At the risk of getting (further) off-topic I'm somewhat aghast at the assumptions made in a couple of recent posts. The difference between a sport (read: athletic competition) and something like qb, bridge, or poker, has far less to do with chance than the recent posts suggest. (To be really pedantic, um, sports require physical prowess where many qb players, card players, and so on, aren't quite physically fit. :-)) Perhaps people have forgotten the role chance plays in sports but it's really everywhere. The best example is probably just what happens to a baseball after a batter makes contact. A ground ball might go directly to the shortstop for an easy double-play; it might find the perfect gap between two fielders and become an RBI single. In fact, a couple years ago a baseball researcher by the name of Voros McCracken found that a baseball pitcher has surprisingly little ability (perhaps no ability) to control the rate at which batted balls become base hits. The choice of particular tossup/bonus answers in a given pack seems to me somewhat analogous to the direction/outcome of a batted baseball. In either case -- getting back to the excellent post that started this -- even when you have less control than you'd like to have, a huge part of the thrill of competition is the ability to succeed when you most need to, to step up -- or at least maintain -- your game when the pressure is on. (Hmm, I've invoked baseball stathead wisdom but then hailed the virtues of clutch performance in the next paragraph. In case you were about to reply on that point... yes, in baseball, "clutch" performance has yet to be statistically verified over the long haul. Still -- Kirk Gibson? Jack Morris? Th
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST