Is there a "right" outcome? Why do we like baseball?
Jan 20, 2016 15:17:41 GMT -5
humanbeingbean likes this
Post by stevedillard on Jan 20, 2016 15:17:41 GMT -5
This is a bit esoteric, and I'm genuinely interested in it because it may reveal why we like baseball. Here's the background. This is an issue I have thought about a bit recently, particularly as sabremetrics and BABIP concepts have made use more aware of the individual one-on-one events between a pitcher and a batter. Here's the question: is there be a "right" outcome of each battle. By that I mean baseball's rules don't seem tied to what I perceive as rewarding the winner of that battle. A batter can scorch a line drive or hit a long fly ball, as an out, but can get fooled and dribble a swinging bunt for a hit. While these things even out supposedly over a long season, in an individual game -- indeed the last game (Bucky Dent), or the last out (Willie McCovey) -- it can be unfair. A hard grounder becomes an inning ending DP, while a chopper prevents the DP from being turned. (And don't get me started on the passed ball, where the pitcher "wins" but loses.)
I tend to lean more toward the abstract, where a good hit should be rewarded more than baseball currently does. But when I raised it with others, they seem to disagree with my take. They like watching the game because of this unpredictable nature.
Do people enjoy the somewhat artificial rules of baseball, that a ball caught, no matter how well hit, is an out? Obviously and historically we all have grown up and accept those rules, but if you could construct the game anew, would you still adopt that flyball/ground ball distinction? Even if you accept that distinction, would you tweak it, to distinguish between a hard out vs. a weak play where the batter is fooled?
Or do you tend to see fielding as being a critical part of the game you enjoy, so you view a long liner into the gap, caught by the JBJ-esk centerfielder, as being the "right" result?
In the total opposite end of the spectrum (absurd), for example, with technology today you could you remake baseball to reward hits based on distance travelled, exit velocity, etc. Even to me that is too sterile.
So, I throw this out there, where do you fall on the spectrum?
I tend to lean more toward the abstract, where a good hit should be rewarded more than baseball currently does. But when I raised it with others, they seem to disagree with my take. They like watching the game because of this unpredictable nature.
Do people enjoy the somewhat artificial rules of baseball, that a ball caught, no matter how well hit, is an out? Obviously and historically we all have grown up and accept those rules, but if you could construct the game anew, would you still adopt that flyball/ground ball distinction? Even if you accept that distinction, would you tweak it, to distinguish between a hard out vs. a weak play where the batter is fooled?
Or do you tend to see fielding as being a critical part of the game you enjoy, so you view a long liner into the gap, caught by the JBJ-esk centerfielder, as being the "right" result?
In the total opposite end of the spectrum (absurd), for example, with technology today you could you remake baseball to reward hits based on distance travelled, exit velocity, etc. Even to me that is too sterile.
So, I throw this out there, where do you fall on the spectrum?
