The New Sports (Skateboading, Surfing, Climbing, Karate)

[MisterSG1]

9 hours ago, yoshi said:

Basically agreeing with Rols on these - skateboarding park was more of a spectacle than street although that was entertaining in a watch-through-fingers way seeing who would stay on the board, especially as someone whose encounters with skateboards have only ever ended on the ground . The BMX freestyle was AMAZING, incredible to watch. Charlotte Worthington's gold medal run, nailing it after falling on the first go is probably my highlight of the whole games (along with the shared gold and Italian love-in!), I was screaming at the screen at 4am lol - goosebumps thinking about it. Surfing didn't really grab me at all, but then I've never got sailing either (I know that's British Olympic heresy but oops). Saw some climbing today, it's very impressive to see but I'm still not really sure how the scoring works. And I've never understood baseball but then that's out again in Paris, right? I guess it's back in LA though. I was a bit sceptical about the new sports at first but they've really added to it overall. I should probably check those X Games out, I'm always really into the snowboard stuff at the winter games too - is that actually a Games as such or more like the tennis tour, as it always seems to crop up on BT Sport...

Where are you from? How can someone not understand baseball? I think it’s a simpler game to understand than cricket myself.

Sport climbing is what you said about it, interesting but how the heck does it work? Lowest score wins, but on the third event, the one that basically asks “How high can you get?”, they didn’t do any explanation of the scoring on TV.

[yoshi]

Haha well that might just be a case of being brought up with each sport - I'm from the UK and raised in a family that loves cricket, so I'm fine with that  To be fair to baseball, I understand how you score runs (I played and liked it on Wii Sports), it's more the other technical terms and stuff on the scoreboard that complicate it - I'm sure we'd be the reverse with cricket. And I don't see why the fielders often don't seem to throw it at the diamond area? And you can see it go to the fielders at the bases (as though you'd be run out in Wii Sports) with no batters in view and it's still not called by the commentator as out? And yes I am fully aware of how ridiculous cricket would look on first sight to someone not used to it, especially Tests - but when you know, it's special 

[MisterSG1]

18 minutes ago, yoshi said:

Haha well that might just be a case of being brought up with each sport - I'm from the UK and raised in a family that loves cricket, so I'm fine with that  To be fair to baseball, I understand how you score runs (I played and liked it on Wii Sports), it's more the other technical terms and stuff on the scoreboard that complicate it - I'm sure we'd be the reverse with cricket. And I don't see why the fielders often don't seem to throw it at the diamond area? And you can see it go to the fielders at the bases (as though you'd be run out in Wii Sports) with no batters in view and it's still not called by the commentator as out? And yes I am fully aware of how ridiculous cricket would look on first sight to someone not used to it, especially Tests - but when you know, it's special 

To be fair, I’ve never seen a test, but I know the rules of how one is played. Mostly my experience of watching cricket is T20 length as seen in the IPL.

While the two games are similar, like comparing American football to rugby moreso. The most important difference is the nature of the game, in cricket, we expect the batsmen to score run after run and getting a batsmen out is a big deal. In baseball it’s the opposite, the batter usually will fail and we expect the pitcher/fielding team not to fail.

As I assume you understand the basics of how an “at bat” works, you know 3 strikes, 4 balls, and foul balls, one thing that took me a while to rap my head around in cricket is that the batsmen upon hitting the ball DOES NOT have to attempt to run. The batter in baseball upon hitting a fair ball (between the two foul lines) must attempt to reach first base no matter what. This batter can be put out by being “run out” as in the ball reaching the first baseman before the batter does, or the batter can hit a fly ball and any player who catches this ball will put the batter out. 
 

How baserunning works may be a bit more complicated, but in a nutshell, running to the next base is optional unless the bases before you are occupied, it’s weird to grasp I know trying to explain it. But suppose there’s one man on first base, upon hitting the ball (assuming the batter does not fly out), the runner on first must attempt to run to second and he can be forced out the same way in my example above, like being run out in cricket. That is the second baseman simply needs to step on second with the ball and that puts the runner out. Again, runners can only be forced out if all the bases before them are occupied.
 

One more important thing involving runners involves the situation where the batter flies out. Should the batter fly out, the runners on the bases must return to the base they are on before attempting to advance to the next base if they want to. So even in force situations like I mentioned, if it’s obvious it’s going to be a typical fly out situation, the runner will simply stay at the base they are at or advance far enough so they can easily run back when the ball is caught. If a runner does not “tag up” to the base they were originally on, a fielder who steps on that base with the ball puts the runner out the same way as a force out. For example, imagine a runner on second, and a fly ball is hit to the outfield, it’s caught, that puts the batter out, the runner on second once the ball is caught must return to second base (before trying to advance further) otherwise he will be out as well should the second baseman step on the base with the ball.

As for a base hit, usually defined as when the ball lands in the outfield, the fielders will always throw the ball back, like cricket, the ball returning to the infield is how runners are stopped, either by being put out or stopping them from advancing.

The third out of an inning, no matter how it occurs instantly ends the inning.

Its much easier to explain how it works on the fly if you were watching a game but this is kind of the idea. In North America’s Big 4 Sports Leagues, this is the game where the rules have pretty much remained the same throughout its existence.

[yoshi]

I think that's what has always been a struggle with getting into a baseball game enough to actually focus on what's going on - I love a good Test cricket match, which many people say are really slow but even in a Test match, something will happen with most deliveries even if it's only a single run to change the strike. It's not often you get a long run of balls where nothing happens at all. It also seems like you can have long runs of missing the ball without getting out - I thought it was a strike if you miss, and three of those and you're out? Is it possible for all the batters to get out like in cricket or is it always just those three each innings? One of the fun things about cricket is that in most innings, everyone in the batting team has to bat, even the ones that really can't do it. I get the feeling that baseball is quite hard to explain without a game going on to demonstrate it - again much like cricket :). 

[MisterSG1]

2 hours ago, yoshi said:

I think that's what has always been a struggle with getting into a baseball game enough to actually focus on what's going on - I love a good Test cricket match, which many people say are really slow but even in a Test match, something will happen with most deliveries even if it's only a single run to change the strike. It's not often you get a long run of balls where nothing happens at all. It also seems like you can have long runs of missing the ball without getting out - I thought it was a strike if you miss, and three of those and you're out? Is it possible for all the batters to get out like in cricket or is it always just those three each innings? One of the fun things about cricket is that in most innings, everyone in the batting team has to bat, even the ones that really can't do it. I get the feeling that baseball is quite hard to explain without a game going on to demonstrate it - again much like cricket :). 

In a test match as I understand, each team has two innings, so after everyone is out (except the lone standing batsman) sides switch. Two innings in the sense that each team will get to bat and field twice.

A baseball game instead has nine innings, but instead the batters are on a “lineup” of 9 players, a set order in which the batters bat, once you reach the bottom of the lineup you go back to the top and start over. Since each inning ends when three men are out, that means that each batter will have at least 3 chances at bat. I guess a baseball game would be more like cricket if there was one inning and each team had 27 outs in their half of the inning.

As for strikes/balls, any swing and a miss is a strike yes, but however one can get a strike without swinging if the ball is pitched into a rectangular zone called the “strike zone”. Which wiki has a great explanation. “The strike zone is defined as the volume of space above home plate and between the batter's knees and the midpoint of their torso.”Otherwise, if a pitch is not thrown in the strike zone, it’s called a “ball”, and four balls gives you a “walk”, a free pass to first base. Runners already on base do not advance during a walk unless they are forced to, as in there being a runner on first. Any ball that is hit and lands in the foul territory is counted as a strike but you cannot strikeout on a foul ball. Meaning that with two strikes, hitting a foul ball doesn’t put you out.

Yes, every single batter in theory can be struck out just as in theory every batsmen can be “bowled out”, I think that’s what it’s called. Where the bowler hits the wicket on the “bowl”. What is a pitch called in cricket? But it’s very unlikely for every batter/batsmen to be put out this way.

I remember Wii Sports had just 3 innings but as I said, real baseball has 9 innings, and softball usually has 7 innings as played in the Olympics as well.

[MisterSG1]

Forgot to add, like cricket, all players who play fielding position will also bat except the pitcher (in most leagues, however some like MLB’s National League and NPB’s Central League, the pitcher hits as well) That’s what I like about baseball unlike with say American football where they literally change the entire team when they are on offense or defense..

[Sir Rols]

Just caught the men’s climbing final. Still think it’s a great sport to watch, particularly the lead section (I caught the name this time), but, yeah, i agree that scoring system is REALLY weird and impenetrable. I mean, the final climber - if he reaches one point, the climber who made it highest wins, but if he goes a bit higher himself, he throws the one who didn’t get quite as high into first. Like, what???? But still, it’s a spectacle (particularly for one who is pretty uncomfortable with heights), 

Men’s park skateboarding was also spectacular (and netted Aussie gold!!!!), loved it. But what really impressed me most was they camaraderie between all the competitors - there seemed genuinely supportive of each other and pleased when any of them did well. They all seemed more like good friends having fun than rivals trying to ruthlessly defeat each other. Great role models!

i see Karate has started., I’ll try to catch it, or some replays, later on.

Edited August 6, 2021 by Sir Rols

[Sir Rols]

Baseball, cricket, gridiron etc. it all comes down to what your brought up with, surely, as to what you prefer. 

I played reasonably at cricket when I was at school. Find it boring to watch though. Played the odd softball at school and also been to an MLB game in the US. Also find it boring to watch. Both always seemed to me more to be sports for those who love their statistics, the obsessive who love poring over their copies of Wisdens.

They used to show some of the Americans football games here, where all the time outs and stoppages were cut out. I liked it. Then I attended a few NFL games in the States, and realised that uncut with its constant stoppages, time outs and attacking/defensive line-up changes, it was more like chess than a free-flowing game. Football/soccer I only really catch at World Cup time. It’s okay, guess I just don’t appreciate the nuances. Rugby, though, I grew up on and have close relatives who’ve played professional first grade Rugby League. For the physicality and (mostly) non-stop action, it’s the clear winner of the football stakes for me.

I’ve got a Swedish dad who loves his ice hockey and numbers of Canadian friends who’ve tried to educate me on the sport. I’ve tried watching it at the Olympics - sorry, it leaves me cold.

when it comes to the Olympics the, I gotta say, I’m not an avid watcher of any of the team sports really. I’ll watch finals, but prefer the individual “Olympic” sports. Rugby Sevens is great, bite-sized, fast moving action though.

Edited August 6, 2021 by Sir Rols

[MisterSG1]

Which I’m surprised why you don’t try watching (ice) hockey more often. The NHL is the most free flowing game of the Big 4, and the rules are arguably the easiest to understand. Once you know what offsides and icing are, you’re pretty much good to go. NHL (and I think Olympics) have only three commercial breaks per period, the first stoppage after the clock reaches 14, 10, and 6 minutes remaining.

As for baseball, yes at MLB games, crowds are silent and what not. But ever seen footage of an NPB game? The fans chant all through the game. MLB games have gotten incredibly longer based on the extreme analytical strategy seen in games today, the MLB has been trying to wrestle with ideas to shorten games but still keep the integrity of the game intact. One such idea is a pitch clock, where if the pitcher doesn’t pitch in a certain amount of time, the batter is automatically awarded a ball. As I’ve said, baseball is about tradition, and I’m not exactly comfortable with these changes to the game.

There also is Canadian football which is gridiron with some different rules, such as field size, number of downs, and how the clock moves. But the CFL especially in the GTA has become basically irrelevant especially to those born 1980 or later.

[Nacre]

20 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

Where are you from? How can someone not understand baseball? I think it’s a simpler game to understand than cricket myself.

It's a very confusing sport compared to sports like swimming or association football. Even in North America it is a sport to be enjoyed on the radio while you work in your garage or have a beer with your friends, and not something that people prefer to see on TV like the NFL or NBA.

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

I’ve got a Swedish dad who loves his ice hockey and numbers of Canadian friends who’ve tried to educate me on the sport. I’ve tried watching it at the Olympics - sorry, it leaves me cold.

I think it's one of the sports that is much better in person than on television.  Especially in Canada.

- - -

I agree that if a random European country were going to add a North American sport for the Olympics, then lacrosse is the right choice. Any large European city will have an extra football stadium to use, and group stage games would provide another chance to spread events through the country. And the concept of the sport is basically the same as handball or football/soccer but with sticks, so it should be easily understood for the fans.

[Sir Rols]

It’s all very well discussing the merits of various sports, but ultimately so much comes down to where and how you were nurtured. Growing up with a sport not only gives you a greater appreciation of its subtleties and nuances, but a greater emotional investment in its history and traditions. I may be aware of some of the great sports rivalries like Manchester United versus Liverpool or Canadiens versus Leafs, but I’ve got no personal stake in them. I know of the great underdog stories or losing streaks like the Chicago Cubs or the Red Sox but they hold no personal resonance for me. I can never feel for them the way I’ve experienced the joys and despairs of the rivalry between Balmain/West’s Tigers versus the South Sydney Rabbitohs or the way I can embrace the history, tradition and rivalry of an Ashes Test. There’s no good or bad, right or wrong or better or worse sports, there’s just personal tastes and what you’ve grown to appreciate and care about. 

[Sir Rols]

21 minutes ago, Nacre said:

I think it's one of the sports that is much better in person than on television.  Especially in Canada.

That’s true of so many sports. Nothing beats the electricity and atmosphere of being in a packed stadium full of passionate fans.

On the other hand, while you might experience better atmosphere live, some sports are easier to follow on TV. I’ve been to Olympic swimming and diving, for example, but you don’t get to see what’s happening as well as you do on TV.

[Sir Rols]

Finally caught up with Karate. I’d forgotten, but it reminded me, that I used to have a few Karate-practicing friends and I attended a few tournaments to watch them. That said, it’s another martial arts/combat sport. Not my bag.

[MisterSG1]

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

It’s all very well discussing the merits of various sports, but ultimately so much comes down to where and how you were nurtured. Growing up with a sport not only gives you a greater appreciation of its subtleties and nuances, but a greater emotional investment in its history and traditions. I may be aware of some of the great sports rivalries like Manchester United versus Liverpool or Canadiens versus Leafs, but I’ve got no personal stake in them. I know of the great underdog stories or losing streaks like the Chicago Cubs or the Red Sox but they hold no personal resonance for me. I can never feel for them the way I’ve experienced the joys and despairs of the rivalry between Balmain/West’s Tigers versus the South Sydney Rabbitohs or the way I can embrace the history, tradition and rivalry of an Ashes Test. There’s no good or bad, right or wrong or better or worse sports, there’s just personal tastes and what you’ve grown to appreciate and care about. 

This is a prime example that despite what the CANZUK advocates like to think, culturally (not necessarily politically) Canada is much more similar to the US than the other commonwealth countries despite what many like to think. Certain words are spelled in Canada as in the commonwealth but others aren’t, realise is realize in Canada. I know I’m getting off topic, but I’m sure you guys don’t call the object a shopping cart at a grocery store in Australia.

As for seeing a hockey game in Canada, seeing the Leafs live, it’s nothing exciting, during game play it almost seems like the nearest public library has more of an atmosphere than that place. I’ve seen real fans in games in both Detroit and New Jersey despite the latter supposedly being a struggling team.

The Cubs did manage to win a World Series after 108 years, I wish the Leafs would win a Stanley Cup, hasn’t happened in 54 years….

[yoshi]

11 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

In a test match as I understand, each team has two innings, so after everyone is out (except the lone standing batsman) sides switch. Two innings in the sense that each team will get to bat and field twice.

Yup, that's how it works in a Test match, a one day or T20 match you only get one innings each, of a set number of overs (6 balls), most runs wins. 

A baseball game instead has nine innings, but instead the batters are on a “lineup” of 9 players, a set order in which the batters bat, once you reach the bottom of the lineup you go back to the top and start over. Since each inning ends when three men are out, that means that each batter will have at least 3 chances at bat. I guess a baseball game would be more like cricket if there was one inning and each team had 27 outs in their half of the inning.

So each game is sort-of like three games of cricket? Is there any limit on how long an innings is, or is it just until three are out regardless? 

As for strikes/balls, any swing and a miss is a strike yes, but however one can get a strike without swinging if the ball is pitched into a rectangular zone called the “strike zone”. Which wiki has a great explanation. “The strike zone is defined as the volume of space above home plate and between the batter's knees and the midpoint of their torso.”Otherwise, if a pitch is not thrown in the strike zone, it’s called a “ball”, and four balls gives you a “walk”, a free pass to first base. Runners already on base do not advance during a walk unless they are forced to, as in there being a runner on first. Any ball that is hit and lands in the foul territory is counted as a strike but you cannot strikeout on a foul ball. Meaning that with two strikes, hitting a foul ball doesn’t put you out.

That must be a tough job for an umpire to call? I remember balls from Wii Sports, I don't remember the 4 balls thing but I guess it was there. So if you can only get a strike if you swing, does that mean if the ball goes through that zone but you don't swing, nothing happens?

Yes, every single batter in theory can be struck out just as in theory every batsmen can be “bowled out”, I think that’s what it’s called. Where the bowler hits the wicket on the “bowl”. What is a pitch called in cricket? But it’s very unlikely for every batter/batsmen to be put out this way.

It is bowled out  A pitch is technically called a delivery, but it's usually just called a ball. 6 of them makes an over, at which point the batters (they're usually called batsmen in men's cricket but I'll keep it the same) swap the strike, and a new bowler bowls the next over from the other end. Do you only get to have one pitcher for the whole game?

I remember Wii Sports had just 3 innings but as I said, real baseball has 9 innings, and softball usually has 7 innings as played in the Olympics as well.

Yeah it was 3. Is the end of the 9th the only way the game can end? Even in a Test, the game is called a draw if there's no winner at the end of day 5, but a win can happen at any time, as soon as one side's bowled out twice. Has been known to have 2 day Tests. It's surprising how America, known for having its love of speed, loves a sport almost designed to be as slow as possible...

Don't know how to quote in bits so did my lines bolded. I love ice hockey btw, especially live - saw some games when I was on the continent in 2019, and I'd love to be able to go to some more games domestically (& possibly internationally too) when we're fully free again. The best North American sport (although I must confess to never having watched lacrosse).

[baron-pierreIV]

Still think Ikebana, Origami and Sushi Fish Filleting should have been demo sports this time around.   The Climbing thing looks dumb to me - it's so FAKE!! 

BTW, they removed the Sumo wrestler statue from the Horse Jumping park.  Apparently, it spooked the horses.   Sumo wrestler accused of startling horses removed from Olympics equestrian course | Olympics | stltoday.com 

[MisterSG1]

6 hours ago, yoshi said:

Don't know how to quote in bits so did my lines bolded. I love ice hockey btw, especially live - saw some games when I was on the continent in 2019, and I'd love to be able to go to some more games domestically (& possibly internationally too) when we're fully free again. The best North American sport (although I must confess to never having watched lacrosse).

Some may say we are derailing the thread, I say we aren't, baseball is a new sport technically and I'm simply trying to explain the rules.  

It's often been said a picture is worth a thousand words, so let's start out with one, if this is too big mods, please resize it.

 

In a baseball game, like cricket an inning (yes I know inning is always called innings but bear with me) consists of one team fielding and one team batting, later on they switch sides and the team fielding now bats and vice versa. These two sections of an inning are referred to in baseball as half innings. The visiting team always bats first in a game, so when it's the visiting team's turn to bat, it is referred to the "Top of whatever inning it is", when it's the home team's turn, it is the "Bottom of whatever inning it is", hence in my example, you can see that the Toronto Blue Jays are up to bat, in this game right now it is the "Bottom of the 1st", that graphic with the 1 and the down arrow is a nice touch they use in Toronto. The empty boxes represent the score in each inning thus far, as it is only the bottom of the 1st, the rest are still blank, the Philadelphia Phillies did not score in the Top of the 1st, and thus a zero is placed in that scoreboard called the "line score", to the right of the 9 inning score are three more columns usually (this one has four), the first one is always the RUNS column which is the total score each team has, the other 3 are for "hits", "errors", and "left on base" which are more for stats and do not effect the score at all. "Hits" is a similar statistic for example to say shots on target in a soccer game.

On the left is the Blue Jays lineup, as you can see Bautista is batting, after he bats, whether he gets on base in some way or is out, Donaldson will then bat after him. Down the order we go, after we reach the last batter, Goins, we simply go back up to Bautista again. It is rare that a batter will get to bat twice in an inning, but it does happen occasionally. Any time THREE batters/runners are put out, the inning ends and the other team gets to bat. There is no limit as to how long a half inning can last in theory, but as it is much more difficult to reach base in baseball, rarely does a batter get to bat twice.

Currently, you can also see that in Bautista's "at bat" (at bat being when the batter faces the pitcher) he currently has 0 balls and 2 strikes, there are also 0 out.  But to make it clear, an inning will continue indefinitely until three batters/runners are put out by the fielding team in some way.

In Major League Baseball, games cannot end in ties/draws, if they both have the same score after the Bottom of the 9th, then they will simply play a 10th inning and so on, this is where home advantage becomes interesting, because anytime the home team takes the lead from there on, they win the game, as you can only score when your team is batting. I know games in NPB actually do have ties, but they only happen when games remain tied after the 12th inning. The longest MLB game ever went into 25 innings before it was decided back in 1984!

Also, in regards to score, should the home team be leading at the end of the Top of the 9th, the game is over at this point and the Bottom of the 9th is not played. This is of course because the home team has already won and there's absolutely no way possible they can lose. Think of it like a penalty shootout in soccer, if for example the team kicking first misses the first 3 goals but the second team kicking scores on the first 3 kicks, it's already over because there's no way for the first team to come back, it's completely pointless play.

I presume this would happen in a test match but probably has never happened, where the second team who bats in the first innings scores a colossal amount of runs that even after two innings of the first team batting, they don't get enough runs as the second team batting did in their first innings. I presume a test cricket match would end here as they've technically already won.

 

As for balls and strikes. I should have been more clearer. Any pitch, whether or not it passes through the strike zone or not, if the batter SWINGS at that pitch and misses, it's counted as a strike. If the batter DOES NOT swing, that's where the strike zone is used to determine if it's a strike or a ball. Yes, this is a tough and often controversial part of being a home plate umpire, but they are right the vast majority of the time. Modern broadcasts show the rough image of the strike zone at all times during the game.

That white rectangle is of course the strike zone, if a pitch goes through when the batter doesn't swing, it would be a strike. Should a pitch not pass through the strike zone when the batter doesn't swing, it is a ball. Any swing and a miss regardless of where the ball ends up is a strike. I hope this clears it up. In this broadcast, you can see that it is the Bottom of the 4th, there are no strikes or balls yet, and there is one out. The P: 72 is how many pitches the pitcher has thrown at this point.

 

Now lastly, you asked about pitchers. Baseball is flexible with players changing positions within the game. For instance the third baseman and left fielder in theory could switch positions anytime in the game however, the batting lineup remains the same regardless. When it comes to any actual player substitution, once a player is removed, he CANNOT be used again in that game. Pitchers in MLB rarely make it passed the 5th or 6th inning these days, every team has a bunch of pitchers who take over partway through a game called "relief pitchers". They sit in the bullpen (bullpen being what the area is called for the pitchers) until they get the call to be put into the game. A bullpen has a place for the pitcher to warm up before being put in the game, that is practicing pitches before coming into the game. 

Above is a picture of the Visitors Bullpen at Rogers Centre (Home of the Toronto Blue Jays).

So with pitchers, the pitchers who start the game, usually there's 5 of them, work in a rotation, they only pitch every 5 games (as pitching is strenuous) while the relievers work every game usually. The top reliever in the bullpen is usually designated as the "closing pitcher" and comes in during the 9th inning when their team is winning to "close out" the game and prevent the other team from scoring.

 

So I hoped that helped, if you have any other questions I will be glad to answer them.

[MisterSG1]

Finally, forgot to add, it seems in the Big 4, and in most sports in North America, when scores are listed such for example

Manchester United     2
Chelsea                        0

I think you would think that Man U was the home team in that match, but in nearly all sports reporting except MLS around here, the team on the bottom is the home team, such that if we were speaking about NHL:

Chicago   3
Toronto    5

This would mean that this game took place in Toronto. 

I know I didn't explain it to you in baseball, but Top of the 1st, Bottom of the 1st of course also refers to the position of both teams on the scoreboard, the visting team always bats first and they are always listed first or "on top" while the home team is listed below or "on the bottom".

[yoshi]

17 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

Some may say we are derailing the thread, I say we aren't, baseball is a new sport technically and I'm simply trying to explain the rules.  

It's often been said a picture is worth a thousand words, so let's start out with one, if this is too big mods, please resize it.

 

In a baseball game, like cricket an inning (yes I know inning is always called innings but bear with me) consists of one team fielding and one team batting, later on they switch sides and the team fielding now bats and vice versa. These two sections of an inning are referred to in baseball as half innings. The visiting team always bats first in a game, so when it's the visiting team's turn to bat, it is referred to the "Top of whatever inning it is", when it's the home team's turn, it is the "Bottom of whatever inning it is", hence in my example, you can see that the Toronto Blue Jays are up to bat, in this game right now it is the "Bottom of the 1st", that graphic with the 1 and the down arrow is a nice touch they use in Toronto. The empty boxes represent the score in each inning thus far, as it is only the bottom of the 1st, the rest are still blank, the Philadelphia Phillies did not score in the Top of the 1st, and thus a zero is placed in that scoreboard called the "line score", to the right of the 9 inning score are three more columns usually (this one has four), the first one is always the RUNS column which is the total score each team has, the other 3 are for "hits", "errors", and "left on base" which are more for stats and do not effect the score at all. "Hits" is a similar statistic for example to say shots on target in a soccer game.

I think that might be part of the struggle with baseball - there's almost too much information there! I'd heard of the Top and Bottom thing and kinda worked out that was the gist of it although I didn't know it depended on who's at home. In cricket, who bats first is determined by toss of a coin & the innings re usually called England's first, or India's second for example.

On the left is the Blue Jays lineup, as you can see Bautista is batting, after he bats, whether he gets on base in some way or is out, Donaldson will then bat after him. Down the order we go, after we reach the last batter, Goins, we simply go back up to Bautista again. It is rare that a batter will get to bat twice in an inning, but it does happen occasionally. Any time THREE batters/runners are put out, the inning ends and the other team gets to bat. There is no limit as to how long a half inning can last in theory, but as it is much more difficult to reach base in baseball, rarely does a batter get to bat twice.

Is the order carried over between innings or does the next one start with Bautista again?

Currently, you can also see that in Bautista's "at bat" (at bat being when the batter faces the pitcher) he currently has 0 balls and 2 strikes, there are also 0 out.  But to make it clear, an inning will continue indefinitely until three batters/runners are put out by the fielding team in some way.

In Major League Baseball, games cannot end in ties/draws, if they both have the same score after the Bottom of the 9th, then they will simply play a 10th inning and so on, this is where home advantage becomes interesting, because anytime the home team takes the lead from there on, they win the game, as you can only score when your team is batting. I know games in NPB actually do have ties, but they only happen when games remain tied after the 12th inning. The longest MLB game ever went into 25 innings before it was decided back in 1984!

But the home team bats second, right? So it'd be the end of the innings anyway? Basically it's over once anyone's ahead at the end of an innings?

Also, in regards to score, should the home team be leading at the end of the Top of the 9th, the game is over at this point and the Bottom of the 9th is not played. This is of course because the home team has already won and there's absolutely no way possible they can lose. Think of it like a penalty shootout in soccer, if for example the team kicking first misses the first 3 goals but the second team kicking scores on the first 3 kicks, it's already over because there's no way for the first team to come back, it's completely pointless play.

Makes sense.

I presume this would happen in a test match but probably has never happened, where the second team who bats in the first innings scores a colossal amount of runs that even after two innings of the first team batting, they don't get enough runs as the second team batting did in their first innings. I presume a test cricket match would end here as they've technically already won.

This absolutely can happen in test cricket, and has done - probably more often than you think. If the team batting second gets a lead over the first team, the first team has to reach it before they can even set a target. If they can't reach it before being bowled out, it's game over - which is how you can win by an innings. You normally need a big lead for this to happen, unless you're playing England . If the team batting first can bowl the other team out before they get within 200 of their total, you can enforce the follow on, making the second team bat again immediately - which is how the team batting first can win by an innings.

As for balls and strikes. I should have been more clearer. Any pitch, whether or not it passes through the strike zone or not, if the batter SWINGS at that pitch and misses, it's counted as a strike. If the batter DOES NOT swing, that's where the strike zone is used to determine if it's a strike or a ball. Yes, this is a tough and often controversial part of being a home plate umpire, but they are right the vast majority of the time. Modern broadcasts show the rough image of the strike zone at all times during the game.

That white rectangle is of course the strike zone, if a pitch goes through when the batter doesn't swing, it would be a strike. Should a pitch not pass through the strike zone when the batter doesn't swing, it is a ball. Any swing and a miss regardless of where the ball ends up is a strike. I hope this clears it up. In this broadcast, you can see that it is the Bottom of the 4th, there are no strikes or balls yet, and there is one out. The P: 72 is how many pitches the pitcher has thrown at this point.

Ah right, I see - that does clear it up. That scoreboard is better too, although where is it saying there's one out? there's a 0-0, a dot and an O.

 

Now lastly, you asked about pitchers. Baseball is flexible with players changing positions within the game. For instance the third baseman and left fielder in theory could switch positions anytime in the game however, the batting lineup remains the same regardless. When it comes to any actual player substitution, once a player is removed, he CANNOT be used again in that game. Pitchers in MLB rarely make it passed the 5th or 6th inning these days, every team has a bunch of pitchers who take over partway through a game called "relief pitchers". They sit in the bullpen (bullpen being what the area is called for the pitchers) until they get the call to be put into the game. A bullpen has a place for the pitcher to warm up before being put in the game, that is practicing pitches before coming into the game. 

Above is a picture of the Visitors Bullpen at Rogers Centre (Home of the Toronto Blue Jays).

So with pitchers, the pitchers who start the game, usually there's 5 of them, work in a rotation, they only pitch every 5 games (as pitching is strenuous) while the relievers work every game usually. The top reliever in the bullpen is usually designated as the "closing pitcher" and comes in during the 9th inning when their team is winning to "close out" the game and prevent the other team from scoring.

Ah right. In cricket, anyone can bowl at any time - except in limited overs where there's a maximum per bowler. Putting on a bowler generally seen as rubbish can often get unlikely wickets, as batters relax and can do something silly. Current England captain Joe Root is a good example of this, he's not regarded as a bowler but can get useful wickets. You can also change the batting order at any time, batters at the bottom will often be put out at the end of the day so the top batters don't have to go out for a very short time against a new ball (the ball can be changed after 80 overs).

So I hoped that helped, if you have any other questions I will be glad to answer them.

Thank you  Shame the baseball competition's over now though...congrats to Japan. You should give cricket a try, I know T20 (limited overs, 20 a side, most runs wins) is played in Canada but you're not yet a Test nation  I don't know if Test cricket is shown in Canada at all...

I knew about that away team first thing from hockey...you usually use the @ sign so you know what's going on but I don't know why you do it that way round. I think it's just to be different 

[AmaniS]

Baseball is actually is a calming sport people like to watch on TV. Since there are afternoon and weekday games, it is used for many business meetings. You can talk while watching, but you don't have to be glued to every move like football(soccer).

[Sir Rols]

Okay, we’ve reached the end. I wasn’t prepared to give a rating fr the games overall, but I will rate the new sports.

Skateboarding Street: Overly technical. Seemed to be mainly falling with odd blink and you’ll miss them,  hard to appreciate tricks. 3/10

Skateboarding Park: Far more spectacular and viewer friendly. Added marks for great competitor camaraderie. Exciting. 8/10

Surfing: A bit underwhelming when you’re more used to seeing highlights of big wave competitions in regular news broadcasts. Fun when you saw a halfway decent wave, but they were few and far between, and the weather and beach wereall a bit grey. Bring on Tahiti! 6/10

Climbing: Colourful, fun to watch, awe inspiring watching those competitors hang off tiny slippery toeholds so far up the incline. But points off for confusing  scoring, multiplied by a seemingly chaotic bouldering format and divided by a long competition time, then scored in order across three disparate disciplines. 7/10

Karate: Okay, I saw the least of this, but did catch enough to se a standard martial arts comp. Quick, but not really my thing. 4/10

I’m not considering baseball/softball as a new sport. It was an old timer returning after a hiatus. We all know what it looks like and are either into it or not.

[MisterSG1]

This will be in response again to Yoshi, even though the baseball competition and Olympics is now over. I forgot that he made a lengthy reply to my post and I apologize for not answering back sooner.

On 8/7/2021 at 10:08 AM, yoshi said:

Is the order carried over between innings or does the next one start with Bautista again?

Regarding the lineup, the batting order resumes where you were in the lineup when the third batter/runner was put out. So if let's say the inning ended with Encarnacion striking out, in the next inning, the batting order would resume in their half of the inning with Saunders to bat. In that situation, Saunders, Martin, and Carrera would be guaranteed a chance to bat in the upcoming inning.

On 8/7/2021 at 10:08 AM, yoshi said:

But the home team bats second, right? So it'd be the end of the innings anyway? Basically it's over once anyone's ahead at the end of an innings?

To explain how the endgame works, consider for example the Toronto Blue Jays were facing the Boston Red Sox. Going into the Top of the 9th, the score is 0-0. Boston does not score any runs in the Top of the 9th. So in the Bottom of the 9th, the first batter to bat hits a home run. At this point, Toronto has won the game because as the home team bats second, there's no way for Boston to come back in the 9th inning. The game ends immediately at this point with Toronto winning 1-0.

But let's use our scenario again and say Toronto DOESN'T score in the Bottom of the 9th. Now that the game score remains 0-0, we move to the 10th inning. Now in the Top of the 10th, let's assume Boston scores 2 runs. So the score is 2-0, now in the Bottom of the 10th, Toronto does not score any runs. Of course Boston wins the game with a score of 2-0 in that scenario.

If Toronto in the Bottom of the 10th instead were to even up the score to 2-2 and not score anymore runs, then there would be an 11th inning because the game is still tied.

However, as the home team bats in the second half of an inning, if Toronto were to score THREE runs in the Bottom of the 10th, as soon as that third run was scored they would have taken the lead and the game ends immediately with Toronto winning 3-2. As the home team bats second in an inning, there is no way for the visiting team to score and thus the game is over.

On 8/7/2021 at 10:08 AM, yoshi said:

This absolutely can happen in test cricket, and has done - probably more often than you think. If the team batting second gets a lead over the first team, the first team has to reach it before they can even set a target. If they can't reach it before being bowled out, it's game over - which is how you can win by an innings. You normally need a big lead for this to happen, unless you're playing England . If the team batting first can bowl the other team out before they get within 200 of their total, you can enforce the follow on, making the second team bat again immediately - which is how the team batting first can win by an innings.

So in a test, if we were to think of it like a baseball game, the teams could reverse the batting order for the "Second Innings"? To make myself clear, if say England was facing Australia, England bats first and then Australia bats second. In the second innings, it's possible for Australia to bat first? That's something I wasn't aware of but then again I've never actually witnessed a Test Match even on TV. I've only ever saw the IPL on TV and watching the IPL is how I learned how T20 cricket works.

On 8/7/2021 at 10:08 AM, yoshi said:

Ah right, I see - that does clear it up. That scoreboard is better too, although where is it saying there's one out? there's a 0-0, a dot and an O.

The dots are to resemble lights on an older scoreboard, it's not the best way of getting the point across if you aren't that familiar with the sport. But yeah there is one out because only one of the two dots is lit up. (An inning automatically ends whenever you reach 3 outs so there is no point in showing 3 dots) Other broadcasts would display the Ball, Strike, Out information as "0-0,   1 OUT". Which is precisely how it was done in this most recent Olympics. The "0-0" is the count in the "at bat", number on the left is the amount of Balls and the number on the right is the amount of Strikes. Therefore, if a batter had 2 balls and 1 strike, the "0-0" would appear as "2-1".

 

On 8/7/2021 at 10:08 AM, yoshi said:

Ah right. In cricket, anyone can bowl at any time - except in limited overs where there's a maximum per bowler. Putting on a bowler generally seen as rubbish can often get unlikely wickets, as batters relax and can do something silly. Current England captain Joe Root is a good example of this, he's not regarded as a bowler but can get useful wickets. You can also change the batting order at any time, batters at the bottom will often be put out at the end of the day so the top batters don't have to go out for a very short time against a new ball (the ball can be changed after 80 overs).

Up until 2020, position players (those who play any other position other than pitcher) in MLB could in theory play as pitchers and it has occasionally happened but in very rare situations. Regarding the ball, from my experience seeing a T20 match in Toronto once, this very one below:

Regarding the ball, generally at cricket matches, does a Six ball need to be thrown back? The fan in the audience who catches it can't simply keep it as a souvenir? I was just wondering this because I believe they made you throw them back at that event.

On 8/7/2021 at 10:08 AM, yoshi said:

Thank you  Shame the baseball competition's over now though...congrats to Japan. You should give cricket a try, I know T20 (limited overs, 20 a side, most runs wins) is played in Canada but you're not yet a Test nation  I don't know if Test cricket is shown in Canada at all...

I live in Brampton which has a high Indian population and thus cricket is popular here to a certain extent. In that sense it's seen mostly as an "ethnic game" if that's the right term to use, there are some public cricket pitches in Brampton. I found it amusing in a certain way once that I saw someone on a cricket pitch standing playing as a batsman but wearing a Blue Jays jersey. There was a Global T20 Canada event held in Brampton in 2019, I do wish I knew about this. I didn't even know this temporary facility was even built in Brampton.

On 8/7/2021 at 10:08 AM, yoshi said:

I knew about that away team first thing from hockey...you usually use the @ sign so you know what's going on but I don't know why you do it that way round. I think it's just to be different 

Since we are talking about baseball, it's believed that it's the other way around for most sports here in Canada/USA because the home team bats second in baseball or is the bottom team displayed on the scoreboard. This would make most sense because pro baseball was the first big league in North America, and baseball was the most popular sport at the turn of the 20th century, even in Canada. So it would appear that this kind of sports reporting in baseball simply influenced how other sports were reported.

Another head scratcher is W-L-D vs W-D-L, I believe the second one is the proper way to do it in soccer. But NHL and NFL do report it as W-L-D, while there are no draws/ties in the NHL, the third number is the amount of "overtime losses", where if a team reaches overtime but loses, they still get a point in the standings. NBA and MLB have a winner every game so it's pure W-L.

[Rob2012]

On 8/8/2021 at 5:58 AM, Sir Rols said:

Skateboarding Street: Overly technical. Seemed to be mainly falling with odd blink and you’ll miss them,  hard to appreciate tricks. 3/10

Harsh score!

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Rob.

[yoshi]

13 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

This will be in response again to Yoshi, even though the baseball competition and Olympics is now over. I forgot that he made a lengthy reply to my post and I apologize for not answering back sooner.

Regarding the lineup, the batting order resumes where you were in the lineup when the third batter/runner was put out. So if let's say the inning ended with Encarnacion striking out, in the next inning, the batting order would resume in their half of the inning with Saunders to bat. In that situation, Saunders, Martin, and Carrera would be guaranteed a chance to bat in the upcoming inning.

Ah yeah like a cricket order.

To explain how the endgame works, consider for example the Toronto Blue Jays were facing the Boston Red Sox. Going into the Top of the 9th, the score is 0-0. Boston does not score any runs in the Top of the 9th. So in the Bottom of the 9th, the first batter to bat hits a home run. At this point, Toronto has won the game because as the home team bats second, there's no way for Boston to come back in the 9th inning. The game ends immediately at this point with Toronto winning 1-0.

But let's use our scenario again and say Toronto DOESN'T score in the Bottom of the 9th. Now that the game score remains 0-0, we move to the 10th inning. Now in the Top of the 10th, let's assume Boston scores 2 runs. So the score is 2-0, now in the Bottom of the 10th, Toronto does not score any runs. Of course Boston wins the game with a score of 2-0 in that scenario.

If Toronto in the Bottom of the 10th instead were to even up the score to 2-2 and not score anymore runs, then there would be an 11th inning because the game is still tied.

However, as the home team bats in the second half of an inning, if Toronto were to score THREE runs in the Bottom of the 10th, as soon as that third run was scored they would have taken the lead and the game ends immediately with Toronto winning 3-2. As the home team bats second in an inning, there is no way for the visiting team to score and thus the game is over.

That all makes sense - bit like penalties.

So in a test, if we were to think of it like a baseball game, the teams could reverse the batting order for the "Second Innings"? To make myself clear, if say England was facing Australia, England bats first and then Australia bats second. In the second innings, it's possible for Australia to bat first? That's something I wasn't aware of but then again I've never actually witnessed a Test Match even on TV. I've only ever saw the IPL on TV and watching the IPL is how I learned how T20 cricket works.

It is possible, but only if England bowl Australia out before they've got within 200 runs of England's score. It's called the follow-on, and even then, it's up to England whether they actually make Australia bat again or if they continue as normal. T20 is a very different game to Test cricket - Tests are the pinnacle of the game and a far bigger mental and tactical challenge. T20 is still a form of cricket though, and can be good fun  

The dots are to resemble lights on an older scoreboard, it's not the best way of getting the point across if you aren't that familiar with the sport. But yeah there is one out because only one of the two dots is lit up. (An inning automatically ends whenever you reach 3 outs so there is no point in showing 3 dots) Other broadcasts would display the Ball, Strike, Out information as "0-0,   1 OUT". Which is precisely how it was done in this most recent Olympics. The "0-0" is the count in the "at bat", number on the left is the amount of Balls and the number on the right is the amount of Strikes. Therefore, if a batter had 2 balls and 1 strike, the "0-0" would appear as "2-1".

Ah so it does tell you how many are out!

Up until 2020, position players (those who play any other position other than pitcher) in MLB could in theory play as pitchers and it has occasionally happened but in very rare situations. Regarding the ball, from my experience seeing a T20 match in Toronto once, this very one below:

Regarding the ball, generally at cricket matches, does a Six ball need to be thrown back? The fan in the audience who catches it can't simply keep it as a souvenir? I was just wondering this because I believe they made you throw them back at that event.

I think you do have to throw it back, although tbh I don't know. What matters is that the fielders are irrelevant if the ball crosses the boundary rope. You can't be run out or even caught out behind the boundary (unless you can somehow bring the ball back from over the rope to inside without touching the ground while holding the ball. That has happened.

I live in Brampton which has a high Indian population and thus cricket is popular here to a certain extent. In that sense it's seen mostly as an "ethnic game" if that's the right term to use, there are some public cricket pitches in Brampton. I found it amusing in a certain way once that I saw someone on a cricket pitch standing playing as a batsman but wearing a Blue Jays jersey. There was a Global T20 Canada event held in Brampton in 2019, I do wish I knew about this. I didn't even know this temporary facility was even built in Brampton.

Nice little ground  

Since we are talking about baseball, it's believed that it's the other way around for most sports here in Canada/USA because the home team bats second in baseball or is the bottom team displayed on the scoreboard. This would make most sense because pro baseball was the first big league in North America, and baseball was the most popular sport at the turn of the 20th century, even in Canada. So it would appear that this kind of sports reporting in baseball simply influenced how other sports were reported.

Another head scratcher is W-L-D vs W-D-L, I believe the second one is the proper way to do it in soccer. But NHL and NFL do report it as W-L-D, while there are no draws/ties in the NHL, the third number is the amount of "overtime losses", where if a team reaches overtime but loses, they still get a point in the standings. NBA and MLB have a winner every game so it's pure W-L.

W D L is how it's done in soccer. Doesn't really matter as long as there's a heading on the columns.