OK, my bad. For some reason, I recalled that it worked well against him, at least for a while.Yes, he was. And he beat it with a double and a 2/5 game. Did same next game and ran out a bunt. Teams quit doing it, After he served three years in the military it was used against him the World Series and he still did ok but not good, going 5/25. Thanks for making my point.
So it was run a occasionally against pull hitters. But not like it has been the last ten years. Hitters were hitters then. Now they just swing for the fences as home runs gets them on tv, social media, interviews, and big contracts.
Ted Williams: Last to .400, among first to face shifts?
In 1941, Ted Williams batted a remarkable .406. Seventy-five years later, that performance sticks out for two reasons.Most obviously, no Major Leaguer has reached the .400 plateau since. But Williams' prowess at the plate that season, combined with an opposing manager's desperate creativity...www.mlb.com
Must be another bad coach
- Thread starter AWS1022
- Start date
I am sure that a lot of past players would struggle against the shift. But many would kill it because they were so much better batsmen.
A few would destroy modern pitching given gime to adapt. Others would never catch up.
PSU basketball coaches don’t mark a lot of money compared to other coaches in the Big ten and I bet PSU Is. Near the bottom for basketball budget.
When did anyone ever say that no other coach would ever do it? Please quote a poster who stated that and
Well, I don’t believe I ever made the comment it’s the dumbest decision ever (if I did I’ll gladly eat crow as JF has a few other decisions that are above this one on the list). When did anyone ever make the comment “no other coach would ever do it”? Please quote who said that as you can’t just interpret quotes to mean a certain narrative annd just run with it. That’s illogical. Again, when you are down 15 points it is completely illogical to make that decision!!! If you are using the Lions as your argument for making that decision well there’s another problem. The lions are who the lions are for a reason. It’s not like they’re the poster boys for winning championships or even fielding competitive football teams for that matter. If your logic for this argument is the Lions coach made the same decision so it must not be such a bad decision, well then your logic is devoid of logic at best.
The Lions are 8-3, so not such a bad team. And if you look at the analytics, there is a logical reason for it which is why so many coaches would do it. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it’s illogical.
Please explain the analytics to me. Well, I believe the Lions lost the game in which they went for it in that situation. So, there’s that.
They’ve been explained time and time again over the past week…but, if you think the result of the game somehow impacts whether or not something was the right move analytically, then it’s not worth the time to explain it.
It wasn’t the second half 2 pt try that was questionable IMO, it was the first half decision before halftime.
Obviously the analytics are flawed at best and definitely open to interpretation. At the end of the day, the Lions lost with that approach to analytics, as did PSU. There was no value gained in the risk associated with the analytics at hand. Therefore, conventional wisdom dictates the analytics are illogical at best. Convince yourself otherwise, it doesn’t bother me at all. Fyi…analytics can be used to “explain away illogical decision making” which still doesn’t make it a wise choice. End of rant.
Nobody ever lost a game because of a decision made in the first half. If you can’t overcome it, you weren’t going to win anyway. That’s like blaming a loss in basketball on a turnover that happened in the first quarter.
What about the numerous examples of coaches going by the analytics and winning…you can’t really point to the results of two games to prove a point.
Some
If you're playing Blackjack and you have 19 and you hit and get a two, you win the game. But anyone who knows the game will tell you it was a foolish decision because most of the time you would lose when doing that. Sometimes bad decisions are rewarded and good decisions are not because of luck. Life is full of similar examples.
What games are you speaking of exactly? I’m not anti-analytics. I am anti-using analytics as a defense mechanism to explain away bad decision making. Analytics has been around in sports forever. It used to be called strategy, tendency, and trends. All of which were used to dissect opponents and the teams approach to situational football. Analytics is nothing new, just a different name used to describe the same things.
I got knocked out of a poker tournament a few weeks ago going all in preflop with pocket aces, against a pair of 9’s. I assume I now need to rethink if Aces really are that strong, math be damn’d.
You said the Lions lost with that approach to analytics, which implies that the loss actually means something.
No, not at all. You made a wise choice with pocket aces. Conventional wisdom says most people would make that call (not a few other coaches). Neither PSU nor the Lions had pocket aces. This is a prime example of how analytics aren’t all relative all the time.
A few people (championship caliber) would refrain from going all in pre flop and instead allow the flop (process) to occur before making an emotionally charged decision.
Was not blaming it for the loss, just thought it was a mistake, which led to more mistakes.
Similar threads
