Look at baseball, the game is increasingly all homeruns or strikeouts. Much less action.
Look at the NBA, it’s a 3 point shooting league now.
Cowherd made this point today, but imagine a NFL where teams throw the ball downfield on every down bc that’s what the analytics say to do.
This isn’t a bash analytics thread, but it’s a question of whether analytics is hurting the entertainment value of sports (mainly MLB & NBA).
Seems like the sport would be more entertaining is more coaches followed the data.
With the analytics taking over the game and becoming more prevalent on TV broadcasts, it is definitely taking over. I mean, look at the home run derby, they had exit velocity, distances, spray charts, etc...for every home run. They even had ESPN2 running a simulcast based only on the stats. I didn't watch that, but you have to think it probably looked like a video game.
Well that’s your opinion. I’m in favor it, I mean what’s wrong using data to make yourself improve as a player and put yourself in the best position statistically to win
For Basketball I don't think you need analytics to tell you to shoot more 3's if you are good at them. The league is firmly ahead of the 3pt distance, until that changes they will keep shooting 3's.
Quote:
It does. Especially baseball.
Well that’s your opinion. I’m in favor it, I mean what’s wrong using data to make yourself improve as a player and put yourself in the best position statistically to win
Because at the end of the day, its still baseball
Quote:
It does. Especially baseball.
Well that’s your opinion. I’m in favor it, I mean what’s wrong using data to make yourself improve as a player and put yourself in the best position statistically to win
You completely missed the point. Read the OP again.
That being said if I had to choose a technological advancement that hurts the fan experience, my vote is for instant replay
Seems like the sport would be more entertaining is more coaches followed the data.
Also say to pass more, with an emphasis on play action.
Is a passing play any less exciting than a running play? Maybe if we're talking about the 90s or earlier when every other pass was incomplete (more or less), but with average comp% increasing to the mid-60s (see link), the excitement of pass rushes, and some excellent run-after-the-catch receivers (Hill, Beckham, Kamara, Barkley, etc), I personally don't think passes are any less exciting.
And I think some of the "advanced" stats that NBC (in particular) shows enhance the game and provide a deeper level of understanding.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 14495966 dep026 said:
Quote:
It does. Especially baseball.
Well that’s your opinion. I’m in favor it, I mean what’s wrong using data to make yourself improve as a player and put yourself in the best position statistically to win
You completely missed the point. Read the OP again.
I think there’s a greater upside in entertainment. Now you see pitchers when they’re on throwing double digit strikeouts and offenses clobbering the ball, I enjoy both. In basketball, it’s fun watching your team raining down threes.
The Yankees BA has risen 0.16 this season so they are hitting better. The Mets are up by 0.20. The league is up by 0.04. To me its been fun.
The Yankees BA has risen 0.16 this season so they are hitting better. The Mets are up by 0.20. The league is up by 0.04. To me its been fun.
Take Ottavino for example, he improved by following analytics. It’s fun watching him make hitters look powerless
NBA is slightly different. While 3 pointers aren't as exciting as drives to the basket, they do tend to have longer rebounds which can lead to more fast break opportunities. Plus more 3s => better floor spacing => better ball movement (by good teams at least).
And as mentioned already, NFL analytics so far typically tell coaches/teams to be more aggressive, which should be more exciting (punts and XPs are generally boring plays).
Even the shift in baseball, which is probably the one thing I have the biggest issue with. It's taken away a lot of hits but I find it odd that professional players don't hit the other way more. I know, 'easier said than done,' but I think players from earlier eras would have done it a lot.
Analytics guys will often use the phrase that all data is useful. but it only true if one knows how to quantify it and apply it correctly. In baseball, this is much easier. Optimum launch angles can help in teaching swing techniques. Exit velocities can lead to certain training techniques. As a player accumulates stats, those stats are then projected to a value like WAR. And at the end of the day, analytics in baseball is much more relevant because you have 9 individuals. Team dynamic s do not factor in very much.
The opposite is true in football. Things like throwing angles, passing velocity, amount of arc really don't mean a lot for a QB. Because each throw is different. Analytics is being mainly used to optimize training and in how coaches approach in-game score and down situations.
The amount of variables in football are massive vs. baseball and it is unlikely analytics will play the same role it has in baseball,
And if the usual suspects who prattle on about analytics and Gettleman's disdain for them cause much of an uproar, I have a very good article handy to show them that talks about how analytics has been at play in the way we have been approaching our DB's. Pretty interesting since we have a GM than shuns them and a guy who heads analytics up who is said not to be qualified by those moronic chuckleheads......
It works really well in baseball because its a very individual oriented game.
The common misconception is that the analytics will just tell the humans what to do.
It's up to the managers to make decisions off of the data given to them.
Going straight off the analytics is not the way to go. Point in case the Mets.
A good mixture of analytics and gut decisions is what makes good outcomes happen.
The Yankees BA has risen 0.16 this season so they are hitting better. The Mets are up by 0.20. The league is up by 0.04. To me its been fun.
IMO, baseball is still at its best with guys on base. Makes it far more "team" oriented than just batter v pitcher and so much more can happen.
Analytics guys will often use the phrase that all data is useful. but it only true if one knows how to quantify it and apply it correctly. In baseball, this is much easier. Optimum launch angles can help in teaching swing techniques. Exit velocities can lead to certain training techniques. As a player accumulates stats, those stats are then projected to a value like WAR. And at the end of the day, analytics in baseball is much more relevant because you have 9 individuals. Team dynamic s do not factor in very much.
The opposite is true in football. Things like throwing angles, passing velocity, amount of arc really don't mean a lot for a QB. Because each throw is different. Analytics is being mainly used to optimize training and in how coaches approach in-game score and down situations.
The amount of variables in football are massive vs. baseball and it is unlikely analytics will play the same role it has in baseball,
And if the usual suspects who prattle on about analytics and Gettleman's disdain for them cause much of an uproar, I have a very good article handy to show them that talks about how analytics has been at play in the way we have been approaching our DB's. Pretty interesting since we have a GM than shuns them and a guy who heads analytics up who is said not to be qualified by those moronic chuckleheads......
Analytics certainly can play a significant role in football, but as you say there are far more variables involved in each play (22 players vs essentially 2) so it is far more difficult to develop "stats" as simple as launch angle that can be used to analyze a player. Though I think some "next gen" stats such as average separation will prove to be very valuable.
Mainly analytics is used to identify inefficiencies in how players are compensated. It won't always be a hr and strikeout league. When those features are over-saturated and other qualities that are important to winning are undervalued, you will see analytics promote those.
The problem is that right now analytics are either overrated or misinterpreted by fans. They look at PFF as an outlet to provide analytics. They look at ESPN's graphics and think there's a usefulness to them.
What every team is doing is gathering the data. Quantifying and analyzing that data is what's an ongoing process. Where baseball's influence comes in as a negative is that it raises expectations that football will be able to boil things down as nicely. That's unlikely to happen.
The other issue is that people who are pro-analytics are very sensitive to those who question analytics as if the ones raising concerns are sitting in a corner sliding some beads along an abacus and openly shunning advanced stats.
But then again - many of those folks will also point to PFF as a directional data point.
Maybe you can blame the analytics for the tendency toward everything being strikeouts or home runs, with far fewer balls in play and slow pace of play. I think it was going to happen anyway. The pitchers are bigger and stronger, almost everybody throws 95-100 now, and the hitters are all capable of hitting a home run. Statcast isn't really responsible for that IMO.
Personally, I'm eager to see what happens when they try moving the mound back a couple of feet. The current dimensions were drawn for 19th-century players; it's time to tweak some things. If you want more balls put in play, make it easier to hit the ball. If you have to make the ball deader so it's not 2 home runs every inning, I'm good with that. More balls in the field of play and fewer homers works for me. I would also be good with much smaller gloves, especially for outfielders. Make it harder to catch the ball. Not incredibly hard, but harder than it is today.
In football, I don't think there is enough attention to analytics. If there were, we'd probably see less punting and more going for it on 4th down.
In basketball, I don't know whether it's analytics or just a natural evolution of the game, but I agree that the current form of NBA basketball is kind too much the same. Lots of 3-point shooting, lots of pick-and-roll, yawn. I wouldn't eliminate the 3-point shot but it might be time to move the line back and eliminate the corner 3. That shot is just too easy.
The real value in analytics (short term at least) is in playcalling, whether its using more play action, going for two (particularly when trailing by 14 in the 4th...), punting less, etc. With Barkley in the fold, we really should be using play action on >50% of passing attempts.
*while subjective, there's some value in them since they use a consistent framework to determine them and provide a glimpse into the play-by-play performance of a player compared to most fans perceptions of a player which is generally based on their best/worst plays from the game.
Quote:
when your team is getting K'd. When your pitcher is pitching strikeouts are awesome. So I don't get that strikeouts are bad unless you don't have a rooting interest in a team and are just watching any old game.
The Yankees BA has risen 0.16 this season so they are hitting better. The Mets are up by 0.20. The league is up by 0.04. To me its been fun.
IMO, baseball is still at its best with guys on base. Makes it far more "team" oriented than just batter v pitcher and so much more can happen.
I don’t disagree but check out the league average for OBP. It’s basically at or much better than every year since 2009.
Most analytics I encounter in football is crap and snake oil. What I am interested is where Cutcliffe gets his QBs need to pass under 2.8 secs, and what the graph looks like. For example, QBs very rarely get sacked in less than 1 sec, and very often 5+. Is it a linear curve, or is there a sharp increase at some point, presumably around 2.8 secs?
+1