Baseball’s Fight with Fatigue(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Baseball’s Fight with Fatigue
http://www.wsj.com/articles/baseballs-fight-with-fatigue-1424710560?mod=WSJ_hp_EditorsPicks
5 comments
I must not understand Baseball well, because it strikes me as one of the least fatiguing sports that there are.
Here is what I'd recommend: for four hours, alternate sitting and standing every ten minutes in a sunny park. When standing, once every thirty seconds or so tense into a squat position and concentrate as hard as you can on something about 100 feet away. Every 10th time, sprint all out in a random direction. Every 20th time, throw a rock as hard as you can as far as you can.
What you will find is that you, a normal human, can keep this up for about one hour, before you collapse of exhaustion or hurt yourself.
That the super humans who play professional baseball are able to do this day in and day out for more than half a year is insane.
What you will find is that you, a normal human, can keep this up for about one hour, before you collapse of exhaustion or hurt yourself.
That the super humans who play professional baseball are able to do this day in and day out for more than half a year is insane.
Compare that to what other athletes do in their sports and it seems trivial. The Tour de France involves racing your bike for 130 miles a day, every day for a month, over mountains multiple times a day.
No, if you're a professional athlete this should not be all that difficult. Boring but not difficult.
Look at the average baseball player. So many of them are plump or overweight. I'd argue that soccer players running 10-15 miles every game have a bit more to deal with.
baseball needs some yoga and proper nutrition.
Look at the average baseball player. So many of them are plump or overweight. I'd argue that soccer players running 10-15 miles every game have a bit more to deal with.
baseball needs some yoga and proper nutrition.
In general, the public has a poor understanding of being a professional athlete. Typically, when I try to explain it to others, I usually just say "it's a job like any other" - the same as staying on top of your game in the music industry, running a startup, etc.
It's easy for us to dismiss the effort professional athletes put out when you only see them on TV a few times. However, it's somehow different when we see Steve Jobs or Tim Cook on stage a couple times each year. We recognize all of the hard work Steve/Tim likely put in behind the scenes.
For some reason, a lot of people don't recognize that same level of effort for professional athletes. They just assume they show up for the game and perform at a high level.
For every hour on the field, there's probably two hours of study (mental preparation) and two hours of treatment and/or rehab (physical maintenance). Pair that with a rigid schedule every day, fatigue is a real concern.
We all know the overnight success myth. The myth exists for professional athletes as well. Athletes that make it to the highest level didn't simply wake up one morning and have all the tools to succeed. Hours and hours and hours of training, both mental and physical, had to occur. It's like anything else - you don't simply get good. It takes practice.
It also takes commitment, dedication, and perseverance to succeed at a professional level - just like everything else in this world.
It's easy for us to dismiss the effort professional athletes put out when you only see them on TV a few times. However, it's somehow different when we see Steve Jobs or Tim Cook on stage a couple times each year. We recognize all of the hard work Steve/Tim likely put in behind the scenes.
For some reason, a lot of people don't recognize that same level of effort for professional athletes. They just assume they show up for the game and perform at a high level.
For every hour on the field, there's probably two hours of study (mental preparation) and two hours of treatment and/or rehab (physical maintenance). Pair that with a rigid schedule every day, fatigue is a real concern.
We all know the overnight success myth. The myth exists for professional athletes as well. Athletes that make it to the highest level didn't simply wake up one morning and have all the tools to succeed. Hours and hours and hours of training, both mental and physical, had to occur. It's like anything else - you don't simply get good. It takes practice.
It also takes commitment, dedication, and perseverance to succeed at a professional level - just like everything else in this world.
A first baseman, sure. They only need to be able catch well and sometimes throw across the infield. Find me an out-of-shape center fielder. Miguel Cabrera, for example, is a bit bigger. He's slow getting around the bases. But his talent, other than being a first baseman, is hitting the ball hard enough that he can casually stroll around the bases if he wants.
But humans were meant to run. That's why we stand upright, that's why we sweat. Running long distances on a flat grass field, to a trained athlete, is going to be less fatiguing than standing still in the sun waiting for something to happen. Pitchers throw 100+ pitches at 90+ MPH and for the most part, are dead accurate. Even if the ball is spiraling through the air to confuse the batter. And the players, other than the starting pitcher, are out there almost every single day, and sometimes play two games per day. Baseball has a ridiculously packed schedule.
So I would disagree that soccer players have it rougher. Running is easy.
But humans were meant to run. That's why we stand upright, that's why we sweat. Running long distances on a flat grass field, to a trained athlete, is going to be less fatiguing than standing still in the sun waiting for something to happen. Pitchers throw 100+ pitches at 90+ MPH and for the most part, are dead accurate. Even if the ball is spiraling through the air to confuse the batter. And the players, other than the starting pitcher, are out there almost every single day, and sometimes play two games per day. Baseball has a ridiculously packed schedule.
So I would disagree that soccer players have it rougher. Running is easy.
Baseball pitchers regularly play well into their 40's. Jamie Moyer was still pitching a month or two shy of turning 50. For soccer players, still playing at 40 is nearly unheard of. Ryan Giggs did it, but that's about it, and it was mostly sentimentality that kept him playing that last year or so. So I would disagree that baseball is that much more taxing than soccer.
"Baseball pitchers regularly play well into their 40's"
Unless you're someone like Mark Prior who had their body give out when their career was just getting started. Why are you only highlighting the outliers, the genetic freaks (amongst genetic freaks no less)?
The thing with baseball pitchers is that there's an enormous selective pressure on their bodies (primarily shoulder & elbow) being able to withstand the brutal toll throwing all those pitches causes. The absolute best pitchers (talent wise) might never even make it to the MLB because their arm falls apart before they get a chance. There are pitching motions which hurt my arm just doing them in slow motion, now imagine heaving a baseball 90+ mph repeatedly for your entire life.
This is a far different selective pressure than what e.g. soccer players would have where quickness & speed on their feet is what matters.
The problem with these discussions is that people are using words like "taxing" to only narrowly mean what they want it to mean.
Unless you're someone like Mark Prior who had their body give out when their career was just getting started. Why are you only highlighting the outliers, the genetic freaks (amongst genetic freaks no less)?
The thing with baseball pitchers is that there's an enormous selective pressure on their bodies (primarily shoulder & elbow) being able to withstand the brutal toll throwing all those pitches causes. The absolute best pitchers (talent wise) might never even make it to the MLB because their arm falls apart before they get a chance. There are pitching motions which hurt my arm just doing them in slow motion, now imagine heaving a baseball 90+ mph repeatedly for your entire life.
This is a far different selective pressure than what e.g. soccer players would have where quickness & speed on their feet is what matters.
The problem with these discussions is that people are using words like "taxing" to only narrowly mean what they want it to mean.
There are lots of Major League pitchers in their 40's. There might be no Premier League outfield players in their 40's. Lots of players in both sports get injured and end their careers in their 20's.
No doubt that a starting pitcher's pitching arm takes a lot of abuse, but they can have much longer careers than almost any other athlete.
No doubt that a starting pitcher's pitching arm takes a lot of abuse, but they can have much longer careers than almost any other athlete.
That's not my point, what I was saying is that the two have completely different curves due to relying on completely different physical attributes.
A soccer player (or NBA player or many NFL positions, etc) is going to deteriorate steadily as they age after hitting some peak year. For some sports there'll be a slight bubble after that ast the intersection of athleticism decreasing and increasing wisdom but not for all. Sure, someone might endure a catastrophic injury and some players are made of glass (e.g. Greg Oden in the NBA) but generally players will wash out either when their athleticism is not high enough for their level or it deteriorates below the level necessary.
A baseball pitcher's curve is different. Their arm/shoulder will either be able to withstand the long term abuse or it won't and if it's the latter they'll wash out pretty early on (likely long before they ever see an MLB field). Once they clear that hurdle the actual deterioration rate is much slower in the general case. It also helps that pitching is a position where accumulated wisdom can really help, a lot like the quarterback in american football and that can help balance out declining athleticism as well
A soccer player (or NBA player or many NFL positions, etc) is going to deteriorate steadily as they age after hitting some peak year. For some sports there'll be a slight bubble after that ast the intersection of athleticism decreasing and increasing wisdom but not for all. Sure, someone might endure a catastrophic injury and some players are made of glass (e.g. Greg Oden in the NBA) but generally players will wash out either when their athleticism is not high enough for their level or it deteriorates below the level necessary.
A baseball pitcher's curve is different. Their arm/shoulder will either be able to withstand the long term abuse or it won't and if it's the latter they'll wash out pretty early on (likely long before they ever see an MLB field). Once they clear that hurdle the actual deterioration rate is much slower in the general case. It also helps that pitching is a position where accumulated wisdom can really help, a lot like the quarterback in american football and that can help balance out declining athleticism as well
People don't realize just how much pitching taxes the human body. There's a reason why most pitchers have several joint surgeries over the course of their careers.
>I'd argue that soccer players running 10-15 miles every game have a bit more to deal with.
You mean kilometers, not miles.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06...
You mean kilometers, not miles.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06...
I agree that one baseball game is less stress on an athlete's body than one soccer game. But soccer players play about 30-40 games a season; major league baseball players play 162 games a season.
The overweight players are overweight for the same reason that (American) football linemen are: it's useful for their skill.
One of the reasons that Prince Fielder can hit as many home runs as he does is that he has a lot of mass; it's also one reason that steroids were effective. Not (just) for strength, but the more mass you have to swing into the ball, the farther it will go.
One of the reasons that Prince Fielder can hit as many home runs as he does is that he has a lot of mass; it's also one reason that steroids were effective. Not (just) for strength, but the more mass you have to swing into the ball, the farther it will go.
I won't pretend to appreciate the challenges of being a professional baseball player, but I can imagine that the constant travel and resulting disorientation is a contributing factor to fatigue. This article discusses the challenges.
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/2878521/
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/2878521/
The people who pick your coffee probably have as exhaustive a routine. Doesn't make it a spectator sport.
I've had a few conversations with friends about which sport I'd choose to play if I could be a professional in any sport. I think baseball would be at the bottom of my list.
You have to go to the ballpark nearly every single day for almost 8 months. I'm from Detroit and I'm looking at the Tiger's schedule right now. In September they have TWO days in the entire month without a game. By that time they will also be playing doubleheaders or make up games because of weather. In May they go 21 consecutive days with a game. Even if it's not as physically demanding as hockey or american football, that's exhausting. Imagine having to go to the office that much.
On top of that you're playing until nearly November if you're in the World Series and then spring training starts in Feb (it's already started). There's nearly no offseason.
You have to go to the ballpark nearly every single day for almost 8 months. I'm from Detroit and I'm looking at the Tiger's schedule right now. In September they have TWO days in the entire month without a game. By that time they will also be playing doubleheaders or make up games because of weather. In May they go 21 consecutive days with a game. Even if it's not as physically demanding as hockey or american football, that's exhausting. Imagine having to go to the office that much.
On top of that you're playing until nearly November if you're in the World Series and then spring training starts in Feb (it's already started). There's nearly no offseason.
And the average salary is $3.8 million.
[1]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/baseball/major-league-...
[1]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/baseball/major-league-...
The pay might be high but the average career is much shorter than that of a programmer. I bet the lifetime earnings aren't even that much different than the average person checking HN from California.
Average MLB Career is 5.6 years[1] * $3.8M/year = $21.28M
Divide that by 40 (assuming a career from 25-65) and you still have $532k/year.
[1] http://www.ramfg.com/RAM-Financial-Group-Solutions-Professio...
Divide that by 40 (assuming a career from 25-65) and you still have $532k/year.
[1] http://www.ramfg.com/RAM-Financial-Group-Solutions-Professio...
For players in the minor leagues, trying to work their way to a
spot in the show, the salary numbers are nowhere near as good:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/players-sue-for-better...
While major leaguers’ salaries have increased by more than 2,000 percent since 1976,” the lawsuit says, “minor leaguers’ salaries have, on average, increased only 75 percent since that time.”
That leaves minor league salaries typically ranging from $1,100 a month in short-season leagues to $2,150 a month for Triple-A, figures asserted in the lawsuit and confirmed by two major league front-office officials.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/players-sue-for-better...
While major leaguers’ salaries have increased by more than 2,000 percent since 1976,” the lawsuit says, “minor leaguers’ salaries have, on average, increased only 75 percent since that time.”
That leaves minor league salaries typically ranging from $1,100 a month in short-season leagues to $2,150 a month for Triple-A, figures asserted in the lawsuit and confirmed by two major league front-office officials.
But in baseball, almost every player has to play in the minors first. The majority of minor leaguers don't make it to the majors... but it isn't usually possible to tell which type of minor leaguer you'll be for a few years.
So in pursuing professional baseball, you really do open yourself to a significant risk of finding that you're 26 and spent the last five years making very little money and now you don't have a job, or any professional skills beyond the offseason job you may have worked.
So in pursuing professional baseball, you really do open yourself to a significant risk of finding that you're 26 and spent the last five years making very little money and now you don't have a job, or any professional skills beyond the offseason job you may have worked.
Not to mention that you can start a new career once you're done playing ball.
Taxes are skewed against people who make high annual earnings for short amounts of time, and you also have to take 10% or so out for your agent.
You'll still come out ahead with the baseball career, just not by quite as much.
You'll still come out ahead with the baseball career, just not by quite as much.
If "it requires extreme dedication" is a showstopper when deciding what sport you would want to play professionally, you probably shouldn't play any sport professionally. Even the 'easy' games such as darts or billiards require hours of practice every day.
But as to baseball: they have games. What are they complaining about? :)
If you pick an endurance sport such as cross country skiing, swimming, or rowing instead of a game (sport is "something with a start and a finish"; a game is something you play), you will easily be training every day for four hours or more for 8+ months in a stretch without ever entering a real competition.
All that for two or three races that count a year or, if you are really good, for one race every four years at the Olympics (rowing is extreme here, as it doesn't do races at different distances, and as it is rare for people to enter in more than one race in an event. Underperform in that race, and it is 4 years of training to get another try. Swimmers and cross-country skiers have it slightly better, as they typically enter in multiple races at an event).
The only plus these sports have over professional baseball is that sportsmen do not travel that much.
But as to baseball: they have games. What are they complaining about? :)
If you pick an endurance sport such as cross country skiing, swimming, or rowing instead of a game (sport is "something with a start and a finish"; a game is something you play), you will easily be training every day for four hours or more for 8+ months in a stretch without ever entering a real competition.
All that for two or three races that count a year or, if you are really good, for one race every four years at the Olympics (rowing is extreme here, as it doesn't do races at different distances, and as it is rare for people to enter in more than one race in an event. Underperform in that race, and it is 4 years of training to get another try. Swimmers and cross-country skiers have it slightly better, as they typically enter in multiple races at an event).
The only plus these sports have over professional baseball is that sportsmen do not travel that much.
162 games in 184 days, half of which are in not-your-home-city. Any particular game isn't too bad, but the cumulative stress of that many games and that much travel really adds up. That's also why the meta-game of baseball is important - e.g. sometimes it's better to play your weaker guys in the middle of the season, with the concomitant reduced chance of winning those relatively unimportant games, so you can have your stars rested for September/October. But don't rest them too much, or you won't even make the playoffs...
baseball, as with all sports, has a long and storied history with using various performance enhancing drugs to cope with injury and fatigue. amphetamines were commonplace in ball four ... bouton casually discusses greenies, players' coffee vs. regular coffee, etc. there was a sporting news snippet from the 1910's (that i can't find right now) that discussed pitchers dealing with arm fatigue ... the takeaway was that some pitchers preferred cocaine injections, while others preferred morphine. and then there was the steroid era ... lots of attention of course to creating cartoonishly large players, but most of these drugs were to shorten recovery from workouts ... you don't magically get huge from taking steroids.
Interesting ideas by the Marlins, but I'd like to see the MLB take this further by cutting down the number of games from 162 to 100, and trimming the inning count from 9 to 7. Sure, the historical data won't match up, but it would be better for the players and more entertaining for the fans to watch shorter, less frequent games.
On an unrelated note, it would be nice if they expanded the playoffs to include 16 teams with the first two rounds being a best out of 5, concluding with the NLCS/ALCS and World Series being a best out of 7, of course. It would get more fanbases interested in their team if they at least made a playoff appearance more often.
The sport could use a shot in the arm in terms of viewership as the average age of your typical MLB viewer is ~54 years.
[1]http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-01/fixing-baseb...
On an unrelated note, it would be nice if they expanded the playoffs to include 16 teams with the first two rounds being a best out of 5, concluding with the NLCS/ALCS and World Series being a best out of 7, of course. It would get more fanbases interested in their team if they at least made a playoff appearance more often.
The sport could use a shot in the arm in terms of viewership as the average age of your typical MLB viewer is ~54 years.
[1]http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-01/fixing-baseb...
The problem as with reducing the number of games for any sport always comes down to money. Reducing a season by 62 games for each team is a huge loss in revenues which owners will never go along with, especially owners of the highest grossing teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Giants.
I like the idea of off-setting that with more teams in the playoffs, but that would be the biggest hurdle to climb in terms of reducing the number of games in a season. You could argue that maybe the players union could strike, citing to grueling of a season, but their compensation is directly tied to revenues, so they'd be opposed to a reduction in games as well.
I like the idea of off-setting that with more teams in the playoffs, but that would be the biggest hurdle to climb in terms of reducing the number of games in a season. You could argue that maybe the players union could strike, citing to grueling of a season, but their compensation is directly tied to revenues, so they'd be opposed to a reduction in games as well.
> by cutting down the number of games from 162 to 100
Since coming to North America I've always felt one of the problems with Baseball and Hockey is they just play too many games, so no game is significant enough. When your team loses to a certain team, you don't care enough because you know they'll play them multiple times more.
Baseball is 162, Hockey is 82 games in "regular season"
NFL is only 16 games, which to me, makes it much more exciting because each win or loss really matters, and as a spectator I actually care.
Since coming to North America I've always felt one of the problems with Baseball and Hockey is they just play too many games, so no game is significant enough. When your team loses to a certain team, you don't care enough because you know they'll play them multiple times more.
Baseball is 162, Hockey is 82 games in "regular season"
NFL is only 16 games, which to me, makes it much more exciting because each win or loss really matters, and as a spectator I actually care.
You just haven't followed baseball closely enough. When it's September and you're in a close divisional or wildcard race, there is nothing more exciting in sports: every pitch counts and every at-bat counts -- and there are ~5-6 games per week. (And that only counts your team! Part of the terror of a close race is that you're also watching every pitch and every at-bat of your rivals.) If anything, it's almost exciting to a fault...
It was recently explained to me that Professional sports is watching other people have the time of their lives....
If you're at a bar drinking, or at the game, you're literally paying to watch other people have the time of their lives.
Worth thinking about
If you're at a bar drinking, or at the game, you're literally paying to watch other people have the time of their lives.
Worth thinking about
[deleted]
In my opinion, the lockout-shortened 2012-13 NHL season (started in January, 48 game regular season) was the best thing ever.
Particularly in a country where NFL football reigns supreme, the NHL starting an 82 game season in October is just a loser. Starting the compressed season in January, with the NFL regular season over, made so much more sense.
Particularly in a country where NFL football reigns supreme, the NHL starting an 82 game season in October is just a loser. Starting the compressed season in January, with the NFL regular season over, made so much more sense.
I agree fully, although IMO there's another factor at work here (albeit a side effect of your point anyways).
Not only are there so many games, but they're all on TV. The NFL mostly stacks their games on Sunday so "football sunday" has become a social event for people. Leagues like the MLB, NBA and NHL spread their games all over the week and with modern cable packages on pretty much any given day you can find a game to watch - the specialness is lost.
This is one reason why I think it's a bad idea for the NFL to start spreading games around - sure there was always MNF but they've had TNF now for a while and there's always talk about adding more. They want those primetime slots but all it does is weaken The Event effect of sundays.
Not only are there so many games, but they're all on TV. The NFL mostly stacks their games on Sunday so "football sunday" has become a social event for people. Leagues like the MLB, NBA and NHL spread their games all over the week and with modern cable packages on pretty much any given day you can find a game to watch - the specialness is lost.
This is one reason why I think it's a bad idea for the NFL to start spreading games around - sure there was always MNF but they've had TNF now for a while and there's always talk about adding more. They want those primetime slots but all it does is weaken The Event effect of sundays.
The long season not only fits baseball's cultural niche as the lazy Summer, lose-today-but-lick-'em-tomorrow sport, it also has the nice effect of reducing the significance of lucky breaks and hot streaks. The season's long enough to have a long run: Better teams win and worse teams lose. Players' individual statistics are at least stable enough to usefully model and predict overall team wins.
I love the excitement and unpredictability of NFL football as much as the next red blooded American, but there's something a little bit unsatisfying about a team's entire season routinely hanging in the balance of a single referee's call or a ball bouncing right instead of left.
I love the excitement and unpredictability of NFL football as much as the next red blooded American, but there's something a little bit unsatisfying about a team's entire season routinely hanging in the balance of a single referee's call or a ball bouncing right instead of left.
Personally, I've always thought they should put a speed limit on pitching. These days watching baseball feels like watching two guys play catch.
if you mean that you want them to nerf pitching, I think that the appropriate way to do that is to lower the mound
I think he wants MLB to implement a timer between pitches, which already exists (it's 12 seconds), but is rarely enforced.
Source: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/pitcher_... (Rule 8.04)
Source: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/pitcher_... (Rule 8.04)
Yes, nerfing pitching was what I was thinking, and I think lowering the mound would be an excellent idea.
Not that MLB is listening to me. :-)
Not that MLB is listening to me. :-)
There actually already is a rule on this, the pitcher has to release the ball within 12 seconds of receiving the ball, as long as the batter is ready to receive the pitch. It's just never enforced. But there has been a lot of talk about possibly starting to enforce this rule, primarily using a visible clock/timer in games - though I think MLB were talking about changing from 12 to 20 seconds if they do start enforcing it.
The new MLB commissioner has responded to questions spurred by the WSJ report [0].
[0] http://deadspin.com/rob-manfred-wont-rule-out-a-shorter-base...
[0] http://deadspin.com/rob-manfred-wont-rule-out-a-shorter-base...
"The sport could use a shot in the arm in terms of viewership"
Your linked article also carefully tiptoed around the other elephant in the room, that being, as the pix demonstrates, not just a sea of old people, but a sea of old white people except for one Hispanic (old) guy. As whites become a minority race and the average age of a MLB viewer goes up one year per year, the pro level will die out pretty soon. How this interacts with billion dollar municipal bond offerings to pay for stadiums and such is interesting to contemplate.
Note, its probably a net gain to the sport overall, even if only 5% of the couch potatoes join or attend a local amateur game or take their kids to little league after MLB shuts down. Even if only 1% take a ball to a local park, it'll still be a net gain for the game overall.
Your linked article also carefully tiptoed around the other elephant in the room, that being, as the pix demonstrates, not just a sea of old people, but a sea of old white people except for one Hispanic (old) guy. As whites become a minority race and the average age of a MLB viewer goes up one year per year, the pro level will die out pretty soon. How this interacts with billion dollar municipal bond offerings to pay for stadiums and such is interesting to contemplate.
Note, its probably a net gain to the sport overall, even if only 5% of the couch potatoes join or attend a local amateur game or take their kids to little league after MLB shuts down. Even if only 1% take a ball to a local park, it'll still be a net gain for the game overall.
Perhaps it's just that we have two good and popular teams in the Bay Area, but I don't recognize the problem you're talking whenever I attend a baseball game.
I am surprised they focus on the hitters. I thought that the pitchers were the only ones that were a big concern. It sounds like the league needs a rule that each player can only play 5 days with out a mandatory day off.
I don't think the league needs to mandate anything. It's not like these are dropping dead. It is like a marathon, pacing yourself is just part of it.
I think they focused on hitters because in general a lot more attention is already paid to fatigue with pitchers (carefully monitoring innings pitched, pitch counts, rest days, and so on). It's possible (although not guaranteed) that there is much more room for improvement in the way teams deal with fatigue for hitters.
Also, more focus on the catchers. They take a beating too.
No one wants to comment on the blindingly obvious startup aspects? When dealing with millions of dollars, experienced professionals don't get shoved like sardines into the smallest possible space, don't even try to produce at world class level for 16 hours a day 7 days a week for years, don't turn to energy drinks and potato chips as a primary source of nutrition... Apparently pro-ball is the "anti-startup" despite the similar focus on individual rock stars and teamwork and millions of dollars on the line. Perhaps they're just dumb jocks, or maybe, just maybe, startup culture is wrong? Obviously its one or the other.