Has the Internet taken some fun out of baseball?

[WinningUgly85]

well it certainly takes out the fun when you watch the game on the internet because right now were losing to the rockies 2 -0 in the first. Lets see if our offense can at least make contact with the ball.

[CWSGuy406]

Its called missing the forest for the trees. People who spend to much time buried in the numbers, and even the wins and losses miss the grandure of the game that is unfolding in front of them.

 

Can you give an example of this? I'd say the people who are more statistically aware tend to hold an even greater appreciation for the game.

 

There's also a "statheads aren't fans and only care about the numbers" tone that's in this thread. Not surprising, but it's there. It's a completely ignorant view, too, but again -- not surprising.

[NorthSideSox72]

Can you give an example of this? I'd say the people who are more statistically aware tend to hold an even greater appreciation for the game.

 

There's also a "statheads aren't fans and only care about the numbers" tone that's in this thread. Not surprising, but it's there. It's a completely ignorant view, too, but again -- not surprising.

I've seen plenty of posters be equally (or more so) dismissive of those who feel that some factors in the game can never be captured in the numbers. Some things just have to be seen, and sometimes, there is more (or less) to a player than their stats indicate.

 

[southsider2k5]

Can you give an example of this? I'd say the people who are more statistically aware tend to hold an even greater appreciation for the game.

 

There's also a "statheads aren't fans and only care about the numbers" tone that's in this thread. Not surprising, but it's there. It's a completely ignorant view, too, but again -- not surprising.

 

Its no more ignorant than thinking that the "statistically aware" are somehow better than everyone else, and looking down on other people for it.

[Balta1701]

I've seen plenty of posters be equally (or more so) dismissive of those who feel that some factors in the game can never be captured in the numbers. Some things just have to be seen, and sometimes, there is more (or less) to a player than their stats indicate.

On the other hand, I think sometimes stats can catch some interesting trends that your eyes don't always see.

[CWSGuy406]

Its no more ignorant than thinking that the "statistically aware" are somehow better than everyone else, and looking down on other people for it.

 

Better? No. More informed? Perhaps.

 

The people you mention are no worse than the people who will immediately dismiss a sabermetric statistic just because they're too lazy (or ignorant or don't care enough, whatever it is) to understand and know what it is.

[CWSGuy406]

I've seen plenty of posters be equally (or more so) dismissive of those who feel that some factors in the game can never be captured in the numbers. Some things just have to be seen, and sometimes, there is more (or less) to a player than their stats indicate.

 

There's also a lot of subjectivity to ones eyes. You're likely to remember things that stick out, that have some 'popping' quality to them.

 

Statistics are objective. They take that element of subjectivity out of it.

 

Now, I don't want that to be extrapolated one bit. People constantly use statistics incorrectly, which is where the argument (generally) comes about. At the same time, intangibles certainly do exist, although that's taken much too far in the game of baseball. Why? Intangibles are what they are -- intangible. They can't be measured. Thus, when people start commenting on and trying to interpret intangible, it becomes a really sticky situation. I'll take the example of 'clubhouse chemistry' -- team 'A' acquires a player and the first thing people are saying is what a great addition to the clubhouse he'll be. Really, the only effect that matters is in the W and L department. More specifically, let's look at the 2005 White Sox. You had a bunch of players who had bad clubhouse reps -- guys like Carl Everett and AJ (even, to a much lesser extent, BMac and Willie Harris). I don't care to play ametur psychologist and try to read the effect that they'll have in the clubhouse. I can, however, (generally speaking) say what effect those guys will have on the diamond.

 

I've wandered much too far off course here. I'll admit to not reading the first post -- I'll probably get to it later. I'll simplify things to this -- there seems to be an insinuation or a tone that the 'statheads', because of having their head 'buried in a spreadsheet', don't have that element of 'fan' in them; that they can't root for the Timo Perez' of the world; that they can't go into a Jerry Owens at-bat rooting for him to do well; that we can't appreciate a triple-play because, statistically speaking, something like that just shouldn't happen. I don't like that insinuation/tone one bit.

Edited February 27, 2008 by CWSGuy406

[Tuffers]

Welcome aboard!

 

Thanks

 

On the subject at hand: the Internet and it leading to further Sabrmetrics.

 

From a personal perspective, and probably that of many UK fans, I would hardly have the interest in Baseball I do now had it not been for the Internet. The additional media it holds and access to news is a fantastic tool given its limited coverage here.

 

To the numbers. I hold merely a passing interest in those outside the usual spectrum of stats, I prefer to watch the game for what it is. I do, however, admire the dedication of those who have pioneered such fields of research into these areas. With an over saturated media driven era hungry for information and interesting facts; subjective opinion doesn't cut it anymore. An article written by Josh Chetwynd has a great take on the numbers surpassing the spectacle:

 

Enough with the numbers

 

5th entry down. You might want to ignore the first paragraph!

 

"When Jim Thome smacked his 500th home run this past week, I simply shrugged and wanted to watch another highlight"

[thedoctor]

I've seen plenty of posters be equally (or more so) dismissive of those who feel that some factors in the game can never be captured in the numbers.

 

i'd agree with this, but i think it more of an example of message-board culture than anything that is specific to soxtalk or baseball in general. it seems like you usually have defined factions emerge even within a singular fanbase. the point of contention varies and there can be and overriding argument and various little ones within. then you have the folks in the middle who maybe can see the validity in both sides but fail to get into the overriding argument.

 

i've seen people belittled here for making a comparison that maybe isn't supported by numbers. i've also seen people belittled for overreliance on numbers. generally i think those people are the exception, not the rule, and are the same bitter sobs who can't go through a day without telling someone else they are wrong. what can you say, some people are just insufferable no matter what side they are on.

[jackie hayes]

Completely disagree. When I was young (which is close enough to 20 years ago), I pored over the stats on the back of baseball cards. Those 2 or 3 random facts that Topps saw fit to print below the career stats I had almost memorized for every Sox player. I imagine if I grew up now I'd care more about obp than runs, but otherwise I don't think there'd be an enormous difference.

 

I'd say the bigger changes are in the game itself. We follow contracts more closely because free agency's evolved quite a bit in 20 years, not because of the internet.

[jackie hayes]

You want to claim Joe Crede as your favorite player, you better be ready to defend yourself against his lackluster career .305 OBP, because you will be questioned on it.

Not true. Crede is my favorite player, but that doesn't mean I think he's the best player, or even a top 3b. It's when someone claims that player X is better than player Y that he has to defend the obp, slg, blonde hair, or whatever.

[michelangelosmonkey]

First of all not all of us had the chance to actually WATCH Sox games. When I was a kid I used to tune in my little AM radio to try to get Harry Carey on WMAQ...it was usually so full of static it was painful to listen. Then if I missed the game I had to wait until 4pm the next day (afternoon paper only) to read the box scores...and I also pored over the states as a kid...I would get my little calculator out and try to figure out Dick Allen's new batting average afer he went three for four. The internet is a DREAM for fans like me. When I was living in Saudi I could follow every pitch of every game.

 

And by the way...the internet has totally opened up minor league baseball to me. Back in the seventies the only way to follow was to by Baseball America and the stats were generally six weeks old. It was so useless I didn't bother. Now I check the Sox box score...and Charlottes...and Birminghams...and Winston Salems...and Kanapolos...all in real time. How cool is that? If the Sox lose I can console myself in the fact that Chris Carter went three for four and HE'S going to be fun to watch in a sox uniform some day. Of course...they traded their entire minor league system in the off season...but I'm saying...in theory.

[greg775]

Not just out of baseball, but all sports.

But I like reading the message boards even if they are so negative much of the time.

What took some of the fun out of baseball was the greed of the owners (George) overpaying so much, thus ticket prices went out of whack.

It's not been as fun since the greed of the owners took over.

I also don't like the fact George wanted to play the Red Sox over and over so they changed the schedule to where you play the teams in your own division WAY too many times.

What a joke.

 

[knightni]

Twenty to 25 years ago, I was a Sporting News boxscore fanatic. I had a Sports Illustrated subscription and bought Street and Smith every year.

I also used to pour over the Sunday paper for the baseball stats and I'd cut special boxscores out of the paper and save them, (perfect games, etc.)

I loved the early This Week In Baseball's, the Saturday Game of The Week on NBC and collecting cards to compare stats and put imaginary lineups together.

 

I loved The National. I still miss it.

 

Fifteen years ago, I had an early roto-style dice game I used to play and I was involved in a fantasy baseball league where we used to have live drafts at a guy's house, do trades and transactions over the phone, and get stats mailed to us every week.

 

I guess I have always been a stat-head even though I also love watching for the general "love of the game."

[haroldbainesknees]

The other reason I use it is to connect with other fans and read their thoughts on the team. There aren't too many Sox fans around me, so this is the next best thing.

 

I don't think the internets(s) has taken the fun out of baseball. Living out of state this is the one place where I can have contact with knowledgable, passionate sox fans. This enhances my baseball experience.

After the sox won the series in 05, this is where I logged onto almost immediately to virtually celebrate with similarly long tortured souls.

 

I understand the longing for a time when baseball was simpler, and more of a closed society. I still remember the first time I beat my brother in whiffleball in the backyard. I won 17-15. I was the Montreal Expos, with Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, Warren Cromartie, Tim Raines, and Steve Rogers on the slab. I learned of these players through the more "old school" way a kid discovers baseball, collecting baseball cards, collecting stickers for my early 1980s Topps sticker book, and watching what I could on TV, and Mel Allen's This Week in Baseball-How about that?

 

To this date my love and passion for baseball has remained. I love the tradition, pace and nuance of the game but the internet has enhanced my love of baseball by opening up so much more information and allows me to connect with die hards just like me.

 

I am a hybrid baseball fan. I love both aspects of baseball.

 

[DBAHO]

No. In fact it's the complete opposite for me. It's raised the enjoyment level for me.

 

I only got into baseball about 10-12 years ago, when I saw Frank Thomas for the 1st time slugging a long home run on a 30 mins weekly highlights show. I was hooked.

 

But the next 5 or 6 years or so, I just couldn't follow it. The only way I could keep in touch with how my team was doing was through end of year sport almanacs and through the box scores and standings in the papers.

 

Nowadays, I have all of this information in front of me which I can use. It's definitely increased my knowledge of the games, in terms of how statistics are used etc.

 

I guess it's because I enjoy working with numbers and stats, and that I enjoy baseball as a sport, it's the perfect mix for me.

 

And then you've got a place like this, where you can discuss so many different things about the team. You didn't have that chance 10 years ago.

 

Coming on here after the 05 World Series Win, and seeing what it meant to long suffering White Sox fans who had been following the team a lot longer than I had, that was great.

[southsideirish71]

I don't understand why this battle comes up all the time. Sabrmetrics is just a natural progression of the traditional stat based accounting that has been going on in this game from day one. This game has recorded every type of stat known to man over the history of the game. The only difference is, that Sabrmetricians have taken that data, and have come up with new formulas to make sense of it. Consider it new math versus old math. I was a traditionalist on this. I believe my own two eyes and what I saw on the field. Then after taking a look into it, I saw that some of the sabr formulas were backing up what I was seeing on the field. You can enjoy the game as much as you want. And you can dig into the lowest levels of trends as much as you want. Thats the beauty of the game to me. Sabr is part of baseball. Its what the GMs use to evaluate players. People also get bent out of shape of PECOTA and other speculation formulas. Thats what they are speculation. Its taking known material and making a statistical guess on what is going to happen. Its not an indictment of the player, or saying that they will definately do this. Its an educated guess based on the evidence laid forth. I don't use this to jail a player. Its just a way of saying well based on this, player X should midline at this. Now I can go to the ballpark, and still enjoy the guy taking the secondary lead and moving into 3rd instead of staying on first. I can watch the nuances of the outfield shift or the battles of the player setting up the pitcher, or the pitcher setting up the hitter. I can enjoy watching a mechanical flaw being exploited, or watch the perfect fluid swing take place. You can enjoy the game, and still enjoy the stats behind it. Now are stats perfect no. But what is. You look over the grind of a season and you should see the guy who goes 0 -4 with 4 screaming line drives outs with diving plays with wind up balancing out with the same guy going 4 for 4 with 4 duck farts that travel 93 feet. I have learned at lot about SABR from this site, from Keith and from Cheat over at southsidesox.com as well. To me learning about baseball or getting new ways to derive information from the evidence we see makes it more fun. But then again I look at packets all day looking for the bad ones for a living. So I am wierd.

Edited February 27, 2008 by southsideirish71

[southsider2k5]

Better? No. More informed? Perhaps.

 

The people you mention are no worse than the people who will immediately dismiss a sabermetric statistic just because they're too lazy (or ignorant or don't care enough, whatever it is) to understand and know what it is.

 

I'll be honest and say that I couldn't have made my point much better than you just did for me. I didn't realize for a long time exact how that exact kind of attitude and distain for people reflected on me, until I saw it in others. It really woke me up, and made me step back and realize what I wanted out of the game. I didn't enjoy the game of baseball nearly as much when I obsessed about stats and tried to make myself feel better at someone else's expense. Once I got past that, the game of baseball has become a lot more fun again.

[Controlled Chaos]

It's all good if this strikes up some debate, but I honestly didn't think the debate would be about whether the Internet is good or bad or if stats are good or bad. I just felt like writing a little piece about some stuff I have felt and read online over the years. I like writing, but don't get to do it very often. and maybe that's a good thing because I'm seeing these posts about how the internet is good cause it made someone a better fan and I'm like WTF does that have to do with what I wrote. Same goes for people defending themselves as statheads and how the net has helped them get stats. Hell yeah it has...I agree 100%. I really feel like a lot of people took bits and parts of what I wrote instead of the story as a whole. It was just meant to be a light hearted read.

 

 

Here's kinda what I meant...

 

Joe Baseball is coming to the plate with 2 outs and ducks on the pond and instead of the first thought being excitement "come on lets get something here" like an unkowning kid might have, it's more a thought of "s***....Joe Baseball has the worst RISP w/ 2outs on the team"

 

So before a pitch is even thrown you're resigned to the fact that the 3rd out is probably coming. And if you don't think some minds are made up about what's going to happen before it actually does...sit in on a game thread sometime. That's not to say these people are rooting for the third out...just that the doubt is there. That's all I'm saying. There's just that little mystique that is sometimes missing now that you had back when you didn't know any better. So I'm not knocking those who know the stats. I know most of them myself and I like knowing them. I know more than all my friends. I don't believe stats are the end all be all, but they are relevant. So I'm not saying it isn't good to be knowledgable or that having access to that knowledge is bad, just that knowing some stuff...takes away a little something that used to be there.

 

I think either I need to go back to school and learn how to write or some of you need to go back and learn how to comprehend. Either way, glad there was some discussion, to pass the time.

[Haarold]

Stats are a good tool for the sake of comparisons. However, I base most of my opinion on what I see. There are so many things stats or a box score won't tell you about a game or a player.

 

 

That might be the most intelligent reply I have read on this board in a long time. AMEN BROTHER!!

[Balta1701]

Joe Baseball is coming to the plate with 2 outs and ducks on the pond and instead of the first thought being excitement "come on lets get something here" like an unkowning kid might have, it's more a thought of "s***....Joe Baseball has the worst RISP w/ 2outs on the team"

 

So before a pitch is even thrown you're resigned to the fact that the 3rd out is probably coming. And if you don't think some minds are made up about what's going to happen before it actually does...sit in on a game thread sometime. That's not to say these people are rooting for the third out...just that the doubt is there. That's all I'm saying. There's just that little mystique that is sometimes missing now that you had back when you didn't know any better. So I'm not knocking those who know the stats. I know most of them myself and I like knowing them. I know more than all my friends. I don't believe stats are the end all be all, but they are relevant. So I'm not saying it isn't good to be knowledgable or that having access to that knowledge is bad, just that knowing some stuff...takes away a little something that used to be there.

On the other hand, can't it help some time? Let's say for example, that there's a 3rd baseman on the team who has a habit of popping the ball up badly. He comes up in the late innings one game, let's say the 10th inning, and you're resigned to losing. But you've noticed he does tend to hit the ball well in the clutch. Maybe his late inning numbers are better, maybe his close and late numbers are good, whatever. Suddenly he hits a home run to LF and Ken Harrelson's head explodes. In that case, how was thinking that this guy was clutch and has done this before a bad thing?

[southsideirish71]

On the other hand, can't it help some time? Let's say for example, that there's a 3rd baseman on the team who has a habit of popping the ball up badly. He comes up in the late innings one game, let's say the 10th inning, and you're resigned to losing. But you've noticed he does tend to hit the ball well in the clutch. Maybe his late inning numbers are better, maybe his close and late numbers are good, whatever. Suddenly he hits a home run to LF and Ken Harrelson's head explodes. In that case, how was thinking that this guy was clutch and has done this before a bad thing?

 

One of my favorite stats to look into the day of a game, is how the individual matchups in the game. You see who has had success against what pitcher. Sure Joey Baseball only hits .235 with RISP close and late, but for some reason he owns Nathan and hits close to .400 against him. Thats the game within the game. This great pitcher can mow down the best of hitters but Joey Baseball owns him. So even though he isnt the allstar, he might as well be against Nathan.

 

When it comes down to it, a great player has a .300 or better average. Which means that 70% of the time that player will fail. But that 30% always seem to happen at a good time, Its how you look at it. My favorite thing to do watching a game is to watch how the pitchers attack the zone. For me the data on pFX and some of the new pitching stats is going to be cool to review after a game. As a former pitcher I can see with my own two eyes how a pitcher attacks a hitter. You can see it with the gamechart and now with pFX you can see the break and other nuances to the pitch.

[JPN366]

I see your point, but I disagree to some extent. Before MLB.com & MiLB.com, I had to rely on Baseball Weekly, which was a week behind. ESPN, Turner & WGN were the only source of current information.

[greg775]

After the sox won the series in 05, this is where I logged onto almost immediately to virtually celebrate with similarly long tortured souls.

 

Good point Haroldbaines. That was a fun part of winning it all. People were stoked.

It was great.

[Balta1701]

Good point Haroldbaines. That was a fun part of winning it all. People were stoked.

It was great.

I'm still particularly proud of being the first one with the "Holy s*** it worked" post in the Rally Crede thread.

 

And no one can possibly deny how much that thread enhanced their enjoyment of that season.