@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.
@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).
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! :)
@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?
I 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...
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...
@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 :\
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. ♪
user11126
@IvoFlipse i have a problem with the "casual" perception of fitness when @IvoFlipse linked the discussion on area51 last night in the fitness chat
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.
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.
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...
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
A 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 "...
Rhea 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 ...
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)
user11126
3:55 PM
i'd like to hear what @freiheit has about training on bicycles.se
user11126
there are some questions that were migrated to fitness
Fartlek 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?
@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.
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.
@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"?
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.
@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.
@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.
I 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...
Rhea 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 ...
Fartlek 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?
