Wmlb?

[NotAboutEgo]

It doesn't matter. That is a pretty damn big thing for men to brag about. Strength is as important as talent, and if it weren't, women would be able to take men on.

And you simply calling me ignorant is pretty damn foolish as well. If you are going to call me ignorant, at least put up your argument instead of calling everyone who opposes you ignorant.

The fact is, women don't DESERVE publicity. You seem to think they do because it would be "equal opportunity," which it wouldn't be. It would be handing it right over because feminists are pissed off.

Forget the fact that this girls baseball team couldn't compete in a D1 college league, they deserve equal opportunity and therefore deserve publicity!

My dad has never discussed women's sports with me, but he does know where they place. Behind men. You talk badly about men who think women are inferior in athletics like it isn't a fact. At least he understands that.

I really don't see what you're argument is. You are just a hypocritical, pissed off feminist who wants publicity handed to you even though men deserve it more.

Who's pissed off? Why do you get so entangled with the thought of women's sports getting publicity when there is some? Why should you care? Is it your dollars that are being spent on the publicity? You have the choice of changing the channel, turning your eyes away from a printed ad, or muting the radio when a women's sports team or event is announced on the radio.

Getting consumed with being pissed off about the advances of women's sports and women breaking down opponents' walls takes away from your concentration on your skills and talents and honing them.

You have no clue as to what the comments about equal opportunity mean.

What girls' baseball team are you speaking of?

[NotAboutEgo]

You used a horrible example. Here is a better analogy: If a student in a class is not as smart as another, they are inferior. Therefore, they deserve a lesser grade.

It's not a horrible example. Publicity is attention. A grade is a rating system. Publicity is a way of promoting, and it doesn't necessarily bode what is seen as "better". It doesn't determine the quality of something.

However, to go with your analogy, here is where yours breaks down: There is a big difference between school and professional sports. Everyone has the right to an education, not everyone has the right to a professional athletic career. If your argument applied, Chris Woodward would have as much publicity as Barry Bonds. Unfortunately for women, in the world of sports, strength is a factor in productivity, and not all athletes are equal.

When I speak of publicity, I'm not necessarily speaking of pro sports... so start looking outside the cave. I never once referred solely to pro sports when it comes to publicity. There are plenty of inequalities in the publicity of amateur sports across the board. HS is a perfect example. Women's sports don't get nearly the same publicity as men's sports do... much less, the same support in terms of equipment, practice time, scheduling, etc. The same goes for women's sports in colleges.

School and professional sports are completely different. You can't treat athletes equally. If you could, there would be no such thing as competition, and really, no such thing as sports.

Again, look outside the cave and think in terms of sports in general. Amateur sports cover a LOT more territory than pro sports do.

[captlid]

So what type of environment is fertile ground for making a women's mlb?

What would have to happen for something like this to take off? Besides the obvious of ticket buyers.

[NotAboutEgo]

So what type of environment is fertile ground for making a women's mlb?

What would have to happen for something like this to take off? Besides the obvious of ticket buyers.

Besides ticket buyers, you'd have to have investors/sponsors. But, before creating a WMLB, it would be best to create the infrastructure to develop players further... create minor leagues, create and develop women's baseball in college and HS and also in youth leagues, etc. It would also be wise for USA Baseball to develop more women's national teams. It would be no different than the development of the MLB and its infrastructure.

[metfan13]

If you are going with the attitude that anything that is inferior to anything else shouldn't get any publicity, then why is the Little League World Series publicized? It's very inferior to MLB. Why should any collegiate baseball get publicized? It's very inferior to MLB. Since MLB is the absolute top, why should ANY other baseball get ANY publicity at all??? Why should team A get any publicity if it's inferior to team B? Men's ski jumping is inferior to women's ski jumping, so why should men's ski jumping get ANY publicity during the Olympics, and why should it even be in the Olympics?
When women do get publicity for sports, a lot of the time it's negative publicity (especially publicity from the past). There is plenty of historical evidence to prove this. If you need some to enlighten you, let me know. Negative publicity and lack of publicity comes from people's attitudes and the conceptions of their minds. Each person chooses their own attitudes; therefore, they're a reflection of them and who they are.

Could you provide any evidence to back that up? Men's world record distances are greater than women's.

From what I could find ski jump has not been included because few countries would be able to send competitors. It's not a widespread sport. I do see that women's ski jump will be added to other international competitions over the next couple of years.

[SABR Steve]

It looks like two world's colliding, and the end result will be wherever the market place or the interest takes it.
I like to watch the gals play sport. In many ways they rely on the fundamentals more to make up for the lack of upper body strength.
Women can be every bit as athletic as the men, it's the strength factor that often leaves them behind.
Intersting discussion.

[MSUlaxer27]

I'm torn because I'm attracted to women who are athletic (ie. have played sports and are interested in sports) but I have absolutely no interest in watching women that I'm not involved with/friends with play sports. Some on here may call my attitude sexist, but I'm being honest and acknowledge that my thoughts are somewhat hypocritical. I have almost no desire to watch a woman's major league (like not taking free tickets to the WNBA) and I wonder how many more out there think like me?

Before NAE uses my post to say I've proved her point that it's just about changing perceptions and publicity, I will say that I do not believe that men and women are equal athletically and I only support (ie. buy tickets) for sporting events that are the top level (ie. NCAA div 1, and pro sports) unless I am personally related to the event (ie. I attend 1 game each year at my high school). I'm sure (I hope) that I'm not the only one who thinks this way. How do you change my (our) opinion.

[captlid]

Why would we wish to change your opinion? If you think that only men's pro sports are worth supporting monetarily cause they are the best, nothing we can do will change that.

Glad you like athletic women. Cause most guys I meet are scared around them. Or at least insecure.

[NotAboutEgo]

It looks like two world's colliding, and the end result will be wherever the market place or the interest takes it.
I like to watch the gals play sport. In many ways they rely on the fundamentals more to make up for the lack of upper body strength.
Women can be every bit as athletic as the men, it's the strength factor that often leaves them behind.
Intersting discussion.

I agree with you. It has to do with core strength as well. Many people think that women are inferior in skill and talent to men just because they aren't as big or as strong as men on average. They can't seem to separate the size and strength factor from skill and talent. If women and men were equal in size and strength, I bet none of this discussion would be taking place.

[NotAboutEgo]

I'm torn because I'm attracted to women who are athletic (ie. have played sports and are interested in sports) but I have absolutely no interest in watching women that I'm not involved with/friends with play sports. Some on here may call my attitude sexist, but I'm being honest and acknowledge that my thoughts are somewhat hypocritical. I have almost no desire to watch a woman's major league (like not taking free tickets to the WNBA) and I wonder how many more out there think like me?

Before NAE uses my post to say I've proved her point that it's just about changing perceptions and publicity, I will say that I do not believe that men and women are equal athletically and I only support (ie. buy tickets) for sporting events that are the top level (ie. NCAA div 1, and pro sports) unless I am personally related to the event (ie. I attend 1 game each year at my high school). I'm sure (I hope) that I'm not the only one who thinks this way. How do you change my (our) opinion.

When you say you don't believe men and women are equal athletically, are you talking about skill and talent, or are you talking about size and strength... because they are different. Just want to get your viewpoint. Saying that the two aren't equal athletically is really general.

IMO... one reason some people only want to see top events is because they are more interested in power and strength and are less interested in strategy. Our society likes to focus on "who's the biggest, who's the strongest, who's going to dominate the most because of power." It's very evident with what types of movies and TV shows are the most popular... the action, the drama/crime, the gory, and the shoot 'em up/blow 'em up movies. Our society gives less clout to movies that are uplifting, that are emotional, that involve more thinking to figure out. Those are seen as "weak" movies. This carries over into sports, along with the marketing and hipe that makes certain sports popular. It's evident when players who are less powerful and who succeed by strategy and talent and skill over power are less popular than the ones who succeed more by power. Take Placido Polanco, for example. He's a hitting genius and proves it day after day on the field. He's also one of the best fielders in the game. But, he's not one of the most popular players in the league, because he's not a power player.

It all boils down to attitudes. If people are focusing more on power and strength, it will determine what they are interested in. If they focus more on strategy and skill and talent and less on power and strength, their choices probably will be different most of the time.

Most people spend more time living on the outside and rarely ever live on the "inside". Because of it, our society has problems dealing with emotions, and that has every bit to do with the attitudes of society and what happens on the outside. Our society, at least in the U.S., is negative more than it is positive. It breeds feelings of insecurity which equates to fear which equates to the "need" for power and control and dominance because of the insecurity. That's what creates the attitudes of our society, and it is what influences our interests and our actions. Our actions are a reflection upon what/who we become.

Of course, this could be another topic of conversation, even though it relates to what we're talking about but isn't the main topic.

[metfan13]

I offer Ichiro as an example of a very popular player who does not succeed all by power and strength.

I also think that when most people say they prefer to watch the best they are combining all aspects power, speed, strength, strategy, skill, etc. To disregard the power/strength side is as unfair as dismissing the strategy/skill side.

When people say they want to watch the best, that means they want to watch the player/team that would win in a competition. Therefore, the best.

[NotAboutEgo]

I offer Ichiro as an example of a very popular player who does not succeed all by power and strength.

I also think that when most people say they prefer to watch the best they are combining all aspects power, speed, strength, strategy, skill, etc. To disregard the power/strength side is as unfair as dismissing the strategy/skill side.

When people say they want to watch the best, that means they want to watch the player/team that would win in a competition. Therefore, the best.

Yes, but Ichiro is unique. He's one of the few who is popular without the power numbers. Who are the most popular? Most are the ones with the power numbers. There are very few who don't have power numbers who are popular.

I don't agree with dismissing the power/strength side, either. But, it doesn't mean someone isn't good or even great without that same power and strength.

Let's take Polanco again, for an example. Here are some of his stats from 2007 (taken from the Tigers web site)...

Established career highs with 105 runs scored, 200 hits, 36 doubles and 67 RBI in his third season with Detroit. Third in the American League with a .341 batting average, while he was fifth with 200 hits and 10th with 105 runs scored. Toughest batter to strike out in the American League, fanning once every 21.4 plate appearances.

Polanco only had 30 K's and 37 BB's all season... in 587 AB's in 142 games. That's astonishing.

Now let's compare Polanco to Sheffield, another great hitter and probably the hitter with the most power. Polanco had 30 K's, 37 BB's, 9 HR's, a .341 BA, a .388 OBP, and a .458 SLG. Sheffield had 71 K's, 84 BB's, 25 HR's, a .265 BA, a .378 OBP, and a .462 SLG.

Who's the better hitter? Power and strength certainly add to the mix, but they aren't everything. Now, how would a woman do if she received the same type of training and the exact same types of opportunities as these guys received to develop their talents and skills? Perhaps she wouldn't have as much power as most MLB players, but it doesn't mean she wouldn't be able to be a very successful player. And contrary to popular belief, it doesn't take the most size and strength the be able to make solid contact with the ball while hitting, and it doesn't take the most strength and size to learn to be a great hitter and to do other things well. It takes a combination of things, and size and strength aren't always the most important.

Some people like to discredit women and put them down because they lack the size and strength of men, and then they go on to say that women aren't as skilled or talented athletically because they lack the size and strength. I agree that size and strength play an important factor and have never refuted that. But, when size and strength don't play important factors or aren't the most important factors, then the results may be different.

[metfan13]

There are many popular players, Jose Reyes is another, who don't depend on the power game. There always have been. Guys like Rose, Carew, Boggs, Gwynn. On the other hand even these guys used way more strength that even your most athletic women, to be able to play baseball at the level they did.

You have to be very strong to last a long time in the game even as a non-power player.

[NotAboutEgo]

From what I could find ski jump has not been included because few countries would be able to send competitors. It's not a widespread sport. I do see that women's ski jump will be added to other international competitions over the next couple of years.

Interesting... these sites are to the contrary of what you're saying about there not being enough countries with women ski jumpers to participate in the olympics. Also, according to final results and the required number of participating countries for a sport to be added to the Olympics, men's ski jumping doesn't qualify.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1283679.shtml


http://www.womensskijumpingusa.com/timeline.htm

WOMEN'S SKI-JUMPING MYTHS

1. There are not enough women involved in competition-level ski-jumping.

ANSWER = The Official FIS web site lists 142 women ski-jumpers, of which 109 are actively competing.

2. There are not enough contries involved in competition-level ski-jumping.

ANSWER = 14 countries are currently active in Women's Ski-Jumping - Austria, Canada, Czech, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Swizterland, Sweden, USA.

3. This is a new discipline, new event and requries extensive review and (sub) committee approvals.

ANSWER=Ski-jumping has been an Olympic sport since 1924. This is not a new discipline or new event. It only requires additional time allocation to allow the women to jump.



http://www.skijumpingcentral.com/behind.htm

Flying Females - Featured Forerunners
Women's ski jumping growing in U.S. and internationally
Although there's not yet a women's ski jumping event at the Olympics, the growth of the sport over the last ten years has been spectacular. Some of the forerunners (trial riders prior to competition) at each of the 2002 Olympic events were women.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147829/



http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscop...mping_wom.html

Ski jumping women grounded
The documentary Jump Like a Girl follows U.S. women who have taken up the sport and the cause of ski jumping. Today, an unhappy ending was tacked onto the film. Women's ski jumping did not make the cut for the 2010 Olympics.

The Olympic charter specifies the criteria for including new events in the Games. (Scroll to page 89 of this PDF file.) At least, the powers that be think it does. It's actually a little muddled. A "sport" must be practised by at least 25 countries on three continents for inclusion in the Winter Games (article 47.1.2), but an "event" needs 35 (47.3.3)? What?

One commentary from Park City, Utah, where the U.S. ski jumpers of both genders train, says of the Olympic charter's 1991 modification: "This loophole has grandfathered in the discrimination against women ski jumpers and continues to allow the IOC to add less developed sports."

Ski jumping and Nordic combined are the only sports in the Winter Olympics open only to men. In the Summer Games, boxing is currently single-gender, though women's boxing is lobbying for inclusion. The other men-only sport, baseball, is on its way out of the Games, along with softball. That will leave synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics as the only sports open only to women.

The IOC also ruled out several "team" events (Alpine skiing, luge, bobsled, skeleton) and a couple of mixed events (biathlon relay, curling doubles).

Making the cut: Skicross (or, by its X Games name, Skier X), which is like snowboardcross except with ski poles and the skis themselves adding to the injury risk. The reaction from Off Wing Opinion: "Why not give them rifles and grenades too? Is that extreme enough for you?"

Snowboardcross was a hit in Torino, and it has been retained for future Games.


Thia last story I posted is VERY interesting. It states that at least 25 countries from at least 3 continents need to be represented in order for a sport to be added to the Olympics. I then looked up the 2006 Olympic results of ski jumping (remember... this is only men's ski jumping). I looked at the individual final rankings for Normal Hill and Large Hill... the two events I saw posted. After counting countries, I found that there are JUST 18 on the list. That seems to be a bit under the "required" 25 countries. In addition, in the Men's K120 Team (interesting how they list it as Men's when there's no women's ski jumping in the Olympics), there are only 16 countries listed in the final results. Also, women's international ski jumping includes 14 countries currently... just 4 under the number of countries participating in men's Olympic ski jumping. Seems that this is about politics and discrimination and stereotypes.

I also find it interesting that most (maybe all... I'm not an expert on foreign names) of the members of the voting committee are men. Hmmmmmmm... It seems to me like there's enough interest and there are enough countries that are already participating in it for women's ski jumping to be added.

[NotAboutEgo]

There are many popular players, Jose Reyes is another, who don't depend on the power game. There always have been. Guys like Rose, Carew, Boggs, Gwynn. On the other hand even these guys used way more strength that even your most athletic women, to be able to play baseball at the level they did.

You have to be very strong to last a long time in the game even as a non-power player.

You have to be very conditioned and in great shape. Don't even get on that kick, that women aren't strong enough to last long playing a sport at a professional level. We have babies, so give me a break!

[metfan13]

You have to be very conditioned and in great shape. Don't even get on that kick, that women aren't strong enough to last long playing a sport at a professional level. We have babies, so give me a break!

And what does one have to do with the other? You're talking about women competing on a level with men in baseball and/or other sports. While more than strength comes into play, strength, even for those men whose game doesn't depend on it (as compared to other men) still gives them a decided advantage over women.

[metfan13]

Interesting... these sites are to the contrary of what you're saying about there not being enough countries with women ski jumpers to participate in the olympics. Also, according to final results and the required number of participating countries for a sport to be added to the Olympics, men's ski jumping doesn't qualify.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1283679.shtml


http://www.womensskijumpingusa.com/timeline.htm

WOMEN'S SKI-JUMPING MYTHS

1. There are not enough women involved in competition-level ski-jumping.

ANSWER = The Official FIS web site lists 142 women ski-jumpers, of which 109 are actively competing.

2. There are not enough contries involved in competition-level ski-jumping.

ANSWER = 14 countries are currently active in Women's Ski-Jumping - Austria, Canada, Czech, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Swizterland, Sweden, USA.

3. This is a new discipline, new event and requries extensive review and (sub) committee approvals.

ANSWER=Ski-jumping has been an Olympic sport since 1924. This is not a new discipline or new event. It only requires additional time allocation to allow the women to jump.



http://www.skijumpingcentral.com/behind.htm

Flying Females - Featured Forerunners
Women's ski jumping growing in U.S. and internationally
Although there's not yet a women's ski jumping event at the Olympics, the growth of the sport over the last ten years has been spectacular. Some of the forerunners (trial riders prior to competition) at each of the 2002 Olympic events were women.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147829/



http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscop...mping_wom.html

Ski jumping women grounded
The documentary Jump Like a Girl follows U.S. women who have taken up the sport and the cause of ski jumping. Today, an unhappy ending was tacked onto the film. Women's ski jumping did not make the cut for the 2010 Olympics.

The Olympic charter specifies the criteria for including new events in the Games. (Scroll to page 89 of this PDF file.) At least, the powers that be think it does. It's actually a little muddled. A "sport" must be practised by at least 25 countries on three continents for inclusion in the Winter Games (article 47.1.2), but an "event" needs 35 (47.3.3)? What?

One commentary from Park City, Utah, where the U.S. ski jumpers of both genders train, says of the Olympic charter's 1991 modification: "This loophole has grandfathered in the discrimination against women ski jumpers and continues to allow the IOC to add less developed sports."

Ski jumping and Nordic combined are the only sports in the Winter Olympics open only to men. In the Summer Games, boxing is currently single-gender, though women's boxing is lobbying for inclusion. The other men-only sport, baseball, is on its way out of the Games, along with softball. That will leave synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics as the only sports open only to women.

The IOC also ruled out several "team" events (Alpine skiing, luge, bobsled, skeleton) and a couple of mixed events (biathlon relay, curling doubles).

Making the cut: Skicross (or, by its X Games name, Skier X), which is like snowboardcross except with ski poles and the skis themselves adding to the injury risk. The reaction from Off Wing Opinion: "Why not give them rifles and grenades too? Is that extreme enough for you?"

Snowboardcross was a hit in Torino, and it has been retained for future Games.


Thia last story I posted is VERY interesting. It states that at least 25 countries from at least 3 continents need to be represented in order for a sport to be added to the Olympics. I then looked up the 2006 Olympic results of ski jumping (remember... this is only men's ski jumping). I looked at the individual final rankings for Normal Hill and Large Hill... the two events I saw posted. After counting countries, I found that there are JUST 18 on the list. That seems to be a bit under the "required" 25 countries. In addition, in the Men's K120 Team (interesting how they list it as Men's when there's no women's ski jumping in the Olympics), there are only 16 countries listed in the final results. Also, women's international ski jumping includes 14 countries currently... just 4 under the number of countries participating in men's Olympic ski jumping. Seems that this is about politics and discrimination and stereotypes.

I also find it interesting that most (maybe all... I'm not an expert on foreign names) of the members of the voting committee are men. Hmmmmmmm... It seems to me like there's enough interest and there are enough countries that are already participating in it for women's ski jumping to be added.

I read the first article you posted and in it it mentions numbers who jump, but also questions whether many are even competitive.

I'm also still looking for the data that shows, as you claimed, that women jump farther than men.

[metfan13]

And let me just say that personally, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a women's ski jump competition at the Olympics. But apparently they have rules where you need to have a certain number of international competitions first, then there needs to be enough countries participating, etc.

[NotAboutEgo]

And what does one have to do with the other? You're talking about women competing on a level with men in baseball and/or other sports. While more than strength comes into play, strength, even for those men whose game doesn't depend on it (as compared to other men) still gives them a decided advantage over women.

Think about it. Being pregnant and having a baby is VERY physically demanding and is very hard on the body and also on the emotions (because of spiking hormone levels). That's almost a whole year of physically supporting not only yourself, but another person as well... eating enough, eating right, the physical strain and pain, carrying around excess weight, etc. It's even harder on the body than playing pro sports. Millions and millions of women throughout time have had 10 or more children in their lifetime. My maternal great grandmother had 11 children... all around 2 years apart from the next one. That's over 20 years of being pregnant and having babies. Since a woman is pregnant for around 9 months, that leaves just around 3 months of each of year that my great grandmother wasn't pregnant for those 20+ years.

Now, you're saying a woman wouldn't be able to sustain a pro sports career for 10... 15... 20 years? Give me a break!

So, if a woman was able to compensate for not having as much strength as men do, by training harder, by honing her skills more, by preparing enough, by having enough talent... she would still be able to compete and be successful... even if some men have a just a slight strength and size advantage.

And the point of comparing a Polanco to a Sheffield was to show that even though Sheffield has way more power, Polanco is by far the better hitter as a whole, as is shown by his level of success. I'd take a team full of Polanco's over a team full of power hitters. I'm not degrading power hitters, but Polanco-type hitters are going to give you more day in and day out and therefore, will give you more production.

[NotAboutEgo]

Oh, I forgot. Then, there's the recovery time after having a baby.

[metfan13]

Think about it. Being pregnant and having a baby is VERY physically demanding and is very hard on the body and also on the emotions (because of spiking hormone levels). That's almost a whole year of physically supporting not only yourself, but another person as well... eating enough, eating right, the physical strain and pain, carrying around excess weight, etc. It's even harder on the body than playing pro sports. Millions and millions of women throughout time have had 10 or more children in their lifetime. My maternal great grandmother had 11 children... all around 2 years apart from the next one. That's over 20 years of being pregnant and having babies. Since a woman is pregnant for around 9 months, that leaves just around 3 months of each of year that my great grandmother wasn't pregnant for those 20+ years.

Now, you're saying a woman wouldn't be able to sustain a pro sports career for 10... 15... 20 years? Give me a break!

So, if a woman was able to compensate for not having as much strength as men do, by training harder, by honing her skills more, by preparing enough, by having enough talent... she would still be able to compete and be successful... even if some men have a just a slight strength and size advantage.

And the point of comparing a Polanco to a Sheffield was to show that even though Sheffield has way more power, Polanco is by far the better hitter as a whole, as is shown by his level of success. I'd take a team full of Polanco's over a team full of power hitters. I'm not degrading power hitters, but Polanco-type hitters are going to give you more day in and day out and therefore, will give you more production.

And again, what does one have to do with the other?

That's like saying, if I can run marathons I can have a successful baseball career.

As for Polanco vs. Sheffield, I think you can get a lot of arguements that the Sheffield type is the more valuable player. but all I was doing was giving a few examples of nonpowers who were successful/famous, etc.

[NotAboutEgo]

And again, what does one have to do with the other?

That's like saying, if I can run marathons I can have a successful baseball career.

As for Polanco vs. Sheffield, I think you can get a lot of arguements that the Sheffield type is the more valuable player. but all I was doing was giving a few examples of nonpowers who were successful/famous, etc.

It's NOT saying the same thing. Running a marathon and having a successful baseball career require a different set of skills and talents. Yet, both require physical endurance and conditioning and training. You were talking about strength. If women have the strength to have babies for years and are able to endure it... then they have the strength to play pro sports for a number of years, since having a baby is way more physically demanding. And women DO train to have babies to make the birth process easier. The more one trains, the more they will be prepared. THAT'S the connection.

People who focus on power over production might argue that Sheffield is more valuable. Both are extremely valuable. They compliment one another in their talents and skills... therefore, they are both extremely important to the team. But, Polanco has proven he produces more. Sure, when Sheffield hits the ball, it's a bit more dramatic than when Polanco hits the ball. But, Polanco hardly ever is unsuccessful at getting on base. Polanco was 2nd in hits with the Tigers in 2007 (200) and Sheffield was 7th (131). Polanco had 36 doubles and Sheffield had 20, while Polanco had 3 triples and Sheffield had 1. Polanco had 269 TB's and Sheffield had 228, despite Sheffield having around 2.5 times more BB's than Polanco. Sheffield beat Polanco in runs, RBIs, HRs and SLG. Polanco just knows how to hit... period. Each one has different talents and skills that help them more than others, but power isn't the most dominating factor at all. It's just one of them.

[JeepingBaseball]

oh my god.... the subject that will never cease or die lol

gone for a couple of months and i havent missed a thing!

[NotAboutEgo]

Core strength to be able to hit a baseball far or to be able to throw a baseball hard is not the same as having the strength to endure/persevere a long baseball season. The strength to endure/persevere has to do more with physically conditioning and training and also with the power of one's mind. It's not about sheer core muscle mass/strength or physical size.

[metfan13]

It's NOT saying the same thing. Running a marathon and having a successful baseball career require a different set of skills and talents. Yet, both require physical endurance and conditioning and training. You were talking about strength. If women have the strength to have babies for years and are able to endure it... then they have the strength to play pro sports for a number of years, since having a baby is way more physically demanding. And women DO train to have babies to make the birth process easier. The more one trains, the more they will be prepared. THAT'S the connection.

People who focus on power over production might argue that Sheffield is more valuable. Both are extremely valuable. They compliment one another in their talents and skills... therefore, they are both extremely important to the team. But, Polanco has proven he produces more. Sure, when Sheffield hits the ball, it's a bit more dramatic than when Polanco hits the ball. But, Polanco hardly ever is unsuccessful at getting on base. Polanco was 2nd in hits with the Tigers in 2007 (200) and Sheffield was 7th (131). Polanco had 36 doubles and Sheffield had 20, while Polanco had 3 triples and Sheffield had 1. Polanco had 269 TB's and Sheffield had 228, despite Sheffield having around 2.5 times more BB's than Polanco. Sheffield beat Polanco in runs, RBIs, HRs and SLG. Polanco just knows how to hit... period. Each one has different talents and skills that help them more than others, but power isn't the most dominating factor at all. It's just one of them.

You're talking about different kinds of strengths with your analogy just as I am.