|
|
Post by millar70 on Sept 13, 2020 21:33:25 GMT
So some dude on the Cubs just threw a no-hitter in Milwaukee against the hugely disappointing Brewers today. I believe this is the 2nd no-no of the season, I think a Marlins pitcher threw one, or maybe a Braves pitcher, I forget.
The thing is, though, is that these guys are basically playing at mausoleums with piped in crowd noise, so I'm wondering if any of you feel that takes away a bit from the actual accomplishment.
I mean, this dude for the Cubs, would he have been able to maintain a no-hitter with a rabid Milwaukee crowd there? Would the crowd energy shake him enough to maybe lose his focus and give up a hit in the later innings?
As is with the ancient question of the tree falling in the forest, does a no-hitter make a sound when there's no one there? An interesting dilemma, and I'm wondering where you all stand on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Sept 13, 2020 22:00:25 GMT
To me games with no fans are less exciting and have the feel of exhibition games. It wonder how the players like it.
I’ll admit though that the NHL games didn’t have much of a drop off. They piped in the crowd pretty well. Only really missed it on goals or great saves.
|
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Sept 13, 2020 22:09:05 GMT
To me games with no fans are less exciting and have the feel of exhibition games. It wonder how the players like it. I’ll admit though that the NHL games didn’t have much of a drop off. They piped in the crowd pretty well. Only really missed it on goals or great saves. So how do you feel about the legitimately of a no-hitter in a road stadium with no crowd? What if some schlepp for the Mets throws a no-no in Philly without any of you crazies there to try to throw him off of his game? Would it seem kind of phony to you? I'm not trying to take away from what this kid did today, but it sure seems easier to accomplish without fans breathing down his neck as the game went on. |
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Sept 13, 2020 22:13:29 GMT
To me games with no fans are less exciting and have the feel of exhibition games. It wonder how the players like it. I’ll admit though that the NHL games didn’t have much of a drop off. They piped in the crowd pretty well. Only really missed it on goals or great saves. So how do you feel about the legitimately of a no-hitter in a road stadium with no crowd? What if some schlepp for the Mets throws a no-no in Philly without any of you crazies there to try to throw him off of his game? Would it seem kind of phony to you? I'm not trying to take away from what this kid did today, but it sure seems easier to accomplish without fans breathing down his neck as the game went on. I mean I don’t think it should get an asterisk or anything, unless it was seven innings - I didn’t look at the box score, it went the full 9? I don’t know what a Milwaukee crowd is typically like but I’ve seen many example where the pitcher from the away team is tossing a no no and the fans start cheering for him. Though I doubt that would happen in Philly against the Mets. Kudos to the Cubs pitcher, even if the game was missing something. |
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Sept 13, 2020 22:42:20 GMT
So some dude on the Cubs just threw a no-hitter in Milwaukee against the hugely disappointing Brewers today. I believe this is the 2nd no-no of the season, I think a Marlins pitcher threw one, or maybe a Braves pitcher, I forget. The thing is, though, is that these guys are basically playing at mausoleums with piped in crowd noise, so I'm wondering if any of you feel that takes away a bit from the actual accomplishment. I mean, this dude for the Cubs, would he have been able to maintain a no-hitter with a rabid Milwaukee crowd there? Would the crowd energy shake him enough to maybe lose his focus and give up a hit in the later innings? As is with the ancient question of the tree falling in the forest, does a no-hitter make a sound when there's no one there? An interesting dilemma, and I'm wondering where you all stand on this. when i was on playing any sport, it was all a blur, i didn't notice the crowd.
|
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Sept 13, 2020 22:45:28 GMT
So some dude on the Cubs just threw a no-hitter in Milwaukee against the hugely disappointing Brewers today. I believe this is the 2nd no-no of the season, I think a Marlins pitcher threw one, or maybe a Braves pitcher, I forget. The thing is, though, is that these guys are basically playing at mausoleums with piped in crowd noise, so I'm wondering if any of you feel that takes away a bit from the actual accomplishment. I mean, this dude for the Cubs, would he have been able to maintain a no-hitter with a rabid Milwaukee crowd there? Would the crowd energy shake him enough to maybe lose his focus and give up a hit in the later innings? As is with the ancient question of the tree falling in the forest, does a no-hitter make a sound when there's no one there? An interesting dilemma, and I'm wondering where you all stand on this. when i was on playing any sport, it was all a blur, i didn't notice the crowd. Did you ever try to complete a no-hitter at Fenway Park while wearing a Yankees uniform? |
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Sept 14, 2020 2:17:00 GMT
Regardless, Alec Mills became the first pitcher I ever had on my Fantasy team to pitch a no-hitter. I picked him up only to fill up the RP slot, but he had some very solid games. This week, he pitched 15 scoreless innings with 11 K's in 2 starts.
|
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Sept 14, 2020 2:37:28 GMT
Regardless, Alec Mills became the first pitcher I ever had on my Fantasy team to pitch a no-hitter. I picked him up only to fill up the RP slot, but he had some very solid games. This week, he pitched 15 scoreless innings with 11 K's in 2 starts. Cherish the cabin! |
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Sept 14, 2020 2:43:59 GMT
when i was on playing any sport, it was all a blur, i didn't notice the crowd. Did you ever try to complete a no-hitter at Fenway Park while wearing a Yankees uniform? nope, but if you're going to make everything personal, i will too. you never have noticed when you see a game LIVE, baseball, football, esp. it doesn't translate to TV the same speed right? the greatest qb i ever saw live was steve young he would throw these deep fades to jerry rice, and he'd throw them (as the pocket collapsed) way before the 2nd move by rice. never seen on tv.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Sept 14, 2020 3:08:09 GMT
Regardless, Alec Mills became the first pitcher I ever had on my Fantasy team to pitch a no-hitter. I picked him up only to fill up the RP slot, but he had some very solid games. This week, he pitched 15 scoreless innings with 11 K's in 2 starts. Cherish the cabin! Burned.
My team didn't make the playoff this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Sept 14, 2020 3:35:08 GMT
Did you ever try to complete a no-hitter at Fenway Park while wearing a Yankees uniform? nope, but if you're going to make everything personal, i will too. you never have noticed when you see a game LIVE, baseball, football, esp. it doesn't translate to TV the same speed right? the greatest qb i ever saw live was steve young he would throw these deep fades to jerry rice, and he'd throw them (as the pocket collapsed) way before the 2nd move by rice. never seen on tv. You mean the games look different in person than they do on tv? Gee, thanks, I would never have known. 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Sept 14, 2020 9:53:28 GMT
Burned. My team didn't make the playoff this year.
I got in with a 3-4 record and 4th place. Was way up there in points, though. Outscored the 3rd and 5th place teams by well over 300 points. I've felt like no-hitters haven't been all that for quite some time. And now you can have 7 inning ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 14, 2020 12:07:13 GMT
No asterisk required officially, but I feel like any accomplishments this season should be viewed by fans as less impressive. No fans = less pressure to deal with. I see it all the time as a Red Sox fan; we overpay some dipshit 'superstar' from Tampa or San Diego and he comes here and shits the bed because suddenly it matters whether or not he plays well. It's a little harder to be consistent when there are more than 800 people in the stands.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Sept 14, 2020 12:21:53 GMT
If Trubisky throws for 5000 yards this season you may have a point. Other than that I don’t really agree with the premise of this thread.
Whether or not a player has to deal with noise, he still knows that a lot of people are watching (especially if they play in a huge market like Boston, Chicago, New York etc). And why is noise only an impediment when it’s hostile? Players tune this stuff out; some better than others. When a player has an awesome performance in front of a packed home crowd, we don’t chalk it up to all the people cheering him on. Even if we say that raucous fans in Philly shouting “you suck!” makes it harder for players to play, where do we draw the line in terms of the number of fans that need to be present before it’s officially more difficult to play well? I’ve never heard “sure, he threw a no hitter, but there weren’t a lot of fans at the stadium in Cincy on a Wednesday afternoon so it was easier.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 14, 2020 12:51:56 GMT
If Trubisky throws for 5000 yards this season you may have a point. Other than that I don’t really agree with the premise of this thread. Whether or not a player has to deal with noise, he still knows that a lot of people are watching (especially if they play in a huge market like Boston, Chicago, New York etc). And why is noise only an impediment when it’s hostile? Players tune this stuff out; some better than others. When a player has an awesome performance in front of a packed home crowd, we don’t chalk it up to all the people cheering him on. Even if we say that raucous fans in Philly shouting “you suck!” makes it harder for players to play, where do we draw the line in terms of the number of fans that need to be present before it’s officially more difficult to play well? I’ve never heard “sure, he threw a no hitter, but there weren’t a lot of fans at the stadium in Cincy on a Wednesday afternoon so it was easier.” That's the difference. There are players like A-Rod or James Harden or (I hate to say it) Peyton Manning who thrive under 'standard' conditions but don't play as well when the stakes are raised. There's usually a huge difference between how NBA bench players perform in the playoffs at home compared to road games. The best of the best tune out the noise no matter what, but even elite players can succumb to pressure under certain circumstances. Like I said earlier, no asterisk required. It's not like I'm saying I could throw a no hitter in an empty stadium. But no fans in the stands does affect how some players perform. I wish the Bruins had played game 7 on the road last year in the Cup finals. They were so tight in that game because they were at home, you could see it in the way they frantically hacked at the puck while the Blues simply let the game come to them and took advantage of their scoring opportunities. Pressure to perform to expectations is absolutely real.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Sept 14, 2020 13:02:48 GMT
If Trubisky throws for 5000 yards this season you may have a point. Other than that I don’t really agree with the premise of this thread. Whether or not a player has to deal with noise, he still knows that a lot of people are watching (especially if they play in a huge market like Boston, Chicago, New York etc). And why is noise only an impediment when it’s hostile? Players tune this stuff out; some better than others. When a player has an awesome performance in front of a packed home crowd, we don’t chalk it up to all the people cheering him on. Even if we say that raucous fans in Philly shouting “you suck!” makes it harder for players to play, where do we draw the line in terms of the number of fans that need to be present before it’s officially more difficult to play well? I’ve never heard “sure, he threw a no hitter, but there weren’t a lot of fans at the stadium in Cincy on a Wednesday afternoon so it was easier.” That's the difference. There are players like A-Rod or James Harden or (I hate to say it) Peyton Manning who thrive under 'standard' conditions but don't play as well when the stakes are raised. There's usually a huge difference between how NBA bench players perform in the playoffs at home compared to road games. The best of the best tune out the noise no matter what, but even elite players can succumb to pressure under certain circumstances. Like I said earlier, no asterisk required. It's not like I'm saying I could throw a no hitter in an empty stadium. But no fans in the stands does affect how some players perform. I wish the Bruins had played game 7 on the road last year in the Cup finals. They were so tight in that game because they were at home, you could see it in the way they frantically hacked at the puck while the Blues simply let the game come to them and took advantage of their scoring opportunities. Pressure to perform to expectations is absolutely real. I’m not saying that pressure isn’t real. What I’m saying is that I don’t buy the idea that a pitcher throwing a no-hitter is somehow linked to the idea that it was in an empty stadium. We’re talking about regular season baseball, it’s not like the stakes are astronomical either way. You talk about Peyton thriving in standard conditions. What, like ‘quieter’ conditions? The playoffs are the playoffs whether fans are making a lot of noise or not. The stakes are higher because it’s the playoffs and championships are on the line, not because fans are slightly louder. Let’s argue that Peyton wilted under pressure. That pressure would be there regardless of whether fans are present, because it’s still the playoffs and all eyes are on them, and players who are susceptible to “choking” know this. The Bruins lost because they were at home? If they were on the road or in an empty stadium they’d forget that they were playing in a Stanley Cup Final game 7? Nope, I just don’t buy it. If they were tight it’s because of the occasion. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 14, 2020 13:20:35 GMT
That's the difference. There are players like A-Rod or James Harden or (I hate to say it) Peyton Manning who thrive under 'standard' conditions but don't play as well when the stakes are raised. There's usually a huge difference between how NBA bench players perform in the playoffs at home compared to road games. The best of the best tune out the noise no matter what, but even elite players can succumb to pressure under certain circumstances. Like I said earlier, no asterisk required. It's not like I'm saying I could throw a no hitter in an empty stadium. But no fans in the stands does affect how some players perform. I wish the Bruins had played game 7 on the road last year in the Cup finals. They were so tight in that game because they were at home, you could see it in the way they frantically hacked at the puck while the Blues simply let the game come to them and took advantage of their scoring opportunities. Pressure to perform to expectations is absolutely real. I’m not saying that pressure isn’t real. What I’m saying is that I don’t buy the idea that a pitcher throwing a no-hitter is somehow linked to the idea that it was in an empty stadium. We’re talking about regular season baseball, it’s not like the stakes are astronomical either way. You talk about Peyton thriving in standard conditions. What, like ‘quieter’ conditions? The playoffs are the playoffs whether fans are making a lot of noise or not. The stakes are higher because it’s the playoffs and championships are on the line, not because fans are slightly louder. Let’s argue that Peyton wilted under pressure. That pressure would be there regardless of whether fans are present, because it’s still the playoffs and all eyes are on them, and players who are susceptible to “choking” know this. The Bruins lost because they were at home? If they were on the road or in an empty stadium they’d forget that they were playing in a Stanley Cup Final game 7? Nope, I just don’t buy it. If they were tight it’s because of the occasion. I'm not saying he only did it because it was an empty stadium. There have been plenty of no-hitters in baseball history. I'm saying he didn't face the same pressure/scrutiny/nerves as a stadium full of fans, so to me at least, it isn't as impressive. Not 'quieter' conditions in all circumstances, just irregular circumstances; higher stakes, such as playoffs or late innings during a no-hitter. The Bruins didn't lose because they were at home, they lost due to how they reacted to being at home. They let the pressure get to them. Obviously it doesn't always play out that way-- you play for home ice/field/court to have the advantage in those games. But you could see it as you watched that game, the pressure got to them. The same core players won the cup on the road (also a game 7) in 2011, I don't think it was the occasion that was too big for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Sept 14, 2020 13:30:44 GMT
I’m not saying that pressure isn’t real. What I’m saying is that I don’t buy the idea that a pitcher throwing a no-hitter is somehow linked to the idea that it was in an empty stadium. We’re talking about regular season baseball, it’s not like the stakes are astronomical either way. You talk about Peyton thriving in standard conditions. What, like ‘quieter’ conditions? The playoffs are the playoffs whether fans are making a lot of noise or not. The stakes are higher because it’s the playoffs and championships are on the line, not because fans are slightly louder. Let’s argue that Peyton wilted under pressure. That pressure would be there regardless of whether fans are present, because it’s still the playoffs and all eyes are on them, and players who are susceptible to “choking” know this. The Bruins lost because they were at home? If they were on the road or in an empty stadium they’d forget that they were playing in a Stanley Cup Final game 7? Nope, I just don’t buy it. If they were tight it’s because of the occasion. The Bruins didn't lose because they were at home, they lost due to how they reacted to being at home. They let the pressure get to them. Obviously it doesn't always play out that way-- you play for home ice/field/court to have the advantage in those games. But you could see it as you watched that game, the pressure got to them. The same core players won the cup on the road (also a game 7) in 2011, I don't think it was the occasion that was too big for them. Yet that same core, as you describe them, won every game at home in that 2011 Final by a combined score of 17-3. Why is it that they were arbitrarily spooked by playing a Stanley Cup Final game at home this time? |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 14, 2020 13:48:15 GMT
The Bruins didn't lose because they were at home, they lost due to how they reacted to being at home. They let the pressure get to them. Obviously it doesn't always play out that way-- you play for home ice/field/court to have the advantage in those games. But you could see it as you watched that game, the pressure got to them. The same core players won the cup on the road (also a game 7) in 2011, I don't think it was the occasion that was too big for them. Yet that same core, as you describe them, won every game at home in that 2011 Final by a combined score of 17-3. Why is it that they were arbitrarily spooked by playing a Stanley Cup Final game at home this time? Because the pressure of playing a game 7 at home was greater in their minds than doing it on the road where they have the 'nothing to lose' mentality that the Blues clearly had last year. This is my point. Players react differently in different circumstances. The pressure of doing it on home ice clearly affected them more than in 2011 on the road. Why was Peyton one of the winningest QBs of all time, but has an atrocious playoff record? Different situation, different performance. It happens. So to me, a guy throwing a no-hitter in an empty stadium isn't as impressive as doing in front of a packed house. It's still hard, it still counts, it's still impressive. But I think there's a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Sept 14, 2020 13:52:49 GMT
If Trubisky throws for 5000 yards this season you may have a point. Other than that I don’t really agree with the premise of this thread. Whether or not a player has to deal with noise, he still knows that a lot of people are watching (especially if they play in a huge market like Boston, Chicago, New York etc). And why is noise only an impediment when it’s hostile? Players tune this stuff out; some better than others. When a player has an awesome performance in front of a packed home crowd, we don’t chalk it up to all the people cheering him on. Even if we say that raucous fans in Philly shouting “you suck!” makes it harder for players to play, where do we draw the line in terms of the number of fans that need to be present before it’s officially more difficult to play well? I’ve never heard “sure, he threw a no hitter, but there weren’t a lot of fans at the stadium in Cincy on a Wednesday afternoon so it was easier.” It really depends if I'm there or not. My taunts cut deep.
|
|
