This is more rare than you might think.

People who know less about the game assume they understand the problem specifically enough when they don’t, and they often become overly reductive at that point:

“It doesn’t matter. Ultimately ARod is responsible for the offense, so if it’s not working well-enough, he needs to be replaced.”

Or if they really want to be reductive they’ll move the responsibility up to Kalani or even Holmoe.

When you know more about the game, you see more-specific problems and more-specific solutions.

All solutions to a problem come with disruption, downside, tradeoffs. The more precise the solution is for the actual problem, the less downside. The more effective it will be for improvement. This is true of essentially everything.

So understanding the game better puts you in a much better place to identify real problems and have an idea about what a good solution is.

Instead of just being the guy in the stands yelling “Why aren’t they throwing the ball on that play?!?!”
Or
“We need to fire ARod!”