Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Meanwhile, other shots that look pretty good to the naked eye, like 6 foot hook shots, are actually pretty bad percentage plays, and a defense should be happy if they can get their opponent to rely on them.
I wonder if defenses will change to defend that possibility more
I still cringe when they take those shots while there's time on the shot clock. Those are just plain bad shots, except at the very edges of game theory
Spectral, your 2nd paragraphs somewhat contradicts your first
How about some rebound study? Slowing up just a bit to let your offense get in position AND getting your players to crash the boards instead of giving up as I see sometimes.
Now, to my question - isn't there an absolutely HUGE opportunity in football to find information others don't have? Think about which offensive positions get emphasized - quarterback, running back, receiver - these are even referred to as the "skilled" positions, whereas apparently any no-talent schmo can play on the offensive line.
(QBs really are so valuable that it's worth reaching)
Seriously, who was the soccer coach who shot an opposing player? I tried Googling, but I can't find anything about it.
Reaching for a QB is a waste. There isn't a top QB in the league that was a reach.
Traditionally, UK footballers are awarded a cap, i.e. the kind you put on your head, for having made an appearance for their national team. Therefore, players who make an appearance for their national team, are known to have been "capped".
CJ Spiller on the other hand was a reach and a terrible pick by the Bills.
Assuming you are really being serious:
If they ended up being a "top QB", then pretty much by definition they weren't a reach.
This depends how you define "top QB". Eli Manning, Phil Rivers, Joe Flacco, and Cam Newton were all reaches in the sense that they flew up draft boards late because teams needed QBs.
This can only be true in the sense that running backs are almost never good values.
I don't consider Eli Manning, Joe Flacco or Cam Newton a top QB, though Newton could turn out to be. Phillip Rivers was until the past couple of years, he could rebound now that AJ Smith isn't there to do as much harm as good to the rest of the team.
The Bills had no passing game but they took a running back with a top ten pick, then to make matters worse they didn't play him his rookie season and as a backup in his second year. Two picks later was Anthony Davis, who would have helped the Bills more then and now.
I think Matt Ryan was also a bit of a reach. Drafted as high as he was because he was the top QB and not a top 3 overall talent.
I guess I'm not clear what the point is then
not every team can have a literal "top QB" then if you're defining it as something like the top 5 QBs.
Like boxing, the real value comes from reviewing video footage. Quantification adds nothing. If I know a guy likes to lead with a left hook, step in, and fire a right uppercut, knowing he does this after 71% of his lead left hooks doesn't provide any tangible value.
I disagree; if you could give me numbers on not only how often my opponent does something, but how effective he is with it, I think it makes me more able to fight him. Maybe this is because I don't know jack about boxing, but we do this sort of quantification in basketball (Player X goes to his left Y% of the time and shoots Z% going that way, so shade him that direction).
The general talent level in the NBA is light years beyond where it was then and Russell types are much more common. But a big guy with his quickness at a time when the power forward might be a 6'4" white guy .
If there's an inefficiency in boxing, I'd tend to think that it's in matchmaking ("styles make fights", right?) instead of the stuff that's inside the ring. There might be room for optimization on opponent selection for a promoter trying to put a good-but-not-great kid over the top and into a title fight, for instance. Where's the ideal risk/reward trade off as you amp up the level of competition?
Many fighters simply took as many fights as they could schedule, opponent be damned, because they simply needed the payday
I was looking at Harry Greb's record the other day, and I was just totally blown away by his fight schedule. He was fighting top guys, fighting up one or even two weight classes, and taking new fights every two or three weeks! And it's not like he was getting out of those fights unscathed, either...
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (8 members)
Page rendered in 0.8615 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed