sabermetrics and the enjoyment of baseball

[garn from vancouver]

i am curious whether or not sabermetrics is taking some of the fun out of baseball. actually, i'm pretty sure it is.

i love baseball and have for as long as i can remember. i love going to the park, seeing games - have seen every team play at home, been to world series games, spring training - and think i know a fair bit about the game. in the past few years i have taken to trying to learn more about sabermetrics and how it affects the game. what to watch for, how to evaluate players beyond averages, etc. but i wonder if i am taking some of the fun away.

are people that read, for instance, baseball prospectus or fangrapghs like a bible taking it too seriously? looking at it beyond a game? are they making it less fun for themselves or are they enhancing the experience?

i, personally, like to know more and love a little education but don't want to have the higher education cloud my view of the game.

thoughts
?

[Craig Arko]

I suppose different people enjoy different aspects. Seems like a pretty natural spectrum to me.

Personally, I don’t spend much time on sabermetrics. Just a choice, and it doesn’t matter to me what the other fans do for fun. I collect books, so there you go.

[LA VIkes Fan]

I think Sabermetrics have their place and can make baseball more fun to follow but they aren't the be all and end all of a player's value. Reading those stats helps you understand why some guys are more or less valuable than one would think from the naked eye and helps the players do things that maximize their contributions to the team.

Where I strongly disagree with the stat heads is that they sometimes forget that these guys aren't robots, they're human beings. Their true value to the tam cannot be quantified by statistics, not matter how robust or analytical. They have to be treated like the flawed humans they are (like all of us), and be managed with due regard to their egos, psyches, and spirit to allow them to reach their full potential. The sum of the whole can be greater than the individual parts added together and these stats sometimes miss that. Advanced Stats have their place as part of evaluating players but they are only part of the puzzle and, in my view, less than half of the full picture. Fun stuff and part of the data that can lead to the answer, but Sabermetrics are not the answer by themselves. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 3/16/2022 at 2:49 PM, garn from vancouver said:

i am curious whether or not sabermetrics is taking some of the fun out of baseball. actually, i'm pretty sure it is.

There's no doubt that sabermetrics have made baseball a worse spectator sport. Hell, even Theo Epstein agrees with that sentiment.

Sabermetrics, while inevitable, need to have their effects mitigated via rule changes. I simply do not understand how "baseball purists" can simultaneously hate sabermetrics while also being resistant to changes that diminish the effects sabermetrics have had on the game.

Get rid of the shift. Add a pitch clock. Increase the size of the bases. Move the mound back. Do whatever is required to stop baseball from so actively pursuing three true outcomes and pure velocity.

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

...Where I strongly disagree with the stat heads is that they sometimes forget that these guys aren't robots, they're human beings. Their true value to the tam cannot be quantified by statistics, not matter how robust or analytical. They have to be treated like the flawed humans they are (like all of us), and be managed with due regard to their egos, psyches, and spirit to allow them to reach their full potential. The sum of the whole can be greater than the individual parts added together and these stats sometimes miss that...

Baseball fans are entertained by watching the game of baseball and sometimes the theory behind baseball. If the players can't handle the stress of being heckled by their team mates or opponents or fans, they can do the themselves and the entire sport a favor and find a new profession because it is going to happen.

The sum is rarely, if ever, substantially greater than the parts because there are a lot of parts and the job of mystically effective player A can be performed by one of the other 25 players on the roster or mystically effective player B, who is effective not only in the dugout, but on the field.

[ashbury]

So much to unpack, even with a seemingly simple question.  I'll try to be brief.  My first point would be to separate the idea of "analytics" from the "statistics" that are sometimes used to express it.  Analytics just represents the attempt to break down and understand the facets of the game to their most basic components - very analogous to what has transformed business in general during my lifetime, which means that it can't be avoided and there's no going back.  Teams don't likely use the exact statistics that are commonly published, but those numbers help understand why teams' front offices make the moves that they do.

At the end of the day, it comes down to scoring runs.  Carlos Correa batted .279 last year and he's replacing a guy who hit .223.  Correa's 26 homers would sure look better than Simmons's 3, if he holds to form.  He scored 104 runs and drove in 92, and it's hard to find a good-fielding shortstop who can do that.  Don't need any fancy analytics to judge the difference-makers.  Enjoy the games.

 

[The Mad King]

Statistics are history. You can learn from it, But it can't help you predict future events, no matter how hard the 6-sigma gurus try to make you believe it does. I've lived over 22,000 consecutive days without dying, it doesn't mean I won't. 

[bean5302]

Analytics have made the game far more boring. It turns out, exciting plays are often risky plays, and risky plays don't statistically result in the best outcome according to analytics. Variety and suprise are also entertaining and analytics direct coaches and front offices to carve away the less successful ways of playing and concentrate on more successful methods. This results in a reduction in variety and surprise as a result.

The rule changes put into place are designed to shake up the data and create more variety. Ultimately, a pattern will emerge and will result in analytics choosing a new most successful methodology which will eliminate variety once again. Rule changes may happen again as a result. Or, in the absolute best case, the analytics will reveal balance and multiple ways of doing things, preserving variations and thus surprise, risk and entertainment.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

For me, the sabremetrics enhances my love of the game. I would love a simulcast of Twins games with an overlay on the live game, including spray charts, statistical probabilities and commentators who understood and embraced their meaning.

I get that most people don’t want a statistics lesson, but I do. I love it (and my job where I do a ton of stats analysis, application, reporting and visualization).

I really believe that if fans understood better how the analysis frames the strategy and drives the responses in execution, fandom would increase of the game. Statics have been a part of the game since baseball cards were first printed, became standardized in the 60s, and have advanced through the age of computers. Most fans don’t want a stats lesson while watching a game, but teaching the “why” in a game context can bring us closer to our history as well as future.

that being said, agreed with Brock and bean, some of the decisions that are driven by the analysis reduces the fan experience of the game. The reduction of batted balls has significantly reduced the watchability of the game, especially in person. It is no fun watching all those Ks in a 4.5 hour game. Rules do need to be put in place to increase the amount of contact, as well as speed the game up.

[Trov]

I think analytics in all sports has made changes to the game, that older fans normally never like.  Baseball has changed over time even without analytics.  For example, they have gone from 3 man rotation, to 4 man rotation to 5 man rotation, to openers.  They adopted pitch counts as reason to pull starter, and now even trips through order.  They adopted DH first in AL now both leagues.  They added free agency.  

All these affected some fans.  Where I get annoyed is the fans that have decided analytics is the 100% way to judge a game, without taking games into context.  They forget this is past data over tons of situations but forget each situation is its own.  

For example, analytics has decided bunting, or generally playing for a single run is a bad move, and stealing risk reward is not normally there.  However, if the stolen base is almost assured, why not do it?  The risk is super low even though the difference of scoring is not huge, it is better.  Similar with bunting, if the situation is right playing for a single run can be good, but because some teams never even practice doing it, they do not do well anymore when asked to do it.  

Additionally, the hit and run play has been all but removed from the game, because of analytics.  This has led to more shifting in my opinion, which some fans hate.  Back in the day, players could hit the other way with regularity, and would do hit and runs because of that ability, opening the giant hole that now defense just make without the runner going.  Well, because the risk of not getting a hit on the hit and run and having an out happen, teams just stopped doing it, and stopped working on hitting to other side.  Now, the hitters do not know how to find the giant hole, or analytics have told them, maybe hitting a double or HR is better than a for sure single.  

It has sure changed hitters approaches and the way game is managed.  I just wish the fans that followed the stats understood they do not make predictions of future outcomes, but only tell a story that maybe the traditional stats are not telling.  They dive deeper, but they do not predict future success or failure. 

[DJL44]

21 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Sabermetrics, while inevitable, need to have their effects mitigated via rule changes. I simply do not understand how "baseball purists" can simultaneously hate sabermetrics while also being resistant to changes that diminish the effects sabermetrics have had on the game.

I can agree with this sentiment, though I am not sure all the rule changes you suggest would help. I think a heavier ball (1/2 ounce) would make the game better in many ways - fewer HR, fewer strikeouts, more stolen bases, more benefit to speed and less for power. More run prevention for defensive players and less for pitchers.

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I can agree with this sentiment, though I am not sure all the rule changes you suggest would help. I think a heavier ball (1/2 ounce) would make the game better in many ways - fewer HR, fewer strikeouts, more stolen bases, more benefit to speed and less for power. More run prevention for defensive players and less for pitchers.

The shift ban is an aesthetic change to the game. I don't feel it will fundamentally change a lot but it will make the game look and feel nicer. Having an infielder standing in the shallow outfield is particularly troublesome on television, as it gives the impression of a hit - exciting! - that rapidly devolves into one of the most routine boring plays you can see, a fielder calmly scooping up a ball and throwing it 30 feet to first base. That's bad.

I think larger bases are a really interesting experiment. I don't know if they'll change much but I'm interested to see it play out. I think that rule change is possibly the biggest unknown. Obviously, the likes of Byron Buxton and Royce Lewis will love it but how will it impact the tweeners like Kepler and Polanco? Those kinds of players are the ones who will decide the impact of that rule.

The pitch clock will radically change the game. I don't think people realize just how much that will change the game. Never mind the aesthetic value of more action, watching a starter who used to sit 98mph with 30-40 seconds between pitches drop to 94-95mph with 14 seconds between pitches is going to have a huge impact on the game, I think.

[garn from vancouver]

thanks for all the thoughtful responses. i can't wait to get to target field and see some live baseball - it may be the one thing that covid took away from me (seeing live games) that i missed the most. just sitting in a park watching a game.

i do miss the small ball - bunts for singles, hits to where they ain't, etc. but still love baseball. when the big plays, the ricky plays, do come, it's all the more exciting now...though i wish it wasn't as rare. steal home - do it!

see you at the park.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

11 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I can agree with this sentiment, though I am not sure all the rule changes you suggest would help. I think a heavier ball (1/2 ounce) would make the game better in many ways - fewer HR, fewer strikeouts, more stolen bases, more benefit to speed and less for power. More run prevention for defensive players and less for pitchers.

The analysis of the live ball vs the dead ball in 2019/2020 was about the drag caused by the laces. The live ball used a slightly tighter lace and a better fitting cover. The smoother seam caused the ball to travel further in flight.

a heavier ball might have a different impact on the fielders. Harder to throw, more injuries. The analysis on weighted ball training is inconclusive.

[Unwinder]

53 minutes ago, Trov said:

Additionally, the hit and run play has been all but removed from the game, because of analytics.  This has led to more shifting in my opinion, which some fans hate.  Back in the day, players could hit the other way with regularity, and would do hit and runs because of that ability, opening the giant hole that now defense just make without the runner going.  Well, because the risk of not getting a hit on the hit and run and having an out happen, teams just stopped doing it, and stopped working on hitting to other side.  Now, the hitters do not know how to find the giant hole, or analytics have told them, maybe hitting a double or HR is better than a for sure single.  

As I understand it, rising pitch velocity is to blame for today's batters' inability to send the ball where they want it to go. They don't just need to practice hitting against the shift, they need superhuman response time. You can still blame analytics for their role in increasing pitch velocity if you want. though.

[Unwinder]

4 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

The analysis of the live ball vs the dead ball in 2019/2020 was about the drag caused by the laces. The live ball used a slightly tighter lace and a better fitting cover. The smoother seam caused the ball to travel further in flight.

I read somewhere that the more streamlined laces also made breaking balls less nasty, making hits easier to square up. It's pretty amazing how big of an impact such a minor tweak can have.

[Platoon]

16 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The shift ban is an aesthetic change to the game. I don't feel it will fundamentally change a lot but it will make the game look and feel nicer. Having an infielder standing in the shallow outfield is particularly troublesome on television, as it gives the impression of a hit - exciting! - that rapidly devolves into one of the most routine boring plays you can see, a fielder calmly scooping up a ball and throwing it 30 feet to first base. That's bad.

I think larger bases are a really interesting experiment. I don't know if they'll change much but I'm interested to see it play out. I think that rule change is possibly the biggest unknown. Obviously, the likes of Byron Buxton and Royce Lewis will love it but how will it impact the tweeners like Kepler and Polanco? Those kinds of players are the ones who will decide the impact of that rule.

The pitch clock will radically change the game. I don't think people realize just how much that will change the game. Never mind the aesthetic value of more action, watching a starter who used to sit 98mph with 30-40 seconds between pitches drop to 94-95mph with 14 seconds between pitches is going to have a huge impact on the game, I think.

George Will wrote an excellent piece last week in WAPO about baseball and addressed the issue of dropped velocity due to a pitch clock.  
 

As for robo umps, I see they are experimenting with using human plate ump calls, with the opportunity to appeal to a robo ump? Atlantic league? Enough with the appeals, and perfection.  Look at the chaos in Mankato last this last weekend. The hockey game was over, the cup awarded, the players undressed, and half the fans at Mettlers, and they decided the winning goal was illegal? So they started up again something like 90 min later? I hope Roger Staubach can stil throw that 60 yarder when we redo that Cowboys game! 

[Brock Beauchamp]

29 minutes ago, Platoon said:

As for robo umps, I see they are experimenting with using human plate ump calls, with the opportunity to appeal to a robo ump? Atlantic league? Enough with the appeals, and perfection.

Actually, I'm pretty interested in this appeal system. While I'm pretty tired of human umpires overall and would prefer robotic umpires, there is one statistically proven element of human error that improves baseball: umpires naturally prolong plate appearances. If a pitcher gets up on a batter 0-2, umpires tend to give the borderline call to the hitter in that situation. If a pitcher is down 3-0, umpires tend to give the borderline call to the pitcher in that situation.

This prolongs plate appearances and increases the amount of intense moments of the game. That's a good thing.

So maybe this appeal system is garbage and fails immediately. But I'm willing to wait it out and see what happens because a hybrid system could actually be the best system if baseball figures out a way to do it quickly and transparently.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Sconnie said:

a heavier ball might have a different impact on the fielders. Harder to throw, more injuries. The analysis on weighted ball training is inconclusive.

I don't think +1/2 ounce is going to cause a bunch of injuries. That's the weight of 5 pennies. It will take just enough off the velocity to get us back to the baseball people played before they spent the offseason in the weight room. It's a small adjustment and I think we really only need small adjustments.

I am in favor of a pitch clock. Too much time is spent watching people stand around and do nothing.

Larger bases is a minor change that will have a minor impact on safe/out on close plays. It nudges things toward speed, so I generally like it. It isn't going to change the strikeout/dinger home run derby style of baseball.

The shift is a don't-care for me. The defense is giving up an advantage to the offense if they just take it.

[Vanimal46]

I like analytics in a post game, armchair GM/manager way. They’ve helped me understand the value of a light hitting, slick fielding SS vs. a bat first corner OF. I’m also becoming a big fan of baseball savant to learn more about pitcher’s pitch mixes and velocities. 

None of that matters though when you’re at a live game. I sit back and relax with an overpriced domestic beer in hand and root for the home team. 

[dex8425]

On 3/21/2022 at 9:28 AM, DJL44 said:

I can agree with this sentiment, though I am not sure all the rule changes you suggest would help. I think a heavier ball (1/2 ounce) would make the game better in many ways - fewer HR, fewer strikeouts, more stolen bases, more benefit to speed and less for power. More run prevention for defensive players and less for pitchers.

That would lead to pitcher injuries, so no way that gets implemented. I'm all for banning extreme shifts as that does take away a heck of a lot of singles. Not sure if lessening homers is the way to go either. Sosa/McGwire HR chase saved baseball. Casual fans love dingers.

[dex8425]

50 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

I like analytics in a post game, armchair GM/manager way. They’ve helped me understand the value of a light hitting, slick fielding SS vs. a bat first corner OF. I’m also becoming a big fan of baseball savant to learn more about pitcher’s pitch mixes and velocities. 

None of that matters though when you’re at a live game. I sit back and relax with an overpriced domestic beer in hand and root for the home team. 

Agreed. Sometimes I look at statcast data during a game to see how hard guys are hitting the ball. Expected catch probability is also interesting. But that's it. 

[DJL44]

3 minutes ago, dex8425 said:

That would lead to pitcher injuries, so no way that gets implemented.

That's a knee-jerk reaction with no data to back it up. A softball weighs more than a baseball but you don't see softball players consistently getting Tommy John surgery.

[dex8425]

1 minute ago, DJL44 said:

That's a knee-jerk reaction with no data to back it up.

There's plenty of data on lighter and heavier balls since pitchers have been training with weighted balls for a few years now. It's mixed-some players benefit, some pitchers can't handle it and get hurt. Forcing everyone to throw a heavier ball is not a good idea. 

Pitchers train with heavier and lighter balls, but you're never supposed to throw them max effort. Eliminating sticky substances last year caused pitcher injuries. When you've been doing one thing thousands of times repeatedly your whole life, changing it is going to cause stress and strain. 

"Among players who trained with balls of different weights, 24% got hurt either during the program or the following season. None of the players who trained with only the standard ball were injured."  https://www.insidescience.org/news/why-training-heavier-or-lighter-baseballs-could-help-pitchers-throw-faster

[DJL44]

19 minutes ago, dex8425 said:

There's plenty of data on lighter and heavier balls since pitchers have been training with weighted balls for a few years now. It's mixed-some players benefit, some pitchers can't handle it and get hurt. Forcing everyone to throw a heavier ball is not a good idea. 

Pitchers train with heavier and lighter balls, but you're never supposed to throw them max effort. Eliminating sticky substances last year caused pitcher injuries. When you've been doing one thing thousands of times repeatedly your whole life, changing it is going to cause stress and strain. 

"Among players who trained with balls of different weights, 24% got hurt either during the program or the following season. None of the players who trained with only the standard ball were injured."  https://www.insidescience.org/news/why-training-heavier-or-lighter-baseballs-could-help-pitchers-throw-faster

"The study, published in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine in March, is preliminary and limited."

There are no weighted balls that are 1/2 ounce more than a normal baseball. That's because the difference wouldn't be enough to claim any benefit from the additional weight. It's 10% more than a normal baseball.

I guess MLB should change to using a golf ball to prevent pitcher injuries. Plenty of pitchers are getting hurt now throwing the current ball.

[bean5302]

50 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

"The study, published in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine in March, is preliminary and limited."

There are no weighted balls that are 1/2 ounce more than a normal baseball. That's because the difference wouldn't be enough to claim any benefit from the additional weight. It's 10% more than a normal baseball.

I guess MLB should change to using a golf ball to prevent pitcher injuries. Plenty of pitchers are getting hurt now throwing the current ball.

His actual data from a published medical journal doesn't agree with unfounded personal opinion so it's junk. Got it.

10% more weight would likely be huge for perceived effort, btw. You are right, though. Plenty of pitchers are getting hurt throwing the current ball. They're already at the physiological limits before ligaments tear. So lets add 10% to the weight and see what happens? The study from the Mayo Clinic found 25% decrease in effort only reduced stress on the elbow by 7%. Increasing the weight by 10% would increase the force required by 10% and in linear theory, the effort by 35% to throw the ball at the same velocity. I don't know as I buy it would actually work out that way, but more force = more stress = more injuries.
https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/baseball-pitchers-make-take-less-heat-off-the-ball-during-recovery-than-they-think/

 

[DJL44]

31 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

His actual data from a published medical journal doesn't agree with unfounded personal opinion so it's junk. Got it.

10% more weight would likely be huge for perceived effort, btw. You are right, though. Plenty of pitchers are getting hurt throwing the current ball. They're already at the physiological limits before ligaments tear. So lets add 10% to the weight and see what happens? The study from the Mayo Clinic found 25% decrease in effort only reduced stress on the elbow by 7%. Increasing the weight by 10% would increase the force required by 10% and in linear theory, the effort by 35% to throw the ball at the same velocity. I don't know as I buy it would actually work out that way, but more force = more stress = more injuries.
https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/baseball-pitchers-make-take-less-heat-off-the-ball-during-recovery-than-they-think/

 

The quote about the study being preliminary and limited isn't from me, it's from the link he provided.

I'm proposing adding 10% to the weight of the ball. that isn't the weight of what is being accelerated (the arm plus the ball). The ball is at the end of the lever (which means more torque) but your hand weighs 3 times more than the ball does. I'm guessing that human hand weights vary by at least 1/2 ounce. You can add 1/4 ounce to the weight of an average MLB baseball and still meet the current specifications for a legal ball.

You're assuming the ball would be thrown at the same velocity. I'm assuming velocity would decrease because of the additional weight. Net force would remain the same. F=ma. So, no additional force on the elbow. Try throwing a bowling ball overhand and see how fast you can accelerate your arm.

MLB needs to reduce strikeouts and create more balls in play. Any other rule change isn't going to matter much. That's the root cause of all the issues.

We could deaden the ball but all that would do is decrease offense. Pitchers would still be able to throw it hard and spin it fast.

We could shrink the strike zone but that would just turn strikeouts in to HR and walks (not balls in play) assuming we make no other changes.

Do you have a better idea how to reduce strikeouts and increase balls in play? Only the pitch clock would seem to make any difference at all.

[old nurse]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

That's a knee-jerk reaction with no data to back it up. A softball weighs more than a baseball but you don't see softball players consistently getting Tommy John surgery.

The mechanics of how a softball is pitched is not similar to baseball

[DJL44]

30 minutes ago, old nurse said:

The mechanics of how a softball is pitched is not similar to baseball

The mechanics are the same for fielders. Softball fielders spend lots of practice time throwing overhand. I'm going to guess that softball players don't experience quite as many injuries because for the most part they're done playing at age 23. Imagine how many baseball injuries would be avoided if nobody played past age 23.

[bean5302]

Softballs have a larger diameter and cannot be gripped exactly the same way as baseballs. Forearm tendonitis, elbow joint separation issues, etc. Max effort throwing with a heavier object will place more stress on the body. 

There are better, safer ways to deaden the ball. Just change the composition of the yarn winding a little. Done. Of course, it will likely have other effects, but not as drastically as the effects of adding weight to the ball which will deaden ball movement and reduce spin rate.

The issue with injuries, in my opinion, is max effort throwing itself.