« first day    last day (3838 days later) » 

12:00 AM
@MichaelMyers BABIP = Batting Average on Balls In Play - i.e. it's the batting average (either of an individual hitter, or, as it's more commonly used, of all opposing batters for a pitcher) once you remove strikeouts and home-runs from the calculation.
I know; I just googled it.
@MichaelMyers It's considered a pretty good measurement of whether a particular player has been 'lucky' (or not), when they perform exceptionally (or not so exceptionally).
3 hours later…
3:01 AM
@LessPop_MoreFizz :)
1 hour later…
4:25 AM
I hope I'm able to provide some good insight and answers for visitors - I started visiting mainly for Stack Overflow (I'm a software & web dev) but I played lots of different sports at a high level as a kid/young adult. Looking forward to this site! :)
9 hours later…
1:36 PM
@RebeccaChernoff quick question - by merging all the sports proposals there seems to be an extreme amount of scope confusion. Is there an SE intended scope here? I joined the sports proposal because it was primarily geared toward fans not participants, however it looks like the large majority of folks who came in from the other proposals that were merged in are looking for a site geared towards participants.
addendum: based on what Ivo has said it seems like most of the "participant" type questions are in scope for F&N, shouldn't this site be distinct in some way?
Q: Scope suggestion - Eliminate most overlap with F&N

wax eagleI suggest that we change our scope to the following: "We exist as a site to ask about the rules, regulations, practices and minutia surrounding sports. Questions about training, and the actual physical activities of the sport should directed to Fitness & Nutrition." Fitness and Nutrition al...

1 hour later…
3:01 PM
@MarcusSwope howdy!
@waxeagle I'm jealous of your site name :P
@IvoFlipse lol :)
@IvoFlipse is any aspect of running off topic for you guys?
I think questions about practicing sports activity already are on-topic on F&N and if our FAQ isn't clear about it then I'd love to hear suggestions for making it more clear
not really
I'm baffled that they merged it with you guys, given its our largest tag
@IvoFlipse thats kind of what I thought. I'm really frustrated with that merge in particular, but the whole merge set in general, it really confused the crap out of our scope...
We even cover somewhat meta-ish stuff like shoes and the like
so what more could runners want, except for a site of their own
3:10 PM
@IvoFlipse thats exactly it, and they are doing their best to make this it...a quarter of our questions are tagged running and few of them should (IMO) be on topic here...
I feel like our sitename is also putting people off, most users probably don't even bother to check what kind of questions we have, simply because they think its not for them :\
@IvoFlipse yes it is. the see fitness and think "working out" not hardcore athletic training.
yeah, exactly
(i think it also confuses the Com team...Robert's comments on A51 were odd)
given I'm a kinesiologist, I'm rather offended by the thought that people deem my opinion not 'hardcore' enough, simply because of a label :P
I'm especially annoyed by the lack of communication, its not like I'm not available for a discussion
but unless something is said and posted on Meta/discuss it doesn't seem to exist
3:14 PM
@IvoFlipse true enough. btw do you need/want an invite to this beta? just to keep tabs on our meta?
which is really the worst format for solving disputes like these, because if we're using different vocabularies, we simply talk past one another
@IvoFlipse need an email address
my name at gmail, no spaces or anything special
k I think i sent you one.
got it :)
Separating sports by tactics and techniques is going to feel really artificial to users if you ask me
almost makes you wonder whether they should not merge both our sites, deal with the diversity when it get's too large
3:20 PM
@IvoFlipse but you guys aren't going to want rules minutia and trivia are you?
@waxeagle well the problem is that I don't think we would ever agree where one site would stop and the other should begin
@IvoFlipse that's the truth.
because if they say F&N is only for casual runners, then I'm out of there (even if I run only casually myself)
so there is definitely going to be a grey area, the question is determining what the grey area is and figuring out how to deal with questions in it.
I think Grace Note said your site wouldn't make for good Q&A if it was only about rules and trivia
3:23 PM
@IvoFlipse probably true. (this is the C.SE/BH.SE issue all over again and SE, but with less clear distinctions)
Well I think its stupid to have two beta sites with such large overlap
with the larger sites, there's enough community for everyone to go to the site they have enough affinity with
but when you only get 3 questions/day
@IvoFlipse agreed, the question is how can we minimize the overlap and have a clear site scope for both sites and have both sites be succesful...
I don't get who came up with the competitive vs casual distinction
You're putting the pro's together with people who only watch sports?
Besides, that some sites make this pro-newbie distinction is worse enough, why would we want to make the same mistake?
@IvoFlipse Which proposal is this?
3:29 PM
@GraceNote something you said last night
@IvoFlipse I know what I said, I was more looking at if there was a "Sports Watcher" proposal on Area 51 that I'd have to sternly glare at. ♪

Beta Q&A site for participants in team and individual sport activities.

Currently in private beta.

@waxeagle howdy
@GraceNote but that seemed to be the intent of this proposal until all the other things got merged in.
> I noticed while watching a soccer game after the 90 minutes were up they continued playing for a few more minutes. Why is that?
If you play soccer, you know these kind of things don't you?
> What are the origins of <sport>?
3:30 PM
@waxeagle Our understanding is that it was sorta half-and-half - part watching, part doing.
@GraceNote k. and that's fine. but "doing" is awful overlappy with fitness...
Mostly because when we digested the descriptions as laid out before us, just rules and regulations of sports is... I don't have the right word for it, but it's not a positive word.
@waxeagle There's a reason that Ivo's been pushing for a merger since ages ago. ♪
@IvoFlipse i have a problem with the "casual" perception of fitness when @IvoFlipse linked the discussion on area51 last night in the fitness chat
@GraceNote hey, I'm just looking for a place to ask all my and questions :)
if we're only for beginners or newbies, what happens when they become more intermediate or advanced? they just up and go and leave us?
3:33 PM
The main essence is, we don't expect the site to be able to survive on just rules and regulations, because as @Ivo noted, these are things most of the crew who'd be on these sites would know already and have no serious need to ask.
@GraceNote So instead of merging everything together, the decision is to split us apart with some arbitrary line?
fitness's scope isn't excluding the type of questions that is useful for advanced athletes
@GraceNote but as we are now the only way we are going to survive is by sucking the life blood out of F&N...
I'd rather have rules included, than some questions leave out site
martialarts.se has some questions that would totally be okay for fitness
3:35 PM
It isn't exclusionary, no. And probably making a strong point about this fact, from multiple users on Sports during the private beta, it would probably help your case to just get this properly merged into Fitness. Hint hint.
@MattChan and is probably a subset of this site as well... whistles
Worst of all, the experts tend to have much better questions, if you strip those out, you might as well close shop at Fitness
@waxeagle exactly (though i'm not exactly arguing for merging or not merging martial arts)
@GraceNote Well I like their url better :P
@GraceNote look at our questions, at this point I wouldn't see a problem with that, provided that rules/stats got into the F&N FAQ :)
or we just expand this to sports science and go from there.
and integrate fitness....
3:36 PM
The decision was partly approached from the aspect of the fact that complex statistics and regulations questions probably don't belong on Fitness (at least, this impression is not present and it doesn't entirely make sense).
So that justified the potential need for a separate site, but in doubting the capability of Sports to survive on just that, the actual performance of said sports (which honestly would be confusing not to be able to ask on such a labelled site) was added to the scope, not taking into account the severity of the damage it'd inflict on Fitness.
I always preferred the idea of StackOverflow, so we include related topics, rather than try and segregate everything into little piece, at least until you have some critical mass
@GraceNote what if (and I don't know if this is viable) Fitness merged under Sports (we could even suck up martialarts) and we form an athletics supersite...
If the severity of the damage is demonstrated, there are ways we will be better able to take action.
What's even more painful is that a lot of users from Sports.SE never even tried asking their question on Fitness or asked whether we would want them. It feels like a chicken-egg problem
It is a bit of a chicken-egg. I know you and others have been trying to get people to ask technique questions on Fitness for quite some time.
3:41 PM
Even if I read the meta answers on Sports, people judge us either by our site title or our FAQ and perhaps what's on the front page
"athletic enhancement" is perfectly fine for fitness, i think that's what we really should be called (semantically)
I'm clueless about how to change our image though
get rid of the "fitness" name basically
@IvoFlipse I think your name may be the biggest obstacle...
@waxeagle agreed
3:42 PM
People are probably getting hung up on "Fitness = gym and barbells" and not looking at the whole athletically fit aspect.
athletic enhancement just sounds better for what we are
If only I brought this issue up before...
@GraceNote that's exactly the problem
@MattChan We tried to spur changes. We got shot down.
@IvoFlipse athletics.se? or does that connote sports too much?
3:45 PM
I like sports, but I think we ended up with something like Fitness & Sports I believe
That was our original proposal, aye.
Q: Proposal for New Site Name

RheaA previous discussion was on the "Nutrition" portion of this site and how questions may not necessarily be about sports nutrition, not that specificity is necessary to me. There are some questions that aren't really fitness or nutrition like Choosing a Chair for Good Posture which is more of a "...

We should get a precognitive badge :P
i see...
Woops, that might be considered migrating messages from a private room, my apologies
Q: Should the scope be expanded to Fitness & Sports?

Ivo FlipseRhea proposed changing the name of the site to Fitness & Well-being. However, after looking at some of the discussion on Area51 I suggested a different title: Fitness & Sports I'll reiterate my points from Area51: We already have things like: running, weightlifting, swimming, martial ...

Technically, yes, it would count
That said, I'll confirm anyway - @Ivo and I had discussed in the lounge using "Fitness & Sports" as a site name back in April/May 2011. And talked about posting it on Meta (which Ivo just liked)
3:55 PM
i'd like to hear what @freiheit has about training on bicycles.se
there are some questions that were migrated to fitness
just made the first "there's no crying in sports.se" joke :P
@waxeagle I don't think many questions on our sites would qualify for Skeptics
Q: Is Fartlek more effective than regular training

HenrikFartlek is intended to be a type of interval training without fixed distances, times or paces. Is this more effective than regular distance and interval training in separate workouts?

I agree the phrasing isn't really helpful, he shouldn't ask whether it is so, but why it would be
4:11 PM
@IvoFlipse I know. I'm mostly making fun of the phrasing. when you ask "is this better than this" its framed as as skeptics question even if its not.
the close vote is aimed more at sending it to you guys not skeptics...
4 hours later…
8:10 PM
@GraceNote can we get a merge of -> ? we have a meta post on it...
Robert Cartaino just did ->
@MichaelMyers good deal :) he should also do futbol -> football....
There's a futbol tag?
@MichaelMyers not yet...but there will be...i guess thats a bridge we cross when we get there...
I doubt anyone would seriously call it "futbol" on an English-language site.
8:14 PM
@MichaelMyers true
@GraceNote thanks!
American football is catching running :)
Hmm. I was going to edit the [hockey] tag wiki to make it clear that it's only for ice hockey, but Grace Note's answer casts doubt.
@MichaelMyers yeah, I like my answer better...
I think it should specify ice hockey though...its what we usually mean when we say "hockey"
(sort of like the football tag is about soccer...
It's what we usually mean, yes.
@MichaelMyers true, I'd imagine context matters greatly...
Wikipedia calls hockey "a family of sports"
8:25 PM
wow, can't wait for the first question on unicycle hockey
@MichaelMyers My thought pattern was that we're looking at hockey as "ice hockey and games which are literally just ice hockey not on ice".
So, "street hockey" which you still use a puck, still use skates, still have all the same mannerisms as ice hockey, fits under hockey, but an entirely different sport like field hockey doesn't (and wouldn't just be called hockey in the first place)
In simpler terms, if you just call it "hockey", it probably fits under the tag.
@GraceNote agree here for the most part...but it will mean the tag lacks some clarity
So street hockey equipment questions would use [street-hockey] and street hockey tactics would use [hockey] but not [street-hockey]? If that's the way it's going to go, then it sounds like we need to split [ice-hockey] back out.
@waxeagle My thought pattern is that I don't expect it to be so unclear as to be a contention point.
@MichaelMyers I think you just use and be done with it...but thats me
8:30 PM
@MichaelMyers Well, there's always the thought pattern of, "Is it truly necessary to divide the equipment questions of Street Hockey and Ice Hockey on the tag level?"
Or, really, just in general, do you really need to make a subdivision between ice hockey and street hockey on the tag level, or can both be comfortably covered in the single tag of "hockey"?
@GraceNote I don't honestly know, worth seeing how it plays out.
I admit I know very little about any form of hockey other than ice, but street hockey looks more akin to field hockey than it does to ice.
I merged the tags and posted as such because I feel that we can comfortably tuck these into "hockey" and don't need to distinguish them on the tag level. Ones that have to be distinguished on the tag level are the ones where we'd have used the full name to begin with.
I suppose we don't have to have this all figured out before the first field or street hockey question comes in.
@MichaelMyers From what I've seen, street hockey is entirely like field hockey, same stick equipment, same guards, same getups, same layout. The only difference is that you have a roller-type puck which is to help simulate the same effect as a puck on ice.
On the other hand, field hockey has a very different (and notedly more painful) stick, uses a ball, and in many places, you get to wear a skirt.
8:36 PM
I don't want to wear a skirt.
I'm not surprised by this.
@MichaelMyers kilt damnit...its called a kilt!
So field hockey has corner hits and has a large goal area where the goalie can use hands or feet, like in soccer. Interesting.
@MichaelMyers so....soccer with a smaller ball and clubs? sounds like a blast...and a broken shin...
Yeah, I'm not sure I'd want to play that.
8:43 PM
@waxeagle We do get shin guards.
But to point, I did mention that these sticks are a lot more painful. I think even a cricket bat isn't as painful.
That's saying something.
@GraceNote the soccer style ones that deaden the pain a bit? I've gotten huge bruses even with those playing soccer...
Is the ball as hard as it looks?
@waxeagle They're kinda like those, yeah.
@MichaelMyers I actually don't remember. I want to say it's heftier than a lacrosse ball, but not as bad as lawn bowling. But I'm really grasping at the air there.
@MichaelMyers you ninja'd me, but I got more detail in :P
8:52 PM
@waxeagle Bah. I got ambushed by coworkers while I was trying to put the section reference in.
Talking about popcorn, of all things.
9:07 PM
@MichaelMyers lol

« first day    last day (3838 days later) »