Buy/Sell

[whatever.sixpack]

On field coaching (not counting recruiting) has the least amount of effect on winning/losing in baseball than any of the 3 major sports???

My opinion:
1. Football
2. Basketball
3. Baseball</p>

 

[hatfieldms]

I would put baseball ahead of basketball. In basketball you can have 1 player catch fire and take over a game and win it. There is much more strategy in baseball

 

[MaxwellSmart]

I saw this quote a few days ago. "Baseball is like church, many attend but few understand."

 

[dogfan96]

A lot of managers will even acknowledge it. Obviously it matters how you handle your pitchers, etc. but the biggest part of a manager's job is handling the players off the field and in the clubhouse. Plus there aren't many "plays" in baseball to be called for the most part. Obviously you can put on a squeeze play or intentionally walk guys etc. but those are special situations. The manager may call the pitches but not at the big-league level. Calling the right play at the right time or making the correct strategic adjustment in basketball and football can make all the difference in a game.</p>

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

ingame coaching matters, but not near as much. It's the things not during a game that can make the most difference in baseball.

But there is nothing like double teaming a player in basketball, using traps, zone vs. man, etc. If a player strikes out to end a game, that's his fault. In basketball, it's up to the coach to draw up the game ending play.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I could make an argument for baseball or basketball. In baseball, I think it requires a whole lot more in terms of talent development and off-season preparation. Working with hitters, fielders, and pitchers on technique to help them develop is much more important than the off-season preparation for basketball. Basketball doesn't require as much technique development, and it doesn't require nearly as much tweaking in the off-season.

As far as in-game coaching though, I think basketball requires more. As a manager, once you get to the game, you can call steals, bunts, etc., and you can change pitchers or pinch hit, but other than that, you're basically just relying on your players to execute. In basketball, you have to be a lot more active, rotating players in and out, calling plays, deciding when to press and when not to press, when to switch defenses, etc.

And yes I believe football is the clear No. 1 in terms how much the in-game coaching and also player development are important. You can't just run a bunch of athletes out there and win at football. To an extent you have a better shot at doing that with baseball and basketball.

 

[rebelrouseri]

.

 

[8dog]

and I think the fact that catchers get to call games sometimes really highlights this.

How many times have you ever heard someone say "Damn, [insert basketball coach] had a great gameplan" versus "Damn, [insert baseball coach] had a great gameplan.

I can safely say Ive never heard the latter.

 

[whatever.sixpack]

I ask b/c I see a lot of you think Cohen is going to make a huge difference, but I think we'll basically be the same as long as we have the same players. The attitude and philosophy might change, but we'll relatively be the same.
To me, I don't see how baseball has much to do w/ coaching or so called 'strategy.' Deciding whether to hit and run, squeeze, sac bunt, or steal is really just depends on your philosophy, and choosing pitches and how to shade the defense just depends on scouting of the hitters, where they hit the ball and what pitches they struggle hitting, which you probably don't even do until you get to the college level, you just pitch to your strength. But most of it seems like a guessing game.

Put it this way, take an average Joe and make him the head coach of all 3 sports. Which one can you tell the least difference in the product on the field? I say I could manage the Yankees and the record would be almost the same</p>