Defence21 wrote: ScottishPenguin wrote:
Defence21 wrote:And, if you think hockey is so much more complex than baseball, you certainly don't watch enough baseball to be making that comment.
Well, I don't watch baseball, so indulge me. Please explain how baseball is as complex a sport as hockey.
In hockey you're receiving passes, playing the boards, and shooting from different perspectives at different positions. Depending on the way you carry your stick, moving from left to right (or vice versa) wing can be tricky to adjust to. The exact same is the case in baseball. If you're a third baseman moving to shortstop, your range better increase significantly. No longer can you rely on doing your primary fielding to your right, but now you're fielding an area that spans second to third base, must know how to cover the bag and tag players appropriately, must be able to turn and throw immediately after fielding, and the list goes on.
Okay, so, in essence, what you're saying is that the roles in baseball are more specialised, whereas in hockey there is a broader skillset which is (ideally) common to all players? Valid observation when arguing a needless analogy within the confines of a debate on which wing to play our career HOF right winger on (which is how we got here), but I'm far from convinced that this makes baseball the more complex sport. Hockey to me is a far more dynamic game, where the play develops and players must be constantly reacting to those developments while attempting to impose their will on the game. Baseball is a series of set pieces, in which the pitcher has a small, limited number of options available to him, and the batter need only determine which has been selected in order to swing his hittin' thing such as to contact the ball. I would suggest that hockey is the more complex sport, but that says nothing of the difficulty of the sports, nor the skill of the players involved.
Oh, and since you don't watch baseball, you'll be interested to know that in this sport, you are charged with hitting a small ball coming at you at 90-100 MPH with a thin piece of wood. Oh, and the ball isn't coming where you want it to. It's dipping, diving, curving, changing speeds, etc. Try shooting a one-timer with similar type passes.
In my country we have rounders. It is a game not dissimilar to your baseball, except it is played by small girls who don't take steroids.
I feel obliged to mention that I played cricket in my youth. The cricket ball is both harder and heavier than a baseball and is hemispherical, granting the bowler greater control over swing (which I understand to be synonymous with your curve). It has a pronounced seam and is generally delivered into the pitch, so not only does the batsman have to deal with changes in flight, he must also account for bounce and spin. Oh, and the bowler is perfectly entitled to aim at whatever he desires - including your head - without penalty. I'll grant you that a cricket bat is wider than a baseball bat, and it has the good graces to be flat rather than rounded, but that's not much consolation when you take a bouncer to the throat.
Might have wandered off topic a bit here. Iginla should quite obviously be playing on Crosby's right wing, and I've yet to hear anyone except Disco express an opinion to the contrary.