Have sabermetrics made baseball less enjoyable?

[knowyourenemy]

Over the weekend, my family got into a debate about the best baseball player ever. The older crowd was making the argument that Pete Rose was a top 5 player while the younger crowd contended he was a great player but probably top 50 or so. As we discussed many of the baseball greats, the older crowd discussed things like batting average, home runs, a pitcher's wins and the number of strikeouts he'd thrown, RBI, and the younger crowded discussed things like OPS and OPS+ and WAR and VORP and so on.

As the older crowed recounted stories about Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan, it made me wonder if sabermetrics has, in a way, made baseball less enjoyable. As teams gravitate toward efficient baseball players (and not necessarily exciting baseball players), has it made the sport less enjoyable? We value walks more than ever before. We value strikeouts thrown by pitchers less than ever before. Pitchers are expected not to throw complete games. Just get to the 7th inning.

Just something I was wondering about.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Over the weekend, my family got into a debate about the best baseball player ever. The older crowd was making the argument that Pete Rose was a top 5 player while the younger crowd contended he was a great player but probably top 50 or so. As we discussed many of the baseball greats, the older crowd discussed things like batting average, home runs, a pitcher's wins and the number of strikeouts he'd thrown, RBI, and the younger crowded discussed things like OPS and OPS+ and WAR and VORP and so on.

As the older crowed recounted stories about Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan, it made me wonder if sabermetrics has, in a way, made baseball less enjoyable. As teams gravitate toward efficient baseball players (and not necessarily exciting baseball players), has it made the sport less enjoyable? We value walks more than ever before. We value strikeouts thrown by pitchers less than ever before. Pitchers are expected not to throw complete games. Just get to the 7th inning.

Just something I was wondering about.

no, theyve made analyzing the game better and more accurate.

 

[Voltaire26]

I think some teams are guilty of over-analyzing, but saber-metrics has not lessens the excitement of the game or kept really good players off the field.

As far as Pete Rose, the thing that made him good was his versatility and his all out nature when playing the game. Nolan Ryan was a rare player who could play at a high level at an older age.

 

[Shoeshine Boy]

The thing old timers don't ever seem to realize is that all the "old school" stats were at one time just a bunch of made-up numbers created to highlight a player's value to his team, too.

 

[Thruthefog]

Over the weekend, my family got into a debate about the best baseball player ever. The older crowd was making the argument that Pete Rose was a top 5 player while the younger crowd contended he was a great player but probably top 50 or so. As we discussed many of the baseball greats, the older crowd discussed things like batting average, home runs, a pitcher's wins and the number of strikeouts he'd thrown, RBI, and the younger crowded discussed things like OPS and OPS+ and WAR and VORP and so on.

As the older crowed recounted stories about Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan, it made me wonder if sabermetrics has, in a way, made baseball less enjoyable. As teams gravitate toward efficient baseball players (and not necessarily exciting baseball players), has it made the sport less enjoyable? We value walks more than ever before. We value strikeouts thrown by pitchers less than ever before. Pitchers are expected not to throw complete games. Just get to the 7th inning.

Just something I was wondering about.

No. Your family had a good conversation, unless it degraded into a violent brawl. Then it was great.

 

[knowyourenemy]

no, theyve made analyzing the game better and more accurate.

Sure -- but as teams look for players that have high walk-rates, for example, are we losing some entertainment value? Are players trying to draw more walks and not necessarily trying to hit the ball? Walks are boring. Has it impacted the game in a negative way?

 

[knowyourenemy]

The thing old timers don't ever seem to realize is that all the "old school" stats were at one time just a bunch of made-up numbers created to highlight a player's value to his team, too.

Old timers don't always seem to understand the analytical tools and so they discount them. I'm not too concerned about debating the value of sabermetric stats . . . I'm more curious if their use has contributed to the game being less entertaining over time. I used to watch baseball all the time. Now I never watch. Part of that has coincided with the Phillies being terrible but I don't imagine I'll start watching again -- even if the Phillies start winning again. The sport just doesn't do it for me anymore and that seems to be the case for a lot of people.

 

[Ojb81]

Top 50??! Charlie Hustle is absolutely a top-5 all-timer. You smack any of your loved ones who disagree, and you smack 'em good.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Sure -- but as teams look for players that have high walk-rates, for example, are we losing some entertainment value? Are players trying to draw more walks and not necessarily trying to hit the ball? Walks are boring. Has it impacted the game in a negative way?

no. in fact, teams are moving AWAY from some sabrmetrics. example? leadoff hitters. look who the cubs trot out there.
the days of "just get on base" are almost over i think...guys who are just fast, slap hitting .230 hitters are not going to have jobs. they want guys who can mash. THATS an example of sabr moving in a different direction than it was previously.

formulas change.

 

[Chewbaccer]

No really. I'm far from well versed in the advanced stats(and I'm not an older guy either), but baseball is still by far my favorite sport.

 

[Shoeshine Boy]

Well attendance has been pretty static, TV ratings have been trending up, and revenues are trending way up, so that would seem to refute the notion that people don't find it entertaining.

Now, for hard-liners who hate the DH, turf, night games, etc., who might have their sensibilities offended by the changes in the way the game is fundamentally played over the last couple decades that have strong underpinnings in sabermetric analysis...for them OK maybe they don't enjoy it so much, but I think for most people that love the game, they still love the game. Advanced stats just tell us more about what we see, they don't change our enjoyment of what we see.

 

[JohnU]

Next time you go to a game, turn to the guy behind you and ask him what Soandso's bWAR is. If he can tell you that and the guys wRC+, then you can get your spreadsheets out and evaluate the game you chose not to watch. If you went to the game to watch it and glance up at the board and it says Soandso is hitting .281 and has 6 HR and 31 RBI, you can nod and say he's one of the more productive hitters on the field.

But if you want to geek it out with your buds online, have at it.

Advanced metrics explains trades and various player movements but it has almost nothing to do with making a ballgame enjoyable. Unless you camp out in the "social media" section of the ballpark -- where the chicks in the tight tee shirts are NOT sitting.

 

[BigKen]

The problem with baseball is that it's too slow. Kids today won't watch because the pitchers are taking 2 minutes between pitches, batters are stepping out and nobody seems to care that a game Saturday between Boston and Tampa Bay to four hours and thirty two minutes.

As far as Sabrmetrics are concerned, the younger crowd loves the WAR, OPS, OBP etc. The older guys more easily understand AVE., Runs, RBI, and stolen bases.

The only game I'll watch is when Chris Sales is pitching. His last game was 2 hours 18 minutes. He threw 7+ innings struck out 12 and gave up two monster home runs. Sox won but it was a great game to watch...........and not fall asleep by the third inning

 

[soxfan1468927]

Over the weekend, my family got into a debate about the best baseball player ever. The older crowd was making the argument that Pete Rose was a top 5 player while the younger crowd contended he was a great player but probably top 50 or so. As we discussed many of the baseball greats, the older crowd discussed things like batting average, home runs, a pitcher's wins and the number of strikeouts he'd thrown, RBI, and the younger crowded discussed things like OPS and OPS+ and WAR and VORP and so on.

As the older crowed recounted stories about Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan, it made me wonder if sabermetrics has, in a way, made baseball less enjoyable. As teams gravitate toward efficient baseball players (and not necessarily exciting baseball players), has it made the sport less enjoyable? We value walks more than ever before. We value strikeouts thrown by pitchers less than ever before. Pitchers are expected not to throw complete games. Just get to the 7th inning.

Just something I was wondering about.

If the older crowd values BA, HR, and RBI; why would they think Rose was a top 5 player all time? He hit .303, which is solid but not in the top 150 all time. And he was never top 10 in HR or RBI.

I tend to think Rose gets both over and underrated. Overrated by people who think he's a top 5 player all time (I'd have him between 30 and 40 for position players), and underrated by those who look at his career stats and judge on that. He had a tremendous 15 year prime from 1965-1979. Had he retired in 1979, he still would have been 16th all time in plate appearances, had 3300 hits, and only 2 other players with more plate appearances would have a higher BA (Cobb/Musial). All that while playing full seasons at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, LF, and RF. Plus a World Series MVP.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Yeah, Sabemetrics are all dog shit

guy bats .317 28HR and 115 RBI

But he had a shitty year because Keith Law said so

 

[soxfan1468927]

Yeah, Sabemetrics are all dog shit

guy bats .317 28HR and 115 RBI

But he had a shitty year because Keith Law said so

The lowest WAR for the season that meets your criteria, that I can find, is Dante Bichette in 1995. .340/40/128 and finished 91st in the NL with a 1.1 WAR.

Now, Bichette wasn't a good defensive left fielder at all and this was the height of the Coors Era. Had 31 HRs at home and 9 on the road. His OPS+ was 130 and he had a .984 OPS. To really understand how much Coors Field was expected to affect him, Barry Larkin had an OPS that was 100 points lower, and yet an OPS+ that was 4 points higher.

 

[DragonfromTO]

If the older crowd values BA, HR, and RBI; why would they think Rose was a top 5 player all time? He hit .303, which is solid but not in the top 150 all time. And he was never top 10 in HR or RBI.

I tend to think Rose gets both over and underrated. Overrated by people who think he's a top 5 player all time (I'd have him between 30 and 40 for position players), and underrated by those who look at his career stats and judge on that. He had a tremendous 15 year prime from 1965-1979. Had he retired in 1979, he still would have been 16th all time in plate appearances, had 3300 hits, and only 2 other players with more plate appearances would have a higher BA (Cobb/Musial). All that while playing full seasons at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, LF, and RF. Plus a World Series MVP.

I suspect that the common thread in the people who overrate him is feelings. They feel a certain way about Pete, and he makes them feel a certain way, and that feeling has value to them. But it's not necessarily the same thing that wins baseball games.

 

[ElTexan]

The biggest thing saber has done is emphasize slugging and obp over average.
That means bigger hits: more exciting.
It also means shrinking the strike zone which means better hits when making contact.

So how can it be less exciting? A few more walks?? Meh.

EDIT: Sabre has gotten rid of base stealing. I guess that one thing is more boring than before.