I'm not into soccer but baseball...

[Harry Chiti]

It's only the worlds most popular sport for no reason at all...must be the complete combination of brains and skill it takes to play well.

Soccer at its finest is quite literally chess played at an insane pace.

Try watching the european cup; its doubtlessly more satisfying than watching Texas high school soccer

[Stinson]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Ah, soccer. What a thrilling sport. I watched a high school game last Friday and what I saw was a 3-0 blowout. Only in soccer is 3-0 a blowout.

What I found interesting is that neither goalie ever touched the ball. The 3 goals were scored without the goalie getting anywhere near the ball. Those were the only shots that were a threat to score.

The other goalie never touched the ball because there was never a shot on the goal that got anywhere close to the goal. How wide is the goal? 20-25 feet? And no one get get the ball close?

So, 3 shots on goal in the entire game. Wow. No wonder that sport has never really been accepted in the USA with it's sports fans who only care about scoring.

What "talent" does one need to play soccer? Even I played it when I was younger. All you need is stamina, I can kick a ball nowhere near a goal or out of bounds all day long.

Careful now. One could just as easily ask what "talent" it takes to swing a stick, or throw a little white ball to someone. And then proceed to conclude: No wonder so many toddlers start with baseball.

[British Baseballer]

The following game, is another independantly produced game, very similar to OOTP, based on cricket, a game which whilst has some clear differences, from baseball, also has some similarites. The 2d game is in my opinion implemented very well and is something that could be achievable in future versions of OOTP

Cricket Coach 2009 | Screenshots | The Premier Cricket Simulation

[thbroman]

Originally Posted by Harry Chiti

It's only the worlds most popular sport for no reason at all...must be the complete combination of brains and skill it takes to play well.

Soccer at its finest is quite literally chess played at an insane pace.

Try watching the european cup; its doubtlessly more satisfying than watching Texas high school soccer

I don't want to start a flame war, but I've got to agree. I learned to appreciate soccer in the 1980s, when I spent two years in Germany. It takes a while to understand how top-notch soccer players make use of the field, and especially how playing the midfield works. But once you twig onto the way it works, it is a thing of beauty to watch. Not every game, of course -- soccer has just as much ability to produce a boring game as any other sport.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

I was on my high school's practice squad (4th string overall lol) and played as a goalie sometimes. It can get pretty boring, although a local amateur side won 25-0 a couple of years back, and one of their youth teams lost 36-1 lol.

Wow. I guess those goalies weren't too bored. Did they ever manage to stop a shot?

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Ah, soccer. What a thrilling sport. I watched a high school game last Friday and what I saw was a 3-0 blowout. Only in soccer is 3-0 a blowout.

What I found interesting is that neither goalie ever touched the ball. The 3 goals were scored without the goalie getting anywhere near the ball. Those were the only shots that were a threat to score.

The other goalie never touched the ball because there was never a shot on the goal that got anywhere close to the goal. How wide is the goal? 20-25 feet? And no one get get the ball close?

So, 3 shots on goal in the entire game. Wow. No wonder that sport has never really been accepted in the USA with it's sports fans who only care about scoring.

What "talent" does one need to play soccer? Even I played it when I was younger. All you need is stamina, I can kick a ball nowhere near a goal or out of bounds all day long.

Not calling you a liar but I'd say your just stretching the truth just a little bit, I've watched 100's if not 1,000's of football (soccer) games of every skill level and have yet to see a game were neither goalkeeper touched the ball. How wide is the outfield wall in the majors ? Reason I ask is that there's a good few major league players who never even hit the ball against it let alone get it over the wall. And I doubt that all you need is stamina to play professional football or there would be a mad dash to sign up marathon runners wouldn't there ?

I don't like basketball but I'm sure theres more skill in it than just bouncing a ball up and down, also on the scoring point I'm sure theres many baseball fans who wouldn't like to see scores of 34-30 would they ? Baseball, football (NFL) and basketball are ingrained in American culture football isn't so will probably never get a foot hold in the States just like football is ingrained in European culture so baseball will never become a big sport in Europe.

Saying that wouldn't it be boring if we all liked the same thing ?

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Stinson

Careful now. One could just as easily ask what "talent" it takes to swing a stick, or throw a little white ball to someone. And then proceed to conclude: No wonder so many toddlers start with baseball.

Comparing the talent needed for baseball to that of soccer? I don't need to comment on that.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

Not calling you a liar but I'd say your just stretching the truth just a little bit, I've watched 100's if not 1,000's of football (soccer) games of every skill level and have yet to see a game were neither goalkeeper touched the ball. How wide is the outfield wall in the majors ? Reason I ask is that there's a good few major league players who never even hit the ball against it let alone get it over the wall. And I doubt that all you need is stamina to play professional football or there would be a mad dash to sign up marathon runners wouldn't there ?

I don't like basketball but I'm sure theres more skill in it than just bouncing a ball up and down, also on the scoring point I'm sure theres many baseball fans who wouldn't like to see scores of 34-30 would they ? Baseball, football (NFL) and basketball are ingrained in American culture football isn't so will probably never get a foot hold in the States just like football is ingrained in European culture so baseball will never become a big sport in Europe.

Saying that wouldn't it be boring if we all liked the same thing ?

I wish I was lying. All the losing team seemed interested in doing was kicking the ball out of bounds at every opportunity but I have to give them credit, they do that very well.

As far as basketball, and I'm not a fan of that, but those players can get the ball through that little metal ring a lot more often than soccer players can get that little ball through that huge goal. Even hockey with that big goalie blocking up that tiny net sees more scoring than soccer. I could play soccer when I was young, as well as just about every 7 year old in the USA can, but I could never play basketball so there has to be some talent needed in basketball that I don't have.

I used read the soccer scores from those British leagues every so often and I saw a lot of 1-0 and 0-0 scores. Tell me exactly what talent is used in not scoring? There is no one on earth that isn't able to get on a soccer field and not score. I will say this though.The thing soccer has over all other sports is that due to the lack of scoring, when someone does score it is a lot more exciting.

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I wish I was lying. All the losing team seemed interested in doing was kicking the ball out of bounds at every opportunity but I have to give them credit, they do that very well.

If your telling the truth it wasn't the sport it was the players, Reds and Cubs once played 9 innings without scoring a run but doesn't make baseball a bad sport does it ?

If you can do any or even better all of the skills on this video then I'll be your agent and make you a millionaire in a year, after all only need stamina

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I used read the soccer scores from those British leagues every so often and I saw a lot of 1-0 and 0-0 scores. Tell me exactly what talent is used in not scoring? There is no one on earth that isn't able to get on a soccer field and not score. I will say this though.The thing soccer has over all other sports is that due to the lack of scoring, when someone does score it is a lot more exciting.

But your way of thought is that if a pitcher shuts out a team it isn't the skill of the pitcher but because the other team lacks talent, same goes for say if a hockey goalie saves 32 of 32 shots it isn't his skill that as made it a shut out but the lack of talent on the other team.

[Killing Time]

Would you please take the soccer vs. baseball stuff to the Talk Sports Forum or to PM's? Thank you.

[Stinson]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Comparing the talent needed for baseball to that of soccer? I don't need to comment on that.

What? When did my post compare anything about soccer to anything about baseball?...

What I did say was that you should be careful with your intentionally ignorant belittlement of soccer, because someone could easily do the same to baseball.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Wow. I guess those goalies weren't too bored. Did they ever manage to stop a shot?

I'm guessing not. In the case of the team that lost 25-0 they played the first half with only 8 players, since 3 of them had managed to wrongly think the game had been called off. One of them turned up at half time so they finished with 9.

[Killing Time]

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by TSmith1969

Markus gave an interview a few years back and said that his dream would be to link the OOTP game engine to 2D or 3D graphics like the old Micro League games. The earlier versions of FM and other football sims used simple dots moving around the screen. I think the introduction of ball animation is the first step in this direction for OOTP.

I have the Mac demo for FM2009. Even though my machine meets or exceeds the recommended (not minimum) system specifications in every regard, the only animation is those 'simple dots'… and as it turns out, that's enough to keep me interested.

Originally Posted by Antonin

I'm in the "it's your game, play it your way" camp, and I like OOTP the way it has been developing. I don't agree that OOTP needs to try to be more like FM. I like text-based management sims to be text-based management sims. 3D graphics don't impress me; they just make the game run more slowly. 3D graphics, IMHO, don't add anything to the gameplay of a text-based sports management sim. They're just eye candy. They certainly don't contribute to what I, personally, want in a sports sim: the chance to manage my favorite team. I want to manage my team, make trades, manage my players on game day, and study statistics. I like to watch team dynasties rise and fall. I like to track player careers.

OOTP baseball is a very good game and should follow its own development path.

Amen, brother.

Originally Posted by DreamTeams

However, I wish OOTP had the news system that FM has. The interaction is fantastic. Plus, the news just reads more realistically than in OOTP. It's more polished than OOTP in that way. But, it should be with its resources and years of development.

Ditto. My favorite feature in FM2009 is the manager/press/player interaction. For baseball they'd have to hold it down to weekly press conferences, or it'd get old fast (see: Jerry Manuel). This would be a selectable system, probably tied into the current Player Morale system.

I also like the interaction with the team board. It sounds as though something like that may be coming in Version 11 of OotPBaseball.

Originally Posted by thbroman

I have taken my Bath team all the way from from the lowest depths of league play -- the Blue Square North League -- all the way to the Championship League (that's just one step below the Premiership, for you non-soccer fans). But now I'm stuck, because my board won't build a new stadium, and without more ticket revenues I can't sign the stars I would need to get into the Premiership. I have to try to hang in there until perhaps they change their mind. I hear it does happen.

Speak of the devil…

Hang in there with Team Bath. I love those guys; it's like they exist to be the perfect starter team for newbies!

Originally Posted by Stinson

As for the original topic: I don't know if I agree or not. On one hand, I think baseball is easy enough to picture in your head based on the commentary - making a 3D match engine fairly unnecessary.

In my opinion, baseball was the perfect game for the teletype/radio era. I listen to college football and basketball games on radio. Football's not bad; the discrete action/pause/action sequences make it tolerable to follow. Basketball with its near-constant action is a nightmare, even with its brief pauses after the frequent scores. Hockey and soccer with practically no pauses — and no scoring — would be impossible.

Originally Posted by checkyoursixx

Keep up the good work, whether or not this game ever ends up being 3D isn't a big deal to me, I'll play it regardless.

And so will I.

I'm impressed with what appears to be the current OOTP Developments policy of concentrating on one area to improve with each version. Version 10 was for pitching, Version 11 for fielding. I'm hoping that Version 12 will be for integrating OOTP with ITP, but if it's not, it'll still be good.

[new_to_baseball]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Ah, soccer. What a thrilling sport. I watched a high school game last Friday and what I saw was a 3-0 blowout. Only in soccer is 3-0 a blowout.

What I found interesting is that neither goalie ever touched the ball. The 3 goals were scored without the goalie getting anywhere near the ball. Those were the only shots that were a threat to score.

The other goalie never touched the ball because there was never a shot on the goal that got anywhere close to the goal. How wide is the goal? 20-25 feet? And no one could get the ball close?

So, 3 shots on goal in the entire game. Wow. No wonder that sport has never really been accepted in the USA with it's sports fans who only care about scoring.

What "talent" does one need to play soccer? Even I played it when I was younger. All you need is stamina, I can kick a ball nowhere near a goal or out of bounds all day long.

Comparing a high school game to professional soccer? Let's compare pee wee baseball to MLB while we're at it.

I wish I was lying. All the losing team seemed interested in doing was kicking the ball out of bounds at every opportunity but I have to give them credit, they do that very well.

As far as basketball, and I'm not a fan of that, but those players can get the ball through that little metal ring a lot more often than soccer players can get that little ball through that huge goal. Even hockey with that big goalie blocking up that tiny net sees more scoring than soccer. I could play soccer when I was young, as well as just about every 7 year old in the USA can, but I could never play basketball so there has to be some talent needed in basketball that I don't have.

I used read the soccer scores from those British leagues every so often and I saw a lot of 1-0 and 0-0 scores. Tell me exactly what talent is used in not scoring? There is no one on earth that isn't able to get on a soccer field and not score. I will say this though.The thing soccer has over all other sports is that due to the lack of scoring, when someone does score it is a lot more exciting.

Baseball is easy. It's just about swinging a stick.

See how stupid that sounds? It's on the same level as your posts.

[Curtis]

I've always thought that people who enjoy watching hockey (I don't) should enjoy watching soccer. The two games have a lot in common: near-constant action, impenetrable offsides rules, very low scoring (before the rules changes of five or six years ago ice hockey was even lower than it is now), body checking, etc.

The differences mostly revolve around ice hockey's smaller 'field'. (Field hockey has even less to differentiate it from soccer.) Back in the 18th century the number players on a side decreased as the sizes of pitches decreased, so I'd expect only five or six players a side if soccer were played indoors in a drained hockey rink. The somewhat higher scoring in hockey is attributable to the smaller pitch size as well (think arena football as opposed to American football) and that it's much harder to hit a puck out of bounds.

If hockey players had to play without protective equipment you might find the level of violence reducing toward soccer levels… and if soccer allowed unlimited substitutions you might find its violence level increased. In fact, the frequent substitutions in hockey probably constitute the single biggest difference between the two games; the rest is all equipment.

In my opinion the only reasons soccer is more popular than ice hockey in the United States is that 1) It's easier to find an open field than a sheet of ice, and; 2) Soccer is much less expensive.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Curtis

I've always thought that people who enjoy watching hockey (I don't) should enjoy watching soccer. The two games have a lot in common: near-constant action, impenetrable offsides rules, very low scoring (before the rules changes of five or six years ago ice hockey was even lower than it is now), body checking, etc.

Hockey and Soccer have little to nothing in common. Totally different games. Hockey was low scoring from the early to mid 90's up until the lockout because NJ introduced the neutral zone trap and it caught on. Prior to that it was very high scoring, especially in the 70's and 80's.

When did they start body checking in soccer?

Originally Posted by Curtis

The differences mostly revolve around ice hockey's smaller 'field'. (Field hockey has even less to differentiate it from soccer.) Back in the 18th century the number players on a side decreased as the sizes of pitches decreased, so I'd expect only five or six players a side if soccer were played indoors in a drained hockey rink. The somewhat higher scoring in hockey is attributable to the smaller pitch size as well (think arena football as opposed to American football) and that it's much harder to hit a puck out of bounds.

I would attribute it to a lot, but not the pitch size. Speed, moves, puck is just a smidgen smaller than a soccer ball, stradegy all come into play.

Originally Posted by Curtis

If hockey players had to play without protective equipment you might find the level of violence reducing toward soccer levels… and if soccer allowed unlimited substitutions you might find its violence level increased. In fact, the frequent substitutions in hockey probably constitute the single biggest difference between the two games; the rest is all equipment.

The game of hockey is much too fast to play without equipment. Plus, if you look back to when equipment was small or almost non existent, there was still contact in the sport. Much like football, when equipment was not very protective. The game/equipment evolved together.

[Harry Chiti]

I would argue that while soccer, hockey, and basketball are all exceedingly different - different surfaces, body parts, etc...they're also quite similar - in that if you can 'read' the game in one, you'll be able to do the same in the others. I'm talking about hockey 'sense' or the way a midfielder reads the flow of the game and makes the right play, or can plan his team's ball movements four steps ahead or the way a point guard spots the backdoor cut of a teammate.

soccer ends up being far superior to these two because there are no constant timeouts or switching of players - no coach holding your hand to make your decisions for you. the soccer player has to be far more proactive and 'smarter' than these other athletes.

The same way I'd argue all three of these sports to be superior to baseball and football; its not about mastering a singular talent (as these sports seem to be) - its about mastering many and knowing when and how to use them, and to be in exceedingly good shape - something not needed in many football and baseball specialised positions.

then again, maybe I'm biased, I've played all 5 at a respectable level - and I was far poorer at baseball - baseball at its root is all about having remarkable hand eye coordination; and its hard to overcome an relatively average handeye coord if that's all the game boils down too.

I'm sure we've all played the other sports with guys that had insane skills but were utterly useless in a 'real' game - thinking is a huge component of most team sports. My argument is you only need the 'insane skills' portion to be a very good ball player.

This is also why good baseball sims are far easier to create - the stats really do tell 90% of the story; whereas I'd argue the other sports are very hard to quantify on a statistical level.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by BruceM

When did they start body checking in soccer?

They call it 'playing the man, not the ball', but it amounts to the same thing.

I like Harry Chiti's post. Very thoughtful. When I played baseball, all I could do was hit for average. Making the bat strike the ball squarely was insanely easy, and BABIP did the rest. Running the bases, throwing, catching, hitting for power were talents I was never able to master. I could create me in OotPB in about two minutes.