My beef with close games, especially in team sports (1 Viewer)

[Dentist]

Let me begin with the fact that I don't care about either Seattle nor Boston and really didn't care who won the football game, I simply was watching because I do generally enjoy football.

But here's the thing, as I watched that game, as I have with many close games over the year, moreso with team sports... I've found myself unable to ultimately enjoy many of the results.

The average impartial fan probably really enjoyed the drama from last night and thought it was a fun and exciting game.

As I looked at that game, I felt frustrated.

Regardless of how that game turned out last night I was going to be unhappy with the result. In close games it seems like either some referee call, or some bizarrely lucky play seems to be the ultimate decider of the contest a good percentage of the time. Not always.. some games are close and clean. But so many close games have bizarre circumstances that don't have much to do with the actual game in deciding the outcome.

Now, I get that something has to ultimately decide a close game... that the teams were close on paper and in actuality.. and that something has to break that up.

But with last night either a bizarrely lucky catch was going to lead to a victory for Seattle, or what actually happened, one of the worst play calls and bad beats in NFL history ended up deciding the game... I mean really any result on that play other than an INT and seattle probably still wins that game. Why Russell didn't just throw that away is beyond me. I feel bad for Seattle fan... but not really because they never should've been down there anyway because that catch was pure luck.

I suppose that result wasn't has bad as some of the results that are decided by referees... but it was pretty horrible nonetheless.

In many ways I think it might have been a bit of payback for the equally bizarre ending to the seattle vs. Green Bay game which was also completely unsatisfying because of the luck factors that led to that result..

But anyway... I'm sure most people think this line of thinking is strange... but I prefer a clean result like a 14-40 point win where there are no excuses, no ref calls, no lucky plays that ultimately decide the outcome... and I prefer that to the manufactured drama and oftentimes "bad beat-ish" style results that many close games have to offer.

 

[Christo]

You are one strange dude.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Is there anything in life you like other than dumping on chicks or checking bank statements?

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

My sig feels appropriate here.

 

[comfortably numb]

i agree with Dentist.

Close games cost you money.

If a game is decided by 30pts I turn the TV off in the 3rd Qtr.

I save 12 cents by doing that.

12cents x lets say 40 games is $4.80

$4.80 invested over 30 years can bring back over $700 and I can retire in the morning of March 8th 2042 instead of the afternoon.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Dentist, this is what the Super Bowl is all about to a player:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpccjyLNU1s

And to a fan: YAY, WE WON!

 

[Ignoramus]

I knew before even opening it who had started this thread.

 

[TenTimes]

Is there anything in life you like other than dumping on chicks or checking bank statements?

bit of an unhealthy obsession with Federer/Nadal

 

[Ned]

One of the longest standing fishing trips this board has ever seen.

 

[Dentist]

Is there anything in life you like other than dumping on chicks or checking bank statements?

root canals and oversized breasts (like the cartoonish ones)

 

[Dentist]

com'on... no one gets this? That these close games are so rarely decided by the quality of the football teams in question or the skills of the player, but rather by a few random happenings? Ref call, lucky bounce?

No one feels that way?

LIke when I watch the 100 meter dash there probably isn't a bad beat or any luck involved, when Magnus Carlsen wins a chess match it's never because of a bad call.

When Federer destroys a guy there could be a bad bounce, but because there are 300-400 points in a match, that all generally balances out and it's pretty rare that one point decides an outcome definitively.

 

[Rick James]

love this

 

[The Commish]

Perhaps sports isn't for you Dentist. While it might be a bit cliche, there is a TON of truth in "that's why we play the games". I'd probably move on if I were you Dentist, though I'd be sad to see the shtick go.

 

[TenTimes]

It's like in basketball when a team is down one and the SG takes a shot as time expires.

An NBA team takes 80-90 shots throughout a game, but whether they are the superior team depends solely on whether that final shot clangs off the iron or is an inch more accurate and goes in. Cruel sport, what is the first 47:59 for?

 

[The Commish]

com'on... no one gets this? That these close games are so rarely decided by the quality of the football teams in question or the skills of the player, but rather by a few random happenings? Ref call, lucky bounce?

No one feels that way?

LIke when I watch the 100 meter dash there probably isn't a bad beat or any luck involved, when Magnus Carlsen wins a chess match it's never because of a bad call. What about the situation where the "favorite" pulls up gimp from a pulled hamstring?

When Federer destroys a guy there could be a bad bounce, but because there are 300-400 points in a match, that all generally balances out and it's pretty rare that one point decides an outcome definitively. What if that "bad bounce" is on the final point of the match and costs the "should be" winner?

There's no absolutes in sports

 

[Dentist]

Perhaps sports isn't for you Dentist. While it might be a bit cliche, there is a TON of truth in "that's why we play the games". I'd probably move on if I were you Dentist, though I'd be sad to see the shtick go.

In many ways I actually have.

I was so pissed off by the helmet catch play in 2007 in that super bowl robbing me the opportunity to say I'd seen the perfect team with the GOAT season and ending that debate forever, that I was seriously bummed out for a few days and couldn't sleep that night and I don't give two craps about the Patriots.

It was right after that that I quit watching 90% of basketball and about 60% of football and decided to take up watching tennis because there are very few if any bad beats in that sport...

I've been watching a TON less... but since I still enjoy fantasy football and getting together with friends I still watch a few games, mainly playoff games, and stuff like this still happens, and angers me.

 

[Ned]

Stuff like what? A bad decision isn't a bad beat. If anything, you should've loved it after that crazy lucky catch put them in position to win.

 

[Dentist]

com'on... no one gets this? That these close games are so rarely decided by the quality of the football teams in question or the skills of the player, but rather by a few random happenings? Ref call, lucky bounce?

No one feels that way?

LIke when I watch the 100 meter dash there probably isn't a bad beat or any luck involved, when Magnus Carlsen wins a chess match it's never because of a bad call. What about the situation where the "favorite" pulls up gimp from a pulled hamstring?

When Federer destroys a guy there could be a bad bounce, but because there are 300-400 points in a match, that all generally balances out and it's pretty rare that one point decides an outcome definitively. What if that "bad bounce" is on the final point of the match and costs the "should be" winner?

There's no absolutes in sports

I didn't say always... but the percent of the time I have to suffer through a bad beat during the 100m dash or a tennis match is a lot more rare than in your average football/basketball game, or even MLB for that matter.

parity in the NFL has led to a lot of closer games though over the years, so the bad beats are being seen more frequently.

I can't think of one super bowl "bad beat" type of result in the late 80's early 90's super bowls other than the scott norwood game.

 

[fantasycurse42]

com'on... no one gets this? That these close games are so rarely decided by the quality of the football teams in question or the skills of the player, but rather by a few random happenings? Ref call, lucky bounce?

No one feels that way?

Last nights game was decided by the coaches and players.

 

[urbanhack]

I've found myself unable to ultimately enjoy many of the results.

This pretty much sums it up.

 

[Tom Servo]

I love the bad beat shtick, but if you want perfect, emotionless referees, perhaps you should consult these guys.

 

[Jeremy]

I get what you're saying. Entire legacies change on a lucky bounce, a referees call, or a play by an undrafted free agent rookie who barely plays. Tom Brady could have 6 SB rings and be considered the no doubt best QB to ever play the game. He could just as easily be 0-3 or 0-4 in SBs and be Jim Kelly.

 

[parasaurolophus]

i agree with Dentist.

Close games cost you money.

If a game is decided by 30pts I turn the TV off in the 3rd Qtr.

I save 12 cents by doing that.

12cents x lets say 40 games is $4.80

$4.80 invested over 30 years can bring back over $700 and I can retire in the morning of March 8th 2042 instead of the afternoon.

 

[The Commish]

com'on... no one gets this? That these close games are so rarely decided by the quality of the football teams in question or the skills of the player, but rather by a few random happenings? Ref call, lucky bounce?

No one feels that way?

LIke when I watch the 100 meter dash there probably isn't a bad beat or any luck involved, when Magnus Carlsen wins a chess match it's never because of a bad call. What about the situation where the "favorite" pulls up gimp from a pulled hamstring?

When Federer destroys a guy there could be a bad bounce, but because there are 300-400 points in a match, that all generally balances out and it's pretty rare that one point decides an outcome definitively. What if that "bad bounce" is on the final point of the match and costs the "should be" winner?

There's no absolutes in sports

I didn't say always... but the percent of the time I have to suffer through a bad beat during the 100m dash or a tennis match is a lot more rare than in your average football/basketball game, or even MLB for that matter.

parity in the NFL has led to a lot of closer games though over the years, so the bad beats are being seen more frequently.

I can't think of one super bowl "bad beat" type of result in the late 80's early 90's super bowls other than the scott norwood game.

Guess I don't understand what you mean by "bad beat". Last night's game didn't have any that I can remember. It was decided on the field by the players and coaches. The closest thing to a "bad beat" that I can think of was the catch that got Seattle to a first and goal, but to me that was a WR making a play...a fantastic play actually.

 

[Bucky86]

I think everyone should get trophies.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

com'on... no one gets this? That these close games are so rarely decided by the quality of the football teams in question or the skills of the player, but rather by a few random happenings? Ref call, lucky bounce?

This is the beauty of sports, the magic that makes it worth watching.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

com'on... no one gets this? That these close games are so rarely decided by the quality of the football teams in question or the skills of the player, but rather by a few random happenings? Ref call, lucky bounce?

No one feels that way?

LIke when I watch the 100 meter dash there probably isn't a bad beat or any luck involved, when Magnus Carlsen wins a chess match it's never because of a bad call. What about the situation where the "favorite" pulls up gimp from a pulled hamstring?

When Federer destroys a guy there could be a bad bounce, but because there are 300-400 points in a match, that all generally balances out and it's pretty rare that one point decides an outcome definitively. What if that "bad bounce" is on the final point of the match and costs the "should be" winner?

There's no absolutes in sports

There are no bad beats in Chessboxing. The better man wins every single time.

http://worldchessboxing.com/

 

[otello]

There's always tennis, where the best player always wins.

 

[Dentist]

There's always tennis, where the best player always wins.

I like tennis for this reason.

not always though... the players are human and sometimes there are injuries that affect an outcome.

 

[Dentist]

com'on... no one gets this? That these close games are so rarely decided by the quality of the football teams in question or the skills of the player, but rather by a few random happenings? Ref call, lucky bounce?

No one feels that way?

LIke when I watch the 100 meter dash there probably isn't a bad beat or any luck involved, when Magnus Carlsen wins a chess match it's never because of a bad call. What about the situation where the "favorite" pulls up gimp from a pulled hamstring?

When Federer destroys a guy there could be a bad bounce, but because there are 300-400 points in a match, that all generally balances out and it's pretty rare that one point decides an outcome definitively. What if that "bad bounce" is on the final point of the match and costs the "should be" winner?

There's no absolutes in sports

I didn't say always... but the percent of the time I have to suffer through a bad beat during the 100m dash or a tennis match is a lot more rare than in your average football/basketball game, or even MLB for that matter.

parity in the NFL has led to a lot of closer games though over the years, so the bad beats are being seen more frequently.

I can't think of one super bowl "bad beat" type of result in the late 80's early 90's super bowls other than the scott norwood game.

Guess I don't understand what you mean by "bad beat". Last night's game didn't have any that I can remember. It was decided on the field by the players and coaches. The closest thing to a "bad beat" that I can think of was the catch that got Seattle to a first and goal, but to me that was a WR making a play...a fantastic play actually.

com'on... you haven't played sports if you think that play was skillful, it was pretty lucky.

you've never had a lucky catch in flag football or something? Never hit a lucky shot in basketball? A lot of fortunate things happened for that man to end up with that ball in his hands... to suggest it was a skill play just isn't being honest

 

[Capella]

I would love to know why this is such an issue for you and you just can't enjoy the game.

 

[Dentist]

I think everyone should get trophies.

Look, it's not that mindset.

The best way I can think of to make an analogy is this:

You know when you're playing pool and you end up hitting a total garbage shot and a ball goes in you didn't intend to when you struck the cue... and therefore you generally don't get to follow it up with another shot afterwards?

It's that mentality... that catch was lucky.. so there should be some way for it not to count or for it to at least cost them a down or something.

I don't know the solution... I just know it's not skill based.

 

[urbanhack]

I would love to know why this is such an issue for you and you just can't enjoy the game.

This is part of bigger issue....he can't enjoy life.

 

[jamny]

Perhaps sports isn't for you Dentist. While it might be a bit cliche, there is a TON of truth in "that's why we play the games". I'd probably move on if I were you Dentist, though I'd be sad to see the shtick go.

In many ways I actually have.

I was so pissed off by the helmet catch play in 2007 in that super bowl robbing me the opportunity to say I'd seen the perfect team with the GOAT season and ending that debate forever, that I was seriously bummed out for a few days and couldn't sleep that night and I don't give two craps about the Patriots.

It was right after that that I quit watching 90% of basketball and about 60% of football and decided to take up watching tennis because there are very few if any bad beats in that sport...

I've been watching a TON less... but since I still enjoy fantasy football and getting together with friends I still watch a few games, mainly playoff games, and stuff like this still happens, and angers me.

I am so glad I don't take these games so seriously. I could understand if you're a Seattle fan but you really need to lighten up.

 

[roadkill1292]

Dentist is missing the true heart of sports that most of us learned on the playground when we were kids. When you chose up sides for a game, nobody suggested that you put all the good players on the same team.

Dominance is boring.

 

[Peyton Marino]

Just because the most mentally accessible play of the game happened to involve a lucky bounce doesn't mean the Seahawks were the sole benefactors of luck in the game. There are probably lots of plays in this game, in any game, and throughout the course of a season that involve some degree of luck. In the long run, these things even out. You know this. Smart people know this. For some reason you have some gene or personality trait that blocks you from logically processing this fact after a particularly egregious fit of randomness. Most smart people can appreciate the drama created by randomness, knowing that over time the luck is even. You can't, and that's pretty sad.

Sports, games, and life in general, would be incredibly boring without randomness.

 

[comfortably numb]

Just because the most mentally accessible play of the game happened to involve a lucky bounce doesn't mean the Seahawks were the sole benefactors of luck in the game. There are probably lots of plays in this game, in any game, and throughout the course of a season that involve some degree of luck. In the long run, these things even out. You know this. Smart people know this. For some reason you have some gene or personality trait that blocks you from logically processing this fact after a particularly egregious fit of randomness. Most smart people can appreciate the drama created by randomness, knowing that over time the luck is even. You can't, and that's pretty sad.

Sports, games, and life in general, would be incredibly boring without randomness.

This is true.

Like watching bowling.

I'd rather watch a poptart/Eminem posting match over a bowling match

 

[The Commish]

com'on... no one gets this? That these close games are so rarely decided by the quality of the football teams in question or the skills of the player, but rather by a few random happenings? Ref call, lucky bounce?

No one feels that way?

LIke when I watch the 100 meter dash there probably isn't a bad beat or any luck involved, when Magnus Carlsen wins a chess match it's never because of a bad call. What about the situation where the "favorite" pulls up gimp from a pulled hamstring?

When Federer destroys a guy there could be a bad bounce, but because there are 300-400 points in a match, that all generally balances out and it's pretty rare that one point decides an outcome definitively. What if that "bad bounce" is on the final point of the match and costs the "should be" winner?

There's no absolutes in sports

I didn't say always... but the percent of the time I have to suffer through a bad beat during the 100m dash or a tennis match is a lot more rare than in your average football/basketball game, or even MLB for that matter.

parity in the NFL has led to a lot of closer games though over the years, so the bad beats are being seen more frequently.

I can't think of one super bowl "bad beat" type of result in the late 80's early 90's super bowls other than the scott norwood game.

Guess I don't understand what you mean by "bad beat". Last night's game didn't have any that I can remember. It was decided on the field by the players and coaches. The closest thing to a "bad beat" that I can think of was the catch that got Seattle to a first and goal, but to me that was a WR making a play...a fantastic play actually.

com'on... you haven't played sports if you think that play was skillful, it was pretty lucky.

you've never had a lucky catch in flag football or something? Never hit a lucky shot in basketball? A lot of fortunate things happened for that man to end up with that ball in his hands... to suggest it was a skill play just isn't being honest

On every single play in every single sport there is "luck" if this is your definition. Earlier in the play, Wilson was "lucky" his line blocked for him so he could throw that ball and the WR was "lucky" he didn't fall down in his route.

I do acknowledge there is "luck" in every sport. It's part of the game. No sport is immune to it. There is luck in every play. There is also skill in every play. Again, part of sports.

 

[Dentist]

Just because the most mentally accessible play of the game happened to involve a lucky bounce doesn't mean the Seahawks were the sole benefactors of luck in the game. There are probably lots of plays in this game, in any game, and throughout the course of a season that involve some degree of luck. In the long run, these things even out. You know this. Smart people know this. For some reason you have some gene or personality trait that blocks you from logically processing this fact after a particularly egregious fit of randomness. Most smart people can appreciate the drama created by randomness, knowing that over time the luck is even. You can't, and that's pretty sad.

Sports, games, and life in general, would be incredibly boring without randomness.

That's a pretty fair point.

it's true that the particular catch in question has it's "luck" magnified heavily by time and circumstance and becomes more difficult to process accordingly.

 

[Cjw_55106]

So what you're saying is, no one ever gets lucky in tennis? Every shot goes exactly where the player wants it to go?

Ok then.

 

[Dentist]

I would love to know why this is such an issue for you and you just can't enjoy the game.

That's a fair point.

I suppose comparitively, last night's game shouldn't bother me as much as for instance the Packers Monday night game that was decided by the terrible referee call with the replacement refs.... I mean that was gross, right?

In this case it wasn't ref calls.. just a weird set of circumstances.

I'm not really sure why it bothers me as much as it does.. i haven't diagnosed that part of my disorder.

 

[Dentist]

So what you're saying is, no one ever gets lucky in tennis? Every shot goes exactly where the player wants it to go?

Ok then.

No, I'm saying that in sports where the same type of motion is repeated over and over and over again that while each individual point may have a relatively high degree of luck, that collectively after a few hundred points that it all evens out.

In the same way that the NBA generally has the best team win its title... best of 7's.. 82 games... each player is given so many reps to do what they do that the luck gets evened out.

In football you have a one off format, and many many fewer scoring opportunities, which leads to a much higher randomness of a result.

It's actually amazing that in the last 2 years we have had 1 vs. 1 seeds in the super bowl.. generally you don't get that in leagues that don't have best of "X" with X being a high enough number to eliminate most randomness (like for instance MLB's "X" isn't nearly high enough for that sport, hence the total weirdness of their playoffs)

 

[Guest]

If you knew the outcome before the game started, would you still watch?

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Is it bad officiating that the refs don't call holding on every play? Should they?

 

[roadkill1292]

Maybe you're also hung up on this weird need most people have to know who"s the "best." In a lot of sports, some of which are really entertaining, that issue is never really settled. Winning a Super Bowl, for example, is often not a determinant.

 

[Ned]

Just because the most mentally accessible play of the game happened to involve a lucky bounce doesn't mean the Seahawks were the sole benefactors of luck in the game. There are probably lots of plays in this game, in any game, and throughout the course of a season that involve some degree of luck. In the long run, these things even out. You know this. Smart people know this. For some reason you have some gene or personality trait that blocks you from logically processing this fact after a particularly egregious fit of randomness. Most smart people can appreciate the drama created by randomness, knowing that over time the luck is even. You can't, and that's pretty sad.

Sports, games, and life in general, would be incredibly boring without randomness.

This is true.

Like watching bowling.

I'd rather watch a poptart/Eminem posting match over a bowling match

Let's not get carried away now.

 

[Rick James]

figured this SB was right up Dentist's alley...1 seed vs. 1 seed...Las Vegas "favorite" actually won...doug baldwin's TD celebration was pooping out a football

 

[Dentist]

figured this SB was right up Dentist's alley...1 seed vs. 1 seed...Las Vegas "favorite" actually won...doug baldwin's TD celebration was pooping out a football

I really enjoyed the dumpcelebration and the 1 vs. 1 thing

if somehow the game could've ended right after the Brady TD... like with a horrible wilson INT on the first pass attempt or something it could've been epic... then things had to get weird at the end.

 

[belljr]

 

[Dentist]

If you knew the outcome before the game started, would you still watch?

I watch Federer matches all the time where it's not if he wins, it's when he wins and by how much will he dominate.

So, yes.

But if i didn't care about the teams, probably not.