NBA: Coaching really doesn't matter [Archive]

midnightpulp

05-27-2018, 10:52 PM

Fully agree that in-game coaching is extremely overrated..if you go on any NBA forum, you'll see that literally every fanbase complains that their coach doesn't make enough in-game adjustments:lol

I disagree with you about creating a system, though..I think it does make a difference when somebody like Kerr or Stevens joins a team and creates a system for them to utilize..

However, once the players know the system and buy into it, the coach becomes mostly irrelevant..you could replace Kerr with Lkrfan and it wouldn't matter, since his players already know everything there is to know, at this point..

Talent ultimately wins, though, of course..even a team like the 2014 Spurs was loaded with talent, it just didn't look conventional due to the lack of traditional, volume-shooting scorers..

I agree about the creation of systems compatible with the roster's skillset and mentality (i.e. Derek Rose not wanting to play in the triangle because it took the ball out of his hands) being highly important. Where I take issue is when fans think Stevens, Pop, etc invented some magic voodoo system out of thin air that completely takes fellow NBA coaches by surprise. As I said, we know what works and what doesn't in the NBA, meaning there's an open book on all these "systems." Stevens isn't going to run anything that will take Brown by surprise. What ultimately matters is execution. Even Pop admitted to not watching game film (quote, "No point. Everyone in this league knows what every else is going to do.") He just wanted to make sure the Spurs executed better than the next team.

AlexJones

05-27-2018, 10:57 PM

Only league where coaching can change the outcomes of championship games is the NFL. I could never see Pats winning titles with Garrett

DMC

05-27-2018, 11:04 PM

Fully agree that in-game coaching is extremely overrated..if you go on any NBA forum, you'll see that literally every fanbase complains that their coach doesn't make enough in-game adjustments:lol

I disagree with you about creating a system, though..I think it does make a difference when somebody like Kerr or Stevens joins a team and creates a system for them to utilize..

However, once the players know the system and buy into it, the coach becomes mostly irrelevant..you could replace Kerr with Lkrfan and it wouldn't matter, since his players already know everything there is to know, at this point..

Talent ultimately wins, though, of course..even a team like the 2014 Spurs was loaded with talent, it just didn't look conventional due to the lack of traditional, volume-shooting scorers..

Same is true for personal trainers and coaches as well. If you have a personal trainer, once you know their regimen and system, you don't really need them except to push you along. That's what coaches do once the system is taught. There are some little strings they can pull like timeout management and player minute management but that's for the assistants (minutes). Coaches have to be able to read body language and know their guys. Brad is ok, but he's very much a "let it unfold" coach who doesn't micromanage like Pop does. Pop thinks he's a point guard, calling every play on offense.

But it's not just the game. Talent assessment and benchmarks are important, and some coaches excel at it while some leave you scratching your head with some of their substitutions or starters.

Arcadian

05-28-2018, 10:03 PM

"Just gotta keep battlin'!"

-the "mastermind" behind the league's #1 offense :lol

apalisoc_9

05-28-2018, 10:11 PM

:tu

I've bee on this mindset since 2013 though. I remeber when I wasnt the biggest of Parker fans a few losers was shocked that I was saying the teams offense is completely reliant on Parker and Manu penetrating to facilitate the beautiful game.

Its Why I hate the current spurs culture. I a sport where coaching hardly matters, Greg Poppvich gets the bulk of credit. Its maddening.

People wonder why top Players dont play for SA and Why Leonard is wanting out. Lol.

Clipper Nation

05-28-2018, 11:25 PM

Dumbtoni just watched his team chuck and miss 23 threes in a row and didn't do anything about it.

Coaching matters.

HarlemHeat37

05-28-2018, 11:26 PM

Dumbtoni just watched his team chuck and miss 23 threes in a row and didn't do anything about it.

Coaching matters.

What was he supposed to do, though? Harden and Gordon are their only creators with Paul out..everybody else is a role player waiting to shoot open 3s..

spurraider21

05-28-2018, 11:32 PM

"Just gotta keep battlin'!"

-the "mastermind" behind the league's #1 offense :lol
mic'd up moments after commercials arent allowed to show x's and o's talk. this is a tired, played out shtick

midnightpulp

05-28-2018, 11:33 PM

mic'd up moments after commercials arent allowed to show x's and o's talk. this is a tired, played out shtick

"C'mon, guys, runs HORNS again! Let's gogogogo."

People overthink basketball's complexity.

spurraider21

05-28-2018, 11:34 PM

"C'mon, guys, runs HORNS again! Let's gogogogo."

People overthink basketball's complexity.
you watched some coach nick videos 3 years ago and think u know it all

midnightpulp

05-28-2018, 11:36 PM

you watched some coach nick videos 3 years ago and think u know it all

Funny enough, Coach Nick is one of the problems in that regard. As is Lowe, etc. It's finding patterns post-hoc that don't really exist. I get it, 24/7 blog/vlog cycle. You need shit to talk/write about.

midnightpulp

05-28-2018, 11:42 PM

Tyron Lue in the huddle, "You all know I got stepped over by A.I., don't ya? Anyhow, what we gonna run is an iso with Bron going from the top of the 3 point line. All you shooters stand around the outside so you give my man space to do his thing. Tristan, if they try to make my man go left, come up an set a pick to free him up. You all know what to do. Same thing we ran the last same 50 possession. Hands together. Cleveland Strong!"

DMC

05-28-2018, 11:47 PM

DAF86

05-28-2018, 11:48 PM

"C'mon, guys, runs HORNS again! Let's gogogogo."

People overthink basketball's complexity.

Says the guy that thinks putting in a left handed pitcher to face a left handed batter is some rocket science shit. :lol

midnightpulp

05-28-2018, 11:52 PM

The coach did his work during training camp and practices. During the game it's just pressing "play" and hoping for the best. Anyone here who thinks a coach controls the game tempo and should call plays like the NFL offensive coordinator does has watched Pop too long. Most coaches don't coach like that.

:tu

That's where a coach proves his worth. He's like your personal trainer example. He's there to motivate his players to stay sharp and focused as he runs them through his particular "system," (which themselves aren't anything complex). There's only one sport that really deserves the "chess match" metaphor: Football. And that's not even as complex as people make it out to be.

midnightpulp

05-28-2018, 11:53 PM

Says the guy that thinks putting in a left handed pitcher to face a left handed batter is some rocket science shit. :lol

Never claimed that. Managers also have little control over in-game adjustments, which you would know if you understood baseball even at a t-ball level.

DAF86

05-29-2018, 12:02 AM

Never claimed that. Managers also have little control over in-game adjustments, which you would know if you understood baseball even at a t-ball level.

Well I do understand that. I'm just saying that you over the years have been hyping up baseball as some sort of sophisticated tactical game when it isn't.

ducks

05-29-2018, 12:03 AM

They missed because he overplayed the starters all year
Hardly every played joe Johnson in playoffs

midnightpulp

05-29-2018, 12:12 AM

Well I do understand that. I'm just saying that you over the years have been hyping up baseball as some sort of sophisticated tactical game when it isn't.

:lol I don't think you do. And no sport is really that sophisticated, but a layman like yourself will not even begin knowing what tactics to look for in any given baseball game. I await the handwave, but I can easily post a series of screenshots from an at-bat that has a clear tactical plan. So money where your mouth is. Tell me what and why is going on during each pitch if baseball is so obviously easy to evaluate.

Furthermore, my argument for baseball's sophistication has always been on the long term strategical side of things. It is much more difficult to build a good baseball team than a good basketball team. The levels of roster building difficulty aren't in the same universe. There's more to complexity in sports than cute little diagrams and formations in a playbook.

HarlemHeat37

05-29-2018, 12:21 AM

They missed because he overplayed the starters all year
Hardly every played joe Johnson in playoffs

:lol Joe Johnson might literally be the worst player in the NBA, right now..

Houston was just killed by injuries, that's all there is to it..not just Paul, but Mbah a Moute never recovering from his shoulder injury was huge, as well..that would have given them another rotation piece and would have prevented Ryan Anderson from seeing the floor tonight..

DAF86

05-29-2018, 01:56 AM

:lol I don't think you do. And no sport is really that sophisticated, but a layman like yourself will not even begin knowing what tactics to look for in any given baseball game. I await the handwave, but I can easily post a series of screenshots from an at-bat that has a clear tactical plan. So money where your mouth is. Tell me what and why is going on during each pitch if baseball is so obviously easy to evaluate.

Furthermore, my argument for baseball's sophistication has always been on the long term strategical side of things. It is much more difficult to build a good baseball team than a good basketball team. The levels of roster building difficulty aren't in the same universe. There's more to complexity in sports than cute little diagrams and formations in a playbook.

I don't know why you are somehow under the impression that I never followed baseball in my life. Believe it or not I followed baseball for a couple of years and was a hardcore fan of baseball video games. I just grew tired of it. An already boring game was made even more boring when the whole PED's thing started and players like Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa were outed and the sport got faceless. I can probably name you quite a few teams' lineups from back in the day.

I remember back when all you needed to do to Alfonso Soriano was pitch him three straight curve balls because he would swing at everything. I remember when teams would rather pass 4 balls to Bonds and concede a run instead of risking a Grand slam. I remember a lot of things, and yeah I obviously know that you have to pitch a certain way against certain batters, which is obviously also "overthought" (as you like to say) because then a guy like Tim Wakefield would come in throwing straight trash, that even he didn't know where it would land, and batters would still fail getting on base more than 70% of the time (Also, now that I brought it up, lol having "specialized" knuckle-ball catchers).

And about the roster building: you say to hate the mathematical three or layup NBA game, but there is not a sport more mathematized than baseball. When you form a baseball roster you go: "we need X amount of pitchers. From those X amount need to be right handed pitchers and X amount left handed ones. We need X amount of starters, X amount of long relieves and X amount of short relievers. And don't forget that the bullpen is probably the most important aspect of the game right now. You can't win without a good bullpen. Then we need an X amount of batters, that provides us X amount of homers and X amount of OB%. We also need to have X amount of infielders and X amount of outfielders, although most players should be able to play mutliple positions 'cause fielding isn't really that difficult, etc, etc, etc".

Any smart person can probably form a decent roster by just looking at stats and reports. Something that you can't do on any other sport.

midnightpulp

05-29-2018, 02:20 AM

[QUOTE]I don't know why you are somehow under the impression that I never followed baseball in my life. Believe it or not I followed baseball for a couple of years and was a hardcore fan of baseball video games. I just grew tired of it. An already boring game was made even more boring when the whole PED's thing started and players like Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa were outed and the sport got faceless. I can probably name you quite a few teams' lineups from back in the day.

You are obviously weren't paying attention to the nuances when you were "following it." Like most casual baseball watchers, you just wanted to see balls in play and some running around.

I remember back when all you needed to do to Alfonso Soriano was pitch him three straight curve balls because he would swing at everything.

Wrong again. Soriano was thrown curve balls only 13% of the time, and he murdered them if they found the strikezone: https://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=847&position=2B/OF&ss=2007-04-02&se=2014-07-05&type=5&hand=all&count=all&blur=1&grid=10&view=bat&pitch=CU&season=all&data=pi

See all that red? That means good. Mike Trout's for comparison: https://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=10155&position=OF&ss=2011-07-08&se=2018-05-28&type=5&hand=all&count=all&blur=1&grid=10&view=bat&pitch=CU&season=all&data=pi

I remember when teams would rather pass 4 balls to Bonds and concede a run stead than risk a Grand slam. I remember a lot of things, and yeah I obviously know that you have to pitch a certain way against certain barrera, which is obviously also "overthought" (as you like to say) because then a guy like Tim Wakefield would come in throwing straight trash, that even he didn't know where it would land, and batters would still fail getting on base more than 70% of the time (Also, now that I brought it up, lol having "specialized" knuckle-ball catchers).

I don't get the point mentioning Bonds, Sosa, Soriano? Are you trying to suggest that since you saw glaringly obvious moves like walking the most feared hitter of all time or watching bad hitters chase, you somehow "get" baseball? That's like someone who casually watched basketball saying, "I remember when they hacked Shaq since they couldn't stop him otherwise and I remember all the bad shots Iverson used to take. I know basketball, bro."

It's not overthought at all. And knuckleball pitchers are predictably inconsistent (why mention them anyway? Are you trying to say since they kind of wing it, it means you don't need to pitch tactically to succeed if you have an unhittable pitch? That goes for all sports. If you have some unstoppable move, tactics are no longer needed. But the knuckler isn't unstoppable and it's risky). It's why they're a rare breed and used only as a "different look" much like a zone defense gets killed long term but is effective in giving a defensive a different look. And yes, you have to pitch certain ways to certain batters but it's a lot more complicated than just looking at a heat map and scripting a plan from there. Again, do you want to take the baseball analysis challenge or not? If you're the "open minded sports nut" you say you are, you should welcome extra insight on the sport.

And about the roster building: you say to hate the mathematical three or layup NBA game, but there is not a sport more mathematized than baseball. When you form a baseball roster you go: "we need X amount of pitchers. From those X amount need to be right handed pitchers and X amount left handed ones. We need X amount of starters, X amount of long relieves and X amount of short relievers. And don't forget that the bullpen is probably the most important aspect of the game right now. You can't win without a good bullpen. Then we need an X amount of batters, that provides us X amount of homers and X amount of OB%. We also need to have X amount of infielders and X amount of outfielders, although most players should be able to play mutliple positions 'cause fielding isn't really that difficult, etc, etc, etc".

:lmao bolded. You really are clueless. It's funny.

Any smart person can probably form a decent roster by just looking at stats and reports. Something that you can't do on any other sport.

I don't hate mathematical approaches in the NBA. I hate that the 3 pointer is mathematically unbalanced. Not the same thing. A mathematical approach would be, "His career shot chart tells us he shoots the worse on midrange jumpers from the left side, so let's try to force him there." Chucking 3s exploits a mathematical flaw.

You serious? Morey signed Shane Battier based solely on his metrics, and the Rockets M.O. before anyone else caught up was to apply Moneyball and analytics to the signing of players over biased "eye test" evaluations. And analytics have much more predictive power in basketball than in baseball, despite the latter having a much more sophisticated approach. I told you time and time again how first round draft picks in baseball have a much higher washout rate than in any other sport.

You can't simply look at a prospect's high school, foreign league, or college stats and then neatly project MLB performance. The most hyped MLB prospect since Harper, the first overall pick in last year's draft with a 102mph fastball at 18 years old, currently has a 10.00 era in freaking rookie ball. Meanwhile, NBA draft picks are ready to contribute in some form immediately. No minor league development needed. Stats are just a starting point for evaluation in baseball, just like any other sport. And again, pretty much every sport is taking an analytical approach since raw eye tests can be misleading. It's why everyone hyped Kirbs for years as some basketball Jesus while more in depth stats told a different story.

Maybe you were a casual fan once, but you really do have only a shallow understanding of the sport at best. And :lol at needing a "superstar face" in a sport to drive interest. That's another problem with the NBA.

DAF86

05-29-2018, 02:23 PM

All that wall of words to do exactly what he's calling out other people of doing: overrate the sophistication of sports. :lol

Clipper Nation

05-29-2018, 02:44 PM

All that wall of words to do exactly what he's calling out other people of doing: overrate the sophistication of sports. :lol

:lol Just because povertyball isn't sophisticated doesn't mean that actual sports aren't sophisticated either.

DAF86

05-29-2018, 03:33 PM

:lol Just because povertyball isn't sophisticated doesn't mean that actual sports aren't sophisticated either.

Don't look at me bro, midnightpulp is the one saying that fans overrate the sophistication of sports.

TD 21

05-29-2018, 04:44 PM

Funny enough, Coach Nick is one of the problems in that regard. As is Lowe, etc. It's finding patterns post-hoc that don't really exist. I get it, 24/7 blog/vlog cycle. You need shit to talk/write about.

:lol I've realized this with Lowe recently too. He's pointing out a lot of random stuff (he even admitted that a lot of the Warriors "system" exists in the grey area between scripted and random) and pretending it was some genius coaching concoction . . . so long as the coach is white.

If they're black (Casey), then it was a white assistant (Nurse) who was supposedly the brains of the operation (which is code for playing similar to most teams) or it was the players who came up with it on their own (Love and Korver off ball screening that flummoxed the Raptors).

:lol I don't think you do. And no sport is really that sophisticated, but a layman like yourself will not even begin knowing what tactics to look for in any given baseball game. I await the handwave, but I can easily post a series of screenshots from an at-bat that has a clear tactical plan. So money where your mouth is. Tell me what and why is going on during each pitch if baseball is so obviously easy to evaluate.

Furthermore, my argument for baseball's sophistication has always been on the long term strategical side of things. It is much more difficult to build a good baseball team than a good basketball team. The levels of roster building difficulty aren't in the same universe. There's more to complexity in sports than cute little diagrams and formations in a playbook.

If you know little about them, they're more sophisticated than you think and vice versa.

The NBA is by far the most difficult league to build a championship or even good team in. The former almost always has to start with a minimum top 5 player, which means getting lucky. The latter doesn't, but it's still like a puzzle: the pieces have to fit together, on court and chemistry wise.

None of that matters in baseball, which is mostly individual and far more random.

endrity

05-29-2018, 05:00 PM

I sure as hell know the Dallas Mavs don't win the 2011 Championship with Avery Johnson still coaching them and I remember well how "cute" of a team the Warriors were when Mark Jackson coached them.

I think it's worth arguing how and where a coach makes his largest imprint, the margins of improvement that a coach can make in the NBA compared to other leagues or sports.

But I am very sure that their impact is non-zero either.

midnightpulp

05-29-2018, 06:30 PM

All that wall of words to do exactly what he's calling out other people of doing: overrate the sophistication of sports. :lol

:lol The classic handwave from you because you have no reply since you know your take was retarded. And if you bothered to read, nothing in my reply discussed baseball's strategy/tactics, so there was no "overrating the sophistication" of anything. I spent more words talking about your dumb take on how you can build a baseball team by just looking at stats (not true) while claiming you can't do it in any other sport when the Houston Rockets basically do exactly that :lol

midnightpulp

05-29-2018, 07:51 PM

:lol I've realized this with Lowe recently too. He's pointing out a lot of random stuff (he even admitted that a lot of the Warriors "system" exists in the grey area between scripted and random) and pretending it was some genius coaching concoction . . . so long as the coach is white.

If they're black (Casey), then it was a white assistant (Nurse) who was supposedly the brains of the operation (which is code for playing similar to most teams) or it was the players who came up with it on their own (Love and Korver off ball screening that flummoxed the Raptors).

Exactly.

If you know little about them, they're more sophisticated than you think and vice versa.

The NBA is by far the most difficult league to build a championship or even good team in. The former almost always has to start with a minimum top 5 player, which means getting lucky. The latter doesn't, but it's still like a puzzle: the pieces have to fit together, on court and chemistry wise.

None of that matters in baseball, which is mostly individual and far more random.

Sure. I just dislike the chess metaphor, as if Kerr is moving around the Warriors like chess pieces envisioning some complicated series of moves that D'Antoni will never see coming. I'm not trying to diminish sports, it's just that they don't work like chess and such.

I would agree that it's hardest to build an NBA title team, but not because I think the process is uber-difficult relative to other sports, but because in any given NBA era there are only 3 to 4 legitimate superstar players that can be a centerpiece on a title team, so the teams lucky enough to draft/sign one of those players have a huge advantage from the start (on the flip side, once a team signs that superstar, the process is pretty straightforward). Why I think it's easier to build a good team in basketball is because individual players have a huge impact on overall team results due to basketball's smaller roster sizes and the fact star players can conceivably play all 48 minutes and dominate possession. The formula is rather transparent. Have a top 10 player on your team, the chances of being a good playoff level team are great. Furthermore, star player consistency in basketball is a lot more predictable than it is baseball, so having that aforementioned top 5 player gives a team a solid foundation to work with for years to come.

Baseball is a lot more difficult to build a competitive team (and build a title team that can sustain title favorite status over multiple years) because the game is 9 v. 9 on the field, so you have more "moving parts" that all need to be playing up to standard simultaneously; the players who can control possession to a degree (pitchers) play once every 5 days, so you can't simply sign a single ace and ride him throughout the season to the playoffs. At best, an ace can only play 30 games out of 162. Furthermore, starting pitchers in modern baseball average around 6 to 7 innings per game, so you can't feed them "possessions" so to speak in late-game situations and let them deliver, meaning your starting pitching staff needs a variety of relievers behind it, and building a good bullpen is a pretty tricky process. On the offensive side, your star hitters get roughly the same amount of offensive attempts as the worse hitters in the lineup, so again, you can't forcefeed your best players possessions in this regard. There's a lot more variables to account for in a baseball game than in a basketball game.

On the long term roster building side, the talent arms race is a lot more competitive in baseball. Again, there's no signing a transcendent superstar and then having a good foundation for a decade. If teams manage their development correctly, they can have superstar level players coming in every few seasons. For example, the top 2 teams in an NBA conference can rest easy (relatively speaking) since the other teams in the conference are talent deficient in comparison, i.e. there's no Curry, Durant, or Harden coming to the Jazz (or another decent team) anytime soon to challenge the Warriors/Rockets supremacy in the conference.

In the MLB, the conference top dogs have to constantly be alert since those Jazz level teams in the league (young teams who are a piece away from really making noise) likely have a handful of prospects in the minors with superstar potential ready to take a team to the next level. I'll use my Dodgers as an example. Kershaw, by all accounts a "generational pitcher" (in the regular season, at least) is banged up and has lost a step this year. It's up in the air if he'll even be able to play any significant amount of time. Losing a player of this magnitude in the NBA dooms the season. But in baseball, it's merely a speedbump if the club smartly managed their development and roster building. Kershaw is only 20% of the starting pitching staff, and the Dodgers have already developed a young ace-level pitcher who right now is giving the Dodgers Kershaw level performance. Other good clubs in the leagues have similar contingencies. This is why you rarely see dynasties anymore in modern baseball. Top clubs simply can't horde those rare franchise changing level players and rule the conference/league for a decade. Baseball roster building requires the management of 5 minor league teams under the main club, so the development process is a lot more intensive and competitive. NBA clubs don't need to worry about what is happening with their prospects in their minor league affiliates, since there are none aside from the D-league, which is kind of a joke. College develops talent for the NBA, and they're ready to contribute immediately after being drafted.

ambchang

05-29-2018, 09:55 PM

DAF86

05-29-2018, 10:26 PM

:lol The classic handwave from you because you have no reply since you know your take was retarded. And if you bothered to read, nothing in my reply discussed baseball's strategy/tactics, so there was no "overrating the sophistication" of anything. I spent more words talking about your dumb take on how you can build a baseball team by just looking at stats (not true) while claiming you can't do it in any other sport when the Houston Rockets basically do exactly that :lol

:lol I don't think you do. And no sport is really that sophisticated, but a layman like yourself will not even begin knowing what tactics to look for in any given baseball game. I await the handwave, but I can easily post a series of screenshots from an at-bat that has a clear tactical plan. So money where your mouth is. Tell me what and why is going on during each pitch if baseball is so obviously easy to evaluate.

Furthermore, my argument for baseball's sophistication has always been on the long term strategical side of things. It is much more difficult to build a good baseball team than a good basketball team. The levels of roster building difficulty aren't in the same universe. There's more to complexity in sports than cute little diagrams and formations in a playbook.

You are obviously weren't paying attention to the nuances when you were "following it." Like most casual baseball watchers, you just wanted to see balls in play and some running around.

Wrong again. Soriano was thrown curve balls only 13% of the time, and he murdered them if they found the strikezone: https://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=847&position=2B/OF&ss=2007-04-02&se=2014-07-05&type=5&hand=all&count=all&blur=1&grid=10&view=bat&pitch=CU&season=all&data=pi

See all that red? That means good. Mike Trout's for comparison: https://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=10155&position=OF&ss=2011-07-08&se=2018-05-28&type=5&hand=all&count=all&blur=1&grid=10&view=bat&pitch=CU&season=all&data=pi

I don't get the point mentioning Bonds, Sosa, Soriano? Are you trying to suggest that since you saw glaringly obvious moves like walking the most feared hitter of all time or watching bad hitters chase, you somehow "get" baseball? That's like someone who casually watched basketball saying, "I remember when they hacked Shaq since they couldn't stop him otherwise and I remember all the bad shots Iverson used to take. I know basketball, bro."

It's not overthought at all. And knuckleball pitchers are predictably inconsistent (why mention them anyway? Are you trying to say since they kind of wing it, it means you don't need to pitch tactically to succeed if you have an unhittable pitch? That goes for all sports. If you have some unstoppable move, tactics are no longer needed. But the knuckler isn't unstoppable and it's risky). It's why they're a rare breed and used only as a "different look" much like a zone defense gets killed long term but is effective in giving a defensive a different look. And yes, you have to pitch certain ways to certain batters but it's a lot more complicated than just looking at a heat map and scripting a plan from there. Again, do you want to take the baseball analysis challenge or not? If you're the "open minded sports nut" you say you are, you should welcome extra insight on the sport.

:lmao bolded. You really are clueless. It's funny.

I don't hate mathematical approaches in the NBA. I hate that the 3 pointer is mathematically unbalanced. Not the same thing. A mathematical approach would be, "His career shot chart tells us he shoots the worse on midrange jumpers from the left side, so let's try to force him there." Chucking 3s exploits a mathematical flaw.

You serious? Morey signed Shane Battier based solely on his metrics, and the Rockets M.O. before anyone else caught up was to apply Moneyball and analytics to the signing of players over biased "eye test" evaluations. And analytics have much more predictive power in basketball than in baseball, despite the latter having a much more sophisticated approach. I told you time and time again how first round draft picks in baseball have a much higher washout rate than in any other sport.

You can't simply look at a prospect's high school, foreign league, or college stats and then neatly project MLB performance. The most hyped MLB prospect since Harper, the first overall pick in last year's draft with a 102mph fastball at 18 years old, currently has a 10.00 era in freaking rookie ball. Meanwhile, NBA draft picks are ready to contribute in some form immediately. No minor league development needed. Stats are just a starting point for evaluation in baseball, just like any other sport. And again, pretty much every sport is taking an analytical approach since raw eye tests can be misleading. It's why everyone hyped Kirbs for years as some basketball Jesus while more in depth stats told a different story.

Maybe you were a casual fan once, but you really do have only a shallow understanding of the sport at best. And :lol at needing a "superstar face" in a sport to drive interest. That's another problem with the NBA.

:lol

midnightpulp

05-29-2018, 10:28 PM

:lol

Handwaving with emoticons when you have no argument. Just admit you don't know shit and move on.

DAF86

05-29-2018, 10:34 PM

Handwaving with emoticons when you have no argument. Just admit you don't know shit and move on.

I'm still laughing at the same thing I was laughing at with my original comment on this thread. How is that handwaving? I even hooked you into telling us more about this "superior sophistication" that baseball has over basketball. :lol

140

05-29-2018, 10:38 PM

:lol

midnightpulp

05-29-2018, 10:41 PM

It’s just pure coincidence that Larry browns teams always improve (and get worse talent wise because he’s a horrible GM); or that the warriors improved immensely without Jackson gone. Or Carlisle vs Johnson. Or even Jackson vs Collins or rambis.

Coaches clearly make a difference. Maybe not X’s and O’s wise but definitely in system. Thibs defense was phenomenal with the Celtics. That was on a coach. Riley babysat with the best of them. Rudy t using the three as a main part of the offense. Dantonis pg dominated offense.

It could be. I also think fans tend to be results oriented when a team improves under a different coach, when there's obviously a variety of other factors that could play role in a team's improvement. Del Harris, coach of the year one season, and took a team led by Vlade Divac to 48 wins and the playoffs. Led the 98 Lakers to 61 wins, but lost to a (better) Jazz. I remember Shaq not liking Del for some reason I forget, so they shit-canned him. Then Phil waltzes in and they 3 peat, and of course the transition from Del to Phil is cited as the primary factor for the improvement. Horseshit. Kirby was still a role playing teenager under Del while Phil got prime Kobe (along with peak Shaq).

Avery to Carlisle is another example always used. We forget Avery was a half-a-quarter away from a title in '06, with only one of the worst called Finals series in history preventing that Mavs team from a trophy. The next, those Mavs won 67 games. Yes, they were upset, but Pop led teams that were clear favorites have been also been upsetted (numerous times). I agree that Avery should've been fired, though because word was he clashed personally with many players. That's where I think coaching changes have their biggest impact: Is he a coach the players like, respect, and will buy into? Regarding "systems," great players can flourish under any system as long as it not at odds with what "works" in the NBA at any given time (i.e. no defense playing, jump shooting teams weren't going to win in the mid-00s). And anyone with a room temp IQ can see what works and what doesn't.

midnightpulp

05-29-2018, 10:46 PM

I'm still laughing at the same thing I was laughing at with my original comment on this thread. How is that handwaving? I even hooked you into telling us more about this "superior sophistication" that baseball has over basketball. :lol

I'm honestly not following. I went into zero detail about baseball's sophistication vs. basketball's regarding on court/on field play. Off-field roster building? Baseball is much harder. 5 to 6 farm teams to manage, larger roster sizes, individual dominance can't carry a team anywhere near the same extent (again, no signing a generational talent and enjoying a decade long foundation to build on), more unpredictable player projection, longer season.

What don't you get? Oh, I know, admitting such destroys the narrative of baseball being "shallow" or whatever because you personally don't like the game since there's not enough light jogging around for your taste.

DAF86

05-29-2018, 11:07 PM

I'm honestly not following. I went into zero detail about baseball's sophistication vs. basketball's regarding on court/on field play. Off-field roster building? Baseball is much harder. 5 to 6 farm teams to manage, larger roster sizes, individual dominance can't carry a team anywhere near the same extent (again, no signing a generational talent and enjoying a decade long foundation to build on), more unpredictable player projection, longer season.

What don't you get? Oh, I know, admitting such destroys the narrative of baseball being "shallow" or whatever because you personally don't like the game since there's not enough light jogging around for your taste.

I'm laughing at your hypocresy of calling out other folks for "overthinking" basketball and then you posting things like this about baseball:

Ican easily post a series of screenshots from an at-bat that has a clear tactical plan.

You are obviously weren't paying attention to the nuances when you were "following it." Like most casual baseball watchers, you just wanted to see balls in play and some running around.

you have to pitch certain ways to certain batters but it's a lot more complicated than just looking at a heat map and scripting a plan from there. Again, do you want to take the baseball analysis challenge or not?

And analytics have much more predictive power in basketball than in baseball, despite the latter having a much more sophisticated approach.

All of these are about on-field play, just from this thread, where you placed special attention to not "overthinking" sports tactics. If I go back to other threads, I'm sure I can find many more gems. :lol

midnightpulp

05-29-2018, 11:15 PM

And to reiterate, yes, you are a classic handwaver. You either use the "wall of text" deflection (when it's usually in response to one of your own long arguments) or emoticons so that you don't have to own your terrible, uniformed takes. Let's review:

"Baseball is the only sport in which you can build a team from a stat sheet." Wrong. But if you're going to make that claim, tell me why?

"No other sports do that."

Once, the dominant way of judging how well a player or team would perform was the “eye-test”—the organic, gut-instinct impression that came simply from watching a game unfold. But that time has been replaced by an era in which coaches and their backroom staff pore over formulas and figures—how many mid-range jump shots a team uses versus attempts near the hoop, or how many three-point shots versus two-pointers—to predict the most effective methods for winning. While some doubt the importance of the shift, there are still coaches and legends of the sport who reject the practice of analytics and are leery of how number-crunching will fundamentally change the sport.

Take for instance “volume scorers,” or players who traditionally take a lot of shots and score a lot of points, but don’t add much value in terms of defense, rebounding, or assists, among other things. In the past, such single-minded players escaped media scrutiny by putting up impressive raw-scoring numbers, even though they were sub-par in other facets of the game. Today, those types of players are maligned for their lack of overall impact.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/06/nba-data-analytics/396776/

I mean, I don't know why I have to post such basic shit like the above that any NBA fan who has even clicked once on NBA.com has understood for the last decade. In the modern NBA, analytics are king over the "eye test."

"Any MLB player should be able to play multiple positions since defense isn't that hard." Wrong.

"I know the nuances of the game. All you had to do was throw Soriano 3 straight curveballs to get him out." Wrong, as proven.

DAF86

05-29-2018, 11:31 PM

midnightpulp

05-29-2018, 11:33 PM

I'm laughing at your hypocresy of calling out other folks for "overthinking" basketball and then you posting things like this about baseball:

All of these are about on-field play, just from this thread, where you placed special attention to not "overthinking" sports tactics. If I go back to other threads, I'm sure I can find many more gems. :lol

Do you know what I mean by overthinking? I don't think you do. Overthinking is finding a pattern in a situation where no evidence exists if it the play was intended or not. Like Malcom Butler's interception of Wilson. Carroll ran a risky, but unpredictable play that no one saw coming (but should always be protected against nonetheless since a pass play from that situation is always probable, even if remote). Butler made an instinctual read, yet analysis was devoted to how the "genius" Bill Belichick anticipated exactly what Carroll and Wilson were going to do and like the proverbial chess master, moved a non-descript piece into position (Butler) that he (Belichick) envisioned performing the checkmate. In reality, Belichick just told his defense to play goaline, which is, as you should know as a football fan, is already designed to cover a probable slant pass over the middle or fade pass to the corner. Beyond that, it's up to the players to do the job on coverage. There was no chess mastering here. Butler just made a skillful and athletic play. Belichick simply went with the most obvious defensive formation on that play. There was nothing "complex" about it.

The baseball example I can show you is basic. The plan is abundantly clear. As obvious as when a defense in basketball forces a right handed player to go left.

DAF86

05-29-2018, 11:37 PM

Do you know what I mean by overthinking? I don't think you do. Overthinking is finding a pattern in a situation where no evidence exists if it the play was intended or not. Like Malcom Butler's interception of Wilson. Carroll ran a risky, but unpredictable play that no one saw coming (but should always be protected against nonetheless since a pass play from that situation is always probable, even if remote). Butler made an instinctual read, yet analysis was devoted to how the "genius" Bill Belichick anticipated exactly what Carroll and Wilson were going to do and like the proverbial chess master, moved a non-descript piece into position (Butler) that he (Belichick) envisioned performing the checkmate. In reality, Belichick just told his defense to play goaline, which is, as you should know as a football fan, is already designed to cover a probable slant pass over the middle or fade pass to the corner. Beyond that, it's up to the players to do the job on coverage. There was no chess mastering here. Butler just made a skillful and athletic play. Belichick simply went with the most obvious defensive formation on that play. There was nothing "complex" about it.

The baseball example I can show you is basic. The plan is abundantly clear. As obvious as when a defense in basketball forces a right handed player to go left.

That I can totally agree on. The problem is that that still doesn't prevent you from writing about baseball as the second coming of the big bang theory on the Soccer vs Baseball threads. :lol

And don't even dare to say that you have always kept that kind of talk strictly to off-field affairs 'cause we both know that isn't the case. :lol

midnightpulp

05-29-2018, 11:42 PM

I know all that, tbh. You still need to watch a basketball player to trully asses him, though.

In baseball, you can build an entire bullpen by just looking at stats and reports, 'cause you literally have anything you need to know about pitchers there. ERA, % of batters that get on base against them, innings pitched per game, how much rest they get between games, variation of pitches, the speed average of each type of pitch, etc. There's very little, for not saying nothing, that you can't get about a pitcher in baseball by looking at written data.

But anyway, I don't even care about arguing about that. All I'm here for is to call you out on your hypocresy, which I highlighted in my previous post, that you conviniently ignored. :lol

Yeah, the 2008 Celtics needed to watch KG and Ray Allen to "assess" them before they signed them. And to be clear, what level are we talking about? At the pro level, if I'm a GM, I don't didn't to fuckin' watch Kawhi Leonard to know he would improve my team immensely if I don't have an SF worth his salt. A professional player would've already proven their worth where no further "eye test" scouting is needed. Show me an example of a high profile FA coming to "workout" for interested teams and play scrimmages with their primary rotation before they sign them. And in baseball, the eye test evaluation just happened last year :lol Everyone thought Verlander was past it, and if you just "looked at his stats," you think that was the case. His slider losing movement was the biggest issue. The Astros saw a (eye test) flaw in his mechanics that only state-of-the-art high speed cameras could pick up and helped him correct the issue. He's now the most dominant pitcher in the league currently. So, wrong again, but you won't own up to it.

Oh, and this happens constantly with batters. You can't just write off a player if their stats aren't up to snuff, since is often the case, a flaw in their swing, throwing, fielding mechanics suddenly showed up that caused the issue. So you want to backtrack that take or you going to continue to dig?

DAF86

05-29-2018, 11:48 PM

Yeah, the 2008 Celtics needed to watch KG and Ray Allen to "assess" them before they signed them. And to be clear, what level are we talking about? At the pro level, if I'm a GM, I don't didn't to fuckin' watch Kawhi Leonard to know he would improve my team immensely if I don't have an SF worth his salt. A professional player would've already proven their worth where no further "eye test" scouting is needed. Show me an example of a high profile FA coming to "workout" for interested teams and play scrimmages with their primary rotation before they sign them. And in baseball, the eye test evaluation just happened last year :lol Everyone thought Verlander was past it, and if you just "looked at his stats," you think that was the case. His slider losing movement was the biggest issue. The Astros saw a (eye test) flaw in his mechanics that only state-of-the-art high speed cameras could pick up and helped him correct the issue. He's now the most dominant pitcher in the league currently. So, wrong again, but you won't own up to it.

Oh, and this happens constantly with batters. You can't just write off a player if their stats aren't up to snuff, since is often the case, a flaw in their swing, throwing, fielding mechanics suddenly showed up that caused the issue. So you want to backtrack that take or you going to continue to dig?

But that's player development, or player improvement. That's not roster building. In basketball roster building you have to look at many different things that stats can't always provide like defense or seeing which players would fit together. In baseball you don't have that, since it's a glorified one on one battle.

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 12:04 AM

That I can totally agree on. The problem is that that still doesn't prevent you from writing about baseball as the second coming of the big bang theory on the Soccer vs Baseball threads. :lol

And don't even dare to say that you have always kept that kind of talk strictly to off-field affairs 'cause we both know that isn't the case. :lol

I never once said baseball was the second coming of the big bang theory or implied as such. Show me a post where I said it's the most complex on-field team sport on Earth and I'll recant. But you can't. What brings me into those debates is when you or the crew say baseball is devoid of on-field tactics at anything beyond a superficial level, while at the same time thinking forcing a player to his left, funneling a penetrator into a defender, or passing around to an open corner shooter off secondary action generated by a penetrator or post-player who collapsed the defense is somehow levels above in complexity to any baseball tactics. Pepsi challenge time. Tell me the essential "tactical" difference between:

- Analyzing a player's shot chart and forcing him into his weak sports on the court vs. analyzing a player's heat map and attacking the holes in his swing.

- Forcing the defense into constant dilemmas via "pick you poison" sets like 4-down or the pick-and-roll, which forces the defense into trying to defend two options (in 4-down, you both have to cover the post player and stay home on shooters, in a pnr, go under to check the roll man or over to check the shooter, but you can never guard against both at the simultaneously) vs. forcing a batter into dilemmas by having them trying to "defend" against multiple options of changing pitch speeds, arm slotting, locations, and pitch types, that can all be sequenced in a variety of ways.

- Matching up on defense small vs. small, big vs. big, etc vs. matching up same handed pitchers and batters or pitchers who have better success against certain batters.

- Double teaming a player/ball denying a player to "make someone else beat you," vs. pitching around a dangerous hitter to attack the next player.

- A player reading the defense vs. a pitcher (or catcher) reading a swing, the foul balls off the bat, and thus making necessarily adjustments/batter reading the ball flight, spin, arm slotting, speed, and position of the fielders and thus making adjustments.

I'll save you the reading, but I can list many more. I don't see some huge fundamental difference in complexity here, and I used to approach basketball analysis like Lowe. It's really because they don't run around in baseball, isn't it?

DAF86

05-30-2018, 12:10 AM

I never once said baseball was the second coming of the big bang theory or implied as such. Show me a post where I said it's the most complex on-field team sport on Earth and I'll recant. But you can't. What brings me into those debates is when you or the crew say baseball is devoid of on-field tactics at anything beyond a superficial level, while at the same time thinking forcing a player to his left, funneling a penetrator into a defender, or passing around to an open corner shooter off secondary action generated by a penetrator or post-player who collapsed the defense is somehow levels above in complexity to any baseball tactics. Pepsi challenge time. Tell me the essential "tactical" difference between:

- Analyzing a player's shot chart and forcing him into his weak sports on the court vs. analyzing a player's heat map and attacking the holes in his swing.

- Forcing the defense into constant dilemmas via "pick you poison" sets like 4-down or the pick-and-roll, which forces the defense into trying to defend two options (in 4-down, you both have to cover the post player and stay home on shooters, in a pnr, go under to check the roll man or over to check the shooter, but you can never guard against both at the simultaneously) vs. forcing a batter into dilemmas by having them trying to "defend" against multiple options of changing pitch speeds, arm slotting, locations, and pitch types, that can all be sequenced in a variety of ways.

- Matching up on defense small vs. small, big vs. big, etc vs. matching up same handed pitchers and batters or pitchers who have better success against certain batters.

- Double teaming a player/ball denying a player to "make someone else beat you," vs. pitching around a dangerous hitter to attack the next player.

- A player reading the defense vs. a pitcher (or catcher) reading a swing, the foul balls off the bat, and thus making necessarily adjustments/batter reading the ball flight, spin, arm slotting, speed, and position of the fielders and thus making adjustments.

I'll save you the reading, but I can list many more. I don't see some huge fundamental difference in complexity here, and I used to approach basketball analysis like Lowe. It's really because they don't run around in baseball, isn't it?

The difference is that in baseball the options are less because it is solely resolved in a one on one matchup. The dinamic of a basketball game where 5 players are interacting in an active way vs 5 other players, allow for a much wider variety of resolutions.

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 12:22 AM

But that's player development, or player improvement. That's not roster building. In basketball roster building you have to look at many different things that stats can't always provide like defense or seeing which players would fit together. In baseball you don't have that, since it's a glorified one on one battle.

You're moving the goal posts. You first said stats (raw or advanced) can tell a team all they need to know about baseball players, and the stats suggested Verlander was no longer the player he was once. Even the casual eye test didn't reveal much. The Astros used a deeper form of the eye test to find the problem. Stats couldn't reveal the issue.

Stats do illuminate defensive impact. Chemistry? :lol Cleveland, worst team in the league one year, Lebron goes home, and they've made the Finals 4 times in a row, despite a variety of roster shuffling. They even fired a good coach midway through and replaced him by the guy Iverson stepped over. '07 Celtics? Worst team in the league. Two HoFs near their prime join and they win the title their very first year together. I don't see many FOs these days giving players "looks." If your team needs a 3 point shooter, pretty good odds the guy with a .390 percentage who can hit from all spots beyond the arc is a smart bet. Oh, he needs to be good on defense. Let me bring up the dozens of defensive metrics on him. Again, everyone thought Shane Battier was a pile of shit (via the eye test), but Morey's calculator saw value in him, and he was signed.

“No one dreads being guarded by me,” he said. Morey confirmed as much: “That’s actually true. But for two reasons: (a) They don’t think anyone can guard them and (b) they really scoff at the notion Shane Battier could guard them. They all think his reputation exceeds his ability.” Even as Battier was being introduced in the arena, Ahmad Rashad was wrapping up his pregame report on NBA TV and saying, “Shane Battier will try to stop Kobe Bryant.” This caused the co-host Gary Payton to laugh and reply, “Ain’t gonna happen,” and the other co-host, Chris Webber, to add, “I think Kobe will score 50, and they’ll win by 19 going away.”

“From the minute Jerry West got there he was trying to trade me,” Battier says. If West didn’t have any takers, it was in part because Battier seemed limited: most of the other players on the court, and some of the players on the bench, too, were more obviously gifted than he is. “He’s, at best, a marginal N.B.A. athlete,” Morey says.

One well-known statistic the Rockets’ front office pays attention to is plus-minus, which simply measures what happens to the score when any given player is on the court. In its crude form, plus-minus is hardly perfect: a player who finds himself on the same team with the world’s four best basketball players, and who plays only when they do, will have a plus-minus that looks pretty good, even if it says little about his play. Morey says that he and his staff can adjust for these potential distortions — though he is coy about how they do it — and render plus-minus a useful measure of a player’s effect on a basketball game.

Jerry West, who does have an "eye," want to trade a +EV player. Article was '09, and we know since then, the adjusted +/- has revolutionized basketball roster building (along with player tracking) more so than anything else. You don't need to really worry about "fit," (unless of course you already have the position filled).

If you want to define chemistry as players personally getting along, which would translate into more cohesive on-court play, fair enough. But that's an issue that can be promptly fixed by good coaching (the area where I think they're the most important. Ego management). Other than that, a net positive player's impact will translate pretty well.

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 12:25 AM

The difference is that in baseball the options are less because it is solely resolved in a one on one matchup. The dinamic of a basketball game where 5 players are interacting in an active way vs 5 other players, allow for a much wider variety of resolutions.

When's the last time you seen Mike Trout vs. Justin Verlander over the entire game with zero fielders playing? An individual AB doesn't happen in a vacuum. What goes on that ab affects the entire game. Elaborate on variety of "resolutions."

DAF86

05-30-2018, 12:52 PM

When's the last time you seen Mike Trout vs. Justin Verlander over the entire game with zero fielders playing? An individual AB doesn't happen in a vacuum. What goes on that ab affects the entire game.

lol son. Very rarely does a defensive play make the difference in baseball. You get, what? One, maaaybe two defensive plays that a guy can make that most others can't. And that's being generous. 99,9% of the time, professional baseball players will make the same type of defensive plays.

Elaborate on variety of "resolutions."

It's pretty obvious, really. The dinamic on the design of basketball allows to resolve certain plays in multiple ways.

Let's use the pick and roll example. You said that you only could choose between going above or below the screen, and that's a lie. You can also:

-Switch.
-You can double off the screen and trap the ball handler.
-Have the player go over the screen and have the screen defender wait deep next to the basket, like the Spurs did with the Rockets last year.
-You can have a third guy come to help from the weak side.
-You can have a third guy come help from the strong side.
-Heck, you can even present a zone.

And these are just some of the options. You just don't have that kind of dynamic on baseball.

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 01:32 PM

lol son. Very rarely does a defensive play make the difference in baseball. You get, what? One, maaaybe two defensive plays that a guy can make that most others can't. And that's being generous. 99,9% of the time, professional baseball players will make the same type of defensive plays.

It's pretty obvious, really. The dinamic on the design of basketball allows to resolve certain plays in multiple ways.

Let's use the pick and roll example. You said that you only could choose between going above or below the screen, and that's a lie. You can also:

-Switch.
-You can double off the screen and trap the ball handler.
-Have the player go over the screen and have the screen defender wait deep next to the basket, like the Spurs did with the Rockets last year.
-You can have a third guy come to help from the weak side.
-You can have a third guy come help from the strong side.
-Heck, you can even present a zone.

And these are just some of the options. You just don't have that kind of dynamic on baseball.

:lol Defensive plays don't make a difference in baseball. You just love making asanine comments, don't you?

I was being simple is my comparison for the sake of brevity and didn't go into details in both the basketball and baseball cases. I'll elaborate later.

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 01:46 PM

I'm phone posting so I won't be able to go in depth, but I have to ask: define how you think a typical baseball AB is "resolved." I'll read your reply and get back later.

spurraider21

05-30-2018, 02:24 PM

I'm phone posting so I won't be able to go in depth, but I have to ask: define how you think a typical baseball AB is "resolved." I'll read your reply and get back later.
pitcher-batter

sure, defenses will shift their alignment against certain batters or certain scenarios (shading towards first base when a guy like david ortiz is up... moving in when you need a double play), but the "spots" that put the ball in play for a single are still there. a defender isn't going to take away a blooping base hit. a defender isn't going to cause a strikeout. a defender's position isn't going to take a deep fly-ball out and change the result (barring errors).

DAF86

05-30-2018, 02:26 PM

Yep, pretty much.

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 02:45 PM

pitcher-batter

sure, defenses will shift their alignment against certain batters or certain scenarios (shading towards first base when a guy like david ortiz is up... moving in when you need a double play), but the "spots" that put the ball in play for a single are still there. a defender isn't going to take away a blooping base hit. a defender isn't going to cause a strikeout. a defender's position isn't going to take a deep fly-ball out and change the result (barring errors).

I'm still unclear what he means by resolving. In the simplest terms, a basketball possession resolves in no points, 2 points, 3 points, 4 points, non-shooting foul, 1 or 2 points via FTs. And what I think he means on a deeper level, is that a 2 point play, for instance, can be created in a variety of different ways, coming via multiple spots and/or players on the floor. While he thinks in baseball all runs and hits unfold in a similar way, which is untrue.

Btw, fielders can affect strikeout rate.

DAF86

05-30-2018, 02:53 PM

I'm still unclear what he means by resolving. In the simplest terms, a basketball possession resolves in no points, 2 points, 3 points, 4 points, non-shooting foul, 1 or 2 points via FTs. And what I think he means on a deeper level, is that a 2 point play, for instance, can be created in a variety of different ways, coming via multiple spots and/or players on the floor. While he thinks in baseball all runs and hits unfold in a similar way, which is untrue.

Btw, fielders can affect strikeout rate.

I meant what I said, son. :lol

Fabbs

05-30-2018, 02:55 PM

^^ Craig Popplevich starting Matt Bonner for 5 games in 2010 or so playoffs?
Electing not to foul for two fta's when the Spurs were up 6 (mmmn ok) then up 3 in 2013s giveaway?

Sitting real niggggg Dwayne Dedmon because he showed some nads and going instead with Pet White Gasol for 3Xs the cost because of phaggotry culture?

C'mon mid, coaching matters.

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 02:55 PM

And real quick, I think the word he was looking for is "unfold."

spurraider21

05-30-2018, 02:58 PM

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 03:01 PM

I meant what I said, son. :lol

The issue is I don't know what you mean. The variety of options a team has defending a play isn't a "resolution." Resolution is how the play ends. I think the word you want is unfold.

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 03:09 PM

i think its pretty clear what he meant. regarding getting on base vs recording an out. outside of errors, largely comes down to purely pitcher-batter.

No. A pitcher can't play centerfield. A pitcher can never solely shutdown an offense. "Well, how but when strikes out the side or something? His fielders didn't help in that instance." If a pitcher didn't have defense behind, a hitter could just choke up and slap weak contact at will, even back to the pitcher himself. This is why defensive positioning affects strikeouts. When hitter is faced with a shift, he has to swing harder to hit through it or over it. This is the primary reason for increasing strikeouts every year. And we're also forgetting about the catcher. He quarterbacks the pitcher.

DAF86

05-30-2018, 03:17 PM

The issue is I don't know what you mean. The variety of options a team has defending a play isn't a "resolution." Resolution is how the play ends. I think the word you want is unfold.

I meant that you have a lot of options to choose from in every given basketball play. For example, in the pick and roll defense.

DAF86

05-30-2018, 03:24 PM

No. A pitcher can't play centerfield. A pitcher can never solely shutdown an offense. "Well, how but when strikes out the side or something? His fielders didn't help in that instance." If a pitcher didn't have defense behind, a hitter could just choke up and slap weak contact at will, even back to the pitcher himself. This is why defensive positioning affects strikeouts. When hitter is faced with a shift, he has to swing harder to hit through it or over it. This is the primary reason for increasing strikeouts every year. And we're also forgetting about the catcher. He quarterbacks the pitcher.

If a pitcher is pitching well, you can have 8 minor league fielders that get routine outs and that's it. Fielding plays an almost non-existant role on baseball, tbh.

Imagine D-league players trying to shut down an NBA team.

TD 21

05-30-2018, 03:33 PM

Exactly.

Sure. I just dislike the chess metaphor, as if Kerr is moving around the Warriors like chess pieces envisioning some complicated series of moves that D'Antoni will never see coming. I'm not trying to diminish sports, it's just that they don't work like chess and such.

I would agree that it's hardest to build an NBA title team, but not because I think the process is uber-difficult relative to other sports, but because in any given NBA era there are only 3 to 4 legitimate superstar players that can be a centerpiece on a title team, so the teams lucky enough to draft/sign one of those players have a huge advantage from the start (on the flip side, once a team signs that superstar, the process is pretty straightforward). Why I think it's easier to build a good team in basketball is because individual players have a huge impact on overall team results due to basketball's smaller roster sizes and the fact star players can conceivably play all 48 minutes and dominate possession. The formula is rather transparent. Have a top 10 player on your team, the chances of being a good playoff level team are great. Furthermore, star player consistency in basketball is a lot more predictable than it is baseball, so having that aforementioned top 5 player gives a team a solid foundation to work with for years to come.

Baseball is a lot more difficult to build a competitive team (and build a title team that can sustain title favorite status over multiple years) because the game is 9 v. 9 on the field, so you have more "moving parts" that all need to be playing up to standard simultaneously; the players who can control possession to a degree (pitchers) play once every 5 days, so you can't simply sign a single ace and ride him throughout the season to the playoffs. At best, an ace can only play 30 games out of 162. Furthermore, starting pitchers in modern baseball average around 6 to 7 innings per game, so you can't feed them "possessions" so to speak in late-game situations and let them deliver, meaning your starting pitching staff needs a variety of relievers behind it, and building a good bullpen is a pretty tricky process. On the offensive side, your star hitters get roughly the same amount of offensive attempts as the worse hitters in the lineup, so again, you can't forcefeed your best players possessions in this regard. There's a lot more variables to account for in a baseball game than in a basketball game.

On the long term roster building side, the talent arms race is a lot more competitive in baseball. Again, there's no signing a transcendent superstar and then having a good foundation for a decade. If teams manage their development correctly, they can have superstar level players coming in every few seasons. For example, the top 2 teams in an NBA conference can rest easy (relatively speaking) since the other teams in the conference are talent deficient in comparison, i.e. there's no Curry, Durant, or Harden coming to the Jazz (or another decent team) anytime soon to challenge the Warriors/Rockets supremacy in the conference.

In the MLB, the conference top dogs have to constantly be alert since those Jazz level teams in the league (young teams who are a piece away from really making noise) likely have a handful of prospects in the minors with superstar potential ready to take a team to the next level. I'll use my Dodgers as an example. Kershaw, by all accounts a "generational pitcher" (in the regular season, at least) is banged up and has lost a step this year. It's up in the air if he'll even be able to play any significant amount of time. Losing a player of this magnitude in the NBA dooms the season. But in baseball, it's merely a speedbump if the club smartly managed their development and roster building. Kershaw is only 20% of the starting pitching staff, and the Dodgers have already developed a young ace-level pitcher who right now is giving the Dodgers Kershaw level performance. Other good clubs in the leagues have similar contingencies. This is why you rarely see dynasties anymore in modern baseball. Top clubs simply can't horde those rare franchise changing level players and rule the conference/league for a decade. Baseball roster building requires the management of 5 minor league teams under the main club, so the development process is a lot more intensive and competitive. NBA clubs don't need to worry about what is happening with their prospects in their minor league affiliates, since there are none aside from the D-league, which is kind of a joke. College develops talent for the NBA, and they're ready to contribute immediately after being drafted.

I agree with a lot of this, but it could also be flipped around. Because there's more players, who can only play a limited role and performance is so volatile (especially bullpens), individuals make less of an impact, therefore you can do what appears on the surface to be a good or bad job and it can easily turn out the opposite.

I believe the Astros were historically bad or close and in a few years champions. They had a lot of good prospects, but no transcendent ones. Conversely, there's a lot of top prospects who don't pan out. So was their success more due to what they did or luck?

Also, chemistry is largely irrelevant. It may be obvious the types of pieces you need to surround a superstar with in the NBA, but it's much more difficult to actually accomplish that and even if you do, the personalities have to mesh in a way that they can function to capacity.

Wrong. Most NBA players are not ready to contribute immediately after being drafted.

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 03:36 PM

If a pitcher is pitching well, you can have 8 minor league fielders that get routine outs and that's it. Fielding plays an almost non-existant role on baseball, tbh.

Imagine D-league players trying to shut down an NBA team.

:lmao

spurraider21

05-30-2018, 03:38 PM

No. A pitcher can't play centerfield. A pitcher can never solely shutdown an offense.
:lol... yeah, but most of the time you just need a routine play. its the equivalent of saying that somebody just has to stand in the corner to defend bruce bowen.

"Well, how but when strikes out the side or something? His fielders didn't help in that instance." If a pitcher didn't have defense behind, a hitter could just choke up and slap weak contact at will, even back to the pitcher himself. This is why defensive positioning affects strikeouts. When hitter is faced with a shift, he has to swing harder to hit through it or over it. This is the primary reason for increasing strikeouts every year. And we're also forgetting about the catcher. He quarterbacks the pitcher.
yes, i mentioned shifts. but by and large, when you have a standard alignment, there are the standard gaps that the batter has to hit into. whether that be gaps between the infielders to get a routine single or the deep gaps to get a double/triple. those gaps are predetermined, and doesnt require any particular performance by the

DAF86

05-30-2018, 03:41 PM

:lmao

A smily doesn't make my comment any less true, tbh.

140

05-30-2018, 03:52 PM

:lol mid handwaving

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 04:10 PM

:lol... yeah, but most of the time you just need a routine play. its the equivalent of saying that somebody just has to stand in the corner to defend bruce bowen.

yes, i mentioned shifts. but by and large, when you have a standard alignment, there are the standard gaps that the batter has to hit into. whether that be gaps between the infielders to get a routine single or the deep gaps to get a double/triple. those gaps are predetermined, and doesnt require any particular performance by the

You're looking at this from a basketball perspective. Errors and/or plays not made have an exponentially much larger impact on defensive efficiency in baseball than they do in basketball. You know what the cost of one error is that simply allows the runner to reach first base? About .80 of a run with no outs and half-a-run aoverall. Teams average about 4.5 runs per game, so an error of that magnitude (and an error that just results in a runner reaching first in the best type of error you can make) gives the opposing team an extra 18% of production. That's like a defense in basketball that allows 100 points getting 18 points worse. Massive hit. And then there's the externalities of how that error increases pitch count and the like, which hasn't been quantified yet. Now think how bad errors are that results in runs?

"Well, pro teams don't make that many errors." Indeed, the average MLB error per game is about .60, but each and every night, a team with good defensive players makes "non-routine plays" that turn hits into outs. Addressing DAF86 jackass point that fielding doesn't matter and has little impact, the better defensive players in the league often have a higher defensive runs saved above average stat than a runs above average stat. Byron Buxton, for instance, had a +25 in the former and -11 in the latter, and produced 3 extra wins through his defense alone. His defensive WAR was higher than any pitcher on his team aside from one. Furthermore, what you guys perceive as "routine plays" really aren't. This might look like a routine play since he didn't dive, but it was anything but.

https://www.mlb.com/video/statcast-hamiltons-5-star-grab/c-2018484183?tid=240568594

On that note, this is why this new catch metric is cool. People often perceive diving plays as "robberies" when they're sometimes the result of bad route running, positioning, a bad read, etc, while "routine looking" plays are a result a sharp read off the bat, an efficient route, and good jump.

Clipper Nation

05-30-2018, 04:12 PM

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 04:15 PM

A smily doesn't make my comment any less true, tbh.

Just replied (through a mention) in my latest. And I can hit you with a shitload of quantifiable metrics that illustrate just how many runs good defense saves and how many extra wins it produces to further debunk yet another one of your idiotic takes about a sport you "learned" about playing video games (lol).

DAF86

05-30-2018, 04:17 PM

You're looking at this from a basketball perspective. Errors and/or plays not made have an exponentially much larger impact on defensive efficiency in baseball than they do in basketball. You know what the cost of one error is that simply allows the runner to reach first base? About half-a-run with no outs and a 3rd of a run overall. Teams average about 4.5 runs per game, so an error of that magnitude (and an error that just results in a runner reaching first in the best type of error you can make) gives the opposing team an extra 7.4% of production. That's like a defense in basketball that allows 100 points getting 7 points worse. Massive hit. And then there's the externalities of how that error increases pitch count and the like, which hasn't been quantified yet. Now think how bad errors are that results in runs?

"Well, pro teams don't make that many errors." Indeed, the average MLB error per game is about .60, but each and every night, a team with good defensive players makes "non-routine plays" that turn hits into outs. Addressing DAF86 jackass point that fielding doesn't matter and has little impact, the better defensive players in the league often have a higher defensive runs saved above average stat than a runs above average stat. Byron Buxton, for instance, had a +25 in the former and -11 in the latter, and produced 3 extra wins through his defense alone. His defensive WAR was higher than any pitcher on his team aside from one. Furthermore, what you guys perceive as "routine plays" really aren't. This might look like a routine play since he didn't dive, but it was anything but.

https://www.mlb.com/video/statcast-hamiltons-5-star-grab/c-2018484183?tid=240568594

On that note, this is why this new catch metric is cool. People often perceive diving plays as "robberies" when they're sometimes the result of bad route running, positioning, a bad read, etc, while "routine looking" plays are a result a sharp read off the bat, an efficient route, and good jump.

And there we have it again. Mid doing what he calls out other folks for doing, "overthinking" sports. :lol

140

05-30-2018, 04:19 PM

:lmao

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 04:19 PM

:lol Damn, you're stupid.

It's mindboggling. "Non-existent role." Let's look up Ozzie Smith.

Hmmm, had a year where he added 5 wins through defense alone. For comparison, Sammy Sosa added 6.3 wins on offense when he hit 66 homeruns, hit .308, and drove in a 158 runs :lmao

"Defensive plays a non-existent role."

Sure, good defense can almost equal one of the best offensive seasons in recent history :lol

DAF86

05-30-2018, 04:21 PM

Just replied (through a mention) in my latest. And I can hit you with a shitload of quantifiable metrics that illustrate just how many runs good defense saves and how many extra wins it produces to further debunk yet another one of your idiotic takes about a sport you "learned" about playing video games (lol).

I'm interested on reading how those "quantifiable metrics" are measured, tbh.

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 04:23 PM

And there we have it again. Mid doing what he calls out other folks for doing, "overthinking" sports. :lol

Overthinking? Are you a fuckin' retard? Do you "overthink" basketball when you look at Kawhi's defensive metrics to see his impact on that end? Do you overthink basketball when you check the stats to see how many points the Spurs turnover rate might be costing them? I'm citing fuckin' crystal clear data, not making some vague interpretation about a play. Nice attempt at a deflection, though. Just own your shitty takes or admit you have clue what you're talking about since your only experience with baseball is playing Wii Sports and watching Bonds highlights.

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 04:26 PM

I'm interested on reading how those "quantifiable metrics" are measured, tbh.

Now the metrics aren't "accurate" and up for speculation since they don't confirm your silly opinion. This is despite baseball analytics being the best on the planet and influencing the NBA and NFL's Front Offices. I think it's time to stop posting now.

DAF86

05-30-2018, 08:17 PM

Now the metrics aren't "accurate" and up for speculation since they don't confirm your silly opinion. This is despite baseball analytics being the best on the planet and influencing the NBA and NFL's Front Offices. I think it's time to stop posting now.

Why so defensive son? :lol I just want to know how they come up with those numbers to see if they are Indeed "not accurate". Maybe they are. I just have a real interest on knowing how they can come up with such numbers, tbh.

midnightpulp

05-30-2018, 11:19 PM

Why so defensive son? :lol I just want to know how they come up with those numbers to see if they are Indeed "not accurate". Maybe they are. I just have a real interest on knowing how they can come up with such numbers, tbh.

I'm not defensive, more like irritated. You constantly look for ways to get out of changing or owning a dumb opinion when you're flat out wrong. :lol at you determining if the stats are accurate or not. MLB FOs (or NBA) are always looking for analytics gurus, so if you're that confident in your knowledge of statistics, maybe you should send in a resume. That said, the metrics are actually more straightforward than a metric like DRPM (uses Bayesian inference, which can be subjective; the creators admit as such) or DBPM and on/off. However, I trust these metrics for the most part nonetheless.

Simple definition:
Fielding percentage is the statistic that has traditionally been used to measure defensive ability, but it fails to account of a fielder's range.[B] Fielders with ample range on defense are able to make plays that most players would not have the chance to make. Defensive Runs Saved was created to take into account range when measuring a player's defensive ability. To calculate Defensive Runs Saved, for each ball hit, points are either added or subtracted to the fielder's rating depending on whether or not they make the play. For example, if a ball hit to the center fielder is expected to be caught 30 percent of the time, and it is caught, the fielder gains 0.7 points. If the center fielder does not catch the ball, he loses 0.3 points.

The formula
DRS uses Baseball Info Solutions data to chart where each ball is hit. Say, for instance, a center fielder sprints to make a nice catch on a fly ball. Then, say data from BIS tells us that similar fly balls get caught 60 percent of the time. That center fielder gains, essentially, 0.4 bonus points for difficulty. If he can't make the play, he loses 0.6 points. At the end of the day, that player's overall score gets adjusted to the league average -- and then that score gets adjusted for how many runs the once-adjusted score is worth.

Why it's useful
Because errors and assists barely scratch the surface of what makes a successful defender, DRS exists to help better value defenders for their range, positioning and first step.

Let's look at this play:

https://www.mlb.com/video/statcast-brinsons-diving-grab/c-2098792183?tid=240568594

34% catch probability, meaning that is a sure hit 66% of the time that will most likely fall for a double. How much is a double worth in a no-outs situation?

http://i64.tinypic.com/11t7h54.jpg

A little over a run. So by making that catch, he saved about .70 of a run. His play was as valuable as if he hit a one out double as a batter. On the flip side, if a player muffs an 80% likely catch that turns into a no-out double with no men on, he cost his team about .85 of run.