sabermetrics and the enjoyment of baseball

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

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.

Except the whole point is to deaden ball movement and reduce spin rate. I don't want games decided 1-0 by zombie runners in the 10th inning.

[terrydactyls]

I really hate to return to the actual topic of the post, but.......

As in business, those that are familiar with saber metrics love to speak in acronyms that us commoners don't understand.  Possibly it's to feel superior?  Or possibly to hide the fact that they don't really understand sabermetrics?  Hell, for years I thought they were talking about cyber metrics.  All these advanced statistics with plus signs and minus signs mean diddly squat to me.  Can the guy with the bat hit the little round thing?  And if he does, can anyone catch it?  That's baseball in it's simplest form.  There are not three true outcomes.  There are only two: you make an out or you don't.  That's all the analysis I need.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, terrydactyls said:

There are not three true outcomes.  There are only two: you make an out or you don't.  That's all the analysis I need.

Ah!  So you're a big fan of On Base Percentage, in preference to Batting Average.  Cool.

[old nurse]

7 hours ago, DJL44 said:

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.

Pardon me for thinking that the topic was pitching

[Monkeypaws]

Sabermetrics would be more useful in fencing than baseball.

 

But seriously folks, I totally get doing a deep dive under the hood and geeking out on all the data. I used to do it as a kid with Who's Who in Baseball, and later with the Baseball America Prospect Yearbook.

As a fan I don't find them interfering in my enjoyment of the game very often if at all. And they seem to provide results for managers and GMs that understand them.

[Nine of twelve]

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

I think a heavier ball (1/2 ounce) would make the game better in many ways

I disagree. I think the ball should stay the same weight, but it should be softer. A heavier ball would probably increase the risk and severity of injury to pitchers and batters. A softer ball would have little to no effect on throws but it would mean decreased velocity on batted balls, especially balls hit into and beyond the outfield.

[Nine of twelve]

On 3/23/2022 at 11:50 AM, DJL44 said:

 

MLB needs to reduce strikeouts and create more balls in play.

I agree. My proposals;

1.) Soften the ball, but keep its air resistance the same. This would not affect pitching or throwing but batted balls would not travel as far.

2.) Make the strike zone larger. This would mean fewer bases on balls, and this would also mean fewer deep counts because batters would be swinging at more pitches.

3.) To offset the larger strike zone institute some combination of the following: lower the mound and increase the distance from the pitching rubber to home plate. This would make pitches easier to hit, thereby reducing the number of strikeouts.

I think these changes would result in fewer strikeouts, fewer bases on balls, fewer home runs, more batted balls put in play, and fewer deep counts.

 

[Richmond Dude]

A couple of points, based on things brought up in the thread:

The Pitch Clock will be revolutionary, but it's not even actually a rule change but rather just enforcing a rule that already exists and fell out of enforcement.

Changing the mound.  MLB has done it before and the average height of men has increased significantly since the last time it was done (the average MLB pitcher as of 2019 was 6' 2.5").  While the distance between the rubber and the plate seems to be the most important, the actual important distance is between the point of release and the plate.  Taller player = longer legs and longer arms = shorter actual pitch distance and less reaction time for the batter.

Rules change in some sports frequently (football), but some are truly revolutionary.  I can't imagine watching basketball without a shot clock, but it *is* artificial.  Think of eliminating shifts as being similar to when the NBA prohibited zone defenses.  Yeah, it "changed the sport," but all it really did was return it to its roots.  The only thing I'll truly miss is watching a player on third take a 45 foot lead because the 3rd baseman is nowhere to be found.  That was fun.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Nine of twelve said:

2.) Make the strike zone larger. This would mean fewer bases on balls

I don't see how that follows.  Pitchers won't aim for the old strike zone; they will go ahead and continue to try to hit the edges of the new zone.

However, I support the idea of softening the ball.  Besides the effect on home run rates you mentioned, it will indirectly result in fewer walks, I think - why walk most guys if putting the ball in play remains an out roughly 70% of the time and the risk of home runs is lower?