The New York Influence Debate… An Irrelevant Big Apple Is Okay

March 7, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

When we first got assigned this topic, I was thrilled. I thought this would be relatively easy to argue. But then that Sunday night happened. If you missed it – and I didn’t because I watched much of the game (because this year’s Academy Awards bored me) – but the New York Knicks, in Carmelo Anthony’s third game wearing a Knicks uniform, upset the Miami Heat. I admit it made my argument maybe a tad more difficult. But hey, that was just one game, and just one game earlier those same Knicks did lose to the lowly Cleveland Cavaliers. Other than getting Spike Lee (Knicks), Rudy Guliani (Yankees), or whatever famous New York sports fan more face time on the tube, I don’t think it really matters what the teams in New York do. After all, we’re still going to talk about them!

It’s pointless to say we are going to ignore the teams in the Big Apple because that is just not realistic at all. Bristol, Connecticut (the location of ESPN’s headquarters) is about 100 miles away from downtown New York City, so there’s just no escaping the teams… even if we wanted to forget about them and throw them into obscurity with the likes of the Memphis Grizzlies, Kansas City Royals, and other somewhat “forgotten” teams. New York City is the country’s largest market, so it would be ignorant of me to ignore that.

Each league doesn’t NEED New York to have a successful franchise. Until the past couple of seasons, how long has it been since the New York Jets have been relevant? Sure, they’ve made the playoffs a few times here and there, but did you know the Jets have only won more than ten regular season games once in the past 25 years before this past year? I think the NFL has done just fine without hearing about Rex Ryan’s foot fetishes and Mark Sanchez’s social life.

The New York Knicks haven’t been relevant since Patrick Ewing was traded to Seattle in 2000 (how many of you remember that Ewing played for the Sonics, by the way?). Despite the efforts of the much maligned Isiah Thomas (who belongs in our future “Who Not to Hire to Run Your Team” debate), and Hall of Fame coaches Larry Brown and Lenny Wilkens, the Knicks have been unable to put a worthy product on the court for New Yorkers for a decade. But that’s alright, because we have spent that decade laughing at the Knicks and the NBA has still grown. We’ve wondered how much Spike Lee is throwing away on watching a 30-win team play courtside every season. We’ve wondered how many times Isiah Thomas is going to keep resurfacing. Thank you New York Knicks. Even when you aren’t good, the league still flourishes because it gets to laugh at you as its whipping boy.

The Mets, when they aren’t borrowing money from Major League Baseball, have, with the exception of one year (2006), been out of the playoffs since the Subway Series. The Mets have become known more for blowing big division leads in the last month of the season, changing managers, and having members of its front office threatening reporters. Yet, still, MLB has flourished.

If you are a fan of a rival team of a New York team, then I’m sorry, but those teams aren’t going away. They can be stuck in mediocrity until kingdom come and they are still going to get possible more media coverage than your team. But, the leagues don’t need the teams in the New York markets to be successful. They are going to get the coverage anyway.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The High School to College Jump Debate… Righting the Ship

March 1, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

The NBA may be peaking in terms of popularity right now, but make no mistakes – it is an organization in very serious trouble.

The league has been hijacked by players, it is hemorrhaging money, and now the limited population of truly talented athletes in the league have all decided to migrate east, creating what is sure to be an extremely top-heavy NBA.

The league is enjoying a spike in popularity, but how long can that popularity be sustained? There are only so many superstars that are worth the media attention lavished on LeBron James and Dwayne Wade during this past off-season. Now that Carmelo Anthony has signed on with the Knicks, the only thing left for the talking heads in the sports world to talk about is, “Where will Chris Paul sign?

Things just aren’t like they used to be.

Comparisons to the “good ol’ days” often point to the fact that the league’s biggest stars from back in the day would have never teamed up to play on the same team. The notion that Magic would have taken his talents to Boston to team up with Byrd, or that Jordan would ever put on a Knicks uniform to share the same court with Ewing is just absurd. These were hyper-competitive athletes who wanted to share none of the glory.

There has clearly been a change in mentality between the stars of yesterday, and those of today. It has completely altered the climate of professional basketball.

That change has been the talent level of the B and C class talent.

Superstar talent may be comparable to the golden days, but supporting casts in the NBA are a shell of what they once were.

NBA Lite

Thanks to the miracle of NBA expansion, the league has officially reached its saturation point. The league has outgrown the boundaries that would have allowed it to remain competitive, and the limited pool of real NBA-worthy talent is not enough to stock the ocean that is the current NBA.

Talent is watered down to such a point now that the current NBA draft format (which is only two rounds to begin with) is completely irrelevant. With the exception of a small handful of lottery players, most of the draft class from each new season spends the first two to three years of their professional careers either in the D-league, or playing foreign ball. It is not until after some REAL development has taken place that a player (no matter how promising they might be) will actually get an opportunity to test their mettle in the big leagues.

Where in previous years a team might have three or four role players with genuine talent, the teams of today are lucky if they have one guy who can truly hold his own in helping to hoist the elite up.

So who can blame the athletes with REAL talent from wanting to team up?

Guys like LeBron James are no longer expected just to be great players, they are expected to act as mentors and trainers who must take on the responsibility of developing those players around them. They cannot focus solely on their game, because they have to make everyone else better.

The Cleveland Cavaliers and the Denver Nuggets are the perfect example of this fact. Before their superstar saviors came to town, they were the bottom-feeders of the league. While those superstar saviors were in town, they realized elevated levels of success, but nothing truly satisfying. Now that those superstar saviors are gone, they have sunk back into the depths of irrelevance.

They enjoyed a boost in winning percentages because they had a difference-maker on the court, but that boost was short-lived because those difference-makers didn’t want to have to do everything. While they want to be the best guy on the court, they don’t want to be the ONLY guy on the court. So they have sacrificed their shot at EXCLUSIVE glory so they can at least have a shot at glory.

Fixing the problem

The good news for NBA fans is that the upcoming CBA expiration provides the perfect opportunity to fix the league’s problems. Who would have thought that inspiration for that fix would come from the same organization blamed for the overhyped condition of sports in America today – ESPN?

Last weekend, analysts Jay Bilas and Hubert Davis, following one of their broadcasts, discussed a recommendation that was so well received that Michigan State’s head coach, Tom Izzo, has decided to propose it to the National Association of Basketball Coaches.

The recommendation was that the NBA should implement an ultimatum of sorts to prospective NBA draft entrants. For those who feel they are truly ready to make the immediate leap from high school into the pros, they deserve that opportunity. The one-year waiting period will be waived, and they can follow in the footsteps of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and several others who have gone on to superstardom.

For those who are not ready, though, they will have to commit to a THREE-year (as opposed to one) stint in college.

This is actually a brilliant proposal that would boost the level of play, not only for the NBA, but also for college basketball (although the benefits for the NCAA are irrelevant to the topic at hand today).

For starters, this would actually not be an unprecedented policy. In fact, it is exactly the same policy held by the MLB. Although the NFL does not offer an immediate entry into their ranks, they still require a three-year wait.

The greatest benefit that the NBA would realize is that it would no longer have to assume the responsibility of developing athletes who are SUPPOSED to be NBA-caliber talent. As evidenced by the current state of talent in the league, it is obvious that the league stinks at developing talent anyway. Why not let players grow-up in college, at someone else’s expense, so that when they DO join the professional ranks they do so as matured athletes who are ready to hit the ground running.

This elevation in entry-level talent coming into the league would help boost the level of competition across the board. Teams would be able to populate their rosters with a better class of athlete, and the support-starved stars of the game today will feel less pressure to take on the role of team savior.

The end result is that all of the teams in the league would get better. The depth of talent from the five starters to the pine-riders and the D-leaguers would make the game more competitive, and stars of the league might be more compelled to resume the competitive nature of their predecessors, staying put and striving for individual glory, rather than a shared piece of the ultimate prize.

This proposal, which is now being championed by one of the most respected coaches in basketball today, is one that will benefit the entire game of basketball. It will make the players better, and it will make the league better.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Best Coach Without A Title Debate Verdict

February 25, 2011

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.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Best Coach Without A Title Debate

February 24, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Optimist Prime and Bleacher Fan.

When Jerry Sloan walked away from basketball recently, he did so without basking in the glory of a championship. Rather, he did so in the shadow of frustration and dreams left unfulfilled.

Sloan, the coach of the Utah Jazz since 1988, has led a remarkable career. He retires with two Western Conference championships, 1,221 wins, and a .603 career winning percentage. But the fact that he has no NBA titles seems to overshadow much of Sloan’s accomplishments. He has, for years, been one of the greatest coaches in the NBA… but been vastly underappreciated. Now, in the wake of his retirement, reflecting on his career, we are pondering this question: Is Jerry Sloan the best coach across all sports to have never won a title?

Optimist Prime believes the answer to that question is a resounding YES! Bleacher Fan, on the other hand, believes that while Sloan is a great coach he is certainly not THE greatest coach of across all sports without a championship.

Admittedly, judging this debate will push me out of my comfort zone. I feel that losers have little to offer the world, yet I must declare at least one coach that has never won a championship… a winner. It will be an interesting debate to say the least.

Gentlemen, make the legacies of oft-overlooked coaches shine.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Best Coach Without A Title Debate… Sloan One Of the Best, Regardless of Ring

February 24, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.

I think an “across all sports” debate like this is one difficult to write, and impossible to judge. It’s akin to asking someone if his or her apple pie or steak was better. The standards for comparison are completely different, and both can be equally enjoyable without diminishing the other one in any way.

Given that, I certainly understand if somebody doesn’t agree with me that Jerry Sloan was the best coach across all of sports to never win a title. However, it’s my job to win this debate, and win it is what I intend to do.

I thought of a lot of different approaches that I could take in this debate. I could have argued statistics until I was blue in the face. For example, Sloan coached the Jazz to 15 consecutive playoff appearances. He is one of only three coaches in NBA history with 15 (or more) consecutive winning seasons (Pat Riley and Phil Jackson are the other two – solid company). He retired with a .603 winning percentage. Taking note of those statistics, however, I did not want to rely on those for my argument because it is far too easy to shoot holes in statistics or argue against them with other statistics that you believe to be superior.

I also thought of perusing the Internet to find people making this argument but, honestly, I am not sure why one guy on the Internet making this argument would make my article any more credible. That idea was quickly discarded.

I settled on what I believe to be the best argument for why Jerry Sloan was the best coach across all of sports to never win a title. At its core, the argument is very simple.

His two best teams, the 1996-97 and 1997-98 Utah Jazz, only lost championship series appearances to one of the greatest NBA teams of all time – the 1996-98 Chicago Bulls. More importantly, however, his best teams lost to a team led by arguably the greatest team sport athlete in history, Michael Jordan. Jordan’s name and on-court achievements generate respect from all corners of the sports world and even a few corners of the non-sports world (but who would want to live there?).

Sloan’s Jazz took the Bulls to the brink two years in a row (losing each series four games to two), so it seems obvious that the margin between one of the best teams in NBA history and Sloan’s best team is small, at best. In fact, if Michael Jordan doesn’t steal the ball and smoothly sink the game winning shot/push off (depending on your perspective, of course), it’s possible that the final Bulls championship team may have lost to the Jazz after all, given the fact that game seven of that series was going to be in Utah. Again, arguably the greatest team sport athlete in history, making the type of play expected from athletes of his caliber, is all that stood between Sloan and the immortality of being named a champion.

Sports are funny. Often the margin between hero and goat is miniscule. For players, however, there is no excuse – if you don’t score the goal or make the shot, the way you are remembered is directly a result of your actions.

For coaches, however, the standard is different. It is the coach’s job to put the player in the best possible position to execute the winning strategy. Jerry Sloan has his best player with the ball in his hands at the end of a crucial game. His best player lost the ball, and Sloan’s team lost the game. Should that affect the way Sloan is remembered? I say no. He is still one of the greatest coaches in sports ever, and definitely the best to be without a championship ring.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Best Coach Without A Title Debate… A Lifetime of Jazz, Concluded by the Blues

February 24, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

After 23 years, Jerry Sloan walked away from the Utah Jazz. Mid-season.

After 23 years, Sloan intimated that he just didn’t have the energy or the desire anymore, and that he knew “this was the time to move on.”

Translation – Jerry Sloan QUIT.

I don’t care that he coached the same team for 23 years, or that he won 1221 games. I also don’t care about his two Western Conference championships, or the Hall of Famers he’s coached, and I don’t care that he is one of only three coaches in the NBA with at least 15 consecutive winning seasons.

I don’t care about those things because none of them matter now. Why? Because Jerry Sloan is a quitter.

So tell me please, how can he be the greatest coach in sports without a title?

It is not like he left in the off-season, or even at the end of a contract because he was tired and ready for his golden years. There are no health issues that anyone is aware of, and no personal matters to attend to. He just decided at the end of a basketball game in the middle of the season that he was taking his things and going home.

He gave no warning, left his organization with no backup plan, and just walked away.

It may be harsh to call Sloan a quitter, but that’s exactly what I am doing, and I’ll say it again – Jerry Sloan cannot be the greatest head coach across sports without a title. Because he is a quitter.

Optimist Prime is going to portray Sloan as a legendary coach with a legendary tenure in the Jazz organization. But the only REAL accomplishment he ever showed was an ability to not get fired.

Owning the longest coaching tenure in sports with the same team does not make you great. In that “illustrious” tenure, which spanned 26 total seasons… the one that Optimist Prime will be raving about… how many times did he even SNIFF a shot at a championship? Twice, that’s it.

Think about the great AFC coaches of the NFL during the 1980s and 1990s. They were tasked with coaching in an inferior conference, loaded with inferior talent, against an NFC group that was better funded, and better skilled.

I’m talking about guys like Dan Reeves, and Marv Levy.

No matter how great of these coaches might have been, they simply did not have the weaponry to stack up against teams led by Joe Montana and Jerry Rice, or Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, and Michael Irvin.

But these were great coaches, and they had more comparative success in their shortened tenures than Sloan did over a much longer career.

Reeves coached for only 23 years, but won his conference four times. Levy managed to win four conference championships in only 17 seasons. Once again, Sloan boasts only two conference championships over a 26 year career.

While Sloan’s regular season W-L record is impressive, his playoff presence left much more to be desired. Over his career, he won only 98 playoff games, compared to 104 losses, for a playoff win percentage of .485 (that’s a losing record). Compare that to Reeves (.550), or Levy (.579).

If Sloan isn’t the greatest coach across sports without a title, is he at least the greatest coach in NBA history without a title? Once more, the answer is “no.”

That claim should belong to Don Nelson, who retired last season after 31 years in the NBA.

Nelson, a three-time NBA coach of the year, has won more games as an NBA coach than anyone else in league history. That puts him ahead of Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, Red Auerbach, and every other “great” to have coached in the league as far as wins go. But for all those victories, Nelson does not have a championship to his credit.

In fact, Jerry Sloan was never even the greatest coach in the league for a single season during his tenure, having never been recognized as Coach of the Year. While guys like Nelson, or even Mike Fratello (also without a championship) have managed to at least garner honors as the top coach within a single season, Sloan falls short of the mark yet again.

Make no mistake, Jerry Sloan had an impressive coaching career. But his legacy, highlighted only by endurance, and marred greatly by the manner in which he left the game, falls far short of the standards set by so many other great coaches out there never fortunate enough to win a championship.

I’m sorry, Mr. Sloan, but this is one more title you have failed to clinch.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Marginalizing Humanity Debate Verdict

February 24, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

The advancement of “baseball science” has brought us tremendous development in the sport.

Thanks to a greater understanding of the human body, training and dietary regimens have evolved, radically shifting the makeup of the “modern” baseball player. You need only compare photos of Babe Ruth and Albert Pujols to see the evidence of that reality.

Likewise, technological advances have given us access to the instant replay.

With each of these new developments, the quality of the baseball product is enhanced. The game itself is improved, as is the fan experience.

But for every new development that advances the game of baseball, there is also a baseball fad that makes an appearance. Unlike the great advances in baseball science, though, these fads over time either fail to add any real value to the game, or in some cases, actually detract from the great experience of America’s Pastime.

The use of performance enhancing drugs falls under this classification, as does the decision to use the All-Star Game as the determinant for which team in the World Series will get home field advantage (in my opinion). These are changes that were adopted by the game in an attempt to maintain relevance, but over the long-term failed to add any real value to the product of baseball.

Which brings us to the issue at hand today.

One of the hot trends in baseball over the past decade has been the growing emphasis that many baseball franchises are placing on highly complex, advanced statistical analysis. Sabermetrics, for example, is no longer referred to anecdotally. Instead, it is perceived as a viable tool in analyzing past results to project future performance.

Franchises are not just casually using these advanced analytical tools, either. The Boston Red Sox hired Bill James, the father of Sabermetrics, as a Senior Advisor for their organization nearly ten years ago. And more recently 17 different MLB franchises purchased Bloomberg’s Scouting Tools, which they tend to employ in a similar manner.

The statistical analysis of baseball performance has developed into a very real aspect of the game, and is now heavily ingrained as a viable practice in the front offices of more than half of Major League Baseball.

But are these advanced analytical tools the next great advancement in baseball science, or are they just the latest baseball fad?

Sports Geek is of the opinion that Sabermetrics and the like are the next step in the evolution of baseball. According to Sports Geek, these new analytical processes and tools are a tremendous advancement in the game, because they provide franchises with an opportunity to validate decisions that were previously based almost entirely on hunches.

There is a great deal of truth behind that assessment.

Like instant replay, these analytical tools seek to eliminate the subjectivity of human interpretation, and the fallibility that comes with that judgment. It seeks instead to replace that subjectivity with the objectivity of measurable or quantifiable facts. Rather than rely on a human being to process information through the filters of their own perception, which leaves room for error, these tools provide franchises with unbiased data which can be used to govern decision making.

The negative side of that, though, is the fact that there are certain aspects of the game which cannot be measured.

As Loyal Homer discusses, there are times when objectivity is not possible, because the circumstances within each game-time scenario are unique. There is no number to quantify the health of a player, or the personal stress he might be under, thanks to a problem at home, when he steps up to the plate.

Furthermore, it can be difficult (if not impossible) to substitute real experience that can only be gained over a lifetime of direct observation and analysis. A computer has not spent months or years developing relationships with players, and a math formula cannot tell you the attitude of your left fielder.

But despite those objections from Loyal Homer, I tend to agree with Sports Geek in his assessment that there is real value behind these measurements, and that they are the next step in the natural progression of baseball.

These tools are not intended to eventually replace the decision-making process for a manager or the front office. Baseball is a situational game, and the chess match that plays out on the field can never be directed by a set of hard and fast rules. Loyal Homer is correct in that assessment. But that fact does not automatically negate the value of Sabermetrics. To the contrary, it actually validates the need for it.

Managers will always be required to make spur-of-the-moment decisions, based on the context of each unique situation. Sabermetrics will not replace the decision-making process for those managers, but it is a greater set of tools that can help guide the manager to a decision they can feel confident will provide them with the best opportunity for success.

Sabermetrics and Bloomberg’s Scouting Tools are not a series of if-then statements. They do not provide managers with a crib-sheet on standard operating procedures. They help to arm that manager with the best possible information, thus equipping them to make the best possible decision.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Marginalizing Humanity Debate

February 22, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

The hiring of famed baseball historian and statistician, Bill James, as a senior baseball advisor for the Boston Red Sox in 2002 marked the start of a philosophical shift throughout baseball.

Prior to James’ hiring, baseball teams relied almost exclusively on talent scouts in order to determine the best possible players available to them at each position on the field. The scouts would provide a subjective analysis of how each observed player performed, and that analysis would be used to project the player’s likely future success within their organization.

James saw things a little differently.

In the 1980s, James gained notoriety in the baseball world as one of its most respected historians and statisticians. He began an annual publication titled “The Bill James Baseball Abstract,” which sought to analyze baseball performance through objective, statistical data, rather than through the subjective assessments of talent scouts.

And while he never intended for his statistical analysis, which he coined ‘Sabermetrics’, to actually replace scouting, his appointment by the Boston Red Sox indicated that the baseball world might be ready to do just that.

Since then, the emphasis on advanced statistical analysis has skyrocketed.

Today, there isn’t a single discussion about Cy Young contenders, MVP Candidates, or Minor League prospects that doesn’t include at least a mention of Sabermetrics. In the great Albert Pujols free-agency saga, the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) statistic is one that has been used to discuss just how valuable he has been to the St. Louis Cardinals organization. And now, 17 different Major League teams have bought Bloomberg Scouting Tools, a new sports analytics service that will surely be put to use in at least supplementing the scouting programs of these 17 franchises.

With so many different franchises now tying their organization’s future viability directly into the new science of sports analytics, what does this mean for scouting?

Has too much value been placed on stats, at the expense of the good old fashioned gut feel of scouting a player?

According to Loyal Homer, statistics cannot match human instinct, and there are some things that just cannot be quantified. On the other hand, Sports Geek argues that the validity of these new statistics cannot be denied, and they are proven more meaningful every day.

Until now, scouting was always perceived as an inexact science. Have the number-crunchers found a way to change that?

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Marginalizing Humanity Debate… The Numbers Sometimes Lie

February 22, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Sports Geek.

We live in the age where there is a world of information that is always just a click away. You can go online and get any type of statistical data you want to make the best possible decision. This certainly applies to the world of sports. Between sabermetrics and other sports analytical data, there is just a plethora of info for stats nerds like Sports Geek to look at whenever they see fit.

But I’m a little more old school. I don’t totally dismiss statistics, but I’m a big believer in what I see with my own eyes. I believe my eyes more than what is on the back of a player’s baseball card or, perhaps more in tune with today’s society, what’s on his Wikipedia page. I tend to go with my gut feeling on a player.

I’m certainly not a scout, but like all five of the writers here at The Sports Debates, I’m a fan and I’ve watched a lot of games over the years. My viewing experiences at games and on television have influenced my opinions on certain players. Even this past weekend, watching a region high school basketball tournament at my high school, I found myself developing “gut feelings” on certain players. I knew what some of the statistics were regarding these players, but I disregarded them because it was a total different set of circumstances. The games were played in a tough environment with 1,200 screaming fans. A championship was on the line. Pressure that these kids hadn’t experienced was now being experienced and that certainly played a factor. It’s only natural, especially on the high school level.

New Atlanta Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez is following perhaps the king of “I had a hunch ______ was going to get a big hit tonight” in Bobby Cox (see one example). Cox never was one to rely on statistics all that much when managing a game, and those “hunches” of his helped him win 2,504 games as a manager. Gonzalez has said that while he does pay attention to all the information that is out there, he tends to go with his instincts and his gut feeling when making baseball decisions. And those instincts and gut feelings come from his own observations and from conversations with the scouts who have seen the players develop over the years.

As a fan, sometimes I have a gut feeling on who is going to win the game before the game starts, despite what the spread is. If you are a fan, you know what that’s like. There are intangibles that no statistical data system can measure. Granted, that gut feeling doesn’t always turn out to be right, but it certainly weighs heavily in making a decision. Gamblers in Las Vegas make a lot of money going with that gut feeling when betting on sporting events. Many people had gut feelings that the Green Bay Packers would win their first two playoff games on the road as underdogs this past post-season based on how well they were playing coming into the post-season. They backed that up with two more wins and won a Super Bowl championship. It’s the same feeling a coach or manager gets when making decisions over the course of a game. They make decisions based on keen observations by their trained eyes, not by statistical data.

Sometimes, I believe that less is more and that too much information can cloud one’s judgment. Using the likes of sabermetrics is one of those times. Numbers can sometimes be deceiving. But in this case, what you see and what you feel is not deceiving.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Cardinals-Pujols Negotiation Debate… Pujols Threatens to Put St. Louis on Lockdown

February 17, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

This whole Albert Pujols situation really exploded in the past two weeks or so. We’ve known for awhile that his contract was set to expire of the end of the 2011 season, and that he was going to be a wealthy man. We all just assumed that he would either reach an extension with the St. Louis Cardinals and there would be a general consensus that it would take place. That doesn’t appear to be the case after the passing of Wednesday’s self-imposed deadline to reach a new deal. So who is to blame? I think this is an easy one. It’s Albert Pujols. He’s being outrageous, actually.

I have a lot of respect for Albert Pujols. I was in attendance when he hit his 150th home run on a Sunday night in Atlanta nearly seven years ago. Until this point, he’s been worshiped in a city that worships baseball. But the fans in the Gateway City, as St. Louis is often referred to, know their baseball and I have a feeling those knowledgeable and passionate fans could turn on him. Who could blame them?

According to sources, St. Louis had offered Pujols an eight year contract that was believed to be worth in excess of $200M with a possible stake in ownership once his playing days are completed. With Pujols, currently 31 years old, the life of that type of deal would take him to the age of 39, and presumably, to the near-end of his career. As a middle-class American who earns considerably less than my sports idols, how I am supposed to feel toward Pujols for turning down such a contract, especially since he grew up in less than stellar conditions in the Dominican Republic?

There is no conceivable way to question Pujols’ credentials. He is arguably the game’s best player and deserves to be paid handsomely. But I don’t know if it is realistic to compare what he could make to what players on the New York Yankees make. That throws out the likes of Alex Rodriguez, C.C. Sabathia, and Mark Texiera. A-Rod and Texiera also have the option of playing DH the last few years of their contract if age begins to take away their fielding skills. Besides, the Yankees are a whole other gorilla to tackle, and well, Albert, if you want that kind of cash, Brian Cashman would probably love to talk to you because he needs something positive going for him.

The Cardinals have stated that they can’t get into the payroll stratosphere with the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox. By signing Pujols to an A-Rod type deal, not only would the organization blow its payroll through the roof, but the chances of building a championship-type contender around the star first baseman would be severely limited.

There’s no question that the Cardinals are taking a risk by not reaching a deal with Pujols yet. Truth be told, it never should have gotten to this point. But it has, and the Cardinals are going to have to dig deep into the coffers because Pujols is asking for the bank vault and the keys to lock the vault up after he’s done with it. Signing Pujols to a contract that exceeds either of A-Rod’s last two contracts will make it less likely that Pujols will add another ring to that hand. Way to cripple your organization, Albert!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.