The problem here is a lot of stuff don't register on stats. Its easy in chess because the computer knows a pawn will only move 1 space 100% of the time, and a rook can go straight to the end of the board every single time. In the NBA though, a shot will go in only around 45% of the time. Also guys like Battier will be considered trash when they do a lot to win basketball games. A computer coaching is ridiculous, because humans are unpredictable. Lebron's heart rate says his tired on the last possession of the game. A computer will take him out, a coach will know he can still do one last play. I think a computer definitely has its uses though in the hands of an inept X and O coach like Adelman, esp. if you program it to use certain plays against certain offenses/defenses and also for on-the-fly tracking of stuff like PER, adjusted +/- and minutes played.
I could see a computer coaching any level of basketball, except the NBA. One of the coaches main jobs is to keep his team together. As much as I hate Phil Jackson, he's one of the best at it. I sure as hell would not want to see a computer try to manage Kobe and Shaq on the same team.
Maybe program the computer to take into account how critical the possession is, and adjust its decision making accordingly.
How is a computer going to keep the locker room together and deal with off the court stuff? You can't have a computer deal with on the court and a human deal with off the court because the players will have no reason to respect that human. It can't work for that reason.
Everything you says can be accounted for with deeper stats at least in theory. Again, the only problem I see is players respect. BTW, as far as I know, high level computer chess is not as simple as you think. Human elite chess players used to always beat computers. They found that human chess players don't think linearly like the earlier versions of computer chess players did. So the programmers emulated how human chess players look at the "big picture" in the game.
Certainly no human has the ability to organize and process data to the speed and magnitude of a computer. What differentiates machine and human is creativity. (There's a reason it's called "computer music"...and why most music lovers don't like it). Jeff Van Gundy was as close as it gets to a computer on "predicting" what an opposing offense was going to do in crunch time. But is was so easy for the opponents to outsmart VG with the least bit of doing the unexpected. This has always been one of several complaints I have with Quanitiative Analysis" ($Ball) for basketball. Sure...it can tell me what happened in the past. But it's a struggle in visualizing future possibilities. There is a huge difference between probablity and possibility. As far as the guy posting about Battier...the stat crunching told of his value. The watching told of his lack of offense (half-court AND transition). And his slowing down. The reality is that the Rockets are winning with a much more balanced group of players. The view of balance (O and D) wasn't a conclusion which a computer would have visualized.
That is the better analogy. And yes I've seen computer animated movies of course. Like how computer animation is an OPTION within movies, computer aided coaching could work as an option alongside coaching. Football uses cameras and radios and stuff already. I was even talking about VIEWING EXPERIENCE the product on the court. No one watches games for coaches. Coaches can be invisible. But would it be funner to tune into the sport where its just a bunch of iPads making decisions? Yes computers could coach a team. Yes it'd be awful cheesy to watch. I'd rather a computer replace a ref or 2 than replace coaching. I can quantify all the predictable comments my girlfriend would say during a relationship to be "certain" of the situations, but while its RIGHT and correct, its just no darn FUN.
haha nice try morey. too bad adelman is a calculator and can't compute the nice players the computer put on the team
Not until they invent a better way for a computer to talk. I don't see a computer giving a good pep talk during games. I also don't see it convincing the refs of anything.
It doesn't have to be one or the other (coach or computer)...why not both? Similarly to how a scout doesn't get replaced fully by the statistical analysis that have come into prominence over the past few years. Why not a coach that is given all these "computer coach" decisions, and then can decide whether its worth it to implement these ideas at the given time. Sure it would take a new style of coach with less of an ego who is willing to listen to a computer during a game, but this would seem to be the happy medium.
This could easily be built into a program. Track hot hand stats for every player to know whether a player tends to get hot or if he is just as likely to airball the next shot. All of these individual concerns you are having can be addressed by a more complex algorithm. The only legitimate concern is managing the emotions of the players. A real coach would definitely be needed. A computer coach would be there to augment the decision-making of this real coach.
Exactly, a complement not replacement. It WILL happen. Importance of head coaches have long been debated. Chuck Daly with the original Dream Team in didnt call a single timeout in the Olympics. In All Star games, what does the coach really do? So its why not extend that approach to EVERY game. This is a chance to outright get an alternative. If anything, basketball is behind the NFL and the MLB. But lets be real, they'll eventually implement computers for the same reason they always do - to SAVE money. Right NOW it costs a lot for all the quant research. Later it'll be instead of a full coaching staff and team of scouts to pay, its have a couple computers each unit and fewer guys employed to run them. You can have Daryl Morey be a GM/Coach/Game Simulator without a coach.
I don't know about that. What if the computer said "You jeopardize our win, I jeopardize your bank account" to one of the refs?
Actually, computers and scientists have debunked the concept of a "hot hand", saying it does not exist and is a "figment of our imagination" http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/03/the_illusion_of_streaks.php And Joe Dimaggio's hitting streak was nothing but pure random luck (which people have known). But simulations have shown it SHOULD have happened more OFTEN. To me its not about being correct cuz the computers ARE more correct, that is a FACT. Its if it makes the product more DULL or enhances the enjoyment. Do people want a computer nanny telling them what they should and shouldnt think? The fun part IS people attempting those computations and accepting the risks. Though in football Bill Belichick goes with the percentages and has gotten praised for his forward thinking and team success. And baseball is nothing BUT matchups and playing the percentages based on simulation and numbers. So an NBA coach will have to be the same way, none of the Jerry Sloan calling the play for each possession.
I can't wait to hear the electronic voice yelling at the ref, "You **** dumba$$, that was a terrible call!" And the ref gives the computer a tech.:grin:
