Jump to content

Analytics ruining sports?


rico

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I guess we won't really agree with much so lets just agree to disagree about sports of today.  When it comes to college basketball I think the main difference is that kids don't stay long enough and to me that leads to a worse product than what we saw when guys stayed 4 years.  I miss seeing big guys who played with their back to the basket and I miss seeing guys take good 12-15 foot mid range shots.  Being 5'8 and the only thing I could do on a basketball court is shoot the ball especially from 3 I like seeing players who can shoot from long distance.  What I don't like is that teams seem to rely only on the 3 and taking the ball all the way to the basket.  To me this is where analytics hurt basketball if they think the mid range shot is bad for the game.

Your blame needs to be on your own generation if you have problems with these things. Again 30+ year olds are the ones that changed the game... not 18-30 year olds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Your blame needs to be on your own generation if you have problems with these things. Again 30+ year olds are the ones that changed the game... not 18-30 year olds. 

You are right that the people who made the changes and implemented them were older but to me the reason for the changes were to cater to the younger fans.  They made the changes to keep the younger fans involved and wanting to watch and come to the games so they tried to make it more to what the younger fans enjoyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

You are right that the people who made the changes and implemented them were older but to me the reason for the changes were to cater to the younger fans.  They made the changes to keep the younger fans involved and wanting to watch and come to the games so they tried to make it more to what the younger fans enjoyed.

Kind of moving the goal posts there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IU Scott said:

You are right that the people who made the changes and implemented them were older but to me the reason for the changes were to cater to the younger fans.  They made the changes to keep the younger fans involved and wanting to watch and come to the games so they tried to make it more to what the younger fans enjoyed.

Is there ANY possible way the changes that were made are in fact better and smarter? 

I agree the "best teams" aren't as good as they used to be... but there are more "good" teams than there ever has been. The middle of the pack has improved immensely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, btownqb said:

Is there ANY possible way the changes that were made are in fact better and smarter? 

I agree the "best teams" aren't as good as they used to be... but there are more "good" teams than there ever has been. The middle of the pack has improved immensely. 

No sense arguing with Scott.  He is stuck in his ways.  He still uses a Sears catalog and thinks toilet paper was/is a useless invention.  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Is there ANY possible way the changes that were made are in fact better and smarter? 

I agree the "best teams" aren't as good as they used to be... but there are more "good" teams than there ever has been. The middle of the pack has improved immensely. 

As with everything there are things that are better and some that are worse with college basketball.  I think it is better that we have the 3 point line and a shot clock.  I just wished they kept the clock at 45 seconds because that eliminated teams holding the ball for minutes which is good but it still gave teams a better chance of running a good play.  The kids are in better shape and are more athletic today and the strength and conditioning programs are better.

 

You are right that the better teams are not as good but the bottom has moved closer to the top teams.  Is that because the lower teams got better or is it because the top teams came down to get closer to the bottom teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, rico said:

Kind of moving the goal posts there.

Yes I did and probably went overboard with my assertion on all sports.  Where I still stand firm is when it comes to IU fans and the ones who don't see a problem with IU cheating if need be.  I feel most of those people are not in the group of being an older fan and one who has been a life long fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Yes I did and probably went overboard with my assertion on all sports.  Where I still stand firm is when it comes to IU fans and the ones who don't see a problem with IU cheating if need be.  I feel most of those people are not in the group of being an older fan and one who has been a life long fan.

Fair enough....but keep in mind the rules governing cheating change as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IU Scott said:

As with everything there are things that are better and some that are worse with college basketball.  I think it is better that we have the 3 point line and a shot clock.  I just wished they kept the clock at 45 seconds because that eliminated teams holding the ball for minutes which is good but it still gave teams a better chance of running a good play.  The kids are in better shape and are more athletic today and the strength and conditioning programs are better.

 

You are right that the better teams are not as good but the bottom has moved closer to the top teams.  Is that because the lower teams got better or is it because the top teams came down to get closer to the bottom teams.

The biggest, not the only, but the biggest thing lowering the shot clock did was eliminate teams like Wisconsin from literally just holding the ball on the perimeter for 25-30 seconds to control pace before actually every running anything resembling a set/play. 

It's not like those teams ran plays for 45 seconds looking for a shot the entire time. Lowering the shot clock basically cut out the part of offense that was literally just wasting time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BGleas said:

The biggest, not the only, but the biggest thing lowering the shot clock did was eliminate teams like Wisconsin from literally just holding the ball on the perimeter for 25-30 seconds to control pace before actually every running anything resembling a set/play. 

It's not like those teams ran plays for 45 seconds looking for a shot the entire time. Lowering the shot clock basically cut out the part of offense that was literally just wasting time. 

Well teams still do this and that is why you see so many teams taking off balance contested 3's with the shot clock expiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Well teams still do this and that is why you see so many teams taking off balance contested 3's with the shot clock expiring.

So then we agree that lowering the shot clock just removed the wasted time and gets us to the off balance 3 with the clock expiring sooner?

The current shot clock leaves more than enough time to get good, quality shots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BGleas said:

So then we agree that lowering the shot clock just removed the wasted time and gets us to the off balance 3 with the clock expiring sooner?

The current shot clock leaves more than enough time to get good, quality shots. 

To me th 45 second clock was the right amount because it still let teams be more diverse and run different kinds of offenses. Today it seems that 95% of the teams run some kind of high ball screen and some dibble drive.  Today if you can't get something in your first set then you are going to be running against the shot clock for a bad shot.  With more time you could reset your offense and maybe you could swing the ball a couple of times to each side of the court.  The only thing I did not like without the shot clock was teams who would hold the ball for 5 or more minutes at the end of the game.  Scoring and shooting percentages were higher before the shot clock because most shots were good shots if it was 10 seconds into the clock or 1 minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

To me th 45 second clock was the right amount because it still let teams be more diverse and run different kinds of offenses. Today it seems that 95% of the teams run some kind of high ball screen and some dibble drive.  Today if you can't get something in your first set then you are going to be running against the shot clock for a bad shot.  With more time you could reset your offense and maybe you could swing the ball a couple of times to each side of the court.  The only thing I did not like without the shot clock was teams who would hold the ball for 5 or more minutes at the end of the game.  Scoring and shooting percentages were higher before the shot clock because most shots were good shots if it was 10 seconds into the clock or 1 minute.

There's plenty of time do all those things. It sounds more like your frustrations are with bad coaching than the shot clock. I've never watched an IU game under Crean or Archie where I felt there wasn't enough time to get good shots and/or swing the ball multiple times. I have watched both of their teams and wondered by they were wasting time dribbling up top while wasting time on the clock. 

If you can't get a good shot in 30 seconds then your offense is just bad. Another 15 seconds is just going to be us watching 15 seconds extra of bad offense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

To me th 45 second clock was the right amount because it still let teams be more diverse and run different kinds of offenses. Today it seems that 95% of the teams run some kind of high ball screen and some dibble drive.  Today if you can't get something in your first set then you are going to be running against the shot clock for a bad shot.  With more time you could reset your offense and maybe you could swing the ball a couple of times to each side of the court.  The only thing I did not like without the shot clock was teams who would hold the ball for 5 or more minutes at the end of the game.  Scoring and shooting percentages were higher before the shot clock because most shots were good shots if it was 10 seconds into the clock or 1 minute.

Sports today are filled with copycats. When someone is successful running a certain type of offense, competition tries to mimic them. The example in modern basketball is the Golden St. Warriors. They made position-less basketball the ideal, and have been extremely successful doing so. Most teams today want to fashion their offenses like the Warriors. 

The difference is that it takes highly skilled athletes in each of the positions for this offense to work. The Warriors have 3 of the best shooters in the world helping their offense be successful. No college team is ever going to collect the talent it takes to run the Warriors' offense at anywhere near their level.  Colleges can do bits and pieces, and come somewhat close, but can't duplicate it. That is why we are seeing a form of basketball that may look inferior to what we were brought up with. Not because the concept is bad, or the coaches are bad, but because they are trying to play a very difficult to execute style of offense with rosters comprised of some kids who are capable of carrying it out, but others who don't have the skill set.

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, BGleas said:

There's plenty of time do all those things. It sounds more like your frustrations are with bad coaching than the shot clock. I've never watched an IU game under Crean or Archie where I felt there wasn't enough time to get good shots and/or swing the ball multiple times. I have watched both of their teams and wondered by they were wasting time dribbling up top while wasting time on the clock. 

If you can't get a good shot in 30 seconds then your offense is just bad. Another 15 seconds is just going to be us watching 15 seconds extra of bad offense. 

Well it is not really 30 seconds because by the time you get ball up the court and get into your offense you have 20 seconds left.  To me now you have to much pressure of dealing with the clock that you can't run it effectively.  I think it is like taking a timed test and when you find out that you have 5 minutes left and you have 10 questions left you will not do well on those last few questions.  If teams wasted the first few seconds I agree but I don't remember many teams doing that at all.  Today if you run an offense to get your best player a shot coming off the screen and he is not open to shoot then you are in trouble. If he is not open then you see him take the ball to the top and have someone set a ball screen and usually have to take a bad shot.  before if you run that set and he was not open then you could pass it back out and screen away and start over. I just see with the shot clock you have to take to many bad shots that shouldn't be shot as before the shot clock if you ran your offense well then you would get a good open look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

Sports today are filled with copycats. When someone is successful running a certain type of offense, competition tries to mimic them. The example in modern basketball is the Golden St. Warriors. They made position-less basketball the ideal, and have been extremely successful doing so. Most teams today want to fashion their offenses like the Warriors. 

The difference is that it takes highly skilled athletes in each of the positions for this offense to work. The Warriors have 3 of the best shooters in the world helping their offense be successful. No college team is ever going to collect the talent it takes to run the Warriors' offense at anywhere near their level.  Colleges can do bits and pieces, and come somewhat close, but can't duplicate it. That is why we are seeing a form of basketball that may look inferior to what we were brought up with. Not because the concept is bad, or the coaches are bad, but because they are trying to play a very difficult to execute style of offense with rosters comprised of some kids who are capable of carrying it out, but others who don't have the skill set.

Just my opinion.

I also see that coaches don't trust their players to just go out and play and they micro manage every possession.  Maybe it has to do with the players being younger and not knowing the offense so the coach has to run every possession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, IU Scott said:

You are right that the people who made the changes and implemented them were older but to me the reason for the changes were to cater to the younger fans.  They made the changes to keep the younger fans involved and wanting to watch and come to the games so they tried to make it more to what the younger fans enjoyed.

So?

If businesses of any kind only focused on catering to their older customer base and never evolved, they would die off as their customers did.

If a business were to focus on you, they'd be looking at 30-40 years of lifetime revenue max. Get a 15 year old kid interested and it's 60-70 years (hypothetically). Also, having that 15 year old as a fan today means that in 20 years, there's one more 35 year old in the stands that is also still buying tickets, alongside the 70 year olds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

So?

If businesses of any kind only focused on catering to their older customer base and never evolved, they would die off as their customers did.

If a business were to focus on you, they'd be looking at 30-40 years of lifetime revenue max. Get a 15 year old kid interested and it's 60-70 years (hypothetically). Also, having that 15 year old as a fan today means that in 20 years, there's one more 35 year old in the stands that is also still buying tickets, alongside the 70 year olds.

Well hopefully only being 48 that I will have at least 30 more years of consuming sports.  Just saying if they keep making changes with out worrying about people my age then they will lose a lot of loyal fans who will be around for a lot more years.  this might be a generalization but I find that people my kids age who like sports are more of a fan of players and the hot team at the moment and not loyal to a certain team their whole lives.  Not saying everyone but a lot that I have been around seems to be this way and have found the last 5 ears seeing a lot of Golden St. fans.  I saw that with Jordan as well and just hated it but I have always been fans of a team and not individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, IU Scott said:

Well hopefully only being 48 that I will have at least 30 more years of consuming sports.  Just saying if they keep making changes with out worrying about people my age then they will lose a lot of loyal fans who will be around for a lot more years.  this might be a generalization but I find that people my kids age who like sports are more of a fan of players and the hot team at the moment and not loyal to a certain team their whole lives.  Not saying everyone but a lot that I have been around seems to be this way and have found the last 5 ears seeing a lot of Golden St. fans.  I saw that with Jordan as well and just hated it but I have always been fans of a team and not individuals.

What?  It is against the "rules" to root for a player?  Against the "rules" to be a bandwagon fan?  I am soon to be 52 and this has went on my entire lifetime.  Going to school in the 70's seemed like everybody was a Steeler or Cowboy fan.  In the 80's in was the Celtics or Lakers.  I followed the likes of Staubach, Montana, Bo Jackson, and yes...Jordan.  This is nothing new with fans.  Not something the young folks invented.  Geez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, IU Scott said:

Well hopefully only being 48 that I will have at least 30 more years of consuming sports.  Just saying if they keep making changes with out worrying about people my age then they will lose a lot of loyal fans who will be around for a lot more years.  this might be a generalization but I find that people my kids age who like sports are more of a fan of players and the hot team at the moment and not loyal to a certain team their whole lives.  Not saying everyone but a lot that I have been around seems to be this way and have found the last 5 ears seeing a lot of Golden St. fans.  I saw that with Jordan as well and just hated it but I have always been fans of a team and not individuals.

There were literally millions of kids our age (I’m about 8 years younger than you) running around in Jordan Bulls jerseys in the 80’s that had never been remotely close to Chicago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BGleas said:

There were literally millions of kids our age (I’m about 8 years younger than you) running around in Jordan Bulls jerseys in the 80’s that had never been remotely close to Chicago. 

My Dad just left......he is 78.  Had on a Dr. J t-shirt.  Pacer fan and a J man.  God he loves Erving.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing on changes in modern basketball :  The increased desire for players more ideal to play Zone Defense in the NBA helped influence a fundamental shift in the type of feedback players started getting when they tested the waters. 

In the NBA's old illegal defense days, it was different, and man - to-man was far more prevalent until the 1990's.  Starting in the days of Shaq, when the defensive rules changed, teams resorted to zone defenses more frequently, which ultimately gave way to teams adopting new ways to beat zones.  

The name of the game became outside shooting(over the top ), and attacking points of (open space)separation as zone defenses shift,  but we know how draft feedback works. That(change to the types of players being drafted for respective positions) influenced the both the ideal body type, and skill sets conducive with success in attacking the variations of increasingly common zone defenses.. Back to the basket post players became less sought after once the feedback from the league trickled down to the lower levels of the game, That changed the way coaches prepared recruits for college , and so forth on down. This is not an opinion, either.  It's hard to single out one rule change like the shot clock, but several combined starts to help one fill in the blanks using basketball knowledge. 

Feedback starts at the top, then most of the amateur and "amateur" coaches followed the trends. 

An arguably undeniable positive "bi-product" of the same rule changes in that  era was Tim Duncan.  He isn't the last true legendary big man(complete with multiple titles-homework) by accident  He possessed enough of the total package to continue to benefit against the change of styles.Back to basket,  mid range game, and all.

Dirk seemed like the next step in the evolution- which is just my opinion but sure I'm not the first to see it that way. Nowitzke's biggest flaw was mobility as a defensive liability, but he was otherwise a legendary offensive talent and more modernized big man. Just a couple of examples.The quicker and more defensively adept bigs with outside range became increasingly common as lower systems had more focused development around evolving desired skill sets. International basketball definitely played some role. USA Basketball had to change after losing separation from the Dream Team on . I wonder what influence that had..Close on shooters, rim protection became pre-requisites along with offensive versatility and transition game speed.Period.

I just come to have understood all of it and much more helped set what we now see into  motion  In the same breath. I'm also not so inclined to write off influence of Jordan. Next in that line were Kobe, then LeBron, but we all know shooting outside and dunking were pretty well shown on TV, so kids have either gotten Jordan or Jordan wannabe's for a long time.  I used to have a really detailed reply to this saved , but I lost my PC it was on  3-4 years ago.  It had video links  rule change references, bios , line-ups, All-Star and  Alll LEague teams from pro and college .  and all. Boooo This does it no justice, and I had more guys  Fortunately all of this information is widely known and publicly available A different change than Shaq, but no less influential all around athlete-players...

FWIW "position-less "basketball was a concept I still recall Pat Riley having felt was "most ideal" even back in the 1980's.  Not sure if he was the first, but he was the first I am aware of, personally.The Warriors remind me of that vision.NOt sure whether or not I agree with him , but I agree with better all-around players. I just think traditional post bigs can still be successful with the occasional dominant player. Theoretically , all it would require is a dominant player(s)or system that has enough success to change the trend again. The hallmark of a trend changer is dominance. I can't name one trend that changed in my lifetime leading to more dunks and 3 pointers though from a fundamental standpoint than Shaq's dominance.. "Basketball 101" on the surface...

Doesn't necessarily mean big men can't/won't ever be dominant again with a back to the basket game.Nor does it mean the mid range game won't become a future trend. They just don't seem so likely to prevail again at the current point in time. The valid counter  argument is ,however,  if Riley was among those on point in theory, is there a "better" mold for the game than fundamentally sound versatile basketball? I just think the fundamentals are watered down by "other negative trends" originating in the professional game.Even further originate completely outside of athletics and just permeate it now. Entitlement. We can argue all day long , but as a parent I live understanding since my child comes home with what they hear at school all day. I sure as you know what don't allow or promote it to my child..Center of Authority has largely shifted away from coaches and parents towards players and children. Kind of same thing to me.That is just my  personal experience. 

Something to ponder, and really tough to fully  attribute/conclude on one "cause" but a bit easier with one rule change. 

Are as many kids with able talent investing into sports with the same dedication as they used to or are there more distractions in modern culture?  I battle  to balance the physical  and the virtual on a regular basis so just saying. My personal approach is electronics off, books or exercise out and do it with them until being old beats me. I do complain , but I do try to solve .Also have coached for that matter.

Fortunately heart, desire, conditioning, and intangibles are not equal with neither kids nor systems... I've experienced just over 30 years of basketball concepts I was old enough to clearly recall in/around sports. I will also say I find it most unfortunate and ironic the team closest to what Scott described missing-  in the NCAA in the recent past few seasons-  had been Purdue with Biggie and Haas and even some mid range game.I perceive what he meant he misses is a more traditional basketball offense ... Sucks.Purdue somewhat defined it Lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basketball is focusing on what baseball has for years......in a different sort of way.

Baseball cherishes guys that have the "5 tools".

1. Hitting for power.

2.  Hitting for average.

3.  Speed

4.  Fielding

5.  Throwing

If you got them all, you are a very special player.

Now translate them into the game of basketball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...