purely broadcast perspective like the author seems to be taking, they both have their stupid tropes they follow far too strictly and both could use some new takes on these things. For baseball, it's cutting down on the close-ups, trying new main angles besides the 3/4. And for hockey, well hockey broadcasting is innately harder but it's stuck at high-school level technology.
What? They still run commercials during playoff overtime.
Yeah, its not like there are no offsides, penalties, etc. during OT.
Well, it's a *little* bit like there are no penalties during OT. (and offsides, icing etc. don't generally result in a commercial-length timeout)
Actually, I've been informed there aren't commercials during playoff OT. I could have sworn there were. In my defence, I'm a Leafs fan, for whom playoff hockey is but a flickering, hazy memory.
They don't in any broadcast I've ever seen. (Except, as noted, inbetween periods).
But, there really is nothing like overtime playoff hockey.
overtime hockey > extra innings baseball > overtime/shootout soccer > overtime college football > overtime basketball > overtime NFL > tennis tie-breakers > extra holes in golf
Bigger rinks, and no fighting is definitely the way to go. Is hockey the only sport where you can land a punch and not be ejected immediately?
To me, hockey works best when you're live, and have good enough seats that you can see the whole rink. Just don't like it as a TV sport.
Bigger rinks, definitely. No fighting...I don't think I'd miss it exactly if it was banned. It doesn't appear to serve much of a purpose towards winning the game, and is pretty barbaric...but there's just something awesome about two guys punching each other in the face in unison.
Except maybe overtime during March Madness, an NBA playoff game 7 that comes down to the last shot, a World Series game 7 that's decided by the final pitch, a sudden death NFL championship game, a 73rd hole of the Masters, a photo finish in the Belmont involving a horse who won the Derby and the Preakness, a hill-hill game in the finals of the U.S. Open nine ball championship, or any number of other events in other sports. These all seem like the greatest moments to the people who favor those sports over all others, and for some of us who love more than one sport it's impossible to choose among them.
Well, in baseball you can intentionally hit a batter with a 90mph baseball and not get ejected--or even condemned, apparently, when it is admitted, Pedro just did.
They should have ejected and suspended him on the spot.
Not from St Louis are you. Sure football has it's niche but it doesn't push a good hockey team out of the limelight, and both take a backseat to baseball. (Basketball is non-existent of course)
Really? As Andy pointed out, I guess it comes down to your sport of choice, I don't find anything quite as thrilling as a 1-run or tied game in the ninth inning with the heart of the order coming up facing an ace level reliever(or a starting pitcher pitching a gem)
Problem with overtime sports like basketball and hockey(and even football) is that teams change their philosophy and play the game differently, more conservatively and it just doesn't seem as exciting as it can be. It would be almost better if they allow them to play the full period, as it stands they play to avoid mistakes a little more than they would in the first period/quarter.
Hockey having the 5 on 5 nature of overtime is a great wrinkle, to help offset that conservative mindset, but it's still a different game.
Hockey having the 5 on 5 nature of overtime is a great wrinkle, to help offset that conservative mindset, but it's still a different game.
The absolute worst sport for overtime is college football. No other sport is even close. The NFL's revised sudden death rule is a step back from the drama** of real sudden death, but college football's OT rules are like death by a thousand subcommittees.
**and yes, "luck", but so what?
If the batter had really been thrown at illegitimately, he would have had a way of preventing being hit, don't you mean?
Well this thread is specifically talking about playoff overtime, where that doesn't apply. Playoff overtime is a regular 4th period, except with golden goal. And usually, due to the exhausting nature of hockey, the games are wild. That's why people are singling it out specifically, because the game changes for the great (scrubs sit, defenses get crazy, the ######## usually evaporates) and the bad (referees act like calling a penalty will immediately end the world).
I completely agree with regards to college football's overtime format. I have never cared for the format, but I couldn't articulate why I didn't like it for several years. A former roommate of mine summed it up well by saying that the overtime game does not resemble regulation football. I think he nailed it. The overtime format loses the battle for field position, takes away the deep pass, rewards teams with good placekickers, and removes an element of strategy (2-point conversion) after the second OT.
But there's plenty of room for both. Baseball is a good summer sport. I usually refer to it as a sport best watched when you are really doing something else.
Well aside from the fact that I actually favour baseball by a country mile...
Agreed a great finish is a great finish, and how much you enjoy it says more about your level of interest in the sport in question than anything else.
EDIT: to be fair I also said there was nothing else like it, not necessarily that it was better. It would be like if an NBA Game 7 final came down to 10 seconds for one last shot. But extend that for a possible 2-3 hours. Extra-Inning baseball is somewhat similar in that for half the time the game could end at any moment. But an over-time hockey game that runs three or four extra periods. That's almost two hours of staring at the screen knowing it could all end at any moment. Plus no commercials! And the players visibly tiring, which makes for less crisp hockey, but really conveys the tension well. Like I (and you) say, to each his own. But there's a reason playoff overtime hockey is celebrated by hockey fans in a way that extra-inning baseball isn't by baseball fans. It is almost like a different game.
You might also just look at CFB overtime as an endless series of Mulligans, and it's enough to make you wonder whether the inventors of it were really struggling for a way to say "YOU'RE ALL WINNERS!" It's got to be the wussiest set of rules to be found in any major American sport.
I've seen people here say that before, and it seems to go against the consensus of casual fans of the two sports. I think hockey's popularity among females is a large part based upon how easily accessible the game is to a novice on tv. Of the 4 1/2 major American sports, baseball is way too complicated to be picked up by a novice, along with it's relative slow pace, and the nature of it's scoring often requiring multiple plays. Same with football. With the other 2 1/2 sports, you have a simple concept score in a type of net. Soccer is way too slow to be interesting and it's never going to grab the casual fan by tv. That leaves basketball and hockey as the only two easily approachable sports for a novice via television. I just find it hard to think of a sport that is easily understood and explained by tv as something not so great on TV.
Your original comment was spot-on. None of Andy's examples were all that similar, and more indicative of his preferences than yours. A last-second shot or down-to-the-wire game may very well be exciting, but it's definitely in a different category than the lengthy state of anticipation that OT playoff hockey provides.
Playoff OT hockey is simply different than anything else out there. It's sudden death, but not in the same way as football where most scoring plays are built toward. Because it's a low-scoring game by nature, it holds the potential that play may go on for another hour-plus, which doesn't happen anywhere else (for the most part). And it's such a physically taxing sport that you can see the players wearing down as the game goes on.
Moreover, virtually all of those things he listed are rare occurrences, championship tilts that happen to end a certain way. Overtime playoff hockey happens multiple times per year.
As you said, quite accurately, "there really is nothing like overtime playoff hockey."
I've seen people here say that before, and it seems to go against the consensus of casual fans of the two sports. I think hockey's popularity among females is a large part based upon how easily accessible the game is to a novice on tv.
Completely disagree. Hockey on TV may be OK on Big Screen with high def, but for a 27" screen like mine the puck is just too damn small and hard to follow. Not to mention that hockey suffers from the same problem as soccer: It's too much like the 1968 version of baseball, in spite of what I've heard about the recent uptick in scoring. There's a reason that of the four major sports, it's the only one that's never really gone much beyond that of a medium sized cult status, at least south of the Canadian border. OTOH I loved the two games I saw live at the old Cap Centre---totally different and infinitely superior experience to the TV version.
Of the 4 1/2 major American sports, baseball is way too complicated to be picked up by a novice, along with it's relative slow pace, and the nature of it's scoring often requiring multiple plays. Same with football. With the other 2 1/2 sports, you have a simple concept score in a type of net. Soccer is way too slow to be interesting and it's never going to grab the casual fan by tv. That leaves basketball and hockey as the only two easily approachable sports for a novice via television.
This really does get down to individual preferences. The casual fan sure seems to love football, if you can believe the ratings, and baseball does pretty well for a sport whose fan base is mostly made up of people who follow only one team or one division closely. But I will admit that basketball is the easiest for the casual fan to follow, with simple rules and only ten players playing with one giant ball that doesn't move too quickly.
If you're a hockey fan to begin with. If your preference is for other sports, there are many equivalent events in terms of drama, even if their format isn't exactly the same.
This is what you watch all of your (arguably stolen) movies on?
You can say this as many times as you want, but you'll never stop being wrong. It has nothing to do with my preferences (I'm a modest hockey fan). Overtime playoff hockey, for the reasons outlined, is markedly different than anything you mentioned (not necessarily better, but fundamentally and unmistakably different). The true sudden death format combined with the quick strike nature of the sport, the genuine potential that the game will go on long into the night, the energy-zapping nature of the sport and the simple fact that this is a regular feature seen multiple times during the playoffs, not a rarity, all make this particular state unique among major sports. You're welcome to prefer some NBA finals game that goes down to the wire or a Game 7 that goes into the ninth tied. If you think they're more exciting, bully for you. That's a preference. But it's simply a statement of fact that these specific situations aren't comparable to OT playoff hockey for any number of reasons.
This is why penalty kicks suck.
But of course one could name unique attributes* for the overtimes of all sports, so, I think Andy is right.
*Most of those you listed are not at all unique to hockey, so I think that the "any number of reasons" is probably quite a low number.
That wouldn't make Andy right.
I think the things I listed are pretty much exclusive to hockey. Hell, there have been 13 games in North American sports history where the extra time lasted longer than the regulation game. All 13 were NHL playoff games.
Moreover, I don't know you can look at Andy's list and think it's even a reasonable comparison. Greg was listing a generic state (overtime playoff hockey) that happens multiple times annually, and Andy's comparing it to very specific, very rare situations that can appen as infreqeuntly as once a decade (other than OT in the NCAA tournament). It's like arguing the triple is baseball's most exciting play, and countering it by saying, "no, it's a game-winning home run in the seventh game of the World Series." The latter may be true, but only because you weren't close to comparing the same things.
Yes, but by restricting my list, I was really just trying to be polite, since there are many pre-7th (or 5th) game postseason baseball games, and many pre-championship game basketball and NFL games that have every bit as much DRAMA as an overtime playoff hockey game. There's nothing more inherently dramatic about overtime in basketball than there is in the last five minutes of a game, and a baseball game tied after 8 innings is no different in terms of anticipation than the 10th or 19th inning, other than the slow vaperizing of the bench and the bullpen. If you want to make a thing about rules, the lack of free substitution in baseball makes that sport unique.**
Of course hockey's sudden death rule makes it unique in a technical sense, but to go from that to implying that there's something more inherently dramatic about that format than there is about the climactic moments of baseball, football or basketball is simply stating a personal preference. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't assume that your take is universal.
**All sports have their unique elements. Football players don't play both offense and defense. Basketball ejects players for 5 or 6 routine fouls. Baseball doesn't allow for players leaving a game to return. Hockey has a form of sudden death overtime that's more "sudden" than football's. Obviously this is just a partial list, but the underlying issue is the drama of the postseason, not any particular rule that makes for but one factor of that drama.
So I counter by asking him to name one hockey player who beat up Shaquille O'Neal and, being forced to think in those terms, he comes back to his senses.
I remember the 1972 series between Canada and the Russians. To tell you the truth, I thought the Russians, as a whole, were better players than the NHL guys and played a flashier and more skillful, dynamic brand of hockey. Their passing and the way they attacked the net was more reminiscent of the way NBA teams run offenses than the style that was popular in the NHL at the time, which was to have big strong forwards who could out-muscle the opposition in the corners after the puck was dumped in there, and if that didn't work, rough up the other teams best skaters. In other words, reduce the game to the lowest common denominator.
Canada eventually won (barely) by playing goon hockey, with Bobby Clarke deliberately injuring the Russians best player, Valeri Kharlamov, who up to that point was skating circles around the slower, less skillful Canadian players.
Is this even true anymore? I know a lot of NHL fans that are complaining a bit because they seem to think the NHL has gotten less physical and has less fights now.
And that tells you all you need to know about NHL fans.
I think these two thoughts aren't necessarily contradictory. Hockey does seem like a relatively simple sport to grasp the basics of while watching. Pretty much everything a hockey player does can be fairly directly related to an obvious goal (put the puck in the net or stop the puck from going in the net). So a novice can easily understand what's going on. But the puck does seem to present a real problem to new viewers. Having grown up with hockey it's not a problem I've ever encountered (and the puck trax on the American coverage of hockey is still a source of amusement for Canadians who want to feel morally superior to their friends from the south). But, as with all sports, I think there is a learning process to watching the game. For my undergrad years I had a 12 inch TV, and those were my most dedicated hockey-watching years (it's probably been three or four years since I saw a complete hockey game). It doesn't even occur to me that this is what I'm doing, but the trick is you don't watch the puck. By the actions, movement and gestures of all the players it's always very clear where the puck is. Maybe I'm alone in watching hockey this way...I do have terrible eye-sight, but you can see the puck without always seeing the puck, if that makes sense.
Speaking of which, Goon is a shockingly decent movie.
I think we're perhaps getting too bogged down in value judgements. Baseball's late-inning drama is of a different character from hockey's. I wouldn't say one or the other is more dramatic, it's just different kinds of drama. Baseball is several moments of tension with periods of intense anticipation inbetween. Overtime playoff hockey is 5-10 minutes of straight tension, punctuated by the occasional off-side call where you have 30 seconds to catch your breath.
I'm not saying one is inherently better than the other. Just that playoff overtime hockey is a different spectator experience entirely (not just from other sports but from regulation hockey). The bottom of the 10th is simply the bottom of the 9th repeated.
Of course, you are right, drama as experienced by a sports spectator is at its core a subjective experience. It may only be my experience, but watching an extra-inning game with friends the atmosphere is marked by discussion (what do you pitch here? Why are they walking him? God, Jose Valverde sucks), and pacing, so much pacing inbetween the moments of tension. I've watched triple over-time hockey games in a room full of 10-12 people, and no one has spoken for 10 minute stretches simply because there's no opportunity to do anything but pray.
With this I think I'll conclude my comments in this thread as there probably isn't much more productive to say. I probably could have picked a better word choice to prevent this turning into a "x sport better than y sport" conversation, which I find quite boring.
This is changing, and couldn't happen fast enough in my opinion. With the speed of the game, traditional goons are rightly getting burned out of the league. There is far too much macho ########, unnecessary and debilitating violence, and explicit xenophobia in the game. There are people who watch for the fights, but I don't think my opinions are uncommon among fans, that's it a stupid sideshow and can we get back to the hockey? Especially when the fight happens at the first puck drop. Might as well move it to warm ups. And no one likes Don Cherry. Some people may be amused by him.
And I absolutely agree about the summit series, the Russians were better hockey players than the Canadians by a gigantic stretch, and if the Russians hadn't put the fear of god into them then hockey today would probably still be the garbage they played in the 70's, and the NHL would have the talent level of the ECHL. Clarke's two-handed slash is so embarrassing I'm surprised any Canadians take pride in the series at all. If the series were made into a kids movie, the Canadians would be the bad guys. But I'm an American born 10 years after it the summit series, so I can say that.
I know it might be a bit of a surprise to you, but over 40 years later the game isn't anything like that any more.
All teams use the "goal-line cycling" and intricate passing routines on the power plays that you might have seen the Soviets use back in the days.
There might be the "goon" on the team, but he gets about 5 minutes of play a night. The rest of the time, it's filled with the highest quality players in the world. In the 40 years since 1972, the influx of Russian (and Belarussian/Ukranian/Latvian), Czech, Swedish, Finnish, Slovak, Swiss, German, and Slovenian have helped transform the NHL into the second-most international sports league in the world (behind the EPL).
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.