NBA: Coaching really doesn't matter

[DAF86]

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]

[QUOTE=DAF86;9405031]

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.a...on=all&data=pi

See all that red? That means good. Mike Trout's for comparison: https://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.a...on=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".

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 at needing a "superstar face" in a sport to drive interest. That's another problem with the NBA.

[DAF86]

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

[Clipper Nation]

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

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

[DAF86]

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]

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 to talk/write about.

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).

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]

I sure as 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]

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

The classic handwave from you because you have no reply since you know your take was re ed. 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

[midnightpulp]

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 le 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 le 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 compe ive team (and build a le team that can sustain le 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 compe ive 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 compe ive. 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]

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.

[DAF86]

The classic handwave from you because you have no reply since you know your take was re ed. 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

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.a...on=all&data=pi

See all that red? That means good. Mike Trout's for comparison: https://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.a...on=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.



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 at needing a "superstar face" in a sport to drive interest. That's another problem with the NBA.

[midnightpulp]

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

[DAF86]

Handwaving with emoticons when you have no argument. Just admit you don't know 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.

[140]

[midnightpulp]

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 -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. Horse . 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 le 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]

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.

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]

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.

[midnightpulp]

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/entertai...lytics/396776/

I mean, I don't know why I have to post such basic 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]

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.

[midnightpulp]

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.

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]

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.

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.

[midnightpulp]

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.

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 in' 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 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]

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 in' 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 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]

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.

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.

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]

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.