Insane sports theories/ideas

Insane sports theories/ideas
Posted by Wolfman on 20 Jul, 2011 01:05
Inspired by the convo in the Women\'s World Cup thread. Here are a couple of my long-time ones and one new one.

The Hockey Double-Goalie Theory
A hockey goal is 6 feet wide by 4 feet high. If you stack two very large men (6\'2, 300 or bigger) on top of each other, they could block up the entire opening. It would be impossible to score. Then you would just play 4-on-5 needing one "shorthanded" goal over the entire game to win and no chance of losing. This "shorthanded" goal would be easier to get than you might think because you could play extremely aggressive offense because there is no need rush back to defend at all. If a team did this for a whole season, they would probably win 2/3 of their games and tie 1/3 of their games 0-0, which would easily land them the #1 seed in the postseason tournament and they would not be beatable in a playoff game. There is a rule that only one player can wear goalie pads, but there is no rule against the double goalie and they would not both have to wear goalie pads.

The Baseball Armored Defense Theory
On defense, you have your regular pitcher, catcher, and first baseman. You then take the other 6 fielders and get them into heavy, heavy armor and have them stand 1-2 feet from home plate. Three guys shoulder-to-shoulder on the left and three on the right with about a 2-foot gap in the middle for the pitch to go down. Any hit will either
1. go straight into the armored defense such that any of them can pick the ball up and lob to first base for the out.
2. A straight popup that the defense can catch
3. A hit right up the middle can be fielded by the pitcher.

There is no rule against this.

The Baseball Catcherless Theory
If there are less than two strikes in the count and nobody on base, then why do you have a catcher? There is no reason to. Have the catcher play short field. Third strikes have to be caught and every pitch must be caught when runners are on base. But if neither of those conditions are met, then no need for a catcher.

How To Eliminate Kicking From Football
OK, this is a new one I\'m doing right now inspired by wildcoyote\'s dislike for kickers. Obviously this theory is ridiculous, but just for fun, let\'s say you wanted to start a football league but without kicking. How would you have to modify the game?

1. Field goals - completely eliminated. End zone or bust.
2. Extra points - completely eliminated. Two-point conversions only.
3. Kickoffs and punts - Run the same play, except have a guy throw the ball. The best arms can throw the ball 60-70 yards so it works out about the same. For punts, teams would have to declare before the play that the throw was to be ruled as a punt and not as a completion attempt. All other rules for punts vs. throws could then be in place. To keep fake punts in the game, once a team declares "punt" then any throw that ends up complete to a receiver less than ten yards past the line of scrimmage may be considered a completion, while any throw that goes more than ten yards past the line of scrimmage must be ruled a punt.

Teams would probably have a long-throwing specialist so the QB didn\'t risk blowing out his arm on all of the deep throws and didn\'t risk injury on specials teams defense.

There. Kicking is eliminated!

The Basketball No Foulouts Theory
No fouling out in basketball. It\'s asinine. Every personal foul after the fifth on the same player may be considered a technical, but no ejection for personal fouls. In every other sport you have to do something totally egregious to get ejected. Basketball is the only sport where you get ejected for routine gameplay infractions

Unlimited Subs in Soccer
Soccer is plagued by players walking and stalling to recover because there are only 3 subs allowed per game per team so most players have to play the whole game. There would be way more action with unlimited subs and you could have legit sudden-death overtime and none of these silly shootouts. Unlimited subs on your own throw-ins and corners, and on either side\'s goal kick. 20-man roster.

#1 Reply
Posted by Drew_Kingsley on 20 Jul, 2011 10:26
Quote from: Wolfman;271187
The Basketball No Foulouts Theory
No fouling out in basketball. It\'s asinine. Every personal foul after the fifth on the same player may be considered a technical, but no ejection for personal fouls. In every other sport you have to do something totally egregious to get ejected. Basketball is the only sport where you get ejected for routine gameplay infractions.
Whether knowingly or not, the one is actually based on a real rule (sort of).

Currently, if a player fouls out and there is no legal substitute remaining, that player may remain in the game. However, any foul committed by said player will entail one additional free throw (i.e. a non-shooting foul earns one shot, a two-shot foul earns three shots, etc.)

Also, if a team is down to five active players, and one player is injured or ejected, the last player to foul out may return (with the same penalties listed above).

I know this is true in the NBA and NCAA, though I couldn\'t tell you the last time it happened. Probably at one of those D-III or junior colleges that only has six active players to begin with.

#2 Reply
Posted by wildcoyote on 20 Jul, 2011 11:49
Wolfman, to continue our debate from the other thread, the hockey goalie is not equivalent to the NFL kicker. Sure, the goalie has a drastically different skill set from the other 5 players, and has a rep for being softer than the others, but he\'s on the ice for the entire game, and that counts for a lot in my book.

And I don\'t hate kickers. It\'s more that I like players who can contribute to all facets of the game. I like that Welker made a field goal with Miami. I\'m not a Pats fan, but I liked seeing Mike Vrabel catch TDs, Dan Klecko as a blocking fullback, or Troy Brown playing defense.

You were right that personal experience influences my thinking. I played rugby in college and consider it the perfect sport. You see some tremendous kicking in high level rugby. The NFL players are certainly athletic enough to do the same, but they dont spend any time on it because they don\'t have to.

They never will, but if American football changed the rule, you\'d see NFL WR\'s, QBs, or even DT\'s drilling 45 yard field goals on the reg.

#3 Reply
Posted by Drew_Kingsley on 20 Jul, 2011 14:01
This one isn\'t really all that "insane"... in fact, college teams do it regularly.

Suppose Doc Halladay pitches on Sunday, so he is slated to throw his bullpen session on Wednesday. Why not let him throw his 30 pitches in a game?

I know that if a pitcher is returning from injury or working out something in his mechanics, he probably shouldn\'t be facing live hitting on his side-day. But if it\'s just a seasoned vet getting his work under normal circumstances, let him throw a frame or two!

#4 Reply
Posted by zuke583 on 20 Jul, 2011 14:09
Quote from: Drew_Kingsley;271201
This one isn\'t really all that "insane"... in fact, college teams do it regularly.

Suppose Doc Halladay pitches on Sunday, so he is slated to throw his bullpen session on Wednesday. Why not let him throw his 30 pitches in a game?

I know that if a pitcher is returning from injury or working out something in his mechanics, he probably shouldn\'t be facing live hitting on his side-day. But if it\'s just a seasoned vet getting his work under normal circumstances, let him throw a frame or two!

i think there are a lot of interesting things that could be done with baseball, specifically the pitching rotations. i\'d like to see more pitchers pitch shorter outings (think a bullpen with a bunch of guys that can do 3 innings). i think your best pitchers should be finishing games and not starting them. "live" bullpen sessions would fit into this category.

#5 Reply
Posted by Igziabeher on 20 Jul, 2011 15:46
the armored baseball theory is the retardedest thing i\'ve ever read in my life.

#6 Reply
Posted by Wolfman on 21 Jul, 2011 11:06
Quote from: wildcoyote;271194
Wolfman, to continue our debate from the other thread, the hockey goalie is not equivalent to the NFL kicker. Sure, the goalie has a drastically different skill set from the other 5 players, and has a rep for being softer than the others, but he\'s on the ice for the entire game, and that counts for a lot in my book.

And I don\'t hate kickers. It\'s more that I like players who can contribute to all facets of the game. I like that Welker made a field goal with Miami. I\'m not a Pats fan, but I liked seeing Mike Vrabel catch TDs, Dan Klecko as a blocking fullback, or Troy Brown playing defense.

You were right that personal experience influences my thinking. I played rugby in college and consider it the perfect sport. You see some tremendous kicking in high level rugby. The NFL players are certainly athletic enough to do the same, but they dont spend any time on it because they don\'t have to.

They never will, but if American football changed the rule, you\'d see NFL WR\'s, QBs, or even DT\'s drilling 45 yard field goals on the reg.
I agree with everything you say. Watching players play 2-way is great. No other NFL team does this more than the Patriots, which is part of what makes them fun to watch. And I\'m sure there\'s someone on every NFL team who can at least kick a held ball 40 yards and could knock down 45-50 yard FG\'s if they practiced.

This vid\'s for you!
http://www.youtube.com/embed/P0Jsz-fSNd4</a>" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

[QUOTE="zuke583;271202]i think your best pitchers should be finishing games and not starting them. [/QUOTE]
YES. I\'ve totally had this conversation before but forgot about it in my original post.

Baseball Pitching Sequence Theory
Starting pitchers are the best pitchers in the game, yet starters almost never finish the game. It\'s crazy how many games are close in innings 7-9 and being decided by bullpen pitchers who are the least talented pitchers on the team. Like Kyle said, you want your best players in at the end of the game, everyone knows that.

So, the solution is...instead of "closers" you have "openers". Have the bullpen pitch the first two innings of every game, then put in the starter. This makes complete sense for several reasons:

1. You want your best players in at the end of the game.
2. If the bullpen gives up some runs at the beginning, you have the whole game to come back and your best pitcher is coming in too. If your bullpen gives up runs at the end of the game, you\'re screwed.
3. Most teams send out their starting pitchers knowing that the starting pitcher is only going to pitch 6 or 7 innings no matter what. So if they\'re only pitching 6 innings anyways, then have them pitch the 6 most important innings.
4. The pitching team has a lot more control over matchups than they would at the end of the game. The other team will not send in pinch hitters in the first 2 or 3 innings. The pitching team can look at the other team\'s lineup card and plan exactly who will pitch for the first couple of innings to get the best matchups.
5. Having starters pitch innings 3-9 will give them much more experience in pressure situations than pitching innings 1-7. Over the long haul you\'ll develop a much more resilient pitching staff.

Here\'s another way to look at it. Say that basketball had the same sub rules as baseball i.e. a guy can stay in as long as he is playing but once a guy comes out, he\'s out for the rest of the game. Would the Lakers start the game with Bryant, Gasol, Fisher, Bynum, and Odom and finish the last 6 minutes with Artest, Barnes, Blake, Brown, and Walton? Of course not! They would start the lesser guys and gradually bring in the best players so they finished the game with their 5 best players on the court. So why do it any differently in baseball?

The bullpen should open the game, then the starters should come in after. It makes complete sense.

#7 Reply
Posted by Drew_Kingsley on 21 Jul, 2011 12:00
Quote from: Wolfman;271230
The bullpen should open the game, then the starters should come in after. It makes complete sense.

I still think you need to start your starting pitcher. Dallas Braden isn\'t a great pitcher, but last May he went out there one day and his stuff was pretty good. 27 outs later, he threw a perfect game.

But I do think you\'re on to something. Let\'s use the Phillies as an example (because I remember all five of their starters off the top of my head):

Your rotation is: Halladay, Lee, Hamels, Oswalt, Worley

It\'s Halladay\'s start. Lee is unavailable as tomorrow\'s starter. Assuming he threw at least five innings, Worley is unavailable as well. But you\'ve got Hamels and Oswalt for at least one inning/30 pitches apiece.

Of course, this gets even easier when you throw in days off (or if Doc throws a complete game). Plus you still have a couple of mop-up guys so you aren\'t using Hamels in a 13-2 game and hopefully at least one or two reliable arms in the pen (since we\'re talking National League, effectiveness/fatigue aren\'t the only factors involved here).

#8 Reply
Posted by Wolfman on 21 Jul, 2011 17:43
Quote from: Drew_Kingsley;271234
Quote from: Wolfman;271230
The bullpen should open the game, then the starters should come in after. It makes complete sense.

I still think you need to start your starting pitcher. Dallas Braden isn\'t a great pitcher, but last May he went out there one day and his stuff was pretty good. 27 outs later, he threw a perfect game.

True, but this case is an extreme outlier from the norm. Everyday strategy should not be based on an extreme outlier, but rather on the most frequent outcome. The most frequent outcome is that starting pitchers usually pitch 5-7 innings. Without looking it up, I\'d guess that starting pitchers pitch into the 8th inning maybe 20% of the time and get pulled in the 5th inning or earlier maybe 10% of the time. So 70% of all starts go 5-7 innings. That\'s what you need to base your everyday strategy on...not the .000000001% chance of a perfect game. Also, many starters are on strict pitch counts or inning limits from the time they take the mound, so there is no chance of a complete game anyways. If the "Starter" is the best pitcher you have available that day, then have him pitch innings 3-9 or 4-9.

#9 Reply
Posted by Drew_Kingsley on 21 Jul, 2011 22:11
Quote from: Wolfman;271251
Quote from: Drew_Kingsley;271234
Quote from: Wolfman;271230
The bullpen should open the game, then the starters should come in after. It makes complete sense.

I still think you need to start your starting pitcher. Dallas Braden isn\'t a great pitcher, but last May he went out there one day and his stuff was pretty good. 27 outs later, he threw a perfect game.

True, but this case is an extreme outlier from the norm. Everyday strategy should not be based on an extreme outlier, but rather on the most frequent outcome. The most frequent outcome is that starting pitchers usually pitch 5-7 innings. Without looking it up, I\'d guess that starting pitchers pitch into the 8th inning maybe 20% of the time and get pulled in the 5th inning or earlier maybe 10% of the time. So 70% of all starts go 5-7 innings. That\'s what you need to base your everyday strategy on...not the .000000001% chance of a perfect game. Also, many starters are on strict pitch counts or inning limits from the time they take the mound, so there is no chance of a complete game anyways. If the "Starter" is the best pitcher you have available that day, then have him pitch innings 3-9 or 4-9.
I guess my point (which I never really got to in the above post) is that, as you said, your starters are theoretically your best pitchers (Mo Rivera not included). Unless a starter is absolutely incapable of throwing a complete game (i.e. on a pitch count lower than 80), I think you have to start him and see if you can get nine innings out of him.

As for your statement that the late innings are most important, this is true. However, from 1944-2003, teams leading entering the ninth inning won 95 percent of the time (source). This stat includes teams with Hall of Fame closers, teams with "bullpens by committee", complete games and everything else in between.

Your "insane theory" disregards the mental aspect of the game. Pitchers pitch better when they are pitching with a lead and batters hit better with a pitcher they can trust to hold the lead on the mound (I don\'t have a stat for this, but I\'ve covered college baseball for a few years now).

I would imagine that we\'re eventually going to have to "agree to disagree" on this, but I hope my point is now a bit clearer than my previous post.

#10 Reply
Posted by Wolfman on 22 Jul, 2011 00:34
Yeah, this theory definitely disregards the mentality of wuss-ass baseball players (especially pitchers) who can\'t have their routine messed with. This would never fly in the majors if for no other reason than all the crybaby starting pitchers would whine that it messes with their fragile psyche if they come in in the third inning. Here\'s another theory/discussion:

Which sport is played by the biggest wusses or worst athletes?
Baseball players are the biggest wusses in sports. Soccer players are high on the list but at least they run as much in one game as a baseball player runs in a month. NBA players act like wusses but I think that they are actually tough and would act tough if toughness were allowed in the NBA like it used to be. A lot of baseball players are barely even athletic; they just have a physical skill of throwing hard and/or hitting a ball with a stick. But really their physical talent is no greater than, say, someone who\'s great at carpentry. And their athleticism pales in comparison to some of the people at your local gym. SOME baseball players are tough and/or athletic, but as a whole, the MLB players are the least athletic professional athletes and they\'re pretty big wusses too.

#11 Reply
Posted by zuke583 on 22 Jul, 2011 08:33
Quote from: Wolfman;271261
Which sport is played by the biggest wusses or worst athletes?

gotta go with soccer players. flopping is a part of the game. due to the nature of their game, baseball players really don\'t even get the chance to act tough, but at least they don\'t flop