Hypothetical Sports Contest #2 - Page 2

goofball · #11 12-09-2006, 01:22 AM

I agree that the crux of this is the NBA pitcher. I think the high school team would knock him around a lot.

Jcrew · #12 12-09-2006, 01:44 AM

I would say no, mostly due to muscle memory.

alphatmw · #13 12-09-2006, 02:12 AM

the nba's defense would be bad but their offense and sheer power just might make up for it. i think it comes down to the # of errors and the ability of the nba pitcher vs. the number of homeruns hit by the nba team.

Phanekim · #14 12-09-2006, 02:14 AM

My vote is the High School baseball team. Mainly because there are only 3 days to develop a skill based talent. Baseball does not necessarily require athletic ability to suceed at hitting or pitching. The ability to do those two fundamental elements of baseball...should require at least a few weeks. The potential is higher with the basketball guys except baseball requires a skill that isn't necessarily athletic based.

pete fabrizio · #15 12-09-2006, 02:19 AM

The odds of the NBA players winning are approximately equal to the odds of them having at least one guy on their team that can throw strikes. A team of high school all-stars, even for a county or something, would be a different story.

Green Kool Aid · #16 12-09-2006, 02:22 AM

high school baseball players. this really isnt close.

a much better question would be versus a high school lacrosse team.

alphatmw · #17 12-09-2006, 02:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
high school baseball players. this really isnt close.

a much better question would be versus a high school lacrosse team.

[/ QUOTE ]if it was lacrosse i think about 2% of people would bet on the high school team.

Oranzith · #18 12-09-2006, 02:38 AM

Not very well thought through. Baseball team, no contest. In my experience, there is at least 1 minor-league calibre player on most mid-high ability highschool baseball teams. Much of going pro has to do more with passion/desire than sheer ability.

joel2006 · #19 12-09-2006, 03:12 AM

If the high school pitcher can throw a decent curve ball the NBA team has almost no chance. Not to mention that tall (>6'3") guys with long arms will have huge holes in their swings, something I know from personal experience since I grew from 6' at 18 to 6'4" at 22. My armspan is 6'7" and when I first went to a batting cage at my adult height I couldn't believe how hard hitting a basesball had become (especially inside pitches). In order to use my old bats, I had to choke up and stand outside of the batters box to be able to hit any inside pitches. And in the NBA, length is even more important than height, so the NBA players will really suffer here. If the NBA team has a decent pitcher and shortstop they may be able to keep the score respectable. Infield defense would be a major problem for the NBA team since 2b is an extremely difficult position for very tall guys to play, they won't have the lateral agility necessary to play the position. SS is also tough to play if one is tall, so the starting and backup PGs (the two shortest guys on the team) would be forced to play these two positions giving their manager no flexibility at all.

PocketQueens90 · #20 12-09-2006, 03:16 AM

I think this could go either way. I think the NBA players would obviously have the power, speed, and overall athletic abilty to have an advantage in areas like base running and defense. I also highly doubt that as professional NBA players, they didn't play any baseball growing up. I think most athletes try out a variety of sports. Thus they would have some experience.

But on the other side of the argument...how much athletic ability does barry bonds have? Sure he has some steroid like strength and good hand eye coordination but thats it. So, maybe the NBA players wouldnt benefit much from their athleticism.

My bet would be on the NBA players though based on their advantage in power.