Read the opposing arguments from Optimist Prime and Bleacher Fan.
Right from the very beginning, Optimist Prime was well aware of the challenges he faced in this debate. He knew there are always long odds associated with pleading a case for any figure as the greatest in their respective field, let alone the greatest across all sports. Yet, he still made his case for Jerry Sloan as the greatest coach to never win a championship.
Ever the hopeless optimist, he made a valiant effort to support Sloan’s claim to the legacy of being the best coach without a ring. He cited a compelling case for the very best Utah Jazz teams that Sloan coached to Western Conference championships following the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 regular seasons. He explained that these excellent Jazz teams were among the very best in basketball and only failed to win a championship because they faced the Jordan Era Chicago Bulls, perhaps the greatest team in NBA history.
At first appearance it seems that Optimist Prime basically made a case for Sloan on the premise that playing second fiddle to the greatest of all time should count for something. But I think his argument means slightly more than that. It means that had Sloan’s Jazz teams of the late ‘90s played in a different time, there may very well have been no debate at all as they would have in all likelihood come away with at least one championship.
While I was not quite ready to jump on the Sloan bandwagon just yet, I kept finding myself returning to one statistic that Optimist Prime pointed out in his argument – that Sloan is one of three coaches to have at least 15 consecutive winning seasons. The only other two coaches to accomplish that feat are Phil Jackson and Pat Riley, and those fellas know a thing or two about great coaching, as evidenced by their championship hardware. That is some pretty elite company to keep and comparatively that accomplishment helps Sloan’s success transcend the NBA.
After reading Optimist Prime’s words a second time through, I began to think that maybe – just maybe – Sloan could indeed be the greatest coach without a championship… that is until I read Bleacher Fan’s argument.
I don’t normally like to gush about one of Bleacher Fan’s arguments, as his ego is already Shaq-sized. But his argument was honestly an unstoppable freight train of correctness. His case against Sloan didn’t just poke holes in Optimist Prime’s argument – it made Swiss cheese of it. It is not that Optimist Prime did anything wrong, either. He played the hand he was dealt in this debate as well as anyone could, but Bleacher Fan brought the pain with one relentless point rebuttal after another, ultimately earning him today’s win.
His assertion that there is something inherently wrong about walking away from a team mid-season is dead on. It speaks more of Sloan’s cowardice and defeated attitude than it does of adding to the legacy of being one of the best ever. His point that coaches in other sports have better career regular season winning percentages than Sloan (to say nothing of bettering his pedestrian .485 winning percentage in the playoffs) was certainly not lost on me. He put the nail in the coffin when he proved that Sloan wasn’t even the greatest coach in his own league without a title. By point out the fact that Don Nelson has far more NBA coaching wins in the NBA than Sloan, proving beyond a shadow of doubt that Sloan really doesn’t even belong in the “greatest ever” conversation.
Here’s to you Bleacher Fan. You are the victor for writing one of the most compelling arguments I have ever judged here on The Sports Debates.
Posted by Babe Ruthless 
The Marginalizing Humanity Debate… Stats Are Smarter and Fair
February 22, 2011Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.
Nobody likes to lose. It sucks. Just image any losing scenario. Maybe your team gets robbed by a bad call. Or your team is poorly prepared because it lacks scouting tools. Or maybe management doesn’t understand how to assemble a winner because the front office people in the organization are constantly looking at the wrong data.
Each of those losing scenarios is historically accurate. Historically, front office people had no way of controlling that reality. Fortunately society and technology have evolved effectively and enables games to be played on an even playing field with replay, and front offices have to become smarter and more effective with the help of statistics and analysis.
My Dad – a self-made man who has an impressive resume and no college degree – always said, “They teach you one thing at Harvard Business school: If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage.”
Ah, dad’s and their seminal wisdom.
This is a quote from my Dad that I was never reluctant to admit truth in or steal and use. As it applies to business, so too does the meaning apply in sports.
So many times in sports the outcome of a game can be changed simply by better, more thorough preparation. Statistics provide that necessary data to fuel more prepared teams and better outcomes to games.
My suspicion is that Loyal Homer is going to bring up the famed “gut feeling” manager of the last era in baseball, Bobby Cox. I really like Bobby Cox and believe is an amazing manager, one of the best baseball has ever had. Hid gut was impressive in many of the calls he made, for sure. But it was no perfect. And as many calls as he would get right, sometimes he would get it wrong by making the wrong gut choice. Though he did win on World Series in 1995, that was prior to the now dominant emphasis on statistics. In fact, when stats and sabermetrics became a bigger part of baseball, Bobby Cox’s teams started to be less effective, and a seemingly dominant manager and team began to slip in the division, and then disappear from the national stage entirely.
During that time – from the late 1990s to the 2000s – sabermetrics took off in popularity and usefulness. For those unfamiliar with the concept, sabermetrics is the scientific use of statistical data to make baseball decisions. Bill James is the father of sabermetrics. He has written over 20 books on the use of statistics in managing baseball and has become an integral part of one of the most successful baseball franchises in the past eight years, the Boston Red Sox.
We all know the history of the fledgling Red Sox. At one time the franchise was considered perpetually snake bitten and impossible to take to a World Series. Then he was hired as a Senior Advisor in Baseball Operations because of his impressive resume in statistics and analysis. What happened next? The Red Sox won a pair of World Series championships, first in 2004 then again in 2007.
Those victories were no gut feel, lucky wins, either. They were a collection of seasons, games, and moments that were carefully analyzed and accurately diagnosed with the help of statistics that helped forecast the right managerial and front office moves.
Boston went from virtual irrelevance to a now traditional power in a division that was dominated by the New York Yankees. Since the Red Sox adopted the philosophy, many other teams have as well, including the San Francisco Giants, The Tampa Rays, the Philadelphia Phillies, and many more. It does not get more obvious – statistics and analysis help a team win, and good decision making from analysis makes good teams great. It is the modern approach for getting the most out of the collection of talent on a team.
As enchanting as they are, hunches and gut feels are a thing of the past. As much as we all may want the charming approach of yesteryear to remain the standard – especially in a sport like baseball – it simply isn’t reality if the goal is to win, and win consistently.
A gut feeling is not business like. It is uncontrolled and a not a repeatable process. It is not something that can be replicated and enhanced for improvement. It is very risky. In an era where teams are less willing to make bold and risky moves, statistics help govern winning actions. And, that’s okay. Like it or not, it is progress.