Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Bored?
Baseball, why do you ask?
Are you kidding? Batting above .250 is way harder. Not even close.
Sort of apples to oranges but very few people can bat .250 in the Big Leauges and the ones that do are multi-millionaires. Well, at least a millionaire for 2 years if that's all they can do and not also play as a stellar infielder or hit 25 home runs a year at least.
If a sub 3 hour marathon was worth 100 grand just once 10,000 people would be doing just that. I knew factory workers who never ran and were former smokers that got into running in their mid-thirties that would qualify for Boston when you had to break 2:50.
Batting .250 is probably more comparable to running 2:10.
anyone (males and females) can run under 3 hours (yes, anyone)
very few (and no females) could hit .250 even against a pitching machine throwing 70mph let alone live pitching
PBj wrote:
What is more difficult: running a sub 3-hour marathon OR .250 BA over a 162-game MLB season?
Keeping .250 blood alcohol over a 162-game MLB season is much harder than running a sub 3 marathon.
break it up wrote:
Batting .250 is probably more comparable to running 2:10.
This.
The number of people in the majors is very small. The number of people that played baseball and wish they could have played in the majors is millions upon millions just in the US.Running a sub 3 hour marathon is a relatively exclusive accomplishment but nowhere near making it as a professional in a sport. A LOT of people could do sub 3 if they wanted to. Hitting .250 in the MLB. Very, very few.
PBj wrote:
Thoughts?
exactly, I would say just taking a pitch from an MLB would be harder than running a 3:00 marathon. They throw those balls fast.
Say Tanness wrote:
anyone (males and females) can run under 3 hours (yes, anyone)
very few (and no females) could hit .250 even against a pitching machine throwing 70mph let alone live pitching
Not everyone can run under 3 hours, and the percent of females is probably under 50%.
However, your point is true that it is much harder to bat .250 in the Major Leagues. Hell, Michael Jordan couldn't do it.
Harder for whom? Albert Pujols? Geoffrey Mutai?
Ha, I barely hit 250 in little league!
Balls wrote:
Are you kidding? Batting above .250 is way harder. Not even close.
So Ryan Hall is a .250 batter?
I think that running 2:25 is about equal to hitting .250. Most people will never be able to do either of these, but compared to the super stars of the sport they appear to be unimpressive.
As many have already said, this one's not even close. I ran a sub-3:00 marathon. I couldn't even bat .050 in MLB. I'm typical of most folks in this case.
Better comparison would be 2:10 marathon. Not 3:00.
Cleveland Park wrote:
I think that running 2:25 is about equal to hitting .250. Most people will never be able to do either of these, but compared to the super stars of the sport they appear to be unimpressive.
This.
whoever said 2:10 marathon was right on the money. If a 2:20 paid as much as the last player on the bench you'd see a LOT more guys go for broke!
MLB allows HGH and EPO and steroids thus I don't think the numbers they claim are valid.