Which irl sport has the most depth?

[Ortheore]

So I was thinking about trends in the NBA and how you could conceivably use terminology typically applied to competitive video games to describe it and that got me thinking of the question in the title. The first question is, what do we mean by depth? Imo there are two ways to define depth here- technical and strategic. By technical depth, I mean actual physical skills required to play the game (e.g. shooting in basketball), both in terms of their skill ceiling and their relative importance to the sport in question (as an example, compare the relative importance of skill vs athleticism in basketball and swimming). Then there's strategic depth, which I see as the game plan devised in order to win, usually by a coach.

The first thing that stands out is that almost all racing sports (swimming, track, etc.) have almost no depth according to my definitions. There's a significant mental element that plays into these things, which means they're not totally devoid of depth, and even at an elite level technique can be optimised, but overall these sports are defined by the demands of athleticism- if you're not a world class athlete, you cannot succeed in say, competitive swimming whatsoever. The second is that strategic depth strongly correlates with the frequency of stoppages or resets of play. This allows teams/coaches to manage the tactics and strategies utilised in play to an even greater extent, increasing their importance and the overall depth of the game. There is perhaps no greater example of this than in gridiron (no, I'm not calling it football), which takes this to almost comical extremes, however basketball is also notable, as is tennis, with the latter being notable for banning mid-match coaching due to the expectation that players are responsible for their strategies/tactics. That's not to say that more continuous sports can't also be deep in this regard- I'm thinking of football here- but they're generally not as deep.

So I kinda already touched on some of the sports I think have the most strategic depth, but what about technical depth? Again, I think tennis and basketball rank extremely highly here. Shooting is the most prominent skill in basketball with a high skill ceiling, as even the best players in the world miss more shots than they take due to the level of precision required, while from a purely mechanical standpoint it's a highly complex motion with plenty of room for optimisation. The latter point doesn't quite apply to dribbling and passing (I don't think defending is anywhere near as technical, being more about decision-making than anything), but they also have extremely high potential skill ceilings. Tennis I feel is self-explanatory. Again, there is a lot of room for mastery of complex techniques, while it demands power and precision simultaneously to an extent that I think is unrivalled.

Anyway, I might've missed something and idk if you agree with my premise/definitions or my conclusions, but hey, that's what discussion is about right?

 

[akaFila]

Water polo

 

[ButteredToast]

Baseball has a massive amount of depth and complexity to it, and while I'm not sure that it has the most depth, I think that there is a lot more depth to it than basketball and football.

Roster construction is deep. Baseball GMs have to fill out a 25 man roster and a 40 man extended roster, plus they have to manage the rosters of not just the Major League Levels but also 7-8 minor league rosters to be filled out that affects the sport.

At the Major League level, once your roster is put into place, the manager has to assign roles to the players. This is beyond that of sports like the NFL, where players are just given one role such as quarterback or 3rd down running back. In baseball, you not only get a position like short stop, but you also are assigned a lineup order. Managers have to construct not only the best defensive combinations, but also the best offensive combinations. They also have to set pitching rotations and bullpen usage schedules.

In the actual game, an individual player has to do so much.

A pitcher not only has all of the strategies and mindgames of pitching, but also has to field their position. In the national league, they also have to know how to hit, bunt, and run the bases.

Position players need to know how to field their positions, hit the ball, and run the bases.

Catchers have to call games with the pitcher, hit the opposing pitcher, throw out runners and field, and do pretty much everything.

Managers have to know when to pinch hit, put on a bunt, hit and run, or steal, employ defensive shifts, manage starting pitchers and their pitch counts, manage bullpens so that their pitchers are available and used in the right spots to maximize their effectiveness.

When there are men on base, pitchers and hitters shift their strategies. When there is a 3-1 count, same thing. When there is a runner in scoring position with 2 outs, same thing. It's constant strategies from everyone with no time off.

I'm a massive baseball fanboy, but I think that without a doubt that baseball is the game that demands the most technical skill and strategy in order to succeed in.

 

[Stallion]

Baseball has a massive amount of depth and complexity to it, and while I'm not sure that it has the most depth, I think that there is a lot more depth to it than basketball and football.

Roster construction is deep. Baseball GMs have to fill out a 25 man roster and a 40 man extended roster, plus they have to manage the rosters of not just the Major League Levels but also 7-8 minor league rosters to be filled out that affects the sport.

At the Major League level, once your roster is put into place, the manager has to assign roles to the players. This is beyond that of sports like the NFL, where players are just given one role such as quarterback or 3rd down running back. In baseball, you not only get a position like short stop, but you also are assigned a lineup order. Managers have to construct not only the best defensive combinations, but also the best offensive combinations. They also have to set pitching rotations and bullpen usage schedules.

In the actual game, an individual player has to do so much.

A pitcher not only has all of the strategies and mindgames of pitching, but also has to field their position. In the national league, they also have to know how to hit, bunt, and run the bases.

Position players need to know how to field their positions, hit the ball, and run the bases.

Catchers have to call games with the pitcher, hit the opposing pitcher, throw out runners and field, and do pretty much everything.

Managers have to know when to pinch hit, put on a bunt, hit and run, or steal, employ defensive shifts, manage starting pitchers and their pitch counts, manage bullpens so that their pitchers are available and used in the right spots to maximize their effectiveness.

When there are men on base, pitchers and hitters shift their strategies. When there is a 3-1 count, same thing. When there is a runner in scoring position with 2 outs, same thing. It's constant strategies from everyone with no time off.

I'm a massive baseball fanboy, but I think that without a doubt that baseball is the game that demands the most technical skill and strategy in order to succeed in.

I agree with a lot of this, and I'm a basketball fanboy. Don't agree with the "one responsibility" thing you mentioned in football, unless I guess you're a quarterback, but their one responsibility contains a lot of derivatives and quick thinking tactics.

I might be biased as a player, but from a coaching and tactics perspective, American football is probably close to first.

Edit: the more I think about it, the more baseball is only really complex from a managerial perspective.

 

[Aladyyn]

Gotta be hockey. I'd say people generally underestimate just how much depth having to play offense and defense at the same time adds to the game.

And skating too, of course.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I was going to say football but the added dynamic of skating is a huge argument in favor of hockey, the speed of the game and the micro advantages that can gained in skating technique are massive multipliers to the stock skill and strategic requirements to play.

 

[B R A I N L I C K E R]

baseball is most definitely not a deep game lmao, it's legit just twatting a ball as hard as possible and someone else catching it..

hockey, bball or football (not the shit american one) get my votes

 

[Coronis]

Cricket.

 

[Triangles]

The real question is which sport has the most girth.

 

[Akashi]

chess and shogi

 

[Ortheore]

Cricket.

Funny you should mention this, I was actually wondering how cricket would compare to baseball, given the number of people citing baseball as the top choice. Off the top of my head, the greater variability and decision-making involved with fielding positions and corresponding synergy with the bowler is a point in favour of cricket, since I don't think these would be as much of a factor in baseball due to the restrictions on where valid shots can land (90° vs 360°). That said, I don't play either of these sports, so I may be missing something and I'm definitely not aware of all the differences that would matter for this question

edit @below I didn't count, who gives a shit, I guess having one post with extensive arguments can overshadow other smaller posts. In any case, my post doesn't actually comment on whether or not baseball is the correct answer to the question at hand, merely focusing on a comparison between baseball and cricket

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Literally one person said baseball was the top choice and it's objectively wrong, comparable strategic depth to a number of sports and arguably the least physically demanding sport of all mentioned (even accounting for the sheer difficulty of training eyes to actually hit a baseball)

 

[Stallion]

Literally one person said baseball was the top choice and it's objectively wrong, comparable strategic depth to a number of sports and arguably the least physically demanding sport of all mentioned (even accounting for the sheer difficulty of training eyes to actually hit a baseball)

As a manager there's a lot of complexity. As a player, not so much. So depends how the question is framed.

American football is fucked in terms of both and I'm adamant that it's the right choice.

 

[UncleSam]

As a manager there's a lot of complexity. As a player, not so much. So depends how the question is framed.

American football is fucked in terms of both and I'm adamant that it's the right choice.

Ya baseball is the most complex from a managerial / GM perspective because it is a highly credible game - as in, the things that happen in it happen often enough to statistically significantly detect patterns and use those patterns to your advantage. Pretty much no other sport has that.

In terms of what is the most complex for a player, I’d say hockey or tennis are the obvious contenders. Both require immense skillsets (and are completely grueling physical endeavors to boot), and both require constant adaptation to your opponents’ strategy. I would argue that tennis is slightly more complex from a player perspective because coaching is generally banned and you’re out there all alone, meaning that you have to figure it all out yourself, on the fly, with no one else you can rely on if you’re in a funk.

If we are including chess though that is obviously far and away more complex, same with Go and other such games. I don’t consider those sports though.

Low key high level league of legends is also up there if we are including games in this analysis. You can definitely check out of all of the complexity of the game at lower levels though.

 

[shoxwon]

As a manager there's a lot of complexity. As a player, not so much. So depends how the question is framed.

American football is fucked in terms of both and I'm adamant that it's the right choice.

Saying baseball as a player isn't complex couldn't be further from the truth. When I think of complexity (playing wise), I usually think how hard is it for the average person to do a task or how long they would have to train in order to learn a task and be elite. Now I will say that as a baseball player, I am obviously biased (as we all are), but baseball requires extreme technical skill that is almost unmatched compared to other sports.

As a hitter: You have to learn how to throw, field, and hit as there is not a single amatuer player that is drafted strictly to be a DH. In order to reach the highest level, you have to learn these skills over a significantly long period of time (I'm guessing at LEAST 8 years) in order to be somewhat close to Major League talent. On top of that, hitting is arguably the hardest thing to do in all of sports. Earlier, somebody mentioned that shooting a basketball is difficult because most players don't even make half of their shots. In baseball, the last player to get a hit in 40% of their at-bats was Ted Williams in 1941! Last year, the MLB hitters averaged to get a hit in less than 25% of their at-bats! Fielding is probably the easiest thing to learn in baseball (although still difficult) so I wont get too in depth regarding it.

As a pitcher: You have to learn to throw hard, accurate, and make your pitches have movement. The average MLB fastball is thrown around 93 MPH and will reach home plate in less than .4 seconds. Pitchers have to throw their pitches into a strike zone that is 60 feet away from them and the size is roughly 17 inches wide and 26 inches tall. Not to mention that pitchers can make pitches move like this. Once again, in order to learn how to do this, its going to take at the absolute MINIMUM 5 years just to learn and train yourself to throw this hard and accurate.

By no means is baseball the most physically demanding game (but still very demanding given a 162 game schedule), but that is part of what makes it so complex. You cannot simply rely on physical strength or speed to be elite (much like you can with football or basketball), but you must have precise technical abilities to hit a moving baseball that you have less than a second to react to as well as to throw said baseball.

As a whole, baseball is extremely complex not only managerially (as stated above by others) but also playing wise. It is because of the complexity that I believe baseball is not as popular to the average sports fan compared to other sports. There are many complicated decisions made every play ranging from the type of pitch being thrown to where every fielder should stand based off of historical hitting data of the current hitter at the plate that the average sports fan is unable to recognize these complexities when they watch a game.

As a baseball player, one sport that I really enjoy because of the complexity is soccer (sorry europeans ). Watching EPL games, Champions League, and World Cup games on tv has always made me appreciate the complexity regarding the playing side. But it wasn't until I played Football Manager where I appreciated the managerial complexity as well. Learning formations, tactics, and roles is very interesting, not to mention the contract side (such as that every league requires a minimum amount of domestic players on their team). I enjoy complexity, and Pokemon is a complex game (competitive wise) which is why I believe I play as much as I do.

To finish, my top 3 all around complex sports would have to be:

1. Baseball
2. Soccer
3. Football

Take my biases as you will and also keep in mind that I know almost nothing about popular sports outside of the US, such as rugby, cricket, etc.

 

[Aladyyn]

Ya baseball is the most complex from a managerial / GM perspective because it is a highly credible game - as in, the things that happen in it happen often enough to statistically significantly detect patterns and use those patterns to your advantage. Pretty much no other sport has that.

This doesn't make sense to me. Having perfect information should make decision making less complex.

 

[UncleSam]

This doesn't make sense to me. Having perfect information should make decision making less complex.

On the contrary, what you have is more information and higher predictive capability, not perfect information. If you knew what would happen every single time a given batter faced a given pitcher then yes, managing baseball would become fairly trivial. But what you have is a bunch of different finely-tuned models making predictions for the distribution of probabilities of outcomes in a given situation. Determining such a model is incredibly difficult and applying it is no cakewalk either.

The fact is that the amount of information available in baseball allows for a more rigorous analytical approach than is either possible or useful in most (all?) other sports. Other sports rely instead on fallible heuristics and scouting to build teams, an approach which is far easier to implement (and to implement badly without knowing you are doing so, rip my Detroit Lions).

 

[A Certified Weeb]

american football

 

[Mizuhime]

it's hard to call one the most complex but from someone who caught for years baseball/softball is incredibly complex. Quarterbacks in football have to know their playbook and audibles while making accurate throws and feeling pressure from opposing lines they can't even see with their eyes, which in its own right is difficult but the catcher (at least a good one) has to know research on all the opposing hitters, know how to control everyone one of their pitchers (all 5 starters + relief staff emotionally and their pitches), know how to hit opposing pitchers, know which players are the best base stealers, know how to set the field for each player (catchers do this not the picthers) and remember all the signs for every pitcher (each pitcher has a different set of signs to prevent them from getting stolen). By far I think it's one of the most difficult position in any sport and there's a very good reason superstar catchers a rare breed. I don't think it's fair to say which sport is more complex if you haven't played at least a majority and know the interstices of all, but baseball is up there, quarterback and coordinators in football are up there as well.