A question for American sports viewers

Moby said:
This is the part that is incorrect, not a matter of perspective but simply factually incorrect. Plethora of games to contradict that.
Click to expand...
Really?

Show me a basketball game where the game was decided by a three-pointer in the first quarter, and no one scored any points after that.

This is why I'm saying you are unwilling to consider other perspectives: my definition of "single decisive contribution" is not that a team gets an unassailable advantage by playing well in the first quarter. I mean a truly singular decisive contribution.
 
RobinLFC said:
I don't do that, for the record, I just meant you can predict the outcome as Huddersfield is never coming back from that. Erasing a 14-point lead is weekly business in the NFL. Like I said, the odd CL game where a 3-0 deficit is turned around or games like yesterday and the night before top NFL games for me, but your standard Premier League game not involving Liverpool is just a pass-time for me, e.g. I watched Utd-Chelsea recently and it's not like I was really entertained by that.

I agree that a full length NFL game can be pretty boring at times but I only watch full games in the playoffs, otherwise RedZone is where it's at - constant action combined with your own Fantasy team to compete against friends really is top notch entertainment for me, great fun.
Click to expand...

Turning a two score game is not that rare in european football either, though. 14-0 is in a way a bit misleading, as it's still only two scores. Turning a three score game is a lot rarer, in both the NFL and in football. It's obviously more common in the NFL, but that's what makes it "less" exciting imo. In football, scoring three times is more "valuable", as turn around like that are rarer, and even more magical when they happen.

Use the example again with Pats - Falcons a few seasons ago. Pats were down 28-3, or four scores. The way you put it, comebacks like that happens all the time in the NFL. But they don't. Actually, it's very, very rare to come back from being 4 scores down. Just as coming back from 4-0 down in european football very rarely happens.
 
Siorac said:
Show me a basketball game where the game was decided by a three-pointer in the first quarter, and no one scored any points after that.
Click to expand...
If that's your logic of what phase of play decides the game, then I give up.

Siorac said:
This is why I'm saying you are unwilling to consider other perspectives: my definition of "single decisive contribution" is not that a team gets an unassailable advantage by playing well in the first quarter. I mean a truly singular decisive contribution.
Click to expand...
So basically scoring the last point of the game then is what wins the team that match? I honestly hope no one with that understanding watches any sport.
 
Moby said:
If that's your logic of what phase of play decides the game, then I give up.


So basically scoring the last point of the game then is what wins the team that match? I honestly hope no one with that understanding watches any sport.
Click to expand...
In football, that is how it works. A single goal can decide the game in the 10th minute. Basketball is NOT like that. THAT HAS BEEN MY POINT FROM THE START.

You almost understand now! Almost.
 
Moby said:
If that's your logic of what phase of play decides the game, then I give up.


So basically scoring the last point of the game then is what wins the team that match? I honestly hope no one with that understanding watches any sport.
Click to expand...

You just don't want to understand his point, do you? :lol:
 
I can see it both ways to be honest.

The decisive moment in the Spurs Ajax two leg tie was the Moura goal at the end. Just like in a basketball game it’s often the last point.

But in both cases, to truly appreciate and immerse yourself in the game, you needed to watch the whole game.

The frequency of requiring to watch the whole match to truly appreciate the finale is probably more common in football.

Basketball is unique like that though.

In terms of x-factor moments the NFL is up there with football. Basketball just isn’t the same because it’s so common and frequent.

Can’t speak for other American sports as I don’t follow them.
 
JarleA said:
You just don't want to understand his point, do you? :lol:
Click to expand...
His logic is that, if a team takes a 10 point lead in Q1, and the rest of the 3 Qs are completely even, the deciding point was the scored in the end, and not the 10-0 run the team went in in Q1 that made the difference. So yeah, I'm not gonna pretend that it makes sense to me.
 
Moby said:
His logic is that, if a team takes a 10 point lead in Q1, and the rest of the 3 Qs are completely even, the deciding point was the scored in the end, and not the 10-0 run the team went in in Q1 that made the difference. So yeah, I'm not gonna pretend that it makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
No, my logic is that in this case there is no single decisive contribution. Again, a major difference compared to a football game where you can often point out that "hey, this was the winning goal". This gives goals a certain weight and tension that I miss when watching high-scoring sports.
 
Moby said:
I won't lie if I said I stopped reading after that. Couldn't have made it simpler.

Either ways, don't want to continue this.
Click to expand...
Well it's hard to debate if you don't actually read what I wrote.

But yeah, let's stop this. You clearly don't want to (or cannot) understand. Next time I'll know not to try and debate you as it's pointless.
 
Siorac said:
No, my logic is that in this case there is no single decisive contribution. Again, a major difference compared to a football game where you can often point out that "hey, this was the winning goal". This gives goals a certain weight and tension that I miss when watching high-scoring sports.
Click to expand...

Just to play devils advocate (because I do understand your point), I don’t entirely agree that that goal is the single decisive moment which wins a game. What if your goalie saves a penalty? Opposition striker misses a sitter? These are also decisive moments.

For example I look at Dembele’s lack of contribution as a pretty decisive moment which allowed Liverpool to need 4 and not, say 5 or 6.
 
Moby said:
His logic is that, if a team takes a 10 point lead in Q1, and the rest of the 3 Qs are completely even, the deciding point was the scored in the end, and not the 10-0 run the team went in in Q1 that made the difference. So yeah, I'm not gonna pretend that it makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

Come on, you know that's not what he means. I understand it as a 10 point lead in the first quarter means "nothing", in the way that it's not a significant lead at all after the first quarter. If Golden State Warriors are down 33 - 23 to the Phoenix Suns after the first quarter, they're not even stressed out. A 10 point lead after 12 minutes of basketball isn't even close to being 1-0 down after 23 minutes of football. I guess you can call it "points inflation" or something like that.
 
Moby said:
I won't lie if I said I stopped reading after that. Couldn't have made it simpler.

Either ways, don't want to continue this.
Click to expand...
This argument was like a soccer match that was over in the first half. If it was basketball you might have kept going.
 
JarleA said:
Come on, you know that's not what he means. I understand it as a 10 point lead in the first quarter means "nothing", in the way that it's not a significant lead at all after the first quarter. If Golden State Warriors are down 33 - 23 to the Phoenix Suns after the first quarter, they're not even stressed out. A 10 point lead after 12 minutes of basketball isn't even close to being 1-0 down after 23 minutes of football. I guess you can call it "points inflation" or something like that.
Click to expand...
Err, the no of possessions in basketball are limited and evenly distributed, unlike football. If a team takes a good lead in a big game early on, there's an easy possibility they would not throw that away till the end and it would take something equally special to overcome that. But in any case, the phase of play that decides the match can come at any point, and not just the one that happens at the end.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
This argument was like a soccer match that was over in the first half. If it was basketball you might have kept going.
Click to expand...
Comparing the two sports as far apart as them is usually pointless but still had to retort on 'only the last quarter matters or is supposed to be watched' comment. :wenger:
 
rpitroda said:
Just to play devils advocate (because I do understand your point), I don’t entirely agree that that goal is the single decisive moment which wins a game. What if your goalie saves a penalty? Opposition striker misses a sitter? These are also decisive moments.

For example I look at Dembele’s lack of contribution as a pretty decisive moment which allowed Liverpool to need 4 and not, say 5 or 6.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true but not important here: the point was that a single goal can be decisive in a way that only happens at the very end in other sports. A single goal can be THE moment even very early on. Once Scholes scored, we knew there was a real chance that it would be the goal that takes us to the CL final. That is somewhat unique to football (well, maybe not unique but hockey games rarely finish 1-0). The low-scoring nature of the game is often derided by those who don't like it but I think the very high value of goals is the best thing about it.

Also, that Scholes goal was 11 years ago. fecking hell.
 
Moby said:
Err, the no of possessions in basketball are limited and evenly distributed, unlike football. If a team takes a good lead in a big game early on, there's an easy possibility they would not throw that away till the end and it would take something equally special to overcome that. But in any case, the phase of play that decides the match can come at any point, and not just the one that happens at the end.
Click to expand...

But is it special to be leading with 10 points in basketball? Sure, it would take something equally special to overcome it, but then again, it's not really special, is it? It happens several times in almost every single game, with way bigger leads than that!
 
Of course you can but because the way the drama/hope/excitement builds up, the payoffs feel different as well. In footy, the action is constant so the tension builds constantly.

In baseball, however, the tension builds with each individual pitch and then resets once an at-bat is completed. And it builds more and more as batters get on base and the pressure ratchets up on the pitcher. If you have not, you should try to watch playoff baseball. The pressure is immense and the atmosphere with 40k on their feet, standing and cheering on their team is far, far different from a game in the middle of May.

And I wouldn't say it's a difference of American vs non-American sports. It's sport. That's the whole point of it. Competition creates emotional investment and that drives all fans to irrationally love and hate people they have no other connection to.
 
JarleA said:
Come on, you know that's not what he means. I understand it as a 10 point lead in the first quarter means "nothing", in the way that it's not a significant lead at all after the first quarter. If Golden State Warriors are down 33 - 23 to the Phoenix Suns after the first quarter, they're not even stressed out. A 10 point lead after 12 minutes of basketball isn't even close to being 1-0 down after 23 minutes of football. I guess you can call it "points inflation" or something like that.
Click to expand...
It's even simpler than that, actually: a single goal is far, far, far more valuable than a single "basket". That makes it rather special, no matter when it happens. That is a big difference between football and high-scoring sports such as basketball, handball or even American football.
 
JarleA said:
But is it special to be leading with 10 points in basketball? Sure, it would take something equally special to overcome it, but then again, it's not really special, is it? It happens several times in almost every single game, with way bigger leads than that!
Click to expand...
Like I said, loads of teams throw all their cards in Q1 or Q3, and they rest the main players for a lot of the remaining game, especially in playoffs where the fatigue kicks in, you ideally want your best players to make a defining impact in a short period of time and Q1 has been used to do that plenty of times. Cavs did it to Warriors in 2016 finals. Not sure what makes going on a 10/15-0 run in Q1 makes it less special whereas both teams scoring the same no. of points in Q4 without any such scoring display makes that part "decisive".
 
Siorac said:
In a football game, the game-winning, decisive contribution between two teams of similar strength can happen at any time. The only goal might be in the 2nd or 30th or 89th minute.
Click to expand...
The same could be said for a baseball game that ends 1-0 with the run scored in an early inning.

In 2011, LSU beat Alabama 9-6. There were 0 touchdowns scored that game and the halftime score was 3-3. The 4th quarter ended 6-6. LSU won with a field goal in overtime.
 
Moby said:
Like I said, loads of teams throw all their cards in Q1 or Q3, and they rest the main players for a lot of the remaining game, especially in playoffs where the fatigue kicks in, you ideally want your best players to make a defining impact in a short period of time and Q1 has been used to do that plenty of times. Cavs did it to Warriors in 2016 finals. Not sure what makes going on a 10/15-0 run in Q1 makes it less special whereas both teams scoring the same no. of points in Q4 without any such scoring display makes that part "decisive".
Click to expand...

Now, I do watch a lot of basketball as well. I understand how the game is played, the tactics, and how teams can run away with a game early on. But you're overstating how valuable that lead is. In late playoff stages, sure. A 10 point Warriors lead against the Clippers can be fatal to LA, but most usually, they'll come close, force a lead change or two, before the better team turning it back on in the third or fourth quarter.

I mean, just last night, the Rockets took the lead after being 20 points down in the second quarter. The Celtics forced a lead change after being 11 points down in the first quarter. This is not unusual or special, it happens very, very often.
 
Siorac said:
But it is unique in certain aspects. The relative scarcity of goals makes it very different: a single goal is a hugely game-changing event, unlike in most other sports.

Doesn't mean other sports can't have dramatic and emotional moments, of course, but they're definitely different. Hard to imagine a last-second, dramatic winner in baseball.
Click to expand...

I watch a ton of sports (some would say too many actually), and I have a team I follow in multiple sports. I know football is a low scoring game which makes a goal more... special or whatever.

I don't see any difference between how I felt after the 2008 penalty shootout or Tom Brady's hail mary attempt in the Superbowl in 2012. The "scarcity" of the game deciding moment has feck all to do with how spectacular a sport is. The game is much more than the game deciding moment, it's everything leading up to it.
 
Moby said:
Hence the Q1 lead being significant for the final result.
Click to expand...

I edited it to the first quarter, they took the lead in the very end of the first quarter, and by the break, the bucks were only up by 2 if I remember correctly. And I'm not saying it's "insignificant". Every point scored is significant to the end result. But coming back from a 10 point deficit in basketball isn't rare or special in any way, shape or form.
 
adexkola said:
I watch a ton of sports (some would say too many actually), and I have a team I follow in multiple sports. I know football is a low scoring game which makes a goal more... special or whatever.

I don't see any difference between how I felt after the 2008 penalty shootout or Tom Brady's hail mary attempt in the Superbowl in 2012. The "scarcity" of the game deciding moment has feck all to do with how spectacular a sport is. The game is much more than the game deciding moment, it's everything leading up to it.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
shabadu84 said:
In baseball, however, the tension builds with each individual pitch and then resets once an at-bat is completed. And it builds more and more as batters get on base and the pressure ratchets up on the pitcher. If you have not, you should try to watch playoff baseball. The pressure is immense and the atmosphere with 40k on their feet, standing and cheering on their team is far, far different from a game in the middle of May.
Click to expand...
You have my respect, sir. You get baseball.
 
Siorac said:
Yeah, well, no wonder. We're both shit. But I have seen games between shit NFL teams and those were boring, too. It's not like there aren't NFL games which basically consist of both teams punting the ball away after getting nowhere in three tries.

And I'm sure there are NFL games where the superior team blows away the shitty one that has no chance of coming back. Maybe less often, but that's mostly down to the differences in the system, not the sport itself: the NFL is way more egalitarian than the aristocratic European football.
Click to expand...

If you can't appreciate quality D play then that's on you.
 
adexkola said:
I watch a ton of sports (some would say too many actually), and I have a team I follow in multiple sports. I know football is a low scoring game which makes a goal more... special or whatever.

I don't see any difference between how I felt after the 2008 penalty shootout or Tom Brady's hail mary attempt in the Superbowl in 2012. The "scarcity" of the game deciding moment has feck all to do with how spectacular a sport is. The game is much more than the game deciding moment, it's everything leading up to it.
Click to expand...
No doubt. But the scarcity of the game deciding moment still makes a sport different from others. One can have a preference for one type or the other.
 
Carolina Red said:
Colorado Rockies?
Click to expand...

Yep, a few times, really enjoyed it to be fair but had absolutely zero clue what was happening on the field.

Hard to argue with £10 tickets though, it's a good laugh in nice weather with good company. Plus chili dogs rule..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.