Analytics has drained baseball of emotion/stars

[caulfield12]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/moneyball-author-says-analytics-drained-baseball-emotion-121728125.html

[Jose Abreu]

Not even reading this article because "emotion" being showed in baseball is at an all-time high right now. Seems like another "old man yells at cloud" type of title 

[Lip Man 1]

Just another one in a long, long series of stories over the past six months from various web sites and Sports Illustrated showing that analytics may be harming baseball more than helping, turning off fans and making the game boring to watch. Personally I agree with those reports.

[ptatc]

53 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Just another one in a long, long series of stories over the past six months from various web sites and Sports Illustrated showing that analytics may be harming baseball more than helping, turning off fans and making the game boring to watch. Personally I agree with those reports.

It is a conundrum.  The analytics do show teams a more effective way to win. However, itdoes make for a more boring game. It really brings out the fans of winning vs. fans of the game.

[Quin]

7 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

Not even reading this article because "emotion" being showed in baseball is at an all-time high right now. Seems like another "old man yells at cloud" type of title 

Unwritten Rules of Baseball: 

1) Don't show too much emotion
2) Don't do anything that takes out the human element and emotion

[kitekrazy]

8 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

Not even reading this article because "emotion" being showed in baseball is at an all-time high right now. Seems like another "old man yells at cloud" type of title 

Emotion is overrated.  You can watch the NFL all day and see a WR celebrate over a 2 yd pass.  Most of your hall of fame players in any sport would not be there if it was based on emotion. 

[Balta1701]

13 hours ago, kitekrazy said:

Emotion is overrated.  You can watch the NFL all day and see a WR celebrate over a 2 yd pass.  Most of your hall of fame players in any sport would not be there if it was based on emotion. 

I have no idea what this means.

[bmags]

I think one area where it has absolutely had an effect is just overall season excitement.

In other sports there just feels like "maybe they can put it all together this year and make playoffs and have a run". The predictive analytics in baseball are not gospel, but they drive home how far off and how lucky your team has to be to make a leap.

Baseball seems freakin impossible to win at.

[Balta1701]

31 minutes ago, bmags said:

I think one area where it has absolutely had an effect is just overall season excitement.

In other sports there just feels like "maybe they can put it all together this year and make playoffs and have a run". The predictive analytics in baseball are not gospel, but they drive home how far off and how lucky your team has to be to make a leap.

Baseball seems freakin impossible to win at.

I don't know about that. Basketball seems freakin' impossible to win at. If you'll give me quality odds I'll go put a bet on the Warriors to win the championship right now, and IMO the only thing stopping me from winning that bet would be someone breaking Durant's knee and having a shard fly off and impale Curry in the eye, causing them to both be out for the playoffs or season.

Baseball is tough. We're now in an era where the teams who are really good actually knew what they were doing on the way to getting there. That means you have to know what you're doing to get there. But, we have teams like the Brewers and Indians in the final 8, and they were payrolls #22 and 14 on the season. Out of the top 10 payrolls, only 5 teams made the playoffs, and the #2, #4, and #5 payrolls missed. And out of these last 4 teams, I genuinely am not sure who will win. I would put money on Houston because they're the only team that seems able to trust their starting pitching, but I wouldn't be surprised if I lost that bet. I certainly wouldn't have bet on Milwaukee at the start of the season, and here we are, they had the best record in the NL. 

You can't rely on the Yankees and Red Sox being dumb any more, you have to be as smart as them. If you do that, you can make the playoffs and have a legit shot. If your team isn't that smart, then you are buried at the bottom and out of it at the beginning, but I don't feel bad for you because that should give you a lower payroll, better draft picks, and an opportunity to trade pieces to the teams in contention. You should be able to build yourself back into contention within a few years if you do things well. 

[bmags]

14 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I don't know about that. Basketball seems freakin' impossible to win at. If you'll give me quality odds I'll go put a bet on the Warriors to win the championship right now, and IMO the only thing stopping me from winning that bet would be someone breaking Durant's knee and having a shard fly off and impale Curry in the eye, causing them to both be out for the playoffs or season.

Baseball is tough. We're now in an era where the teams who are really good actually knew what they were doing on the way to getting there. That means you have to know what you're doing to get there. But, we have teams like the Brewers and Indians in the final 8, and they were payrolls #22 and 14 on the season. Out of the top 10 payrolls, only 5 teams made the playoffs, and the #2, #4, and #5 payrolls missed. And out of these last 4 teams, I genuinely am not sure who will win. I would put money on Houston because they're the only team that seems able to trust their starting pitching, but I wouldn't be surprised if I lost that bet. I certainly wouldn't have bet on Milwaukee at the start of the season, and here we are, they had the best record in the NL. 

You can't rely on the Yankees and Red Sox being dumb any more, you have to be as smart as them. If you do that, you can make the playoffs and have a legit shot. If your team isn't that smart, then you are buried at the bottom and out of it at the beginning, but I don't feel bad for you because that should give you a lower payroll, better draft picks, and an opportunity to trade pieces to the teams in contention. You should be able to build yourself back into contention within a few years if you do things well. 

Who is "you" in this scenario? Me, the fan, has no ability to hire a smart ownership. And it is because I'm aware of how the front office of the team I work for has to be progressive that I know the team is not set-up for success in the year and possibly not forward without great luck.

And while your NBA analogy is solely based on championships, there is a gigantic difference in leagues in that 16 teams make the NBA playoffs, and only 8 do in baseball, and 1/4 of that group will only have one playoff game.

Playoffs are fun! Sure, some moan after years of playoff appearances as "useless" without a championship, they are in face much more fun as a fan than a decade without a playoff appearance.

I am not a front office, and it is unlikely I can veer into becoming either an owner or GM in baseball. So it is because I am so aware what is needed to win that it takes a lot out of pre-season excitement knowing that the the team with great luck would probably only get 80-82 wins, and 6-7 teams with much worse luck could still probably hit 84 wins. 2010 was a perfectly fine season for the white sox. 2012 too. They would have been immensely more fun with even just 1 playoff series.

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, bmags said:

Who is "you" in this scenario? Me, the fan, has no ability to hire a smart ownership. And it is because I'm aware of how the front office of the team I work for has to be progressive that I know the team is not set-up for success in the year and possibly not forward without great luck.

And while your NBA analogy is solely based on championships, there is a gigantic difference in leagues in that 16 teams make the NBA playoffs, and only 8 do in baseball, and 1/4 of that group will only have one playoff game.

Playoffs are fun! Sure, some moan after years of playoff appearances as "useless" without a championship, they are in face much more fun as a fan than a decade without a playoff appearance.

 I am not a front office, and it is unlikely I can veer into becoming either an owner or GM in baseball. So it is because I am so aware what is needed to win that it takes a lot out of pre-season excitement knowing that the the team with great luck would probably only get 80-82 wins, and 6-7 teams with much worse luck could still probably hit 84 wins. 2010 was a perfectly fine season for the white sox. 2012 too. They would have been immensely more fun with even just 1 playoff series.

The "You" was a "Front office". Replace that statement with "A front office has to know what they're doing to get there". 

[bmags]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

The "You" was a "Front office". Replace that statement with "A front office has to know what they're doing to get there". 

Right but that's what I'm saying. Baseball isn't impossible to win just because of money deficit, as it was in moneyball. 

The perspective of the article and of what I"m talking about is around the fan experience. Ignorance was quite frankly more fun. I miss thinking the team could surprise people and pull one off. I love baseball, but I struggle to maintain interest when team is losing. I want that champagne locker room footage. I want playoffs. And it sucks going into season after season knowing how unlikely it is.

They are not one player away. They are not 2 players away. It just sucks some of the fun out of the actual season.

[greg775]

I think baseball is in deep trouble because of analytics. Two examples.

1.) The "opener experiment" in which a reliever pitches one inning to start the game or maybe 2 innings, then turning it over to an opposite hand starter if it takes hold is going to kill baseball.

The loss of the traditional starter is not good for baseball IMO. Already we've lost the importance of the W/L record. It means nothing now. I think it's going to be even more boring if we just have a batch of guys going 2-3 innings max. The idea of the starter added to the romance of baseball IMO. Going way back, the Bob Gibsons, the Sandy Koufaxes and the Jack McDowells and Fergie Jenkins of the world. It meant something if a guy was 18-6 in September. It meant something if a pitcher could consistently give you 7-8 innings.

I think if baseball continues to specialize and decides to go with starter for the first two innings, a reliever for two innings, another reliever two innings, then play matchups the rest of the way will be maddeningly boring and extend games with all the pitching changes.

You say we have to go this way cause of injuries? PTATC might be able to tell us if it's unreasonable to expect starters to go 7 innings every 5 days and this is inevitable. Losing the starting pitcher and all the storylines involving starting pitchers is not a positive for baseball IMO.

2.) The idea players are on a fast/vast downhill slide once they reach a certain age is detrimental to the game. Now I guess it's 34 when front offices and fans start to deem players unwantable. 35 is definitely considered ancient. The older ballplayer was a very interesting part of baseball. Pete Rose still playing in his 40s, Julio Franco, Carlton Fisk, Minnie Minoso, etc. It was fun to see Fisk play as long as he possibly could.

Having guys wither out of the game from the ages 32 to 35 is annoying and will likely get worse as analytics deem such players unproductive. I love young players, but to make the game as interesting as possible you need both younguns and older guys. I want a mix of them.

3.) Pace of play/umpires/replays: Pace of play sucks. Umpires will not call the strike zone still. Replays are disgustingly boring waiting for the call to be made. A fastball a tad above the belt is a strike, not a ball but umpires won't make the correct call. Umps also have petty problems with teams/players. What they did to Moncada this year was borderline criminal. It's obvious they were purposely ringing him up. It was no coincidence folks. Why were they calling all those pitches outside the zone strikes on him?

4.) Tanking/rebuilding: It's very annoying and boring to have your favorite team become one of the tanking teams. There's something to be said about the old way of doing things and trying to make the playoffs then catching lightning in a bottle and winning it all or making the WS. There's no crime in being a playoff team and losing. Waiting for a tanking team to win is really really annoying.

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by greg775

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, greg775 said:

I think baseball is in deep trouble because of analytics. Two examples.

1.) The "opener experiment" in which a reliever pitches one inning to start the game or maybe 2 innings, then turning it over to an opposite hand starter if it takes hold is going to kill baseball.

The loss of the traditional starter is not good for baseball IMO. Already we've lost the importance of the W/L record. It means nothing now. I think it's going to be even more boring if we just have a batch of guys going 2-3 innings max. The idea of the starter added to the romance of baseball IMO. Going way back, the Bob Gibsons, the Sandy Koufaxes and the Jack McDowells and Fergie Jenkins of the world. It meant something if a guy was 18-6 in September. It meant something if a pitcher could consistently give you 7-8 innings.

I think if baseball continues to specialize and decides to go with starter for the first two innings, a reliever for two innings, another reliever two innings, then play matchups the rest of the way will be maddeningly boring and extend games with all the pitching changes.

You say we have to go this way cause of injuries? PTATC might be able to tell us if it's unreasonable to expect starters to go 7 innings every 5 days and this is inevitable. Losing the starting pitcher and all the storylines involving starting pitchers is not a positive for baseball IMO.

2.) The idea players are on a fast/vast downhill slide once they reach a certain age is detrimental to the game. Now I guess it's 34 when front offices and fans start to deem players unwantable. 35 is definitely considered ancient. The older ballplayer was a very interesting part of baseball. Pete Rose still playing in his 40s, Julio Franco, Carlton Fisk, Minnie Minoso, etc. It was fun to see Fisk play as long as he possibly could.

Having guys wither out of the game from the ages 32 to 35 is annoying and will likely get worse as analytics deem such players unproductive. I love young players, but to make the game as interesting as possible you need both younguns and older guys. I want a mix of them.

3.) Pace of play/umpires/replays: Pace of play sucks. Umpires will not call the strike zone still. Replays are disgustingly boring waiting for the call to be made. A fastball a tad above the belt is a strike, not a ball but umpires won't make the correct call. Umps also have petty problems with teams/players. What they did to Moncada this year was borderline criminal. It's obvious they were purposely ringing him up. It was no coincidence folks. Why were they calling all those pitches outside the zone strikes on him?

4.) Tanking/rebuilding: It's very annoying and boring to have your favorite team become one of the tanking teams. There's something to be said about the old way of doing things and trying to make the playoffs. There's no crime in being a playoff team and losing. Waiting for a tanking team to win is really really annoying.

 

"If I assert that players getting hurt is because of analytics and pretend that teams never rebuilt, then I can blame everything I dislike about baseball on analytics. It's clearly obvious that replay and umpires calling the strike zone poorly is because of analytics. I am not a crackpot."

 

[greg775]

41 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

"If I assert that players getting hurt is because of analytics and pretend that teams never rebuilt, then I can blame everything I dislike about baseball on analytics. It's clearly obvious that replay and umpires calling the strike zone poorly is because of analytics. I am not a crackpot."

 

I guess you don't want to discuss my points on a board meant for discussion. I could have ended my first sentence after the word trouble. Yet it's indisputable it's front office analysts that are talking about opening games with a closer then bringing in an opposite arm pitcher. It is analytics that leads to the youngification of baseball and yes it is analytics that has caused tanking. Hmmm.

[Balta1701]

19 minutes ago, greg775 said:

I guess you don't want to discuss my points on a board meant for discussion. I could have ended my first sentence after the word trouble. Yet it's indisputable it's front office analysts that are talking about opening games with a closer then bringing in an opposite arm pitcher. It is analytics that leads to the youngification of baseball and yes it is analytics that has caused tanking. Hmmm.

This franchise literally has in its history a year where the actual slogan was "The Kids Can Play". It's a shame these analytics based teams don't share their secret of time travel. Or at least kill Hitler, rather than going back in time to create baseball marketing slogans. 

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

"If I assert that players getting hurt is because of analytics and pretend that teams never rebuilt, then I can blame everything I dislike about baseball on analytics. It's clearly obvious that replay and umpires calling the strike zone poorly is because of analytics. I am not a crackpot."

 

I feel like I should call the authorities after a beating like this, but I also enjoyed it soo....

[caulfield12]

50 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

This franchise literally has in its history a year where the actual slogan was "The Kids Can Play". It's a shame these analytics based teams don't share their secret of time travel. Or at least kill Hitler, rather than going back in time to create baseball marketing slogans. 

You can always watch The Man in the High Castle.

And Greg has a point about the "boring" factor of a 162 game schedule with most of the games started by relievers and hours' worth of pitching changes and commercial breaks.  Not to mention the fall off in attendance/revenues related to the bottom 1/3rd (maybe 8-12) of teams not having a realistic chance to even make the playoffs at the beginning of the year.

That's why the NBA/NHL model is something they're going to have to look at (in terms of half the teams making the playoffs)...with a 154 or even 140 or 146 game schedule.  Yes, it's sacrilegious to purists and will throw off the single-season records, but they're going to have to do something eventually because attention spans are just not that long anymore for young people.

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by caulfield12

[greg775]

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

I feel like I should call the authorities after a beating like this, but I also enjoyed it soo....

At least I'm too dumb to understand the meaning of his last two posts so if I got beat I didn't feel it.

[greg775]

2 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

You can always watch The Man in the High Castle.

And Greg has a point about the "boring" factor of a 162 game schedule with most of the games started by relievers and hours' worth of pitching changes and commercial breaks.  Not to mention the fall off in attendance/revenues related to the bottom 1/3rd (maybe 8-12) of teams not having a realistic chance to even make the playoffs at the beginning of the year.

That's why the NBA/NHL model is something they're going to have to look at (in terms of half the teams making the playoffs)...with a 154 or even 140 or 146 game schedule.  Yes, it's sacrilegious to purists and will throw off the single-season records, but they're going to have to do something eventually because attention spans are just not that long anymore for young people.

 

Good post. Games should never go over 2 hours, 20 minutes cept extra inning affairs. You probably are right about the playoffs as well. Of course I still say baseball's unbalanced schedule is a joke. Playing Minnie, KC, Cleveland and Detroit in the cell 9 times a year is ... yawn. p.s. surprised you didn't try to contact me caulfield when I was gone. I thought we were board pals.

Edited October 16, 2018 by greg775

[caulfield12]

It would be fine if 2 or 3 of those teams were competitive, but they all sucked this year, other than the Indians...it was the worst (individual) division statistically in a LONG time.

Unless you mixed all the teams together and did away with NL and AL, you'd be in a division with the Cubs/Brewers/Cards or the Astros, which would be suicidal for the White Sox rebuild.

 

 

[Dominikk85]

I like analytics but I don't like the bullpenning trend. Too many pitching changes per game. Could adress that with rules.

[Chisoxfn]

On 10/15/2018 at 7:09 PM, caulfield12 said:

You can always watch The Man in the High Castle.

And Greg has a point about the "boring" factor of a 162 game schedule with most of the games started by relievers and hours' worth of pitching changes and commercial breaks.  Not to mention the fall off in attendance/revenues related to the bottom 1/3rd (maybe 8-12) of teams not having a realistic chance to even make the playoffs at the beginning of the year.

That's why the NBA/NHL model is something they're going to have to look at (in terms of half the teams making the playoffs)...with a 154 or even 140 or 146 game schedule.  Yes, it's sacrilegious to purists and will throw off the single-season records, but they're going to have to do something eventually because attention spans are just not that long anymore for young people.

 

I don't think it is purely attention spans...it is more that there is a plethora of potential entertainment options out there. Baseball isn't the only ticket in town or on the television.  

[Leonard Zelig]

On 10/14/2018 at 10:50 AM, Jose Abreu said:

Not even reading this article because "emotion" being showed in baseball is at an all-time high right now. Seems like another "old man yells at cloud" type of title 

Can you provide any statistical evidence to support this?

[Jose Abreu]

32 minutes ago, Leonard Zelig said:

Can you provide any statistical evidence to support this?

Can you provide any statistical evidence to refute it?

 

I don't get the point of your question. It's immeasurable, but it should be pretty clear to any baseball fan that players are more expressive now than they ever have been. 

 

edit- Now I realize you may have been joking about the title of the article, but unsure

Edited October 19, 2018 by Jose Abreu