Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkNasty
It's actually true for most major sports in the US imo.
I agree to a limited extent - because the way each league protects bad teams - compared to say European soccer leagues - incompetence isn't sufficiently punished from the ownership's perspective. There's also something about sports that causes people to think irrationally.
Quote:
At least, there is a pretty huge variance between good and bad, and the "average" coach/gm actually isn't really that good.
I would still disagree that they are bad in the sense of, normal people making decisions bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triumph36
although it sure seems to me that you are trying to use this to strongarm the thread into discussing a point which I have absolutely no interest in.
I'm not sure why you'd feel the need to discuss a point you have no interest in.
Quote:
that I can't identify and criticize some of the decisions made by people who are more successful than I am is beyond ludicrous.
You can do whatever you want. We're discussing the merit of criticizing this particular play given that:
1. The average head coach knows a lot of things normal people don't
2. Belichick is generally considered an above-average head coach.
3. General statistics seem to agree with his decision.
The point is that you need strong, rather clear-cut evidence - otherwise your disagreement is merely an argument from ignorance. That the coach can't prove clearly that his decision is correct isn't really any sort of argument in your favor.
Quote:
I suggest looking at the history of sabermetrics before bringing up Boethius's old canard - that argument from authority is the weakest form of argument. a lot of guys in their parents' basement figured out things that men at the top of the food chain had no idea about.
I don't have to look - I closely followed its development during the critical period when it gained relevance in front offices around baseball. I remember discussing the merits and limitations of DIPS, for instance, with Voros McCracken on the usenet, long before the press picked it up. I read his original usenet posting in 1999, for instance. Either way, in looking back, it's clear that many conclusions were overstated and egregiously bad front office decisions during that time mostly had little to do with not understanding sabermetrics but with lack of incentives for many executives to plan for the long term and bad executives (in terms of people skills) and poor organizational structures that led to ignoring not just sabermetric knowledge, but traditional scouting knowledge present within the organization. And by the time the studies became refined enough to add concrete value, many of those guys did get jobs with Major League teams.
There's some interesting stuff that came out, but I think on the whole, the major contribution of sabermetrics isn't introduction of new knowledge, but rather dissemination of knowledge that allows outsiders to more easily evaluate insiders. In other words, it's a communication framework that will lead to more efficient decision making. Genuine understanding of the game and talent evaluation are still an art form, but wide availability of sabermetric knowledge, which is easier for intelligent outsiders to understand than nuances of the game, made it easier for owners and fans to spot grossly incompetent executives and other talent evaluators. Over time, it will add the structure upon which people can think more intelligently about the game, but to frame this as outsiders knowing more than insiders is overstating the case. Branch Rickey understood the essence of most of what those guys had to say long before there was Bill James or SABR.