NERDS!

[awinter]

Just came across this fun story on ESPN website.

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/24329670/jayson-werth-rails-super-nerds-killing-game

 

I will agree that some of the recent developments in baseball have made the game more boring, but I'm really tired of hearing players, analysts, etc say that these "nerds" don't know anything about baseball. It would be nice to see some credit thrown their way for helping their teams win more games.

 

If games are too long or too boring, don't blame the nerds- blame MLB for not making changes that make the game less boring.

[Mike Sixel]

What do people want? For teams NOT to be as smart as they can? For teams not to try to win? 

[gunnarthor]

It's ESPN. Their baseball coverage is a joke. The game will be fine.

[jkcarew]

 

It's ESPN. Their baseball coverage is a joke. The game will be fine.

Strongly agree with the first part....I'd say it's become universal regardless of which sport/topic.  The second part, though....the game will need to make changes to continue to grow, IMO.

[scottz]

 

What do people want? For teams NOT to be as smart as they can? For teams not to try to win? 

I think people want to be entertained, and sometimes teams being as smart as they can might interfere with that.

[jimmer]

I think it's ridiculous that we hear these old school pundits crying about how the game is so bad nowadays and, in the case of team broadcasters and the people in MLB Network, they have jobs because of the game. And they actively thrash the game. I could imagine that the way some of them talk about the way the game is now is actually turning people off to the game.

 

If MLB was smart, they would dump half their on screen talent starting with Reynolds and Amsinger and replace them with people who promote the game in a positive way and embrace the evolution of the game.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think people want to be entertained, and sometimes teams being as smart as they can might interfere with that.

 

so, what should a team do? not win, but be more fun? I am not sure what people want TEAMS to do....

[ashbury]

Nineteenth century German nerd Arthur Schopenhauer made this observation: “All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”

 

Twentieth century pundit Donald "Ogre" Gibb made this observation:

 

 

 

[scottz]

 

so, what should a team do? not win, but be more fun? I am not sure what people want TEAMS to do....

yeah, i don't know the answer to that. a team should try to win, and that might include things like changing pitchers 3 times in the 7th and 8th innings. but changing pitchers 3 times in a short period of time isn't interesting or entertaining for a lot of people (including some people who love baseball - imagine how the "baseball is ok, i guess" crowd feels about it). a team should encourage their batters to hit home runs and increase their OBP, and their pitchers to limit walks and strike out everyone, but that also isn't interesting or entertaining.

 

i think baseball (with three true outcomes of HR/BB/K) and basketball (shoot only 3s or layups/dunks) have a similar problem. Statistically, that's how it's best played to win. But to watch over and over? Not as exciting. A team could easily be trying to employ those kinds of percentage-driven methods, but still not be winning because their players aren't as good, and that is a miserable product to watch.

 

i don't know what the answer is. but i do enjoy some parts of baseball less than i used to. and i don't think i'm an analytic curmudgeon. some parts of the "new" game are just not as interesting to me.

[Vanimal46]

so, what should a team do? not win, but be more fun? I am not sure what people want TEAMS to do....

Doesn't really matter what people want teams to do. Analytics won the war and we're not going back to a simpler time that Jayson Werth wants to go back to.

[Mike Sixel]

 

yeah, i don't know the answer to that. a team should try to win, and that might include things like changing pitchers 3 times in the 7th and 8th innings. but changing pitchers 3 times in a short period of time isn't interesting or entertaining for a lot of people (including some people who love baseball - imagine how the "baseball is ok, i guess" crowd feels about it). a team should encourage their batters to hit home runs and increase their OBP, and their pitchers to limit walks and strike out everyone, but that also isn't interesting or entertaining.

 

i think baseball (with three true outcomes of HR/BB/K) and basketball (shoot only 3s or layups/dunks) have a similar problem. Statistically, that's how it's best played to win. But to watch over and over? Not as exciting. A team could easily be trying to employ those kinds of percentage-driven methods, but still not be winning because their players aren't as good, and that is a miserable product to watch.

 

i don't know what the answer is. but i do enjoy some parts of baseball less than i used to. and i don't think i'm an analytic curmudgeon. some parts of the "new" game are just not as interesting to me.

 

this I agree with, but that's not on the teams, or the nerds.

 

btw, I'm shocked a jock would even say this kind of thing....

[ashbury]

yeah, i don't know the answer to that. a team should try to win, and that might include things like changing pitchers 3 times in the 7th and 8th innings. but changing pitchers 3 times in a short period of time isn't interesting or entertaining for a lot of people (including some people who love baseball - imagine how the "baseball is ok, i guess" crowd feels about it). a team should encourage their batters to hit home runs and increase their OBP, and their pitchers to limit walks and strike out everyone, but that also isn't interesting or entertaining.

 

i think baseball (with three true outcomes of HR/BB/K) and basketball (shoot only 3s or layups/dunks) have a similar problem. Statistically, that's how it's best played to win. But to watch over and over? Not as exciting. A team could easily be trying to employ those kinds of percentage-driven methods, but still not be winning because their players aren't as good, and that is a miserable product to watch.

 

i don't know what the answer is. but i do enjoy some parts of baseball less than i used to. and i don't think i'm an analytic curmudgeon. some parts of the "new" game are just not as interesting to me.

These are all fair observations. But this is not the first time strategies have evolved. Note also that the 3-true outcomes are not a "new" game, those elements date back to just about the earliest incarnations of our game. What's new is that other elements have withered.

 

As for evolution... way back when, infielders figured out that if you could intentionally drop a pop fly with men on base, you could score a cheap double play - voila, the Infield Fly Rule was invented to compensate, and it was so successful that few players can accurately state the rule anymore - infielders simply know not to bother with drop-the-ball shenanigans. Another example, at some point late in the 1890s, the running game was being stifled, and the balk rule was added to liven things up. One more: offenses went into the doldrums in the 1960s, and the pitching mound was lowered.

 

We can modify rules, equipment, or ground rules, to take care of today's perceived ills too. Lowering the mound again (reducing strikeouts), deadening the ball 5% (reducing cheap HR), expanding the strike zone just a smidgen (reducing walks), together in careful combination or with additional ideas could reduce the dreaded Three True Outcomes and restore balance.

[KirbyDome89]

Count me as another who's tired of hearing older players claim their glory days were the golden age. 

 

I very much prefer quantifiable talking points, so I'm obviously in favor of analytics.

 

That said, I think there is a grain of truth I can mine from Werth's rant, although he didn't really allude to it. Analytics isn't without flaws, and while most will acknowledge this, it isn't always represented as such. There is still a place for "simple," or "old school," or whatever pejorative you deem fit type of baseball.

[jimmer]

Count me as another who's tired of hearing older players claim their glory days were the golden age.

 

I very much prefer quantifiable talking points, so I'm obviously in favor of analytics.

 

That said, I think there is a grain of truth I can mine from Werth's rant, although he didn't really allude to it. Analytics isn't without flaws, and while most will acknowledge this, it isn't always represented as such. There is still a place for "simple," or "old school," or whatever pejorative you deem fit type of baseball.

'old school' isn't a pejorative unless one actively chooses it to be. What other way would you describe people who long for things (in this case, the game) the way it used to be? People have been wearing that old school phrase as a badge of honor since forever. Got all sorts of athletes proudly calling themselves that all over TV.

 

It's simply a phrase used to describe people who like some things the way they used to be. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that considering when most people fell in love with the game. The good memories of falling in love with the game are tied to that time.

 

As far as analytics not always getting it right? Sure. Of course not. Problem is, people will discard them completely until they are perfect (which likely never happens) while clinging on to old stats that are even farther from being perfect cause they are comfortable with those stats or just prefer the way it was back in the day.

[TheLeviathan]

I think the problem lies in the fact that analytics people and old-school people have only pejoratives to say of the other.  And rarely admit the obvious frailties of their viewpoint.

[jimmer]

I think the problem lies in the fact that analytics people and old-school people have only pejoratives to say of the other. And rarely admit the obvious frailties of their viewpoint.

I think it's possible to love the game the way it was played and analyzed when we were kids and yet be accepting that things evolve/change and and even embrace the fact that it does.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think it's possible to love the game the way it was played and analyzed when we were kids and yet be accepting that things evolve/change and and even embrace the fact that it does.

 

Absolutely.  I just experience too often that some on the two sides aren't willing to see some value in the other, even if they value other things.

 

I value analytics, but I am quick to point to their flaws.  And I value some aspects of old-school thinking, even if I criticize much of it.