https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/2...

Mountain West coaches receiving real-time analytics during the game. Will be interesting to see how much this comes into play.

I'm not sure that analytics are less beneficial, I just think they're harder to implement in real time because basketball games involve people playing basketball like pretty much all the time, while baseball and football games are 90% standing around.

That said, I suspect the lineup data would be really useful.

I dunno, man. If what's now called "analytics" used to be called "scouting" why has the NBA changed so drastically over the last half dozen years? If scouts were all saying the same things, why were they all just implemented after the rise of analytics?

Why did teams shoot so few three pointers until recently? The number of attempts has increased by 50% in 5 years. And it's grown astronomically since the three point shot was introduced. Larry Bird led the league in 3s made in 1982. He made 90. Steph Curry made 354 last year, and finished second in the league. Is such a radical change in the game just about scouting, and if so, what did scouts suddenly see that they weren't seeing before?

Your friend follows the Knicks so of course he sees a lack of defense.

I grew up with the Knicks of the late 1960's.

They played some pretty hard nosed team defense.

Its impossible to compare teams from different eras in most sports.
Its really tough in basketball,especially before and after the adoption of the
3 point shot and the changes to the rules for "hand checking".

So I don't know if I'd agree that today's teams play better defense then
"at any point in the history of the league".

It's a common belief that there is poor defense in the NBA when really there is just amazing athletes that are hard to stop. People like to say that the NBA was much more physical and there was better defense before, especially in the 80s, but the truth is scoring was very high in the 80s even though the 3-point shot was utilized much less. Until about three years, scoring over the 20 previous years or so was much lower than it had ever been in the shot-clock era. Scoring has gone up quite a bit the last three years but is still lower than its peak in the 60s. Shooting percentage still remains low, though 3-point shooting has gone up quickly and free throw shooting has gone up slowly. Turnovers have remained steady despite increased pace.

The Cavs and Raptors were able to defeat the Warriors in their respective championship years because of their defense.

From what I've read,anaytics is basically high speed/high volume Data Analysis.
Computers allow much more detailed and faster analysis.
I know in my business that's helped us with computer modeling.
But you still need the raw data.
Doesn't the raw data get put together the same way it always did,from
people watching players,live or on video.
Then putting that data into a computer ?

I also think that a number of the changes to how baseball and basketball are played,have to do with the "attitude" of players.

A week or so ago WFAN was talking about who would be a good fit as the Mets next manager.

Two of the names that came up were Joe Giradi and Buck Showalter.
The baseball analysts they had on all felt,from a purely baseball perspective,the'y be great.
But none of them thought they would do well with today's players.
They said they that,for the most part,the thing baseball players care about as much as anything,is their on base percentage.Apparently this is a big consideration in contracts and Hall of Fame voting,as much as winning games.
They also said today's players wouldn't do well with how those guys feel a team should be run.

Same thing with pro basketball.

ESPN did a story about how many players,at least on teams not in championship contention,feel individual stats count more then the team.

One person said,"there's no I in team,but there is me".

The raw data goes well beyond what traditional scouts can observe and input. There are now literally millions of data points that never existed before.

Want to know a player's average speed? Exactly how many miles per game somebody runs? The exact amount of space, down to the millimeter that player x creates when coming off of a screen? Want to understand how much additional space a good shooter's presence creates for his teammates, down to the millimeter? Want to know how that differs when said player is at the top of the arc vs. in a corner? And how each additional foot beyond the arc impacts that?

There are literally thousands of cameras tracking every movement, and that footage can be dissected in real time. It is literally impossible for scouts to gather that info.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not really sure what to tell you. I think professional athletes like to win, and think the adoption of analytics is purely about giving them an edge to help in that pursuit. You seem to think otherwise. I doubt that's a bridge we're going to gap.

I'm a baseball traditionalist but I see no reason not to go to the automated system. I haven't seen the system in use but I'm assuming the calls are made quickly and clearly.

Personally, I'm very much against it. The game (all sports really) is meant to be played and officiated by humans - not computers. The human element of umpires is part of the game.

I would rather seem them publicly use the computer video calls to evaluate the umpires that most frequently get it right, and have the umpires get post-season opportunities based on their accuracy. Also, it could help minor league umps get a call up, and umps that aren't cutting it in MLB get sent down.

For what it's worth, I think the strike zone boxes on telecasts differs from the technology referenced here.

I agree with the "human element" to some extent.

But I also don't like when a blown call directly affects the outcome of a game/match etc.

I think that's one reason why tennis has embraced using electronics to see if a
ball is in/out/on the line.

Given the variation in strike zones between umpires,I can see why MLB is considering ABS for consistency.

What I would really like to see is a system that can objectively judge gymnastics and diving.