Help me understand sports

[amlothi]

I'm not an athlete. I've never played most of these sports. I don't get to watch as much as I wish I could. For many of you, these are probably stupid questions, but they are things I've always casually wondered about.
 
1. Hockey - I'll admit, I had to go online to look up icing in order to figure out what it was. However, I still don't understand the purpose of the rule. How would the sport be different (worse) if there was no rule against icing?
 
2. Hockey and Soccer - Similar to above, I've never understood why some sports have rules against being off sides, but not others. You never complain about an offensive player getting behind the defense in basketball - it's called a fast break, and it's exciting and entertaining. Why would some sports be different (worse) if there was no rule against being off sides?
 
3. Baseball - I often can't tell when balks, and sometimes not even on a replay. I read about what constitutes a balk, and understand it on paper, but in practice I can't identify it. Is it because I'm usually more focused on the batter? (Probably). How are umps trained to spot this?
 
4. Basketball - Watching the NBA in particular, I don't understand why it's almost always a foul on a defender if the offensive player initiates contact. Why does it matter if the defender is moving or stationary? Is there a rationale for having the games called this way? Why do we need restricted area under the basket that prevents someone from playing defense?
 
5. Football - Why do skill players get paid more in the NFL. It seems that great line play (on either side of the ball) can make up for (or cover up) a lack of skill players, but not the other way around. Am I wrong in thinking this? If not, why aren't lineman more highly valued compared to skill players? 

 

[Kliq]

I don't know the exact statistics, but I'm pretty sure tackles make about the same as WR and more than RBs.

 

[smastroyin]

Icing exists because if it didn't the team in the lead would constantly dump the puck instead of carrying it out and you would get shitty boring hockey.
 
Off-sides I think would cause the opposite of what you are expecting.  If there were no off-sides, then if an offensive player stayed in the zone, a defensive player would probably have to start marking him.  Now, in hockey, you've got 4 on 4 with two guys milling about the other end.  I think if it were removed, you would end up with a slower game because teams protect their own goals first and foremost in those sports.  
 
The thing about balks is that almost every pitcher balks when pitching from the stretch, if you go purely by the rule.  That's why it is hard for you (or anyone) to understand.  In general, umpires only call the most egregious.  
 
Basketball has specific rules about when it is an offensive foul.  The defender has to be set and have claimed that spot in the lane.  It is all about who gets to the spot first, that's the entire point, and why the rule is there.  The restricted area is because in practice, you can't really defend a moving player within this boundary (if they are driving to the hoop, defending them within three feet is probably after the release).  The rule exists so that if a guy is driving to the basket and beats his man (say, at the top of the key) a second dude doesn't come in and stand under the hoop just to take the foul.  These rules are all designed to give something of an advantage to offense.  Why?  People like offense.  As well, there is a safety concern for a player who is already up in the air and has their legs taken out from under them close to the hoop.
 
This is not a sports question, it is a statistics question.  The answer is very simple, just like in real life, people are paid according to supply and demand.  There are a lot more guys that can play guard than can play WR in the NFL.  Elite tackles are harder to come by and get paid that way.  On the other hand, I actually think you are wrong right now.  
 
Here are the franchise tags for each position:
 
Quarterback: $16.192 million 
Running back: $9.54 million 
Wide receiver: $12.312 million 
Tight end: $7.035 million
Offensive lineman: $11.654 million  
Defensive end: $13.116 million
Defensive tackle: $9.654 million 
Linebacker: $11.455 million 
Cornerback: $11.834 million
Safety: $8.433 million
Kicker/punter: $3.556 million
 
So at least at the top end, Olinemen are paid better than RB and just a bit worse than WR.  
 
For instance, this is also why guys who play first base are typically good hitters - because there are many more people in the world who can play first base, than say, shortstop, they earn roster spots primarily with their bat.
 
(I'm sure there are people with better explanations than I have, but that's my shot at it)

 

[wiffleballhero]

In hockey the blue line is essential for the reason mentioned above, there just are not enough players for it to not pretty radically change the game. It would especially create the situation where the logic of the icing problem would come into play in which the team in the lead would just dump the puck and the one (never off sides) front person would skate after it.
 
But I think that in soccer off sides is less of an issue and could sensibly be dropped.
 
Doing so would actually free up the game quite a bit and put an absolute premium on speed. 
 
Say what you want about the idea that teams would just leave forwards in the offensive zone, it does not happen in basketball and my guess is that in soccer it would functionally just stretch the field about 20 meters (meaning that forwards would end up pulling 20 past midfield and thus the whole defense would slide back). Doing so would be great really, it would make more scoring and more space. Also, there would not be much of a point in putting forwards much more than at the 70 meter mark since at 85 meters the goalie will just grab the ball with his hands. 
 
Then, once a team is moving on offense it would become more like basketball where you could cut under the defenders and really change the geometry of things. 
 
I've never really thought, 'wow, what a beautiful off sides trap!' 

 

[amlothi]

The thing about balks is that almost every pitcher balks when pitching from the stretch, if you go purely by the rule.  That's why it is hard for you (or anyone) to understand.  In general, umpires only call the most egregious.  

 
Thanks. It makes sense then why it's hard for me to distinguish.
 
 

Basketball has specific rules about when it is an offensive foul.  The defender has to be set and have claimed that spot in the lane.  It is all about who gets to the spot first, that's the entire point, and why the rule is there.  The restricted area is because in practice, you can't really defend a moving player within this boundary (if they are driving to the hoop, defending them within three feet is probably after the release).  The rule exists so that if a guy is driving to the basket and beats his man (say, at the top of the key) a second dude doesn't come in and stand under the hoop just to take the foul.  

 
I understand they have specific rules. I don't understand why those rules are what they are. A defender should have just as much right to a space on the court as an offensive player, and shouldn't be put at the disadvantage of having to be stationary.
 

These rules are all designed to give something of an advantage to offense.  Why?  People like offense.  As well, there is a safety concern for a player who is already up in the air and has their legs taken out from under them close to the hoop.
 

 
If this is truly the case, then I guess I disagree. I like balance, and I feel like this is unbalanced in favor of the offense. I also feel that there should be equal concern for the safety of a defender who is in the air (e.g., due to a pump fake), and has an offensive player purposely leaning underneath them to draw the foul call. (Edit: Or kicking their leg out a la Reggie Miller.)
 

 
Here are the franchise tags for each position:
 
Quarterback: $16.192 million 
Running back: $9.54 million 
Wide receiver: $12.312 million 
Tight end: $7.035 million
Offensive lineman: $11.654 million  
Defensive end: $13.116 million
Defensive tackle: $9.654 million 
Linebacker: $11.455 million 
Cornerback: $11.834 million
Safety: $8.433 million
Kicker/punter: $3.556 million
 
So at least at the top end, Olinemen are paid better than RB and just a bit worse than WR. 

 
I had never looked this up, so thank you. I guess as a casual fan I don't hear as much about the star players being lineman.
 
 

But I think that in soccer off sides is less of an issue and could sensibly be dropped.
 
Doing so would actually free up the game quite a bit and put an absolute premium on speed. 

 
This is my thinking as well. I find soccer quite boring to watch and it seems this might help somewhat with that. I realize that's my own personal opinion on it though.

 

[DJnVa]

Say what you want about the idea that teams would just leave forwards in the offensive zone, it does not happen in basketball and my guess is that in soccer it would functionally just stretch the field about 20 meters (meaning that forwards would end up pulling 20 past midfield and thus the whole defense would slide back). Doing so would be great really, it would make more scoring and more space. Also, there would not be much of a point in putting forwards much more than at the 70 meter mark since at 85 meters the goalie will just grab the ball with his hands. 

 
I don't think you can compare it to basketball though. Sure, one of the players doesn't just camp out at the other end, but that's because if the offense was going 5 on 4 they'd score so often that the team with the guy hanging out at the other end would get pasted.

 

[McDrew]

Icing in hockey is an anti-defensive move rather than an anti-offensive move.  Icing prevents teams from just clearing the puck out of the zone (they can on the penalty kill) to relieve pressure, forcing them to make a somewhat controlled exit from their defensive zone. 

 

[jimc]

 
I don't think you can compare it to basketball though. Sure, one of the players doesn't just camp out at the other end, but that's because if the offense was going 5 on 4 they'd score so often that the team with the guy hanging out at the other end would get pasted.

 
Exactly. In soccer I can leave a guy up in attack all day and pay almost no cost on defense.
 
Without the offside rule, you're going to get less premium on speed, not more. With offisde, you have to outrun the defense without getting a head start, so you need to be fast. Without offside, speed not required, just park yourself up front and be big and strong enough to hold off the defense when the ball arrives.

 

[SumnerH]

Fletch had a great post in one of the world cup threads about the importance of the offside rule. I'll try to dig it up when I'm in front of a computer if nobody else does; it was a really good read.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

I like the blue line in hockey. I think offside is needed in soccer, but would be better with a similar line. Still better than nothing, though.

Edit: I also recognize that my understanding of soccer is only developing, and I may be just plain wrong.

 

[wiffleballhero]

 
Exactly. In soccer I can leave a guy up in attack all day and pay almost no cost on defense.
 
Without the offside rule, you're going to get less premium on speed, not more. With offisde, you have to outrun the defense without getting a head start, so you need to be fast. Without offside, speed not required, just park yourself up front and be big and strong enough to hold off the defense when the ball arrives.

This is what actually happens in soccer already though. The player is just stuck at midfield standing around like a prima donna.

 

[pockmeister]

Soccer would be a very different sport without the offside rule.  The main purpose of it is to prevent teams from simply leaving attacking players hanging around at the the opposing end of the field.  If the rule was removed, the outcome would be teams playing with a single bank of defenders and a single bank of attackers.  The ball would be constantly played long, directly from the defenders to the attackers, and back again.  It would probably look a lot like tennis, with the middle of the field being left rather vacant.  This would take away a lot of the technical skills of the game - the ability to place a pass to open a team up, running with the ball through the midfield, beating the defensive line for pace, etc.
 
The role of offside is to squeeze the action away from the goals, and to focus it into the middle third of the field.  It means that a goal retains the highest value of any play in sport - if the rule didn't exist, soccer scores would likely look a lot more like baseball scores, but with limited entertainment and variety as both teams just smash the ball up and down the field between two relatively static lines.  It would be an interesting experiment to watch, but unlikely to be good for the game

 

[smastroyin]

In basketball, the balance comes from the fact that in general the game we are used to watching has teams scoring about 1 point per possession.  Whether you think there is an inherent fairness is kind of irrelevant.  Is it "fair" that a 23' shot goes for only two points but a 23.5' shot goes for three?  At the end of the day, many rules are designed to dictate the flow of the game, not to achieve a sense of moral fairness.  Allowing a defensive player to move into the path of an offensive ball carrier would effectively end drives to the basket.  You probably think I'm full of crap, and I may be, but looking at the speed with which NBA players move, I think you'd be surprised how quickly guys would stop driving the lane outside of fast breaks.  And, halfcourt offense in the NBA is already titled toward defense.
 
Take the balk, which you might consider a moral fairness rule in baseball.  The purpose of the balk is to keep the pitcher from playing outright tricks on the runner.  For instance, without the balk rule, a pitcher could come to the set, go through his throwing motion, but hold the ball, and if the runner takes off, he's dead to rights.  Except, baseball does allow the hidden ball trick elsewhere, so it's probably not really about moral fairness.  What it's about is keeping the pace of the game moving and allowing the runner the opportunity to steal, because the game wants steals as a part of it, and wants them something near 70% success so that people will keep trying but it's not a given.

 

[RIFan]

Everything stated above on hockey icing is correct.  Just to add on to the substance of the rule, the defensive team cannot change out players if they ice the puck in even strength or their own man advantage situations.  That creates a stronger deterrent than just having to have the face off in your own end.  Hockey is generally a full exertion game, meaning players take 30-45 second shifts and change out.  Getting stuck out on the ice for 90 seconds or more makes you a defensive liability even with the superb level of conditioning most pros have.
 
There has been talk about eliminating the ability to ice the puck in man down situations as another way to pump up the offense.  Icing the puck on the penalty kill is the primary defensive measure when down a man.

 

[Just a bit outside]

 
I don't think you can compare it to basketball though. Sure, one of the players doesn't just camp out at the other end, but that's because if the offense was going 5 on 4 they'd score so often that the team with the guy hanging out at the other end would get pasted.

I think is certainly the case for question 2.  In basketball there is no incentive to hanging back and not playing defense.  The offense is going to score almost every time 5 on 4 and have time to get back on defense once they score.  There is no need for an offside rule.
 
In soccer or hockey it is opposite.  The chances of scoring 5 on 4 in hockey or 11 on 10 in soccer is still pretty low and teams would have a reason to send some players to just stand in front of the goalie.  This would change the game for worse.  Once a team got the ball they would just kick/pass it as far as possible in front of the net and hope for a goal.  I think less skill and strategy would be involved and the game would be very boring.  I say this as someone who finds soccer to be pretty boring already.

 

[Just a bit outside]

 
4. Basketball - Watching the NBA in particular, I don't understand why it's almost always a foul on a defender if the offensive player initiates contact. Why does it matter if the defender is moving or stationary? Is there a rationale for having the games called this way? Why do we need restricted area under the basket that prevents someone from playing defense?
 
 

In basketball the defender can draw a charge when moving if they are square to the offensive player and in a defensive position.  You will see charges called more often a lower levels of basketball because the players are not moving as quickly and it is easier to get square to the offensive player. In the NBA the players are moving so fast that it is hard to determine and they want more offense.  The call will almost always be in favor of the offensive player at that level.
 
The reason you need a restricted area under the basket is that it keeps players from getting undercut and hurt.  It is not really defense to stand under the hoop when someone is going up to shoot.  You are not stopping the offense as much as you are hoping to draw a foul while also not giving the offensive player a landing spot.  It is very dangerous to the offensive player.

 

[fletcherpost]

Soccer would be a very different sport without the offside rule.  The main purpose of it is to prevent teams from simply leaving attacking players hanging around at the the opposing end of the field.  If the rule was removed, the outcome would be teams playing with a single bank of defenders and a single bank of attackers.  The ball would be constantly played long, directly from the defenders to the attackers, and back again.  It would probably look a lot like tennis, with the middle of the field being left rather vacant.  This would take away a lot of the technical skills of the game - the ability to place a pass to open a team up, running with the ball through the midfield, beating the defensive line for pace, etc.
 
The role of offside is to squeeze the action away from the goals, and to focus it into the middle third of the field.  It means that a goal retains the highest value of any play in sport - if the rule didn't exist, soccer scores would likely look a lot more like baseball scores, but with limited entertainment and variety as both teams just smash the ball up and down the field between two relatively static lines.  It would be an interesting experiment to watch, but unlikely to be good for the game

 
 
This is spot on.

 

[wiffleballhero]

I don't know, I'm not totally convinced that it would just turn into a back and forth with an empty middle.  
 
It is pretty hard to settle a 60-70M booming clear. It seems like a team that played with just a bunch of players up and a bunch of players hunkered down on D would end up without enough defenders all trying to boom low percentage balls to players without enough help, meanwhile the more traditional, even coverage team would just redirect those boom balls back to the middle where the field would be conceded to them and they would have all the time in the world to set up an attack with shorter passes.
 
It is one thing for a mid-fielder to launch a 40M pass after he has been able to step into some space, it is another thing to go 60 or more. That is a bomb, easily defended because the defender does not have to try to settle or go forward with what, at that distance is always a 50-50 ball.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

I don't know, I'm not totally convinced that it would just turn into a back and forth with an empty middle.

Anecdotal evidence is that it does. I've heard of games played with no offsides where exactly this happened. (It was long enough ago that I heard of it that I don't remember any of the details.)