Informal: Hockey is "better" than baseball.

I will re-state and re-strengthen my argument because my opponent did not understand the figures I presented. First, I will go by sport to make it easier. Baseball has 162 games per season, with 12 minutes of ball in play per game, yielding 1,944 minutes of potential action per season. The amount of enjoyment each person is subjective to their experience, this debate is not about that though. The bottom line is that, mathematically, for every chance of baseball being exciting to any viewer, hockey offers more chances. Hockey has 82 games per season, with 60 minutes of puck in play per game, yielding 4,920 minutes of potential action per season. Hockey offers more than 3 times the amount of potential action for all viewers of either sport. Also, because baseball has 162 games in a year, the importance of each game to the season total is .61%. That means the stakes for each regular season game are far less than games in a hockey season. Hockey has 82 games per season, putting the importance of each game at 1.12% (nearly double that of baseball). With each game having more importance to the season, the stakes are higher for the teams in hockey to win and thus puts more importance on needing to win each game. These are mathematical facts and cannot be negated and there is no flawed logic here. Con's argument that "baseball offers the spectator more games to enjoy" is subjective to the experience of that person, but as I have shown earlier, the amount of "ball in play" minutes per game is significantly less than "puck in play" minute found in hockey. Although there are more games per season, the totals for the minutes offered for hockey surpasses that of baseball. Con's notion of me contradicting myself is false and should be removed from the debate. I offered mathematical truths for the availability of potential action for the spectators, and there hockey wins. Here is the source of the same information that Con deemed insufficient: For length of baseball games and time of action timed by a Sports Illustrated columnist (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...) Con's point that, "baseball is a better spectator sport for those who prefer relaxation to excitement. Pro has not shown how a more exciting sport is a better spectator sport," only shows that there are different kinds of preference in the spectators themselves. Sports are naturally competitive and are not known for their relaxing attributes. I agree with Con that the "quality" of each sport is subjective and not measurable (as in people enjoying a slow sport as opposed to a fast sport) but because of the competitive nature of sports, it is apparent that spectators watch sports for competitive action between the teams. Because the quality for each person cannot be measured during this debate, I agree to drop this point. Also, Con argues that baseball is for those looking for a "slow" and "relaxing" sport, but he later argues that there is a "level required" for baseball players to play at, and this is level of competition is reached through the methods of steroids. Con points out that baseball ticket sales are higher so it must be a more popular and thus "better" sport. The reason that baseball tickets are so high is because they have so many games. It is far easier to sell more tickets than any other sport in the United States when you have more games than any other sport in the United States. Using Con's logic, football would be the least popular sport because of the lack of ticket sales. Also, Con says that baseball is the second most popular sport. This is taken out of context from his source. Baseball may be the second most popular sport in the States, but Hockey is the most popular sport in Canada. This point cannot be used to tell whether or not a sport is better because it gets different coverage in different countries. For my second point that Con did not understand, I will reiterate. Oxford dictionary defines athletic as: of or relating to athletes; strong, fit, and active. The skills required to play hockey are more athletic than the ones used in baseball, being that the skills themselves require more strength, fitness, and amount of activity. Please refer to my earlier round for the skills. On the topic of hitting a baseball being the hardest thing to do in all of sports, Con states, "Those people are correct: hitting a ball that is travelling above 100 mph is one of the hardest things to do in sports. The reason the number of hits is high is because so many baseball players use steroids. In fact, the high prevalence of steroids in baseball suggests that it is such a difficult sport that a large number of professional players have to use drugs to perform at the level required." Here Con does not actually make the connection between the difficulty and the need for steroids in the sport of baseball. There is not a need for steroids, period. Con also suggests that there is a "level required" for baseball players to play at. This is also false. Con is arguing that people watch baseball for the relaxing style of the sport, yet claims that there is a required level for players to compete at. This logic seems flawed. Second, the hardest thing to do in sports is not hitting a baseball. The hardest thing to do in sports would be something attainable and has been done before, but less than other things because of its difficulty. I would say pitching a perfect game, striking out 30 batters in a game, or winning the world series 8 times in a row would be harder than hitting a baseball at 100 miles per hour. I would go as far as saying that because a batting average for an average baseball player is around .200, they hit the ball 20% of the time they get a pitch. It seems that in hockey, scoring a goal is harder than hitting a baseball because it happens less frequently. My final point that is brought up by Con is no negated as he says. In basketball, the field goal percentage for the NBA is around 40%-50% [1] (hockey goalie save percentage is .900 and baseball batting averages are .250-.300) and that just means that it is easier for the professional player of his sport to score in basketball, then baseball, then hockey. 1. http://www.insidehoops.com... Thank you for the challenge Con.