General Manager - Which Sport Is The Most Challenging To Turn A Sorry Team Into A Winner

[bigrizz]

To pick 53 players and hope they stay healthy enough in a sport involving physicality is hands down harder.. On top of that there are 3 phases of the game coaches have to manage.....basketball and baseball you only have so many egos to deal with..

 

[its....JOHN B]

To pick 53 players and hope they stay healthy enough in a sport involving physicality is hands down harder.. On top of that there are 3 phases of the game coaches have to manage.....basketball and baseball you only have so many egos to deal with..

See people keep saying this but I don't agree with it, there's more jobs in the NFL it's more than just one guy trying to put 53 guys together and it's more than just one coach coaching all three phases, and outside of qb it's easier to fill in positions, there's always somebody ready to step up

 

[bow to royalty]

To pick 53 players and hope they stay healthy enough in a sport involving physicality is hands down harder.. On top of that there are 3 phases of the game coaches have to manage.....basketball and baseball you only have so many egos to deal with..

See people keep saying this but I don't agree with it, there's more jobs in the NFL it's more than just one guy trying to put 53 guys together and it's more than just one coach coaching all three phases, and outside of qb it's easier to fill in positions, there's always somebody ready to step up

Kinda Patriots shit is this? haha. Y'all may get players because players will come there expecting a legit chance at winning a SB. But there isn't always somebody ready to step up.

Titans running back or WR?

Browns running back or WR?

Giants running back?

9ers Wide receiver?

Jacksonville RB?

Cowboys RB?

Lions RB?

Vikings WR?

Rams WR?

Off the top of my head those are holes those teams have been trying to fill for a while. And that's not looking at OL, DL, secondary, TE, LB's or the QB position. It's not nearly as easy as you make it seem to fill needs in the NFL.

 

[the_focused_one]

In football, all you have to do is make the playoffs and you can win a Superbowl. You can be 10-6 or 11-5 and have a realistic chance of winning it all.

In basketball there's too many seven game series' to get lucky.

Baseball there's too many games period (162) to get lucky, only the best teams make the playoffs.

The answer is NOT football, if you have an above average team and a lot of heart you can win a Super Bowl.

Eli has two rings but otherwise doesn't have any stats that suggest he's a GOAT.

I'd say baseball. Here's why;

1. You have five starting pitchers that rotate. If you want a championship at least three of them have to be elite.

2. If you want to go to the playoffs/world series you'll need two or three elite closing pitchers to pitch the seventh, eighth and ninth (if necessary) innings .

^^^ Right there that's at least 5 elite pitchers

3. You'll need two left handed batters that bat .300+. Most teams generally have two left handed batters spaced throughout their line up.

4. You'll need an all-star catcher (who bats .300+) that can make a consistent throw from home to second (while squatting) when somebody is trying to steal a base. Your catcher can't let people steal bases.

5. You'll need an offensive player who can get on base and steal bases.

6. The rest of your team has to be solid, there can't be any weak links.

7. If you're an American League team you'll need a DH that bats .300+, if you're a National League team, your pitchers have to bat at least .180.

8. A left handed pitcher that can paint the corners

^^^All of those things are difficult to coordinate, especially if your team is in a small market and doesn't generate much money. A team like the Yankees can hire the best pitchers, the best batters, and the best overall players in every position. Just about everybody on the 2015 Yankees batted over .250. Small market teams are lucky if they have one or two players that bat over .250.

Also, once a player on a small market team has a really good year (i.e. Alex Rodriguez), the bigger teams (like the Yankees) buy his contract. The smaller market teams can't compete against the Yankees and thats why they have the most championships (27) out of any sport.

\Thread.

Someone else on this board with sports sense. Thank you. It's Baseball.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Football basically has three different teams (offense, defense, special). To turn a crappy team around, you probably got to do work on all three of those teams. That's not easy at all considering a lot of moves to improve one area end up taking away from another area.

 

[twizza 77]

Football gm is hardest jobs in sports because analytics isn't a strong factor into drafting.

 

[bow to royalty]

I still think people are underestimating how hard it is to get an above average QB, which is extremely important to team success. There is basically no FA market. If you need a difference maker in the NBA they're obtainable. You can get NBA proven difference makers. If you want an above average QB you have to get a guy who's never taken a professional snap (draft). That's tough.

 

[PanchoYoSancho]

The NBA has so much to do with what market you're in tho. More than any other team sport, the NBA is built on superstars and unless you have a shitty season to acquire a superstar or you're in a market that players wanna play in, you're sort of fucked. And Free agency is only getting bigger and bigger which makes it harder for the small market teams to keep those superstars they drafted. The thread title says winners which Im assuming means contenders. You look across the NBA as far as real contenders, it's only a few teams year in and year out and that rarely ever changes cause you gotta truly be the better team in a 7 game series and not just rely on one special performance and a few lucky breaks/calls compared to an NFL game.

 

[bow to royalty]

The NBA has so much to do with what market you're in tho. More than any other team sport, the NBA is built on superstars and unless you have a shitty season to acquire a superstar or you're in a market that players wanna play in, you're sort of fucked. And Free agency is only getting bigger and bigger which makes it harder for the small market teams to keep those superstars they drafted. The thread title says winners which Im assuming means contenders. You look across the NBA as far as real contenders, it's only a few teams year in and year out and that rarely ever changes cause you gotta truly be the better team in a 7 game series and not just rely on one special performance and a few lucky breaks/calls compared to an NFL game.

I don't think of OKC, San Antonio, or Cleveland as huge markets. NY is a huge market and can't get shit right. The Clippers were trash for the longest. Lakers are struggling. I agreee with you about the 7 game series thing though

 

[5 Grand]

The NBA has so much to do with what market you're in tho. More than any other team sport, the NBA is built on superstars and unless you have a shitty season to acquire a superstar or you're in a market that players wanna play in, you're sort of fucked. And Free agency is only getting bigger and bigger which makes it harder for the small market teams to keep those superstars they drafted. The thread title says winners which Im assuming means contenders. You look across the NBA as far as real contenders, it's only a few teams year in and year out and that rarely ever changes cause you gotta truly be the better team in a 7 game series and not just rely on one special performance and a few lucky breaks/calls compared to an NFL game.

I agree with you and much of what you said makes total sense, but it doesn't explain why The Knicks can't get it together.

I think part of the problem is that New York is an expensive city to live in. $10 million in New York money isn't the same as $10 million in San Antonio money, or Oklahoma money.

For $10 million in Oklahoma money you could buy a nice mansion, fancy car and furniture and still have a lot of money left over. $10 million in New York money gets you a nice condo in Manhattan but thats it, you can't even afford furniture. Maybe that's why really good players don't want to play for the Knicks, the cost of living is too expensive.

 

[bow to royalty]

The NBA has so much to do with what market you're in tho. More than any other team sport, the NBA is built on superstars and unless you have a shitty season to acquire a superstar or you're in a market that players wanna play in, you're sort of fucked. And Free agency is only getting bigger and bigger which makes it harder for the small market teams to keep those superstars they drafted. The thread title says winners which Im assuming means contenders. You look across the NBA as far as real contenders, it's only a few teams year in and year out and that rarely ever changes cause you gotta truly be the better team in a 7 game series and not just rely on one special performance and a few lucky breaks/calls compared to an NFL game.

I agree with you and much of what you said makes total sense, but it doesn't explain why The Knicks can't get it together.

I think part of the problem is that New York is an expensive city to live in. $10 million in New York money isn't the same as $10 million in San Antonio money, or Oklahoma money.

For $10 million in Oklahoma money you could buy a nice mansion, fancy car and furniture and still have a lot of money left over. $10 million in New York money gets you a nice condo in Manhattan but thats it, you can't even afford furniture. Maybe that's why really good players don't want to play for the Knicks, the cost of living is too expensive.

They could just love in NJ couldn't they?

 

[5 Grand]

NJ has the highest property taxes out of any state.

NJ is expensive too.

Oklahoma is much cheaper to live.

Now that I think about it, if I was a All Star level player and I was a free agent and had my choice of teams, I'd pick the team with the lowest standard of living, or the team that had the greatest chance of winning a championship.

If the teams that had a good chance of winning weren't making any bids, I'd pick the city with the lowest standard of living.

 

[So ILL]

Didn't Hawks have racists in the FO

What franchise doesn't have a racist in the front office somewhere?

 

[bow to royalty]

NJ has the highest property taxes out of any state.

NJ is expensive too.

Oklahoma is much cheaper to live.

Now that I think about it, if I was a All Star level player and I was a free agent and had my choice of teams, I'd pick the team with the lowest standard of living, or the team that had the greatest chance of winning a championship.

If the teams that had a good chance of winning weren't making any bids, I'd pick the city with the lowest standard of living.

NJ is cheaper than Manhattan though isn't it? Even with the property taxes, the higher standard of living is probably NY. I think San Francisco and LA are extremely expensive too, but they get players. FL has no state income tax, but players aren't flocking to go there.

I don't think the market is a big deal to players as long as it's not CLE or Buffalo or some shit. As long as they aren't freezing to death or bored to death, they'll go.

 

[PanchoYoSancho]

The NBA has so much to do with what market you're in tho. More than any other team sport, the NBA is built on superstars and unless you have a shitty season to acquire a superstar or you're in a market that players wanna play in, you're sort of fucked. And Free agency is only getting bigger and bigger which makes it harder for the small market teams to keep those superstars they drafted. The thread title says winners which Im assuming means contenders. You look across the NBA as far as real contenders, it's only a few teams year in and year out and that rarely ever changes cause you gotta truly be the better team in a 7 game series and not just rely on one special performance and a few lucky breaks/calls compared to an NFL game.

I don't think of OKC, San Antonio, or Cleveland as huge markets. NY is a huge market and can't get shit right. The Clippers were trash for the longest. Lakers are struggling. I agreee with you about the 7 game series thing though

No, but they drafted franchise changing superstars. The Clippers were a shitty organization from top to bottom that stayed penny pinching. The Lakers fall from grace has more to do with Jim Buss than anything. He's ruining his father's legacy and has made a string of terrible decisions including that Kobe contract that handicapped their franchise.

The NBA has so much to do with what market you're in tho. More than any other team sport, the NBA is built on superstars and unless you have a shitty season to acquire a superstar or you're in a market that players wanna play in, you're sort of fucked. And Free agency is only getting bigger and bigger which makes it harder for the small market teams to keep those superstars they drafted. The thread title says winners which Im assuming means contenders. You look across the NBA as far as real contenders, it's only a few teams year in and year out and that rarely ever changes cause you gotta truly be the better team in a 7 game series and not just rely on one special performance and a few lucky breaks/calls compared to an NFL game.

I agree with you and much of what you said makes total sense, but it doesn't explain why The Knicks can't get it together.

I think part of the problem is that New York is an expensive city to live in. $10 million in New York money isn't the same as $10 million in San Antonio money, or Oklahoma money.

For $10 million in Oklahoma money you could buy a nice mansion, fancy car and furniture and still have a lot of money left over. $10 million in New York money gets you a nice condo in Manhattan but thats it, you can't even afford furniture. Maybe that's why really good players don't want to play for the Knicks, the cost of living is too expensive.

I think it's got more to do with over a decade of bad decision making from upper management. Being in the biggest market can't stop you from not being able to find stars in the draft despite numerous high picks nor can it stop you from bad coaching hires or breaking bank on the wrong players.