-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DAF86
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.
Quote:
“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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DAF86
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."
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
midnightpulp
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DAF86
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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
midnightpulp
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).
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
midnightpulp
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
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
^^ 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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
And real quick, I think the word he was looking for is "unfold."
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
midnightpulp
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 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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DAF86
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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
midnightpulp
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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
midnightpulp
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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
midnightpulp
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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DAF86
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
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
midnightpulp
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.
Quote:
"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
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
midnightpulp
:lmao
A smily doesn't make my comment any less true, tbh.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
: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-h...?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.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DAF86
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.
:lol Damn, you're stupid.
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DAF86
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).
-
Re: Coaching really doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
midnightpulp
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-h...?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
