Is baseball less fun than it used to be?
From Bill Simmons latest. He's actually writing about the NBA, which is his wheelhouse, but he incorporates baseball.
When baseball teams went into WHIP/OBP/VORP mode after "Moneyball" was released, Bill James wrote that the statistical revolution had changed the way rosters were assembled and games were played, only it might not necessarily be a good thing from an entertainment standpoint. After all, stolen bases are fun. Hit-and-runs are fun. Swinging for the fences on the first pitch is fun. Seeing a starter throw a 140-pitch complete game is fun. Watching a lineup with a bunch of boppers and no OBP guys is fun. Irrational, indefensible managerial decisions are fun. But watching hitters milk pitch counts, or managers use five relievers a game, or contender after contender constructed in the same cookie-cutter way ... not quite as fun.
Is he right? Has baseball thought itself out of an entertaining product? I for one cannot stand watching LaRussa use six pitchers to get six outs, although I realize it might be the best thing strategically.
Asparagus is better for me as a side dish than a baked potato, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Stolen bases might be the biggest casualty. It's inarguable that baseball is probably better played now than it was in the 80s, but the run game was FUN back then.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
28 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Perspective has a lot to do with it.
In the 80s when I was a kid, I wasn’t concerned about stats – I just wanted to see baseball. Shawon Dunston’s errant throws would give me fits now, but back then I just enjoyed watching him uncork one. I had favorites like Dave Owen, Henry Cotto, and Hector Villanueva – just because they came through with a big hit once or twice, so that made me believe they were the guy to bring up in key situations always.
I don’t know how old you are Worf, but for me, baseball when I was growing up was more fun, not because of the strategy, but because I didn’t understand it in that way – I just wanted to see excitement.
I live in an area where kids still enjoy the game, just because it’s an exciting, fun game, so I’m not sure whether the game has changed or if we all have.
This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again.
by HectorVillanueva on Nov 27, 2008 10:20 AM CST reply actions
Id say its more fun...
With the extra innings package,televised Drafts, the World Baseball Classic and now the MLB network and the proliferation of fantasy baseball, more and more people are following the game and those who did before are following to a greater degree and have more means by which to evaluate teams and players.
And no matter how popular metrics become with certain segments of baseball fans/management, there will always be guys like Ryan Howard, Adam Dunn, Big Papi…the guys like Carl Crawford, Grady Sizemore, Willy Taveras.
Its perhaps the most diverse pro sport in our country, and probably rivals only soccer in the global view….so theres a lot to like and I dont think an increased valuation of metrics ruins the game, beside if it creates winning teams, then fans will come.
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
Wait, what?
“And no matter how popular metrics become with certain segments of baseball fans/management, there will always be guys like Ryan Howard, Adam Dunn, Big Papi…the guys like Carl Crawford, Grady Sizemore, Willy Taveras.”
-cough-
Ryan Howard: .251/.339/.543
Adam Dunn: .236/.386/.513
David Ortiz: .264/.369/.507
Carl Crawford: .273/.319/.400
Grady Sizemore: .268/.374/.502
Willy Taveras: .251/.308/.296
(all stats from 2008 season, Crawford and Ortiz both played in 109 games, FWIW)
Did you SERIOUSLY just compare Willy Taveras and Carl Crawford (who, admittedly, had a down year) to Adam Freaking Dunn and Grady Freaking Sizemore?
-head explodes-
Broseph, people LIKE Adam Dunn because he draws a crapload of walks and hits a crapload of home runs. Not making outs (previously mentioned .386 OBP) + creating runs (111 RC) = awesome.
Either that, or I just didn’t understand what you meant.
CUBS WIN! CUE THE ORCHESTRA!
I was countering Simmons argument
That, despite the value on these new stats, there will be swing for the fences guys, and guys who still steal bases and a large clip…which makes it “fun” to watch for some people.
That was my point, I was showing guys who still thrive at “old stats”, despite the new appreciation for metrics
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
One thing that I'd like to see...
… is games go faster, especially in the postseason. Crisply played, quick games, well pitched with good defense, are fun to watch.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
I'd like to see that kind of postseason play result in wins for a certain NL Central team ..

Til then, I’m hanging with ’em ..
Well, Next Year is here .. and Jack's century's gotta end some time .. GO CUBBIES!
Yes and No
Sometimes, I think we over complicate things within baseball. Greed and steroids have at times made me frustrated at this game… but when I can sit down, watch a good game, it erases all the frustration I have. I think when I spend too much time keeping up with the politics and such of baseball… i get bored. But when I am watching my favorite teams or players, or actually just put on a mitt and go play catch at our local field… that same smile I had as a 13 year old comes back.
:O) When push comes to shove, I’ll always love this game.
First, I am a Cubs fan
I have been a Cubs fan since I was a kid, and that was about 50 years ago. Nut to get to the topic, I am moreover, a fan of well played baseball games. By this, I mean people making plays that rob runs, or pitchers overmatching opponents, or hitters performing stuff that turns out to have an impact on the game being played.
One must remember that these games are being played on the ballfield, and not on paper or a computer or cellphone screen. They are played by human athletes, ones who are subject to the vicissitudes of life, both positive and negative. Any of which can have an effect on not only overall performance, but the current performance of both a player and a team.
What I have always liked about MLB, is that on any given day, any time is subject to being beaten by another team, no matter what the stats. I have never seen a team go 162-0.
"I lof to hit de home ron!"
by Tekboy on Nov 27, 2008 1:39 PM CST reply actions 4 recs
+1 for the use of "vicissitudes"
Scrabble much? :-)
"Dying is the day worth living for" - Captain Barbossa
Not these days
I used to, though. :)
"I lof to hit de home ron!"
oops
“Nut” should be “now”
"I lof to hit de home ron!"
I don't know about that
For six months this year I had a blast at Wrigley, I cheered my ass off. I couldn’t wait to get to the ball park to watch the Cubs play, especially how they played during the regular season. Baseball is only boring to those with boring minds. Football,Basketball, Hockey just don’t do it for me. Baseball is it for me, it is my bliss.
Someday we'll go all the way.
by Cubbinstrongsince86 on Nov 27, 2008 11:43 PM CST reply actions
It was also lots of fun to watch 10 HR's a game in the 90's
but as we have learned, it was a product of Steroid use. I know that what you are talking about isn’t, as far as we know, steroid induced with the running game of the 80’s. However, just because something is more fun to watch, doesn’t make it better.
"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion
How did we learn that?
The only way you can believe that is if you think:
- Nobody used steroids prior to the 1993 season
- Everyone used them afterward.
- Steroids work better for hitters than pitchers.
I don’t see any reason to think these three things are true.
Oh, come one
Brady Anderson, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, etc. etc. all probably took steroids. This made them hit more home runs. Home runs are fun to watch. This made the games more enjoyable.
So, should steroids be used to make the game more enjoyable? Because if today’s baseball isn’t more enjoyable because coaches use the Moneyball approach, should we just allow MLB to use what ever means necessary to produce the most enjoyable game? That’s the point I was making.
I’m not saying nobody took steroids prior to 1993, but according to the Mitchell report, that’s when steroids really took off. When did I ever say steroids were never taken prior to 1993? Please, inform me, I’m sure it was done but to what level? We don’t really know.
And in regards to pitchers, it seemed pitchers used steroids to recover from an injury or prolong their career, not to gain 5 MPH on their fast ball or make their curve drop 5 more inches.
Seriously, what do you mean, “How did we learn that?”
"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion
Look at the runs per game...
….from 1977 to 1993. It fluctuates somewhere around 4 to 4.5 RPG. Then look at RPG from 1994 – run scoring fluctuates from around 4.5 to 5 RPG. This is a distinct and abrupt change.
Your contention is that this .5 increase in RPG is due to steroids usage. It’s patently absurd – in order for steroids to be the dominant explanation for the change in run scoring in the 1990s, it would have had to have been a systemic change favoring hitters over pitchers. And that clearly doesn’t make sense – intuitively, steroid adoption should have been a gradual change as athletes adopted steroid usage over time.
The best explanation for the increased run scoring environment in the 1990s was a juiced ball, not juiced players. By changing the way the cores of the balls are wound, you change how far the ball travels.
A juiced ball..
… and a number of new, hitter-friendly ballparks.
Oh, and don’t forget the squeeze strike zone.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
Thanks for putting words in my mouth
when did I ever say there is more runs per game? Not once did I ever say that there were more runs in a game. Please, enlighten me if I did.
Beginning around the early 90’s, home runs per game jumped from a little above 1.5 per game to almost 2.5 per game. And to say that is only a result of juiced balls, smaller strike zone, and ballparks, please tell that to all the guys I mentioned above, I’m sure they want to use that for their defense to get into the hall of fame cause I’m sure that’s the only reason for all their home runs.
"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion
MLB Not As Much Fun Now
That’s in spite of the Cubs’ much appreciated improved play in recent years. The games drag too much with too many pitching changes. The added round of playoffs with the division series has led to playoff baseball fatigue before the World Series.
Back to the games dragging, I’ve noticed that AAA games have a better flow now than MLB games. That’s not supposed to happen. Pick up the pace, MLB! Before long, AA games featuring few pitchers that can throw a curve ball for a called strike are going to have a snappier flow than MLB games.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
IMO...
…baseball has changed with other sports over the years. You tend to see more “specialists” in all sports, that are used only in certain situations and has clearly impacted the pitching side of baseball the most.
Also, athletes today (including baseball players) are bigger, faster and stronger than they were 30 years ago and this has played a big role in how talent is evaluated. There has been more attention paid to “physical ability” vs “baseball ability” during that same time period. There also appears to be a drop off (with most organizations) in teaching fundementals at the minor league level and this shows up over and over again at the major league level. This is why teams like the Twins, can stay competitive with low payroll and losing star players. The game they play is geared towards stressing fundementals and milking everything you can out of your roster.
Regarding hitters that work counts, I’m not certain this has increased over the years. It may be for certain teams that stress this, but overall, I tend to think hitters are less disciplined today, than they were 30 years ago. How often to do you see a guy intentionally hit behind a runner, or choke up on the bat after two strikes? Because of this, it is even more important today, for GM’s to recognize the need to assemble the right mix of talent to make out a lineup, because you have more “one dimensional” hitters today than in years past.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on Nov 28, 2008 11:49 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
Baseball much more fun from offensive perspective when guys get on base. Because it does much more
to contribute to runs scored than guys getting thrown out trying to steal. Although I am sure Dusty is still searching the rule books, it still is not possible to steal first base.
In general, fans have shown that the enjoy higher scoring games, in terms of entertainment. If MLB wanted to make the game more fun then they should do the opposite of what James may be alluding to and adopt the DH in the NL. As a compromise they could allow hitters the opportunity to steal first base, too, or allow them the opportunity to reach first safely on foul balls, like the old Intelivision games.
I recall the the frustrating low OBP teams that the Cubs fielded under Baker, it got worse each season and when they went with little power, low OBP, but greater speed, it was atrocious. It was stupid!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course, some of this topic is just preferences, do you prefer vanilla or chocolate? Stealing bases or scoring more runs? Boston fans seem pretty happy with 2 WS wins, and Tampa fans seemed happy with getting to the WS. But in general, fans prefer higher scoring games with respect to entertainment value.
84 season anyone?
I do like the mid 80’s as a better played, better game to watch, television was already there(w.g.n). We had great pitchers, and hitters, some specialest were popping up. Whatever you think about steroids, that was’nt the first thing that jumped to your mind when Dunston hit three homeruns! Moneyball was’nt around yet, the big money teams had just started buying pennants, even the smaller markets still competed(K.C.,Oak.Min.). It was just a better game overall, power, speed and good pitching, with no lights at Wrigley and a division win.
ernie81
I think it's interesting
no one blames the umps. They don’t force the pitchers to pitch faster, they don’t make the managers walk faster… and many of them simply suck at being umpires.
"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella
I totally agree
that the umpiring is part of the problem, especially the way they squeeze certain young pitchers, in an effort to not only force more offense, but to see if they can cause some “hothead fireworks”.
"I lof to hit de home ron!"

by 


















