Thank God... at least someone agrees with me.

[DustyElbows]

But we should also consider the fact that pitchers (and fielders) get to use strategies from analytics as well! Obviously the increased use of the infield shift is a result of the analytics movement that favors the defense. And of course, pitchers are well aware of the adjustments that hitters have made and have made their own adjustments to counteract them.

In general, I agree that this era's particular brand of baseball is not as entertaining as some past era's, but guys - it's still baseball. And this game has been changing for 150 years! The game will evolve out of this high-K, low-contact era, just wait.

[RonCo]

Analytics are working on both sides (or all three ... pitching, defense, and hitting) to change the way the game's run scoring environment is being created.

[RonCo]

Analytics are also working to change the business side of the game. Players are getting younger, contracts more guarded. The league's FA market is fundamentally changing in ways players didn't like, for example, but are somewhat born of valuations from analytics.

So, yeah they're working just fine. The real issue as far as baseball is concerned is that is that attendance has been dropping for several years in a row, meaning fans are voting with their wallets to tell the game that it needs to change something fundamental. That's why we're suddenly getting the flurry of conversations about serious rule changes rather than the dinky little "pace of game" changes that have been discussed for years.

[tklem321]

I'm agnostic on whether analytics work. I suspect they work to a certain extent but very quickly reach a point of diminishing returns.

However, if analytics do work really well, as their proponents believe, it's entirely possible that a 100% perfect application of analytics will result in a 100% perfectly boring game of baseball.

Scoring runs and avoiding outs may win games the analytic way, but it can be incredibly dull.

I also have a suspicion, unprovable, that a lot of analytics fans don't actually watch the games. They care more about the stats as a thing unto themselves.

[ThePretender]

Yeah that's a pretty terrible suspicion. I'd wager to say ignorant, even. Nobody is going to learn about analytics and not pay attention to what they're analyzing lol.

As a question, do you find it boring to watch the Dodgers or Astros or Cleveland or Yankees play? Or the Cubs or the Brewers or Boston? Because those teams are pretty damn exciting to watch and they're the ones using analytics to build a strong team. And it's not a coincidence those teams are successful.

[tklem321]

I posted a comment. You specifically insulted me. I'm done.

[ThePretender]

You insulted a group of people who believed something different than you. Don't pretend you're the victim here, what you said was offensive. You can't say people who care about analytics don't watch the game based on nothing. That's literally the definition of an ignorant attitude.

You were trying to insult people who care about analytics because you don't like it. It's a common stereotype to argue people who follow analytics don't watch the game. It's not remotely true, by the way. But it's an insulting comment and if you're offended by the fact I called you out on it, maybe you should think about what you say before you say things in the future.

Just because someone thinks differently than you doesn't mean they care less about something.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

As a question, do you find it boring to watch the Dodgers or Astros or Cleveland or Yankees play?

In fact, we just returned from a trip to Houston and saw the Astros play the Blue Jays. We have seen a few games in St. Louis in the past few years and my wife, who is a casual baseball fan, remarked about how much more fun the Astros game was to watch. I asked why and she said that the crowd was more into the game and there seemed to be more action.

It is no coincidence that the Astros led the majors in fewest strikeouts last season and are only 5% behind the leader this season. The Astros make low strikeout rates an organizational goal, and I am sure that they use analytics to pursue players that meet that standard.

[Antonin]

Originally Posted by DustyElbows

...In general, I agree that this era's particular brand of baseball is not as entertaining as some past era's, but guys - it's still baseball. And this game has been changing for 150 years! The game will evolve out of this high-K, low-contact era, just wait.

I agree that the game will evolve. It's like the arms race: one side will do something, then the other will make an adjustment. At some point you can accumulate too much data, and then you will have to trust your gut and just go out there and play.

Shifts always fascinate me. I always think, "If the batting coach can just teach this guy to hit it where they ain't..."

The trend toward analytics isn't really all that new. I remember that back in the 90s Cleveland manager Mike Hargrove used to drive us crazy with his obsessive-compulsive reliance on lefty-righty matchups. He'd bring in one pitcher to face one guy, then another pitcher to face the next guy, then another pitcher...you could cook dinner, wash and dry the dishes and get your laundry started in the time it took us to get through half an inning.

[CMH]

Baseball is amazing today, just as it was yesterday.

No one wants changes in baseball until they want changes in baseball. 100+ years of the same argument.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Antonin]

Originally Posted by Hrycaj

...The real issue is the mindset of the game. What I notice is that clubs want you to see as many pitches as possible. That will elongate games. Conversely pitchers seem to look for ways to get batters to chase when they are up in the count by throwing non-competitive pitches in some cases. This also elongates the game..

But isn't it just good baseball strategy to get batters to chase? Unless you have a 100 mph fastball, like a couple of those Yankees pitchers, why throw a pitch that's easy to hit?

I think a big part of the problem with baseball is that the audience is changing. Notice how many people check their cellphones instead of watching the game. Increasingly, we are becoming a society of short attention spans and in-your-face posturing. There are more "X-treme" sports now. Faster faster faster, more scoring, more running off at the mouth.

I'm an older guy who still enjoys the leisurely pace of baseball. But I suppose more and more people these days find it boring. I'm not sure there is an "answer" that will save the game.

[monkeyman576]

Analytics has changed baseball for the better, it means you can't just spend $200M a year on players and hope to win a World Series. Love that teams like the Astros, Royals, Braves, Phillies, and Diamondbacks are doing well at that the Mariners are making a run this year.

[Hrycaj]

Originally Posted by Antonin

But isn't it just good baseball strategy to get batters to chase? Unless you have a 100 mph fastball, like a couple of those Yankees pitchers, why throw a pitch that's easy to hit?

I think a big part of the problem with baseball is that the audience is changing. Notice how many people check their cellphones instead of watching the game. Increasingly, we are becoming a society of short attention spans and in-your-face posturing. There are more "X-treme" sports now. Faster faster faster, more scoring, more running off at the mouth.

I'm an older guy who still enjoys the leisurely pace of baseball. But I suppose more and more people these days find it boring. I'm not sure there is an "answer" that will save the game.

I'm not arguing your point about strategy one bit Antonin. It is absolutely better to work counts and slow the game down. Break the rhythm. I also have no issue with analytics. For some these are deal breakers. (For the record I still watch a ton of baseball but understand the other side)

I feel the game may have evolved to a point where everyone is too good. Hence my admittedly wacky idea of going to a 3-2 count to create more action, because everyone has figured it out. I feel this isn't simply a baseball problem either. Take the NBA for example. To me it is unwatchable cause the guys are too good. Most can't be defended. Their greatness bores me and I tend to watch college basketball because of it. They still feature different defensive sets and plays that would not work with the top players. Baseball is slow to evolve their rules where other sports aren't so much.

As for the leisurely pace of baseball, that makes me smile to think how the game has changed. It is leisurely by today's standards. No argument. At one point this was the fastest game in the world. It is one of the reasons the game became popular because it was so much faster than everything else around. (Talking 19th century here) Maybe ideas haven't changed so much?

[TheMaus2]

this thread is sad

[Beatles Eternally]

And for me, when all is said and done, I love baseball and it is the only sport I follow. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that hard core baseball fans still have landlines and read newspapers. I am a long haired rock musician in my mid-thirties. I am also a sleight of hand artist. Maybe I am the exception to the demographic mentioned but I don't believe that such a demographic exists.

Now, all of that said, YES MLB has issues and it started when it tried make baseball more like the absolutely deplorable "sport" known as football. But baseball in its pure form is the most difficult game out of the four major American sports. So, if you hate MLB, boycott it and support the Minors!

Just remember, after the Stupor Bowl, fans talk about commercials. After the World Series, people talk about the GAMES!!

Long live baseball.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by Orcin

In fact, we just returned from a trip to Houston and saw the Astros play the Blue Jays. We have seen a few games in St. Louis in the past few years and my wife, who is a casual baseball fan, remarked about how much more fun the Astros game was to watch. I asked why and she said that the crowd was more into the game and there seemed to be more action.

It is no coincidence that the Astros led the majors in fewest strikeouts last season and are only 5% behind the leader this season. The Astros make low strikeout rates an organizational goal, and I am sure that they use analytics to pursue players that meet that standard.

But but but... according to analytics... strikeouts are just like any other out. It doesn't matter if a guy strikesout 100 times or 200 times if his OPS is XXX. Another absurdly stupid conclusion... like pitchers have no control over balls in play.

It's these types of bone headed conclusions that are so maddening. There's nothing wrong with the analytics themselves... in fact they're great. But man they can look at some of the results and draw some really nutty conclusions... "no such thing as hot streaks and cold streaks" being another. LOL, I can hear the manager now who walks into the video room where his best hitter, on a 2 for 31 slump, is watching video and getting ready to go out take BP and work on some adjustments... "Don't worry about it man... it's all just random luck. You'll be back to hitting .300 in a week or two as the balls getting caught right now will soon find holes. Go grab a beer and relax."

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

You insulted a group of people who believed something different than you. Don't pretend you're the victim here, what you said was offensive. You can't say people who care about analytics don't watch the game based on nothing. That's literally the definition of an ignorant attitude.

You were trying to insult people who care about analytics because you don't like it. It's a common stereotype to argue people who follow analytics don't watch the game. It's not remotely true, by the way. But it's an insulting comment and if you're offended by the fact I called you out on it, maybe you should think about what you say before you say things in the future.

Just because someone thinks differently than you doesn't mean they care less about something.

I've read that comment three times now and can't for the life of me find out who it was he insulted. Or are you saying that "Hey you don't watch baseball games" is an insult? Really? Do you know how many people in this world DON'T WATCH BASEBALL games? Many, many, many more than do. I would think even paid people in the profession don't watch a lot of games. Scouts i would guess have to, but as long as you can follow the box scores and stats you can stay pretty well informed. I'd bet in fact that there lots of MLB "professionals" who don't even watch games, or perhaps at least a very few.

That's the only thing I could fathom was an insult and I just ain't seeing it. You can go ahead and "accuse" me of not watching baseball games, I won't be offended. (it also happens to be mostly true now... for the reasons stated in the article. Pitch... strike one... step out and adjust batting gloves... pitch... ball one... step out and adjust batting gloves.. pitch foul ball... get up after swinging for the Pacific, dust off, and... adjust batting gloves... pitch.. ball two... .... ..... ..... and after watching this repeat itself a dozen times with 8 strikeouts, 3 walks, and one home run with not a single ball in play I just go yeah, isn't there a movie on HBO right now???)

[sprague]

How about the money that minor league players make. It’s embarrassing. What if they have a wife and kids. They play 140 games a year and are supposed to be professional athletes but this is how mlb pays them. Everyone should be embarrassed.
Hockey made sure their ahl players get a good salary.
And yet mlb pay untested 17 year olds 6 million dollars and they may not even play till age 22 maybe at all.

And I agree with everything else in this thread. I don’t watch baseball any more. I play ootp with 1970s settings and the games are so much more fun with stolen bases, hit and runs triples...and when the big homer comes in the 8 th inning it really means something.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

But but but... according to analytics... strikeouts are just like any other out. It doesn't matter if a guy strikesout 100 times or 200 times if his OPS is XXX. Another absurdly stupid conclusion... like pitchers have no control over balls in play.

It's these types of bone headed conclusions that are so maddening. There's nothing wrong with the analytics themselves... in fact they're great. But man they can look at some of the results and draw some really nutty conclusions... "no such thing as hot streaks and cold streaks" being another. LOL, I can hear the manager now who walks into the video room where his best hitter, on a 2 for 31 slump, is watching video and getting ready to go out take BP and work on some adjustments... "Don't worry about it man... it's all just random luck. You'll be back to hitting .300 in a week or two as the balls getting caught right now will soon find holes. Go grab a beer and relax."

What a bunch of nonsense, half truths and misrepresentation. It's very clear to me you know nothing about the subject or the people who study use and enjoy baseball more with these stats.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

And it's not just the strikeouts... it's the way they're changing the game. There are no CLOCKS in baseball. Yes, there is too much downtime in today's game, but you don't need a clock to fix it.

For all the complaints about the length in minutes of MLB games, it ranked ninth among all pro baseball leagues in terms of the length in minutes of an average 9-inning game in 2017. (Peruse the table contained in that post and ask why games in the Florida State League lasted 157.7 minutes on average whereas in the Northwest League they averaged nearly twenty minutes longer at 177.4 minutes.)