This thread feels very middle aged and very white

Yes, math-a-matizing baseball has helped greatly it's popularity. So if you ain't 56 and like baseball, you're probably an incel and/or a nerd.

No questions it’s an old man’s game. I like it about 3% more each year.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Nice

I don't mind the "math boys" doing their thing. I think stats can provide some insights.

I don't care for the Bernstein/Kaspers of the world, two guys with nothing more than basic statistical education, claiming superiority after reading a work they don't sufficiently grasp to analyze its flaws.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Tanking is the very natural output of championship or bust. It has been ruinous for baseball and basketball

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Also, some of the tenants of Moneyball have undoubtedly created a less enjoyable watching experience. It's ironic that it would be the younger observers who both advocate greater statistical analysis but also complain about the length of games due to increased plate patience, walks, strikeouts and pitcher changes.

I'm not so thick that I don't understand the logic. However, baseball is incentivizing its own ruination.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

You're being somewhat simplistic here. First, GM talk spikes when the on the court/field product sucks. No one gave a shit about GarPax during the middle of the 2011 eastern conference finals. But when you're losing games by 40 points and are the laughingstock of the league there's very little encouragement or entertainment to get from watching a game. If/when the Bulls improve the GM talk will still subsist but it'll be overshadowed by game talk, just like it was during the Thibs era.

Tanking produced the Cubs championship in 2016 and is the reason they're in the conversation more or less most years. As Barkley and many have said: you want to either be really really good or really really bad. Your sentiment seems to suggest tolerating a lifetime's worth of mediocrity. I guess that's the Sox fan in you speaking (I'm a Sox fan). I'm done with 80-82 every year. Give me 20-142 or give me the inverse. Fuck mediocrity.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

Tenets

_________________

The Knicks have been in perpetual waiting for that big free agent or draft pick as have the bulls

You paint this picture of the brave Cub fan weathering the storm during the tough years. Attendance was way down and so was viewership. I know I joke about it but it is very true that the Cub championship was based on some fortuitous circumstances. Now, how would the tank look without that championship? I would have been skewering the Elmhurst Steve's of the world hollowly claiming it was about bites at the apple and not the luck involved in winning the baseball playoffs. This is the reality for the majority of teams that have followed tank or championship philosophies.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

You say he's being somewhat simplistic but then the second half of your post completely validates what he wrote

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Additionally, the "you either want to be really good or really bad" philosophy may work for an individual team, but when the entire league is doing it then as you said, it ruins the sport.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

As a casual observer, the dominant storyline during the playoffs was where was Durant and Kawhi going to go next. Obviously, people cared about who would win the title but there was just as much talk about how things that happened would effect those decisions.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Also, the belief that the Cub WS is due to tanking stands on shaky ground.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

I want to be sure I understand your post: if ES is claiming that tanking is successful if it leads to multiple shots at a ring over a stretch of time then what is hollow about that?




If your interest in a team isn't dictated by that team's probability of winning at a high level then why should tanking bother you? You're still seeing professional basketball players play a sort you profess to love. Even games amongst losing teams are competitive. What's it to you what their records are if you don't care about championship odds? I guess this question is for GD as well.



I'm guessing the rate at which the media and observers of the league discuss impending free agency of major stars is equal amongst the NFL, NBA, and MLB. If anything the NFL is less talkative because major trades and free agent departures are less frequent.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY