So Major League Baseball Players Are The Best Athletes?

[UpstateMatt]

Seems to me all you are proving here, David, is that major league baseball requires the non-athletic training of the major sports. And thus it is less sensitive to radically superior athleticism.

Even by your own logic, there are plenty of sports that require more "athleticism": archery, golf, ping-pong, chess. In fact, i think what you've stumbled onto is that baseball is the least athletic of the major sports, and thus requires skills that have little to do with what we normally think of as "athletic." And thus superior athletes are not necessarily superior baseball players.

Or, as John Kruk would say, "I not an athlete, lady. I'm a ballplayer."

mg

[Smasharoo]

Anyway the point is that unlike the other sports there is no one trait that encompasses enough of the game that inhuman ability in it is a through ticket to a baseball career.

Hand eye coordination. See also: John Kruk

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the abiltity to throw a 300MPH fast ball a 350lb morbidly obese slob or a 95 year old on his death bed guy would still start for any MLB team no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell yes...., you find him I'll be his agent.

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]

Hand eye coordination. See also: John Kruk

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP posted at 7:35AM I can only assume that he did not have his morning coffee yet. Regarding the title of this thread I think it would be just as easy and fair to develop arguments that baseball players are the worst athletics.

[Warteen]

The problem here is that people define "athleticism" differently. Just for reference, here's what dictionary.com has to say:

physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports

So really the people who are most athletic, by that definition, are the strongest and/or fastest. You'll probably find the best athletes at the Olympics rather than on the baseball field. Those are the guys who have to punish their bodies harder than anyone and they put in the most work to be athletic. Baseball players are arguably the *least* athletic of the major sports because they don't need to train as hard (for the most part) to be good. (But don't let that fool you; my brother plays club baseball and they still work their butts off.)

[mjkidd]

No. It's just that the core skills of throwing and hitting the baseball are hard to learn.

[KenProspero]

I start out in the apparant minority, as I think neither our 8'2" basketball player nor our football player running the 8.3 second hundred would be stars (though I do think raw speed could make you a role player in an NFL team, with a modicum of coordination).

While the timing of hitting a 95mph fastball requires great hand-eye coordination, I don't think it's the be all and end all of athleticism. Personally, I find the grace and artistry of a 6-4-3 double play, requiring the coordination of three players to be more impressive -- and this is a routine play.

Getting back to the original question.

We have a semantic problem here -- what is meant by 'best athelete'.

Is it conditioning -- marathoners, Iron Man, and cyclists, probably win here.

Is it hand eye coordination? Baseball. Basketball, to a degree.

Is it brute force. Football linemen, rugby?

Is it blazing speed?

Is it cunning and smarts? Football Quarterbacks; Poker players [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

What the last few threads show, if nothing else, is that when we're talking about 'average' or 'above average' athletic ability, we're not all talking about the same thing. Without the common starting point, its difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

Clearly, any sport is a combination of athleticism and physical attributes.

Let's consider the following hypothetical. An above average athelete, who is well trained and in shape wakes up one morning and finds he has the one of the best cardiovascular system on the planet (i.e., his body is freakishly efficient at supplying oxygen to his muscles). How would this person do in a marathon.

Answer -- It happened recently. Lance Armstrong ran in the marathon. Clearly an above average athelete, and his lung capacity/cardio capacity is amazing. He trained for the NYC marathon and finished in about 3:00. A good time for an amateur, 40 or 50 minutes behind world-class runners.

Good athletes can do any sport at an acceptable amateur level. People with great physical attributes may be able to do a single sport well. To be competent on a professional level, you generally need both the athletic ability.

Final thought -- even given everything I've said: best atheletes:

Team sports -- Soccer
Individual sports -- Decathelon or Iron Man.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

One of Sklansky's hypotheticals has reached the testing stage.

[wlcmlc]

What are you smoking if you think Pro basketball players can beat a good high school football team?

wlcmlc

[almostbusto]

i personally think decathlon and iron man aren't great measures of who the greatest athletes are since in every event of the decathlon the opposition/goal is fixed. there is no event in the decathlon where you play offense, or defense, or really even interact with the other competitors. the slight exception is the races, but they aren't pushing each other around as they run, the races aren't much different than if they all just ran time trials. someone is undoubtedly going to try and call me out for saying running in a group, or even cycling, don't require quick judgment and adjustments. while this is true, those quick judgments are so trivial to the "chess game" a boxer has to play against his opponent. its not even close.


the real problem is, in the decathlon you never really have to make decisions while competing. you just want to jump really high, run really fast, and throw really far. its not like a running back in football who needs to figure out a way out how to dodge/break a tackle or find a gap.

if you were to add wrestling or boxing along with a couple other one on one sports where you play both offense and defense then it would be a pretty good measure of athleticism.

sklansky's example of baseball being a good example is decent. but the problem is that other than hitting a professionally thrown pitch, the skill set required for the sport isn't that deep, depending somewhat on the position you play. you run, you throw, you hit, along with each of those skills there is a second skill that is basically knowing when to run and where to throw to. thats about it. a lot of skills that are key in most sports however are almost completely unimportant. endurance (for non-pitchers) being the most notable skill that isn't very important in baseball. i don't think the baseball can be the litmus test for athleticism simply because it leaves out any test of endurance for all the players that actually have to hit.

if albert pujols could pitch the same games he hits and have a low era. then you are getting closer