Why analytics/moneyball leads to more success but worse entertainment

[Bboystyle]

It’s just like everything else where we know too much about how the sausage is made

 

[Dorian Breh]

does basketball moneyball work tho

the thing with Moneyball is Billy Beane never won the world series

moneyball might let smaller market teams go on regular season winning streaks

anyone who works in business analytics can tell you... these MBA programs arent sending their finest.. they sending scammers and cynics

 

[HandyWithTheSteel]

does basketball moneyball work tho

the thing with Moneyball is Billy Beane never won the world series

moneyball might let smaller market teams go on regular season winning streaks

anyone who works in business analytics can tell you... these MBA programs arent sending their finest.. they sending scammers and cynics

Moneyball can allow you to be competitive with limited resources but that’s it.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

does basketball moneyball work tho

From 2015-2022, not a single team made the Finals without shooting at least 27 3pt a game. Since 2018 no team has done it without shooting at least 31 3pt a game, and most of those teams went over 35.

Whereas in 2014, not a single team in the entire league even shot 27 3pt a game. As recently as 2012, just one team shot over 23.3 3pt a game and 70% of the league was shooting 20 3pt/game or fewer. New Orleans that year shot just 11 3pt attempt a game, whereas last year the Bulls led by Derozen were the ONLY team in the league that took less than 30 3pt, and they took 28.8.

Every single coach in the league knows how to coach a team shooting 10-20 3pt a game. They all grew up in systems that didn't prioritize the 3pt. And yet not a single one is willing to do it. In just 10 years we've gone from teams shooting 10-20 3pt to every fukking team shooting 30+. of them. If shooting fewer threes worked, someone would do it and run the league. But everyone who tried to stick to the old ways or try any creative new way failed. Until they change the rules, spamming threes, getting to the rim, getting to the line, and minimizing long low-% 2pt to situational advantages is going to be the wave.

the thing with Moneyball is Billy Beane never won the world series

moneyball might let smaller market teams go on regular season winning streaks

Only 1 team can win the world series. Baseball is about money and Oakland had a miniscule budget. They were definitely outperforming their salary which is what attracted so much attention.

Do you really think the entire league changed if it doesn't work? EVERY team in the league is using the shift. EVERY team is using 4-5 pitchers every game. EVERY team is increasing walks and strikeouts and homeruns.

1990 team strikeouts: Low 749, High 1054
2022 team strikeouts: Low 1122, High 1539

The team with the most stikeouts in 1990 would be the team with by far the fewest stikeouts in 2022. That's how much the game has changed.

 

[KidJSoul]

This is the first time in history that every organization has used mathematical analysis rather than their own brain trust to detemine the best strategy. It's just a fact that algorithms are more similar to each other than human minds. That's the unique historical situation that's being ignored.

Okay, but the point is that meaningfully, this isn't any different than in the past. It's not as unique as you're making it.

 

[Based Lord Zedd]

I'd agree that a solved game is more boring. But it's on the sport to continually evolve. Analytics or not, teams are always going to try and find the best strategy.
If you look at the NFL this doesn't seem to be as much of a problem compared to a sport like MLB.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'd agree that a solved game is more boring. But it's on the sport to continually evolve. Analytics or not, teams are always going to try and find the best strategy.
If you look at the NFL this doesn't seem to be as much of a problem compared to a sport like MLB.

The advantage of football is that it has so many more variables going on at any one time. So there's just a lot more space for diversity of strategic complexity. Whereas in baseball the entire game is focused in on one batter at any one moment, so it's easier to "solve" for the best strategies. There might be 1 top strategy to facing any particular hitter, but in football you need to design strategies that stop the QB and the RB and the TE and the slot reciever and the wide-outs. And what would work defensively on one route or one running play might be totally different if they come out in a different formation or run a different play, whereas a batter has pretty limited options for variety of setup.

Basketball's biggest shortcoming is that on any one offensive play, the only positive things you can do are score 2 points, 3 points, or get to the line. And except for late-game situations, you have pretty much the exact same goal on every play - maximize points. So it has become easier to "solve" because the choices are so clear - I want the most possible points on this play, every play (on occasion you might focus on trying to get the other team into foul trouble, but that's usually still associated with maximizing points on that play). Whereas in football, on any one play you can potentially make a positive impact by gaining 1 yard, 2 yards, 3 yards, 4 yards, 5 yards, all the way up to however many yards there are to the goalline, and the relative value of those yards varies depending on the game situation (which down, how many yards to a 1st down, how many yards to FG range, how many yards to the end zone, how much time left in the half, how many scores are needed). So even if analytics eventually "solves" football, it will still involve a hundred different solutions for a hundred different situations, and won't look nearly as uniform as basketball going for rim or 3pt on every play and baseball going for strikeout/walk/HR on every play.

 

[Based Lord Zedd]

The advantage of football is that it has so many more variables going on at any one time. So there's just a lot more space for diversity of strategic complexity. Whereas in baseball the entire game is focused in on one batter at any one moment, so it's easier to "solve" for the best strategies. There might be 1 top strategy to facing any particular hitter, but in football you need to design strategies that stop the QB and the RB and the TE and the slot reciever and the wide-outs. And what would work defensively on one route or one running play might be totally different if they come out in a different formation or run a different play, whereas a batter has pretty limited options for variety of setup.

Basketball's biggest shortcoming is that on any one offensive play, the only positive things you can do are score 2 points, 3 points, or get to the line. And except for late-game situations, you have pretty much the exact same goal on every play - maximize points. So it has become easier to "solve" because the choices are so clear. Whereas in football, on any one play you can potentially make a positive impact by gaining 1 yard, 2 yards, 3 yards, 4 yards, 5 yards, all the way up to however many yards there are to the goalline, and the relative value of those yards varies depending on the game situation (which down, how many yards to a 1st down, how many yards to FG range, how many yards to the end zone, how much time left in the half, how many scores are needed). So even if analytics eventually "solves" football, it will still involve a hundred different solutions for a hundred different situations, and won't look nearly as uniform as basketball going for rim or 3pt on every play and baseball going for strikeout/walk/HR on every play.

I agree with you.
I'd also argue that football has the advantage of shorter seasons, and every playoff series being a best of 1.

So IMO the problem isn't so much analytics or Moneyball, it's the shortcomings of each sport. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that MLB is making changes next year which is exactly what they need to do. I don't know how the NBA gets around 3 pointers being worth so much though. I think analytics just shine light on existing issues rather than being the cause.

 

[tremonthustler1]

I've always felt that analytics has always been a parachute for coaches /managers to have fans understand why they made a decision in a game. If it fails, I can just say it bucked what numbers suggested and they got lucky, whereas if I do something against the numbers, then I can't explain my way out of it.

Remember the Sandlot when Smalls couldn't make a catch in the outfield and Benny went up to him and said, "that's your problem, you think too much?" In 2022, Smalls woulda told everyone how to play.

 

[Remote]

I don't think sports have become less entertaining through the similitude practice of doing what's best for winning.

It's more the fact that we find reasons on why something doesn't measure up to the era we grew up in because of rosy retrospection.

In general, nothing is ever going to match those same experiences you have as a child/teenager, as that's when we are at our most malleable. Because the truth is, someone's best experience is not someone else's. Basketball has always had folks contesting how good the product is in every era and comparing to the past; for someone who grew up around the 70s/80s, they're generally not going to look at the 90s/00s too fondly, and someone who grew up around the 90s/00s (and all the generations before them), they're generally not going to look at today's game too fondly.

Even if analytics/moneyball didn't exist, folks would only come up with another reason(s) for why today's sports aren't as entertaining as they once were.

This is before we even take into account that sports was once upon a time, one of the very few sources of entertainment, whereas now, the pastimes that we have are infinite. There are simply more options to occupy our free-time than ever before, and that affects our interest in sport.

Louder for the ones in the back.

….nevermind. Those dumb asses are in the back for a reason.

 

[concise]

The advantage of football is that it has so many more variables going on at any one time. So there's just a lot more space for diversity of strategic complexity. Whereas in baseball the entire game is focused in on one batter at any one moment, so it's easier to "solve" for the best strategies. There might be 1 top strategy to facing any particular hitter, but in football you need to design strategies that stop the QB and the RB and the TE and the slot reciever and the wide-outs. And what would work defensively on one route or one running play might be totally different if they come out in a different formation or run a different play, whereas a batter has pretty limited options for variety of setup.

Basketball's biggest shortcoming is that on any one offensive play, the only positive things you can do are score 2 points, 3 points, or get to the line. And except for late-game situations, you have pretty much the exact same goal on every play - maximize points. So it has become easier to "solve" because the choices are so clear - I want the most possible points on this play, every play (on occasion you might focus on trying to get the other team into foul trouble, but that's usually still associated with maximizing points on that play). Whereas in football, on any one play you can potentially make a positive impact by gaining 1 yard, 2 yards, 3 yards, 4 yards, 5 yards, all the way up to however many yards there are to the goalline, and the relative value of those yards varies depending on the game situation (which down, how many yards to a 1st down, how many yards to FG range, how many yards to the end zone, how much time left in the half, how many scores are needed). So even if analytics eventually "solves" football, it will still involve a hundred different solutions for a hundred different situations, and won't look nearly as uniform as basketball going for rim or 3pt on every play and baseball going for strikeout/walk/HR on every play.

Yeah, and all that before you even get to the effect of possible injuries on any given play.

 

[Remote]

does basketball moneyball work tho

the thing with Moneyball is Billy Beane never won the world series

moneyball might let smaller market teams go on regular season winning streaks

anyone who works in business analytics can tell you... these MBA programs arent sending their finest.. they sending scammers and cynics

Moneyball is about exploiting inefficiencies.

That’s all it is. In Oakland’s case it wound up being the underrating of guys who get on base and those who perhaps don’t “look like ball players” but are effective.

2 things:

1) Oakland didn’t win because of variance. In a short 5-7 game series anything can happen. And good teams often fall on the wrong side of the numbers.

2) The broader concepts of Moneyball have been adopted by every major league team since (as well as teams in other sports). So yes, Moneyball has worked.

 

[Starman]

What has analytics done to football? I definitely wouldn't consider football boring/ruined...

 

[wtfyomom]

Yeah it’s definitely ruined baseball and basketball

Baseball it’s home run walk or strike out , shifts all over the place which make the game garbage

Basketball everything is 3 pointers , when the rockets went 0 for 27 in game 7 of the wcf I knew this shyt was a problem

 

[UpNext]

Y'all saying analytics ruined basketball are really missing those iso, poorly spaced brickfests from the early 00s that much. Y'all really prefer the league where a 20 point gap meant your team won 99% of the time over the era where a team went up 20 points damn near every game of a playoff series and lost all those games.