MLB: Are advanced metrics ruining baseball?

[jbhtexas]

There are lots of articles about this, but I like this one...beware, it is long.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...tch-why-mlb-greats-think-baseballs-in-trouble

My opinion...advanced stats have resulted in a style of play that is hurting MLB attendance and TV viewership. The players and owners see it, and as such, there will be changes coming, since paychecks for all do depend on attendance/viewership.

As far as the shift, I see it as a natural consequence of Advanced Stats...
1) Advanced stats in MLB creates an atmosphere that values the home run over base hits.
2) Players come through the system (youth-HS-college-minor league) focusing on home run hitting, and thus don't learn how to spray the ball around the entire park. Those who can hit lots of home runs get promoted up the fastest.
3) Defenses figure out that players can only hit to certain areas of the field, and try to take that away. Duh!

If you want the shift to go away, learn to hit it where they ain't, instead of trying to hit home runs every time (where the ball is likely to be in play in only a limited part of the field). Otherwise, just shut up about it.

 

[AuH2O]

Whether through current analytics, use of old-school stats, or experience, baseball was going this way - analytics just helped get there quicker.
I think the biggest change is that there used to be a lot of cavernous ball parks with huge outfields and lots of foul territory. Then it made sense to sacrifice some offense to have OF that could cover ground. Throwing a high strike to induce a fly ball actually was an effective option, and shortening your swing with 2 strikes to put the ball in play actually made some sense.

Once almost all the parks turned into cracker jack boxes the current style of play just makes more sense almost always. Not only do the batters make ABs long with the K, BB or HR approach, pitchers are less aggressive unless they can consistently paint it low in the zone. So both sides make ABs longer, more pitches, more pitching changes, which is exacerbated by the pitch count and relief specialization.

The game was more interesting when you had some dramatic style differences that could win games. Even though I am not a Royals fan, I enjoyed seeing some of their small ball and speed win a WS a few years ago. Then again, I have never found HRs to be terribly exciting, and always found the speed based game a lot more entertaining.

 

[burn587]

Pitchers batting for themselves makes the game so much more interesting as far as strategy goes and I wish AL did it that way. But that brings us back to getting interest from new fans. How many people new to baseball want to watch Bartolo Colon swing and miss at 3 fastballs right down the ****?

I’ve always thought both leagues should have the DH, but never that it should automatically mean the pitcher never hits. If you have a good hitting pitcher I feel like you should be able to designate another player to be a fielder only and the DH takes their place at bat.

But I am in favor of the DH in general. I hate seeing pitchers attempt to bunt twice and then strike out on 3 straight pitches.

 

[mkadl]

One good thing that has come from all of these analytics, in my eyes, has been the shift. I know a ton of people don't like it, but if baseball is a game you should be able to weigh odds and play to your advantage. Like in chess you try to think ahead and anticipate moves. That is what shifting is to me. You are basically looking a batter in the face and saying I dare you to push it down the line...if you can. But MLB is trying to take shifting and switching out of the game. As soon as batters get better at batting and the advantage isn't there anymore, then teams will stop the shift. I guess MLB thinks if it isn't done the traditional way, then it shouldn't be allowed. I'm a Brew Crew fan so of course this would be my opinion, haha.

I know a very successful Iowa High School baseball coach who loves online poker and reads up on the subject. (weighing odds)

 

[Sigmapolis]

I do not know why anybody would find having a more accurate, less romantic view of the quality of players and the quality of teams reduces their enjoyment of a game.

The proliferation of advanced statistics analysis for basketball, and especially college basketball (e.g., KenPom, Barttovik, TeamRankings, Sports Reference, etc.) has greatly drawn me into that sport in ways I had never really appreciated it beforehand.

 

[jbhtexas]

I do not know why anybody would find having a more accurate, less romantic view of the quality of players and the quality of teams reduces their enjoyment of a game.

Because it results in a long game where not much happens????

 

[MeowingCows]

Pitchers batting for themselves makes the game so much more interesting as far as strategy goes and I wish AL did it that way. But that brings us back to getting interest from new fans. How many people new to baseball want to watch Bartolo Colon swing and miss at 3 fastballs right down the ****?

Not exactly a great way to bring in new fans -- keep batting guys who hit sub-.200 and K often. I wish they'd change it so that you can DH anybody. Got a pitcher who can hit? Great, DH your defensively-awesome 3rd-baseman who's batting .185 this season. Win-win.

 

[Cyched]

All you need to watch football is an antenna, because most if not all the games are on the local networks. To watch MLB and NBA, you need to have a cable/satellite/streaming service. To use MLB.tv, you need to be in a different, non-bordering state as your team. That's their main problem. If I'm in Iowa, I still can't watch Brewers games.

I couldn't care less about the advanced stats either. I know what they are, but most people don't. Those metrics are for the talking heads. As for ruining baseball, I don't think so, and neither is the shift

Call me crazy, but I'd rather go to a 5 and half hour, 15 inning game than a 3 hr football game.

In Iowa if you're not a Cubs or Cardinals fan you're pretty much SOL. If the Cubs weren't the "local" team I wouldn't be able to catch many of their games that CW/WOI/Fox pick up.

Thankful my Vue subscription comes with NBC Chicago

 

[stormchaser2014]

In Iowa if you're not a Cubs or Cardinals fan you're pretty much SOL. If the Cubs weren't the "local" team I wouldn't be able to catch many of their games that CW/WOI/Fox pick up.

Thankful my Vue subscription comes with NBC Chicago

MLB: "We see that a few people in the NE corner of Iowa get FSWI with their standard Directv package so we are going to blackout Brewer games in the entire state because we can. Along with 5 other teams. Checkmate cable cutters!"

Hated not being able to watch games when I was in Ames, except when they played the Cards. Glad we made the postseason 1 of the years I was there.

 

[Cyched]

MLB: "We see that a few people in the NE corner of Iowa get FSWI with their standard Directv package so we are going to blackout Brewer games in the entire state because we can. Along with 5 other teams. Checkmate cable cutters!"

Hated not being able to watch games when I was in Ames, except when they played the Cards. Glad we made the postseason 1 of the years I was there.

Yeah, it's an archaic way of thinking.

On-demand subscriptions for people to watch their actual favorite teams just makes too much sense apparently. Thousands of Cubs fans in Iowa that would be willing to pay if they were able to see all their games.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Because it results in a long game where not much happens????

That is a problem with the game/rules, not with the analytics.

Basketball and football have become more interesting from a strategic perspective and more pleasing from an aesthetic perspective because of advanced analysis.

 

[Macloney]

I like all of these sports. I'll push back on youth baseball - I live in Ankeny, and there are bazillions of kids who play. Of course you could say that about any sport in Ankeny though.

I'll admit I hate the all power/high k's baseball. I want to see the ball in play. I loved the Royals' recent runs in the playoffs because they were free swingers and ran the bases.

Baseball tonight used to be my favorite show. 9 PM it was on every day in the summer. I literally don't care what any team does in the MLB other than the Royals. I think the increased tribalism of baseball fandom is actually what is hurting it the most.

This. Baseball has become a regional or even local sport. That is why post-season ratings are where they are. Once everyone's team is done, so are the eyeballs on the games.

I've heard some pretty interesting ideas about a first and second half winner where there would be more to play for in the regular season. As a baseball traditionalist I hate any change, but I also realize there needs to be change to revitalize the game.

 

[I-stateTheTruth]

To me, it feels like baseball is ruining baseball. But that's just me.

I can't hardly watch an inning anymore.

 

[LindenCy]

Whether through current analytics, use of old-school stats, or experience, baseball was going this way - analytics just helped get there quicker.
I think the biggest change is that there used to be a lot of cavernous ball parks with huge outfields and lots of foul territory. Then it made sense to sacrifice some offense to have OF that could cover ground. Throwing a high strike to induce a fly ball actually was an effective option, and shortening your swing with 2 strikes to put the ball in play actually made some sense.

Once almost all the parks turned into cracker jack boxes the current style of play just makes more sense almost always. Not only do the batters make ABs long with the K, BB or HR approach, pitchers are less aggressive unless they can consistently paint it low in the zone. So both sides make ABs longer, more pitches, more pitching changes, which is exacerbated by the pitch count and relief specialization.

The game was more interesting when you had some dramatic style differences that could win games. Even though I am not a Royals fan, I enjoyed seeing some of their small ball and speed win a WS a few years ago. Then again, I have never found HRs to be terribly exciting, and always found the speed based game a lot more entertaining.

I'd love to see some old school ballparks back like the Polo Grounds. I love baseball, but it's a different game than the NBA/NFL/NHL, and in an attempt to make it more exciting, I think they've ruined a lot of it.

Cost of tickets doesn't help. I get paying $100 for a Bears game when there are 8 regular season games. I don't get paying $50 or more for an MLB game when there are 81 such games.

 

[LindenCy]

Yeah, it's an archaic way of thinking.

On-demand subscriptions for people to watch their actual favorite teams just makes too much sense apparently. Thousands of Cubs fans in Iowa that would be willing to pay if they were able to see all their games.

I'd pay for a Cubs package in a second if it was semi-reasonable. I miss when WGN had so many games.

 

[CycloneErik]

Absolutely agree with the blackouts. I'm pulling streams from reddit all season long. If MLB wasn't such a douche about blackouts I'd buy their service. Until then, they can shove it.

Yup. I figure that they don't want my money, so I'll do it the other way.
If they want to fix the blackout thing, I want to pay them, but that's not really an option now.

 

[GrappleCy]

That's a fair point about attracting new fans. It would be hard to have someone who isn't a fan sit down and watch an entire nine inning game - the pace of play is excruciatingly slow, there are long periods where not much of anything interesting happens unless you know what you're looking for, and good luck walking them through the intricacies of the advanced stats. It's just a tough sport to embrace.

When I go to a baseball game I mostly just drink beer, heckle, and yell for dingers. Unless it's tied or a one run game in the last 2-3 innings I probably am not paying a huge amount of attention to each at bat. Am I doing it wrong?

 

[jbhtexas]

That is a problem with the game/rules, not with the analytics.

Wrong. Analytics tells hitters to go for home runs instead of base hits, which results in lots of strikeouts, which puts the ball in play less than 30% of the time, which when combined with analytics telling managers to frequently change pitchers, turns out to be boring to watch, so people have stopped watching. Really the only rule change that has lengthened the game is the replay. The rest has come about because of the style of play suggested by the advanced stats.

Basketball and football have become more interesting from a strategic perspective and more pleasing from an aesthetic perspective because of advanced analysis.

Maybe for you. For me, I really don't give a hoot about the advanced statistics. KenPom is nice for making arguments on message boards, but really doesn't affect how I watch the game, or my enjoyment thereof.

 

[Urbandale2013]

The problem with advanced stats is models are not always right. Stats are great when used in context. My issue is baseball especially has relied to much on it and you see stuff like the extreme shifts. Use the advanced statistics but don’t forget everything we know about sports.

 

[LindenCy]

When I go to a baseball game I mostly just drink beer, heckle, and yell for dingers. Unless it's tied or a one run game in the last 2-3 innings I probably am not paying a huge amount of attention to each at bat. Am I doing it wrong?

Sounds like you are doing it right. That's what I love about going to a baseball game: you can hang out, relax, and enjoy some nice weather while watching the game. Basketball is great, but it is 2.5 straight hours of yelling.

I honestly would watch the Cubs all summer even if they were 10 games back. It's my team and I enjoy watching.