sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 10, 2018 23:30:46 GMT -5
I played all 3 in HS...although by my senior year I decided to keep myself healthy and concentrate on baseball.
My feeling was that every activity--other than bullpen throwing--was a teamwork activity. When we took BP, every ball put in play represented a defensive situation that then got played out by the fielding unit. At least that is how my coaches ran it. Sometimes coaches would end practice by forcing us to make 3 straight "clean" plays before we were allowed to shower up. When we ran specific drills, like PFPs, it was always made into a competition and you were always counting on your drill teammates to help your side win the competition. We did a lot of 3 or 4 inning simulated games. We were always doing something that very closely approximated game situations.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 11, 2018 0:44:52 GMT -5
Whereas in basketball the ball is normally in the hands of the best 2 or 3 players on the team. The rest of the team is just there to defend, set picks, pass or perhaps take an occasional shot if they're left wide open, anyone physically capable could fill the role. Rog -- Sorry, Boagie. I don't think you understand the teamwork involved in baketball. Watch even a high school game, and you will see that isn't the case. Dood - you may be right about HS basketball but Boagie is correctamundo about the way NBA hoops is played Rog -- I see a lot of teamwork in NBA games, particularly by the Warriors. It is one of the reasons they are so good. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=2#ixzz5Qljp14IO
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 11, 2018 0:59:43 GMT -5
I looked to see which team in the NBA finished closest to .500 last season. Turns out it was the LA Clippers, who were 42-40. They had a lot of injuries, which skews these numbers a bit, but I was quite surprised to find that they had five players who averaged 15 points or more, eight players who reached double figures, and 11 players who averaged nine or more points per game.
Clearly they had more than a few players involved.
But let's suppose that a team DID have most of its scoring done by two or three players. That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of teamwork to get there. The Warriors' scoring is usually led by Steph Curry, Kevin Durant and Klay Thompson. Yet if you watch them, there are usually multiple passes, screens, back screens, double screens, cuts, back cuts, etc. There is a reason guys get open three-point shots -- and it usually involves most of the team to accomplish it.
How about football? Most football plays involve 15 or more players.
In baseball, it's mostly pitcher vs. batter. Mano a mano.
Hitting the ball is very difficult if the pitching is good. Pitching can be tough because so many balls are hit out of the park. If a team has good pitching and half a dozen really good hitters, it doesn't usually need good defense or good base running.
And hitting and pitching involve only one of each. Fielders spend over 99% of their time in the field mostly standing around. It's not unusual for a defensive player to be involved in two or three plays per game, and often that involves only fielding a hit and throwing it back to the infield.
There are 27 outs in a nine-inning game (which is why we should be measuring production against 27 outs). A third of those outs don't involve the ball being hit at all. The other 18 outs average two per fielder. Many of those involve an infielder and the first baseman. Many others involve only one fielder.
Probably the most complicated play in baseball is the relay play. If it is executed correctly, it usually involves only three fielders. Just about EVERY play in football involves a few times that.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 11, 2018 12:39:35 GMT -5
How many times have you seen one of the Warriors bench players score more than Curry, Thompson or Durant? And now compare that to baseball...how many times has a lesser known player in baseball impacted the game more than one of the star players?
It happens regularly in baseball, and very rarely in basketball.
I'm not talking about how many times a player on the court might touch the ball, I'm talking about impacting the game significantly.
In basketball, if there's only a few seconds on the clock and the game is on the line Curry, Thompson or Durant are taking the shot. In baseball, if it's the 9th inning and the game is on the line, any one of the players might be in a position to win or lose the game. It might come down to Nick Hundley as the guy to get the walk off hit. He's done so twice this seadon I believe, and he's the backup catcher.
Again, you're clouding the discussion with random situations and theories that don't really have anything to do with the original point of dynasties. In basketball the star players are impacting the game much more than the lesser known players.
Between 2008 and 2012, if Lincecum or Cain were able to start every game for the Giants, they would have probably won the division every year, and likely won the World Series in most of those years. Between those years they were arguably the best pitching duo in baseball.
If you have the best duo in basketball, it's likely you're going to the playoffs every year, and also likely you'll win the championship. We saw it with Jordan and Pippen, and now we're seeing it with Curry and Durant. LeBron James has been to the finals how many years in a row? 6, 7? Mike Trout is the best player in baseball, how many times has he been to the World series? 0
Rog, I'm sorry, but if you can't acknowledge these factors, I seriously question your knowledge of sports in general.
I remember a little league team I was on, they stuck me on the team because they needed to balance out the rosters. They were awful. I was the entire offense, I made the all star team, I had a handful of homeruns (many inside the park, 3 error homeruns, it's little league) but I was by far the best player on the team. We lost every game, because I was only 1 of 9 at bats. The ball wasn't hit to me as often as it was hit to any number of my teammates. I stood there watching my team screw up routine plays. Basically I saw a bunch of future stat geeks trying to make plays, and it wasn't good. I wanted to win for our team, but I couldn't. If it were basketball, I would have just taken the ball the whole time, or at least half the time. I would have treated my team as LeBron often treats his teams. I don't know if we would have won many games, but we would have been competitive. I know this because years later I was in a similar situation in a basketball league in junior high. I was the best player on the team, there was another kid that was ok, but the rest were only out there because their parents made them. I remember a kid on that team telling me he didn't want the ball passed to him. Despite all that, we were a decent team. We won some games. If you took me away, the team would have been horrible.
Sometimes, Rog, you have to experience these situations to actually know what you're talking about. This was a long time ago, and I didn't feel good about being a ball hog, but If it meant the difference between winning and losing I was going to do it. A few good players in basketball can easily win games, in baseball, good players are far less impactful to winning. Winning in baseball is far more a team effort.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 11, 2018 14:46:32 GMT -5
We're talkin about different things here, Boagie. You're talking about how much impact a player can have on a team or game. I'm talking about teamwork.
In a sense, what you're saying about how a player can impact a basketball game more than a player can impact baseball shows just how much baseball is more individual-oriented. A batter can impact a game only so much, since he is essentially involved in an individual battle with the pitcher. In basketball, a TEAM can help a player get open.
Look at the Warriors. Kevin Durant is a good one-on-one player. Steph is decent one-on-one. Klay isn't a good one-on-one player. Draymond is a Swiss Army knife.
Steph and Klay aren't nearly the players they are without teammates to help them get open and get them the ball.
If you're at bat in baseball, as your teammate, I can't help you at all. I can tell you things before you get in the batter's box. I can work with you in the cage and on the T. But when you're in the box, there isn't much I can do except encourage you, remind you not to go outside the strike zone, and tell you to throw your hands at the ball and catch the ball with the bat.
In basketball, I can rebound the ball so you can get it in your hands. I can set screens for you. I can get the ball to you when you're open. I can switch with you on defense
I know you get the idea here, because you're a good teammate.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 11, 2018 17:07:13 GMT -5
Yes, teamwork is the topic you've switched to now, but it started as how star players impact teams that were considered dynasties in baseball and basketball. I'm trying to stay on topic, you're not, because you either fail to see the point of the discussion, or you realize you're wrong and don't want to admit it. Which makes me done with the conversation. I only like to have discussions with people that can keep up, or can admit when they're wrong.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 13, 2018 21:31:01 GMT -5
We've discussed baseball as a team sport before, and once Randy mentioned basketball, I think it was a natural advancement.
Haven't we pretty much agreed that whether the Giants were a dynasty or not comes down to one's definition? I think if I look carefully I will find at least half a dozen teams in MLB history that were more of a dynasty than the Giants. Does that make them NOT a dynasty? I don't know.
The thing that most takes away my belief that they were a five-year dynasty was that in the two in-between years they didn't even make the playoffs. That and the fact that their regular season wasn't great in their three World Championship years. But it is the two non-playoff seasons that tear it apart for me.
To me, a dynasty is something both long and continuous. The five years seem long enough to me, but I don't see the continuity I expect.
Again, you say po-TA-to and I say po-TAH-to. It's one definition that seems to make the difference here.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 14, 2018 14:13:44 GMT -5
I agree, the definition is not entirely clear. The two seasons in which they didn't make the playoffs is no doubt a mark against the 5 year span of success. So it really just comes down to ones opinion. I would think all Giants fans would call it a Dynasty, because being a fan means you're a little bit biased. And there's enough evidence there to call it a Dynasty and not be incorrect. On the other hand, most Dodger fans would probably not call it a Dynasty, and would chalk up the Giants success to a lot of luck. Which is why your nickname is, was, and continues to be Roger the Dodger.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 14, 2018 15:14:03 GMT -5
being a fan means you're a little bit biased Rog -- Being a fan of your team means you root for your team. Being a fan of baseball may mean you remain objective. Think Brian Sabean or Bobby Evans are Giants fans? Think it isn't important that they keep their objectivity? You can stop making excuses, or you can continue to dodge the issue. How about we compromise and say the Giants are a dynasty with a small D, while there have been many others deserving of a capital D? And how about we look for a way to come up with more accurate nicknames? Speaking of nicknames, no one commented on The Freak, The Franchise and Big Time Timmy Jim. There are better baseball nicknames, but does anyone have THREE better ones? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=2#ixzz5R6nYhkS4
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 14, 2018 18:11:48 GMT -5
On the other hand, if ANY other team won 3 titles in 5 years, Dodger fans wouldn't have a problem with the Dynasty label
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 14, 2018 18:23:22 GMT -5
On the other hand, if ANY other team won 3 titles in 5 years, Dodger fans wouldn't have a problem with the Dynasty label ~Dood Rog -- Then I guess we're simply more discerning fans than they are. I guess three World Series championships in five years could be considered a dynasty. It likely hasn't been accomplished even once a decade, since it would take half a decade to accomplish. The two things that make it tough for me to consider it a dynasty -- at least with a capital D -- is not making the playoffs in the two in-between seasons, and not having anything approaching a dominant record over the full five years. But again, it seems to be a definitional thing. Among the accomplishments of any MLB team over a five-year period, where would we rank the Giants? I'm thinking of any five-year period for any MLB team, meaning that if a team won often enough, it might have more than one five-year period for its dynasty. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=2#ixzz5R7Zq4qsY
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 14, 2018 19:36:42 GMT -5
What would you rather have...the Braves teams that made the playoffs every year for like 20 years and brought home one MEASELY ring, or the Giants bringing home 3 rings in 5 years and missing the playoffs the other two seasons?
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 15, 2018 2:07:45 GMT -5
What would you rather have...the Braves teams that made the playoffs every year for like 20 years and brought home one MEASELY ring, or the Giants bringing home 3 rings in 5 years and missing the playoffs the other two seasons? Rog -- I'm not sure about the answer there, but the Braves were by far the better team for far longer. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=2#ixzz5R9TRS6qo
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 15, 2018 2:43:49 GMT -5
Ok, since you refused to answer my question, try answering this one (and if you avoid this one I don't want to EVER hear you whining about me NOT answering your questions)...which do you think Braves fans would do...keep their measely single championship in 20 years of dominance, or swap it for 3 titles in 5 years and that's it?
I think we both know what they would prefer.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 15, 2018 8:34:47 GMT -5
Ok, since you refused to answer my question Rog -- I didn't REFUSE to answer your question. I said I didn't know. I thought about it, and I thought enough of your point to make it close between having an excellent, competitive team for 15 years -- not 20 as you said -- that I wasn't sure what my answer would be. I didn't ignore the question, which you often do. Or you come back with a half fast answer. After thinking about it more though, I think I would choose what the Braves did. They were REALLY good for a decade and a half, not missing the playoffs even once (There were no playoffs in 1994, although the Braves played .596 ball that season, something the Giants didn't do once in the "dynasty" period we're talking about). I look at how disgusted you are with this season and see that the Giants are 10 games below .500. The 2013 team finished 10 games below .500. I would rather root for an excellent team for a decade and a half than a very good one for a third as long. As for what the Braves fans would like, I suspect it would differ from fan to fan. If I had to guess, I think a lot of fans would quickly answer what the Giants did, but after thinking more deeply about it and realizing their true emotions more, might change their answer. It's a close choice, but I would go with the Braves, who by the way I didn't mention as a dynasty. Perhaps I should have, but I didn't because they won only once, I didn't. I think the Giants' failure to make the playoffs twice within that five years disqualifies them as a dynasty. During the time you think of them as a dynasty, they won more than they lost, but not by the large amount one would expect from a dynasty. I think the Braves were closer to being a dynasty than the Giants, but I'm not sure about whether to include them either. The definition of dynasty keeps mentioning a long period of time. When the time is shorter -- as with the Giants -- to me that requires a higher level of dominance, and the Giants didn't win enough games to come close to being dominant. If they hadn't gotten hot at the right time, few would have mentioned them at all. Three months after the Giants won World Championship #3, a writer compared them to other 5-year "dynasties." He ranked them 7th out of nine such teams, although he did admit that 84% who responded to his poll considered the Giants a dynasty. If he were to take the poll now, not right after they won #3, the percentage would very likely be much lower. Here is something to ponder: In the history of the World Series (about 125 years), 24 times two World Series in a row were won by the same team. This is something the Giants didn't accomplish during the "dynasty" we're discussing, although they had done so perviously in their history. I prefer more time before I consider it a dynasty, but if one shortens the period, one out of every five years a team has done something the 2010-2014 Giants were unable to accomplish. Again, it comes down to definition. My definition is more strict than yours. I go to the definition and look more closely at the "time" element. Of a sports dynasty, Wikipedia says "In sports, a dynasty is a team or individual that dominates their sport or league for an extended length of time. ... This can result in frequent topic of debate among sports fans due to lack of consensus and agreement in the many different variables and criteria that fans may use to define a sports dynasty." Regarding the 2010-2016 Giants, I see neither the dominance nor the "extended length of time." To me, baseball's purest dynasty was the 1923-1962 Yankees. In that 40 year period, the Yankees won 20 World Championships. Now THAT'S a dynasty. If one defines a dynasty as three World Championships in five years, those Yankees accomplished the feat 10 times. When I look at what the Yankees did over 40 years, I have a hard time calling three World Championships in five years a true dynasty -- especially when a team isn't even able to make the playoffs in two of those five years and puts up a winning percentage of less than .540 over the five years. In a sense, calling the 2010-2014 Giants a dynasty is an insult to 40 years of Yankees teams. But as Wikipedia said, different strokes for different folks. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=2#ixzz5RArrq4l4
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 15, 2018 8:53:12 GMT -5
Regarding teamwork, except between the pitcher and catcher there is more teamwork in a few minutes of basketball, football or hockey than there is in an entire baseball game. In a baseball play, of which there are about 80 per game, more than two players on the same team are involved perhaps two or three times a game on average. Virtually EVERY play in football involves far more than three. Even though there are only five players in basketball, most possessions involve at least three of them.
A month after the Giants won their World Championship in 2010, the following was written in a Milwaukee paper:
"Teamwork is the ability of everybody to focus on a goal and to work cooperatively to achieve that goal. Good teamwork leads to success. And absence of teamwork leads to coaches getting fired.
We can discount individual sports as far as the teamwork discussion goes. A golfer and a caddy have to be on the same page, but that's not what I mean.
Water ballet requires a lot of teamwork, as do water polo and luge, but I'm talking about major sports.
Baseball is off the map because it is such an individual sport."
There are about 300 pitches in a baseball game. On well over three-quarters of those pitches, only the pitcher, catcher and batter are involved. Baseball is a team sport that primarily involves mostly two individuals -- one from each team.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 15, 2018 9:06:28 GMT -5
both you, and this writer, are either morons or you know very little about how this game is played. It's clear niether of you evr played beyond tee league
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 15, 2018 21:45:10 GMT -5
Please explain how a sport that is made up three-quarters by action between the battery and the hitter is as big a team game as football, basketball and hockey are. You've played three of the four, so I'm curious as to what it was that caused you to think of baseball as anywhere near as much of a team game as the other three.
The one thing about the other three sports is that a player can do almost as much without the ball as with it. In baseball, a player has to have the ball or have it thrown to him in order to have much of an impact.
And Randy, didn't you learn at a fairly young age that if you have to be insulting to win an argument, you have a weak argument?
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 15, 2018 21:59:16 GMT -5
Another article ranks the four major sports, plus soccer, which is a bigger game than any of the others world-wide in this order as team sports:
5. Baseball -- Most players touch the ball so seldom and are involved in so few plays.
4. Football -- Rated this low because players play primarily only one way.
3. Basketball -- Superstars have a greater impact, and much of the roster plays little if at all.
2. Soccer -- Every player on the field touches the ball reasonably often. The goalie touches the ball least, but he does so in critical situations.
1. Hockey -- Almost every player on the roster receives significant playing time in most games. The best at their positions rarely play more than half the game.
This is a little different way of looking at team games, but it makes a decent amount of sense.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 17, 2018 0:49:14 GMT -5
You're right, Rog. The Giants were just an ok team that got lucky three times because Angel Pagan's grounder hit the third base bag during a sweep of the Tigers in 2012.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 17, 2018 2:11:47 GMT -5
Here's the difference between me and you, Rog...one of the many, I should say. You come here to win arguments and prove that stats geeks actually know more than those who played the game. I come here to give my opinions and if you don't agree...cest le vie. As Jon Lovitz says, "no skin off my astabula."
If you truly believe baseball is strictly a one-on-one sport, you never had to close out a game with your throwing arm feeling like a limp noodle.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 17, 2018 10:05:13 GMT -5
If you truly believe baseball is strictly a one-on-one sport, you never had to close out a game with your throwing arm feeling like a limp noodle. Here is what gets me, Randy: "If you truly believe baseball is strictly a one-on-one sport" isn't something I said or implied. My point has never been that baseball is an INDIVIDUAL sport, but rather that it is less a team sport than the other three major sports. "you never had to close out a game with your throwing arm feeling like a limp noodle" merely points AWAY from baseball's being as much of a team game as the other sports and back to the pitcher/batter mano a mano matchup. And if you want to show how MACHO a baseball player is, guys in the other sports have played with broken legs and other ailments. In baseball a removed player isn't allowed to return to the game, but if they could, how many would have returned as Aaron Rodgers did last Sunday night, when he was carted off the field and was able to return to lead the Packers to victory. That's not to say that baseball players haven't made heroic efforts too. Curt Schilling comes to mind. And how important Rodgers is to the Packers doesn't point away from football's being a team game. It was the failure of his teammates that allowed Rodgers to be injured in the first place. And he had plenty of help from his teammates on each side of the ball in leading the large comeback. In terms of a SINGLE game, a pitcher or a goalie can have the most impact -- even more than a quarterback. Over a full season, the goalie has far more impact, since he can play in a high percentage of his team's games, while a starting pitcher begins little more than 20% of his squads contests -- and usually needs relievers to back him up. When it comes to being a team game, sometimes fielders go an entire game without touching the ball. That virtually never happens in the other sports. There is simply far less TEAMWORK between players in baseball, with the communication between the pitcher and catcher being the exception. In baseball, the ball is in the control of the pitcher over 80% of the time, whereas the ball is usually in control of say the right fielder for less than 1%. As for my wanting to win arguments, I agree that I get that way. But what I'm after is truth, facts, analysis, logic and relevance. When someone I am discussing a subject with offers that, he's doing a better job than I am, and if there is an argument involved and he has more of the five things I mentioned, I would rather he win it. In that case, I'll usually concede. But how many here seem to back up their opinions in great part with other opinions? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=2#ixzz5RN1fqaWp
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 17, 2018 13:36:44 GMT -5
As I have said all along...Stats Geeks don't get it and they never will...
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 18, 2018 14:40:18 GMT -5
Randy, you run from the truth, hiding behind platitudes and prejudices.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 18, 2018 14:51:12 GMT -5
None of that changes the fact I've been there and you haven't...logic dictates that I know better than you how the team dynamic is no less in baseball than in other sports. If you don't believe me, ask Boly
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 18, 2018 17:11:35 GMT -5
None of that changes the fact I've been there and you haven't...logic dictates that I know better than you how the team dynamic is no less in baseball than in other sports. Rog -- That's no logic at all, Randy. The experience of you, one person, dictates that you know better than I how the team dynamic works? Logic doesn't come from the experience either you or I have had. Logic comes from how few players -- other than the pitcher and the catcher -- touch the ball on the same play. Let's use an example from baseball and basketball. As you know, basketball coaches encourage their players to pass the ball. The Warriors are one of the best teams in history in doing so. To encourage passing, coaches will sometimes tell their players they want the ball to be passed at least three or four times in a half court set. In baseball, the manager rarely encourages his players to pass the ball around before throwing it to first base. By its nature, baseball doesn't involve as much teamwork as the other major sports. How can you have played three of the four and be blind to that, Randy? Teamwork is defined as "the combined action of a group of people, especially when effective and efficient." Aside from the pitcher and catcher, there just isn't much combined action required in a baseball game. I'm going to guess, for instance, that the average number of assists in a major league is in single figures. In the NBA, there are far more assits than that -- and as you know, most passes don't result in an assist. I'm not criticizing baseball for not requiring as much teamwork. That's simply the nature of the sport. But for you to feel there is as much teamwork involved in baseball as in basketball shows you either didn't learn much from playing, or you're simply being cantankerous. On balls hit in baseball, there are perhaps two minutes of a game where the ball is being passed around. Probably less. Compare that to the amount of time in a basketball game where players are setting screens, passing the ball, cutting and being there to defend if a teammate is beaten. The ratio is hugely in favor of basketball. Aside from the communication between pitcher and catcher, baseball is mostly an individual sport. In basketball, for instance, I can have very little athletic ability and still set screens that will help free my teammates -- any of them -- for shots. Just how much can the left fielder help the right fielder out? Randy, you're either being cantankerous or stupid. Just open your eyes. What you are showing here is how LITTLE having played the game at a high level improves one's understanding. So you've played baseball at a higher level than I. What has that taught you that I haven't experienced? You've faced tougher pitchers and better hitters. You've had the ball hit harder at you and run against stronger arms. But the framework of the game is the same. I'm sorry, Randy, but not only do you not know more about baseball than I do, you don't know as much. You've had some experiences at a higher level, but there are thousands of things I know about baseball that you don't. You ridicule those things, but in reality you can't back up your prejudice. How about this, Randy. Write out the things about baseball you know that I don't. I think what you'll find is that I know more about them than you think. If you truly know baseball better than I, you ought to be able to scout professional players much better than I. In fact, you can't scout them even as well as I. Sorry to burst your bubble, Randy, but you're full of hot air. You don't pay as much attention to other scouts as I, you don't know how to evaluate a player analytically, and you haven't shown that you can see more in a player than I when watching him play. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=2#ixzz5RUaCY8ox
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 19, 2018 2:51:35 GMT -5
A great example of a team player in basketball was Shane Battier in the NBA. Battier averaged eight points, four rebounds, two assists, a steal and a block per game. Doesn't sound like a difference maker, does he? Yet somehow his teams scored a lot more points when he was on the floor. He's a guy who did the "little things" and who did them highly intelligently. Read this article, and you'll find out why and how: www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.htmlIn baseball, doing the little things means moving the runner from second to third with no outs. It means hitting behind the runner so he can take the extra base. It means protecting the runner on the hit and run play. It means backing up a play aggressively. It means knowing when to gamble on the bases. It means hitting the cutoff man. It means knowing how to position a hitter. It means adding a small number of runs on offense and even fewer on defense, a few combined runs added to his team's run differential. Because basketball is far more a team game, in basketball it led to an otherwise average NBA basketball player (Battier) making his team better by six points a game. If you want to know how he did that, read the article. ESPN studied Battier's impact on the game. If you remember that far back, you'll remember I told you here of the tremendous motivational speech Shane gave at my nephew's graduation in 2003. In addition to my nephew, Shane gave the speech to Marc Gasol, now considered one of the best centers in today's NBA and the 2012-2013 winner of the NBA Defensive Player of the Year. As I mentioned then, I was extremely impressed with the speech of Battier, who was all of 24 years old at the time and had just completed his second season in the NBA. Because Battier was a team player, he made his team better as few others could do -- despite being at best an average starting player statistically. He made his team better in a way average baseball players just don't have the opportunity to do on the field. You will be intrigued to know, Randy, that a year and a half ago Battier was named the lead stats guy for the Miami Heat: "The Miami HEAT announced today that they have hired former HEAT player and two-time NBA champion Shane Battier as the Director of Basketball Development & Analytics. His duties will include the development of analytics in evaluating all talent, including college, free agents and current Miami players. “We believe Shane is an incredible example of our HEAT program, not only for the present, but also for the future,” said HEAT President Pat Riley. “He embodies everything that we are looking for in our players and staff. We feel he will help us tremendously with his experience and knowledge of the game. Shane is an out-of-the-box thinker and will bring a fresh expertise that can help us evolve as a franchise.” Battier was such a team player on the court because he knew things on the court that you don't even understand, Randy. You may have played sports at a high level, but you don't know what you don't know. And that is very important in developing a player or a man. Ask Shane Battier.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 19, 2018 3:10:42 GMT -5
The Warriors' Klay Thompson may one day make basketball's Hall of Fame. If so, he can thank his teammates more than almost any other Hall of Famer in any sport. You see, while Thompson is one of the greatest shooters in history, without his teammates, he wouldn't have had enough chance to show off that skill.
For all his fabulous play on both sides of the ball, Klay -- like Shane Battier by the way -- can't get his own shot off. In order to show off that great shooting, Thompson has to rely heavily on his teammates screening and getting him the ball in the right spot at the right time. (Sound at all like teamwork?)
A year and a half ago Thompson had his career high with 60 points. By my count, he is one of only 25 players to do so. The feat has been accomplished only 68 times.
Know what makes Thompson's rendition of 60 points amazing? Try these on for size:
. In scoring his 60 points, he dribbled the ball only 11 times.
. He possessed the ball for only 90 seconds in scoring those points.
. Only one of his 21 field goals came without an assist.
Think basketball isn't more of a team game than baseball? Think again. I'm almost certain even Klay's brother Trayce, who has 535 major league at bats, would tell us basketball is more of a team game than his own sport.
You don't know what you don't know, Randy. But there is no time like the present to begin learning.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 19, 2018 21:25:39 GMT -5
Rog- In baseball, the manager rarely encourages his players to pass the ball around before throwing it to first base. By its nature, baseball doesn't involve as much teamwork as the other major sports. How can you have played three of the four and be blind to that, Randy?
Boagie- Have you ever seen a triple play? a double play? relay throws? Have you ever seen a player backup a play? We've discussed the game 7 Blanco miscue enough that I know you know more goes into baseball than this one dimensional view you've presented here. Players on a baseball field aren't just standing there picking their noses when a ball is hit to someone else. They have to get ready to cutoff or backup plays. They have to cover bases and backup bases.
Again, baseball is the only sport where the offense doesn't control the ball, so the idea of teamwork shows itself more on defense than offense because they have possession of the ball.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 19, 2018 23:19:18 GMT -5
Have you ever seen a triple play? a double play? relay throws? Have you ever seen a player backup a play? We've discussed the game 7 Blanco miscue enough that I know you know more goes into baseball than this one dimensional view you've presented here. Players on a baseball field aren't just standing there picking their noses when a ball is hit to someone else. They have to get ready to cutoff or backup plays. They have to cover bases and backup bases. Again, baseball is the only sport where the offense doesn't control the ball, so the idea of teamwork shows itself more on defense than offense because they have possession of the ball. I've seen a player back up a play quite often as well. I've seen players cover bases and back up bases. I've seen cutoff plays. Rog -- Yes, I've seen a triple play (not many), thousands of double plays and perhaps nearly as many relay throws. I've seen a player back up a play quite often as well. I've seen players cover bases and back up bases. I've seen cutoff plays. Let's say I've seen all of these plays combined about half a dozen times per game. How does that compare to the teamwork a basketball team makes on one or two plays? I've never played middle infield, so I've never made that type of double play. But I made a game-saving, game-ending triple play when I made a diving catch in left field. With the tying run on second and the winning run on first, all the runners were running like crazy, with the exception of the tagging runner at third. When I made a relay throw, I tried to turn my body sideways to the throw so that I could speed up my release appreciably. When I made a cut off throw, I tried to line up where if the throw hit me in the chest and I let it go, it would be a one-hop throw to the plate. If he had one, I included the outfielder's tail on his throw when lining myself up. When it came to backing up plays, no one backed up more plays than I. I backed up on any play where I thought I had even one chance in a thousand of fielding. When I pitched, I automatically began running toward first base on any ball hit to my left. Just that split second can make the difference in getting the out. I am a southpaw, so I had an extra step to take. Want an example of how little teamwork there is in baseball compared to the other sports? Teams spend hours in spring training on having their pitchers cover the bag. It's a simple play that fielders should have mastered by Babe Ruth ball. Yet here are the major leaguers spending hours on what should be almost a routine play. It's not automatic, but it's not a hard play unless the first baseman is moving when he makes his throw. But for the pitcher, it's not a toughie. More than anything else, it's a matter of hustle and taking the proper angle. When he started the 2009 All-Star game, Tim Lincecum pitched only two innings, yet in those two innings he made not one, not two, but three mistakes in covering first base. No one else here seemed to notice. If you want to see teamwork at the high school level, go out and watch De La Salle High School play football or basketball. Fabulous teamwork in both sports, particularly in football, where they won over 150 straight games, more than doubling the previous high school record. Rent the movie "When the Game Stands Tall" if you want to gain a little insight into what goes into their football team. Maybe since we all love sports, you saw it when it came out. Coach Frank Alloco didn't have quite the success in basketball, but his team made the state title game multiple times. Other teams had more talent, but virtually none "out-teamworked" them. The De La Salle baseball team has fared similarly well, but they exhibit nowhere near the fanatical teamwork of either the football or basketball team. They don't have to. It's a different sport, one made up in great part by one-on-one matchups between pitcher and batter. There is teamwork involved, but most of the game involves that mano a mano matchup. A great pitcher is arguably the most dominant player in sports when he is on the mound. Only because a starting pitcher pitches only once every five days is a hockey goalie even more dominant. And in hockey, the other players touch the puck a whole lot more often than anyone but the pitcher and catcher touch the ball in baseball. Even the worst player in a basketball team's lineup touches the ball a whole lot more often than the right fielder touches it in baseball. A third of the outs in the major leagues now involve only the pitcher and catcher. The first baseman usually gets to field a lot of balls, but no other player on the diamond fields it a whole lot, with the shortstop being the player who fields it next most. Aside from the pitcher and catcher there is quite possibly more teamwork involved in a single football play than in an entire inning of baseball. Offensively a player is usually involved in only a small percentage of plays. (Which you mentioned, Boagie.) A player can play a fine game of baseball while being directly involved in the action for perhaps two minutes per game -- sometimes less. And most of that time is involved in individual play, not teamwork. You make a very good point, Boagie. Baseball is the only sport where the play usually isn't initiated by the offense. Because of that and the singular nature of pitcher against batter, much less teamwork is required to win a baseball game. A player spends most of his action time in a game as an individual. There have many times when a player didn't touch the ball with glove or bat in fair territory. Baseball is definitely a team game. It's just not nearly as much a team game as the other sports. It's the way a the game is designed. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=2#ixzz5Rbpsf9Ec
|
|