Minor things that annoy you-sports edition

[GaryV]

At a restaurant, I saw on one of the TVs a Red Sox uniform with 34 inside a goat outline. This is David Ortiz. Someone seems to be confused about what GOAT means. Unlike Tom Brady, there are multiple teams in baseball with really good designated hitters; while David Ortiz was good, he's not a GOAT.

Agree ... even if you consider Red Sox only players (of all positions), while David Ortiz was one of the best, no way could you rank him above Ted Williams.


(Side note:  first time I was exposed to the term GOAT/goat was in the old Peanuts comic strips where Charlie Brown was always the "goat" (as opposed to "GOAT") for causing his team to lose.  I still do a double-take when I see the term.)

I don't use the term for this reason.  To me a goat is still the person who chokes or fails in the situation he needed to succeed in.

I'm sure that comes from "scapegoat", a person who is blamed for all wrong things. That comes from the Old Testament where all the sins of the people were figuratively placed on the goat who was then driven off into the wilderness.

[NWI_Irish96]

At a restaurant, I saw on one of the TVs a Red Sox uniform with 34 inside a goat outline. This is David Ortiz. Someone seems to be confused about what GOAT means. Unlike Tom Brady, there are multiple teams in baseball with really good designated hitters; while David Ortiz was good, he's not a GOAT.

Would have figured a syringe outline for Ortiz.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

At a restaurant, I saw on one of the TVs a Red Sox uniform with 34 inside a goat outline. This is David Ortiz. Someone seems to be confused about what GOAT means. Unlike Tom Brady, there are multiple teams in baseball with really good designated hitters; while David Ortiz was good, he's not a GOAT.

Agree ... even if you consider Red Sox only players (of all positions), while David Ortiz was one of the best, no way could you rank him above Ted Williams.

Culturally, David Ortiz is a legend, and the Red Sox reached heights never seen before in franchise history when he was part of the team. These things are not always just about stats, as much as some people try to make stats be the be-all-end-all of sports.

If your baseline for stats comparison for Ortiz is Edgar Martinez (a fellow HOF DH with some career overlap), Ortiz blows his stats away.

[Scott5114]

At a restaurant, I saw on one of the TVs a Red Sox uniform with 34 inside a goat outline.

A number inside a goat outline? Are you sure that wasn't just an Alanland route shield?

[hotdogPi]

European football (i.e. soccer) terminology gets two things wrong:

1. A match is supposed to consist of several games, not one.

2. Calling a tie a draw. A tie is when the scores are equal at the end. A draw is pretty much anything else, having a defined meaning in cricket but also existing in games where draw by agreement exists such as chess. In soccer, it should logically be a tie.

[Bruce]

European football (i.e. soccer) terminology gets two things wrong:

1. A match is supposed to consist of several games, not one.

2. Calling a tie a draw. A tie is when the scores are equal at the end. A draw is pretty much anything else, having a defined meaning in cricket but also existing in games where draw by agreement exists such as chess. In soccer, it should logically be a tie.

1. A match can be singular and this isn't just a soccer thing.

2. A "tie" is a synonym for fixture or game in British English, hence why it isn't used to describe a result. While "draw" also has double meaning, at least they are somewhat related (an even result, whether earned in the match or the result of a random selection for competition).

[kphoger]

1. A match can be singular and this isn't just a soccer thing.

Such as cricket, rugby (which is football but not soccer), and boxing (which has multiple rounds but no games).

A match is when two opponents meet to battle it out.  Some matches are properly called 'games', some matches consist of several 'games', some matches consist of sub-units of another name, etc.

[1995hoo]

What I find more annoying on that is media inconsistency. If you look at ESPN.com, for example, all the scores are listed in the normal way (visiting team on top, home team on the bottom)–except soccer scores, and the soccer scores are listed backwards even when they're listed together with the other sports. It's distracting and confusing, and there's no real reason to do that just because the Europeans do it that way (ESPN is not a European news outlet and they don't ordinarily use British spellings for things except proper nouns). Shortly before my father died, we turned on a DC United game and the score was listed as other team whatever, DC whatever. My father looked at it and said it didn't look like Audi Field and I said it wasn't–United were on the road–to which he said, "Wait, but they're listed second, so they're the home team." I said, "Apparently for soccer they do the opposite because the hardcore soccer fans complain if they don't." He was unaware of that and found it quite puzzling that they would inexplicably use a different system just for one sport.

[JayhawkCO]

What I find more annoying on that is media inconsistency. If you look at ESPN.com, for example, all the scores are listed in the normal way (visiting team on top, home team on the bottom)–except soccer scores, and the soccer scores are listed backwards even when they're listed together with the other sports. It's distracting and confusing, and there's no real reason to do that just because the Europeans do it that way (ESPN is not a European news outlet and they don't ordinarily use British spellings for things except proper nouns). Shortly before my father died, we turned on a DC United game and the score was listed as other team whatever, DC whatever. My father looked at it and said it didn't look like Audi Field and I said it wasn't–United were on the road–to which he said, "Wait, but they're listed second, so they're the home team." I said, "Apparently for soccer they do the opposite because the hardcore soccer fans complain if they don't." He was unaware of that and found it quite puzzling that they would inexplicably use a different system just for one sport.

Well, when MLS rolled out, they also tried to have a countdown clock instead of doing it the way the rest of the world does it, which was stupid. At some point, if you want to be a part of the "world's game", American exceptionalism needs to be toned down a bit.

[1995hoo]

What I find more annoying on that is media inconsistency. If you look at ESPN.com, for example, all the scores are listed in the normal way (visiting team on top, home team on the bottom)–except soccer scores, and the soccer scores are listed backwards even when they're listed together with the other sports. It's distracting and confusing, and there's no real reason to do that just because the Europeans do it that way (ESPN is not a European news outlet and they don't ordinarily use British spellings for things except proper nouns). Shortly before my father died, we turned on a DC United game and the score was listed as other team whatever, DC whatever. My father looked at it and said it didn't look like Audi Field and I said it wasn't–United were on the road–to which he said, "Wait, but they're listed second, so they're the home team." I said, "Apparently for soccer they do the opposite because the hardcore soccer fans complain if they don't." He was unaware of that and found it quite puzzling that they would inexplicably use a different system just for one sport.

Well, when MLS rolled out, they also tried to have a countdown clock instead of doing it the way the rest of the world does it, which was stupid. At some point, if you want to be a part of the "world's game", American exceptionalism needs to be toned down a bit.

I agree that using the different clock didn't make sense under the circumstances of that sport. It was something that affected game play and that sort of change is one that requires a great deal of caution. But the order of listing the score has no bearing on gameplay and thus there is no reason to list soccer differently, especially when juxtaposed with all the other sports. That's the main reason for my comment–you have, say, 20 sports scores listed all in a row and you list the soccer scores in the opposite reason from all the others for no reason other than that the Europeans do it that way. That's not much of a reason.

[JayhawkCO]

What I find more annoying on that is media inconsistency. If you look at ESPN.com, for example, all the scores are listed in the normal way (visiting team on top, home team on the bottom)–except soccer scores, and the soccer scores are listed backwards even when they're listed together with the other sports. It's distracting and confusing, and there's no real reason to do that just because the Europeans do it that way (ESPN is not a European news outlet and they don't ordinarily use British spellings for things except proper nouns). Shortly before my father died, we turned on a DC United game and the score was listed as other team whatever, DC whatever. My father looked at it and said it didn't look like Audi Field and I said it wasn't–United were on the road–to which he said, "Wait, but they're listed second, so they're the home team." I said, "Apparently for soccer they do the opposite because the hardcore soccer fans complain if they don't." He was unaware of that and found it quite puzzling that they would inexplicably use a different system just for one sport.

Well, when MLS rolled out, they also tried to have a countdown clock instead of doing it the way the rest of the world does it, which was stupid. At some point, if you want to be a part of the "world's game", American exceptionalism needs to be toned down a bit.

I agree that using the different clock didn't make sense under the circumstances of that sport. It was something that affected game play and that sort of change is one that requires a great deal of caution. But the order of listing the score has no bearing on gameplay and thus there is no reason to list soccer differently, especially when juxtaposed with all the other sports. That's the main reason for my comment–you have, say, 20 sports scores listed all in a row and you list the soccer scores in the opposite reason from all the others for no reason other than that the Europeans do it that way. That's not much of a reason.

I'd argue the other way. I watch plenty of European coverage of soccer and why, just because I'm watching on a U.S. based channel, should it be different? If I'm smart enough to understand the offside rule, I'm smart enough to figure out who's playing at home. 

[NWI_Irish96]

What I find more annoying on that is media inconsistency. If you look at ESPN.com, for example, all the scores are listed in the normal way (visiting team on top, home team on the bottom)–except soccer scores, and the soccer scores are listed backwards even when they're listed together with the other sports. It's distracting and confusing, and there's no real reason to do that just because the Europeans do it that way (ESPN is not a European news outlet and they don't ordinarily use British spellings for things except proper nouns). Shortly before my father died, we turned on a DC United game and the score was listed as other team whatever, DC whatever. My father looked at it and said it didn't look like Audi Field and I said it wasn't–United were on the road–to which he said, "Wait, but they're listed second, so they're the home team." I said, "Apparently for soccer they do the opposite because the hardcore soccer fans complain if they don't." He was unaware of that and found it quite puzzling that they would inexplicably use a different system just for one sport.

Well, when MLS rolled out, they also tried to have a countdown clock instead of doing it the way the rest of the world does it, which was stupid. At some point, if you want to be a part of the "world's game", American exceptionalism needs to be toned down a bit.

When MLS first started, other leagues still had the referee deciding on his own how much extra time to add and there were lot of accusations of unfairness. Since then, they've gone to having the fourth official posting how much extra time is added and that's much easier for fans to handle.

[Henry]

Game 163, which is thankfully eliminated with the introduction of a new playoff format.

I never got why MLB needed an extra regular-season game just to determine who would go to the postseason, because the NFL doesn't play an 18th game (or before 2021, it didn't play a 17th), and the NBA and NHL don't play an 83rd game. I find that pointless and stupid, but at least it's had its memorable moments, like the 1978 AL East tiebreaker between the Yankees and Red Sox that began the legend of Bucky Dent.

[Bruce]

What I find more annoying on that is media inconsistency. If you look at ESPN.com, for example, all the scores are listed in the normal way (visiting team on top, home team on the bottom)–except soccer scores, and the soccer scores are listed backwards even when they're listed together with the other sports. It's distracting and confusing, and there's no real reason to do that just because the Europeans do it that way (ESPN is not a European news outlet and they don't ordinarily use British spellings for things except proper nouns). Shortly before my father died, we turned on a DC United game and the score was listed as other team whatever, DC whatever. My father looked at it and said it didn't look like Audi Field and I said it wasn't–United were on the road–to which he said, "Wait, but they're listed second, so they're the home team." I said, "Apparently for soccer they do the opposite because the hardcore soccer fans complain if they don't." He was unaware of that and found it quite puzzling that they would inexplicably use a different system just for one sport.

Home team first makes sense for 90% of the world, so why bother to change it?

[hotdogPi]

Now, for 1 on 1 sports like boxing, what determines who is listed first? I would expect challenger vs. defending champion to parallel court cases, but it doesn't appear to be that way, and I can't figure out how it's actually done.

[zzcarp]

Game 163, which is thankfully eliminated with the introduction of a new playoff format.

I never got why MLB needed an extra regular-season game just to determine who would go to the postseason, because the NFL doesn't play an 18th game (or before 2021, it didn't play a 17th), and the NBA and NHL don't play an 83rd game. I find that pointless and stupid, but at least it's had its memorable moments, like the 1978 AL East tiebreaker between the Yankees and Red Sox that began the legend of Bucky Dent.

Funny, the elimination of the possibility of Game 163 is entirely annoying and ahistorical. When you play that many games and end up with a tie record, you should play-in each other for the playoffs. It was more important back when we had a balanced schedule (which will thankfully return next year). Also, the Rockies's game 163 in 2007 was perhaps the most exciting baseball game I saw live.

If I'm in baseball complaint mode, I don't like this nonsense of an extra-inning ghost runner on second-it's too much like the shootout endings of college football for my liking. I'm also pretty annoyed with the elimination of the shift next year as well as limiting pick-off throws and implementing the pitch clock. Manfred could be the worst baseball commissioner of all time.

[skluth]

That people have problems with TIE American football games. The game is dangerous enough as it is and to extend the games so one team MIGHT win is stupid. Of course, you need a winner in the playoffs but 60 minutes is enough time to determine a winner. Most of the OT rules, college and pro, are arbitrary and often conflict with the regular game rules. If they're tied, they're tied. If the coaches don't like it, play to win. Especially when you have a choice between going for 1 or 2 after a last second TD.

[hotdogPi]

That people have problems with TIE American football games. The game is dangerous enough as it is and to extend the games so one team MIGHT win is stupid. Of course, you need a winner in the playoffs but 60 minutes is enough time to determine a winner. Most of the OT rules, college and pro, are arbitrary and often conflict with the regular game rules. If they're tied, they're tied. If the coaches don't like it, play to win. Especially when you have a choice between going for 1 or 2 after a last second TD.

I still like the idea of "the team that was most recently ahead wins" .

[NWI_Irish96]

That people have problems with TIE American football games. The game is dangerous enough as it is and to extend the games so one team MIGHT win is stupid. Of course, you need a winner in the playoffs but 60 minutes is enough time to determine a winner. Most of the OT rules, college and pro, are arbitrary and often conflict with the regular game rules. If they're tied, they're tied. If the coaches don't like it, play to win. Especially when you have a choice between going for 1 or 2 after a last second TD.

I still like the idea of "the team that was most recently ahead wins" .

Well, there hasn't been a 0-0 game after regulation in a very long time so I guess that can work.

[jeffandnicole]

I still like the idea of "the team that was most recently ahead wins" .

A team down by 8 with few seconds on the clock has no incentive to try then, since all they can do is lose.

[NWI_Irish96]

I still like the idea of "the team that was most recently ahead wins" .

A team down by 8 with few seconds on the clock has no incentive to try then, since all they can do is lose.

Which is exactly like it is now for a team down by 9. You're just lowering the threshhold by one point.

You could modify this for soccer as well. In a draw other than 0-0, the team that was most recently ahead gets two points instead of one.

[kurumi]

My rule is a bit more draconian: the team that gave up the lead (and is IMO more responsible for bringing us ever closer to this detestable tie) gets no points, and the tying team gets a full win's worth, if the game ends that way. That probably works better for hockey (where I envisioned this first, to replace the OTL points-for-losing stuff) since there are more frequent possession changes.

[hbelkins]

You would have loved it back when the regions were West, Midwest, Mideast and East. 

I remember that.  AFAIK, the NCAA was unique in its use of the word "Mideast"  to mean "eastern Midwest" .    Also both terms were used for places well below the Ohio.  A team from Louisiana would have gone to the Mideast regional, a team from Texas to the Midwest.

The conference champions were assigned to specific regions each year, and any independents that got bids were placed in their geographical region. The SEC, OVC, Big 10, and old Missouri Valley Conference all went to the Mideast. The ACC, Ivy League, etc., went to the East. The Midwest got the Big 8, the old Southwest Conference. West got Pac-8, Big Sky, etc. If Notre Dame got a bid, they always went to the Mideast.

[CtrlAltDel]

That people have problems with TIE American football games. The game is dangerous enough as it is and to extend the games so one team MIGHT win is stupid. Of course, you need a winner in the playoffs but 60 minutes is enough time to determine a winner. Most of the OT rules, college and pro, are arbitrary and often conflict with the regular game rules. If they're tied, they're tied. If the coaches don't like it, play to win. Especially when you have a choice between going for 1 or 2 after a last second TD.

I still like the idea of "the team that was most recently ahead wins" .

I prefer the idea of "the team that has the most points wins" and if you don't score enough points in the time allotted, you don't deserve the win. But I'm old school.

Also, not that anyone asked, I would require the whole ball to pass through the plane to score a touchdown.

[rlb2024]

What I find more annoying on that is media inconsistency. If you look at ESPN.com, for example, all the scores are listed in the normal way (visiting team on top, home team on the bottom)–except soccer scores, and the soccer scores are listed backwards even when they're listed together with the other sports. It's distracting and confusing, and there's no real reason to do that just because the Europeans do it that way (ESPN is not a European news outlet and they don't ordinarily use British spellings for things except proper nouns). Shortly before my father died, we turned on a DC United game and the score was listed as other team whatever, DC whatever. My father looked at it and said it didn't look like Audi Field and I said it wasn't–United were on the road–to which he said, "Wait, but they're listed second, so they're the home team." I said, "Apparently for soccer they do the opposite because the hardcore soccer fans complain if they don't." He was unaware of that and found it quite puzzling that they would inexplicably use a different system just for one sport.

Home team first makes sense for 90% of the world, so why bother to change it?

Speaking of soccer, what annoys me is that high school soccer has a different set of rules from FIFA.  The organization governing high school soccer in most US states (NFHS) gets so nit-picky that they even define uniform colors (home team must wear solid white jerseys and socks, no stripes are allowed).  They say it is to help the referees.  Well, as a former soccer referee if I couldn't tell the difference between a blue jersey and a yellow jersey – or a white jersey with a red stripe on it – I shouldn't be refereeing high school soccer.  Also, shin guards must be stamped with the high school-approving organization or they are not allowed.  And a count-down clock must be used as well (college soccer is like that too, which sucks).  Crazy.