SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 29, 2022 16:35:43 GMT -5
Some are acting as if it is something crazy like a HR more per game when it is more like 1 more HR every 3 or 4 games based on the numbers. How the heck is 1 more HR every 3 or 4 games ruining or really changing the game for the worse. One more HR every 30 or so innings doesn't seem like a problem to me. What time period are you talking about? Because if you compare like 1978 to 2021, it's double. Total home runs - 5929 to 2956. If you compare 1968 which is when the mound was lowered a year later to 2021, it's triple. I can't find home runs per 9 innings and admittingly the league has expanded, but there wouldn't be any TTO players if there weren't as many home runs now. HRs were hit at a rate of around .8 - .9 per game with some lower like during the high pitching mound yrs. 1970 .88 1977 .87 Last yr it was 1.22. In the last 10 years it has varied from .94 to a high of 1.38. When I said 1 every 3,4 games I wasn't going back that far. You can cherry pick yrs to try and prove a point but the difference between .8 and 1.2 is a half a HR per game and those are more run of the mill average numbers, not too cherry picked without me doing a bunch of math to be precise. That would be 50% more HRs. There is also the argument that the pitchers are also so much better that stringing together enough hits to score isn't as effective as going for the fences. That is part of the TTO argument also. Batting averages are down overall so the guys who aren't HR hitters are not as successful getting hits either. IMO the average player is a lot better now and the pitchers aren't able to throw meatballs up there so they throw harder with more spin and for fewer innings. That is the evolution of the game.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 29, 2022 16:58:59 GMT -5
What time period are you talking about? Because if you compare like 1978 to 2021, it's double. Total home runs - 5929 to 2956. If you compare 1968 which is when the mound was lowered a year later to 2021, it's triple. I can't find home runs per 9 innings and admittingly the league has expanded, but there wouldn't be any TTO players if there weren't as many home runs now. HRs were hit at a rate of around .8 - .9 per game with some lower like during the high pitching mound yrs. 1970 .88 1977 .87 Last yr it was 1.22. In the last 10 years it has varied from .94 to a high of 1.38. When I said 1 every 3,4 games I wasn't going back that far. You can cherry pick yrs to try and prove a point but the difference between .8 and 1.2 is a half a HR per game and those are more run of the mill average numbers, not too cherry picked without me doing a bunch of math to be precise. That would be 50% more HRs. There is also the argument that the pitchers are also so much better that stringing together enough hits to score isn't as effective as going for the fences. That is part of the TTO argument also. Batting averages are down overall so the guys who aren't HR hitters are not as successful getting hits either. IMO the average player is a lot better now and the pitchers aren't able to throw meatballs up there so they throw harder with more spin and for fewer innings. That is the evolution of the game. Batting averages are down because everyone is trying to hit home runs and has a launch angle swing. And the differences you're talking about in HR per game is huge. 50% more HR is a huge number. And by the way, I wasn't cherry picking 1978. I could have picked 1976 with only 2265 HR hit. At least 2021 had 843 less HR than 2019.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 29, 2022 17:21:25 GMT -5
HRs were hit at a rate of around .8 - .9 per game with some lower like during the high pitching mound yrs. 1970 .88 1977 .87 Last yr it was 1.22. In the last 10 years it has varied from .94 to a high of 1.38. When I said 1 every 3,4 games I wasn't going back that far. You can cherry pick yrs to try and prove a point but the difference between .8 and 1.2 is a half a HR per game and those are more run of the mill average numbers, not too cherry picked without me doing a bunch of math to be precise. That would be 50% more HRs. There is also the argument that the pitchers are also so much better that stringing together enough hits to score isn't as effective as going for the fences. That is part of the TTO argument also. Batting averages are down overall so the guys who aren't HR hitters are not as successful getting hits either. IMO the average player is a lot better now and the pitchers aren't able to throw meatballs up there so they throw harder with more spin and for fewer innings. That is the evolution of the game. Batting averages are down because everyone is trying to hit home runs and has a launch angle swing. And the differences you're talking about in HR per game is huge. 50% more HR is a huge number. Maybe you are right but I don't think it is as easy as that. in 1961 it was .95/game in 2014 it was .86/game. So it ranges from 1 hr every 2 games to 1 every 5 games.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 29, 2022 17:31:02 GMT -5
Batting averages are down because everyone is trying to hit home runs and has a launch angle swing. And the differences you're talking about in HR per game is huge. 50% more HR is a huge number. Maybe you are right but I don't think it is as easy as that. in 1961 it was .95/game in 2014 it was .86/game. So it ranges from 1 hr every 2 games to 1 every 5 games. HR are up almost 50% since 2014 though.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 29, 2022 18:52:03 GMT -5
HRs were hit at a rate of around .8 - .9 per game with some lower like during the high pitching mound yrs. 1970 .88 1977 .87 Last yr it was 1.22. In the last 10 years it has varied from .94 to a high of 1.38. When I said 1 every 3,4 games I wasn't going back that far. You can cherry pick yrs to try and prove a point but the difference between .8 and 1.2 is a half a HR per game and those are more run of the mill average numbers, not too cherry picked without me doing a bunch of math to be precise. That would be 50% more HRs. There is also the argument that the pitchers are also so much better that stringing together enough hits to score isn't as effective as going for the fences. That is part of the TTO argument also. Batting averages are down overall so the guys who aren't HR hitters are not as successful getting hits either. IMO the average player is a lot better now and the pitchers aren't able to throw meatballs up there so they throw harder with more spin and for fewer innings. That is the evolution of the game. Batting averages are down because everyone is trying to hit home runs and has a launch angle swing. And the differences you're talking about in HR per game is huge. 50% more HR is a huge number. And by the way, I wasn't cherry picking 1978. I could have picked 1976 with only 2265 HR hit. At least 2021 had 843 less HR than 2019. Yeah, the point is not soo much the homers as such; it's the effect of hitting so many homers on the game overall. E.g., people complain about the shift and ask, why don't lefties just learn to go the other way? Because the analytics show that the more efficient approach is to just try to hit homers to RF. But that means more ground ball outs to the right side too.
Things I like in baseball: balls in play, finesse, athleticism, speed. Homers reduce the significance of all those things, both directly and indirectly.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 29, 2022 18:55:04 GMT -5
Maybe you are right but I don't think it is as easy as that. in 1961 it was .95/game in 2014 it was .86/game. So it ranges from 1 hr every 2 games to 1 every 5 games. HR are up almost 50% since 2014 though. Like I said we can cherry pick yrs or look at the last 60 and see that yes they have gone up but they have been up and down the whole time. Like 2019 to 2021 they are down over 10%. www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/bat.shtml
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,977
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 30, 2022 8:51:28 GMT -5
HR are up almost 50% since 2014 though. Like I said we can cherry pick yrs or look at the last 60 and see that yes they have gone up but they have been up and down the whole time. Like 2019 to 2021 they are down over 10%. www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/bat.shtml So you're in FAVOR of cherry-picking?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 30, 2022 9:51:07 GMT -5
Looking at 2019 and 2021 is not cherry picking. It's the most recent relevant data.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 30, 2022 15:22:22 GMT -5
So you're in FAVOR of cherry-picking? Of course not, it was an extreme example of cherry picking. Why do you think I added the link. If you read the posts you would know better.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 4, 2022 23:08:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 5, 2022 0:51:19 GMT -5
I wonder how long it will take for an Ump to accidentally leave their mic on while a manager is going on a tirade while swearing like a sailor
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 5, 2022 8:03:54 GMT -5
I wonder how long it will take for an Ump to accidentally leave their mic on while a manager is going on a tirade while swearing like a sailor I'd pay extra for that.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 5, 2022 8:05:56 GMT -5
Question: Who is really driving the pace of play discussion? I've long thought it's bored sportswriters who want to file their stories, and it metastasized from there.
I ask because, while I don't watch golf tourneys, I recently read they are going longer and no one seems to complain.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 5, 2022 9:05:53 GMT -5
I wonder how long it will take for an Ump to accidentally leave their mic on while a manager is going on a tirade while swearing like a sailor I'd pay extra for that.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Apr 5, 2022 10:21:44 GMT -5
Question: Who is really driving the pace of play discussion? I've long thought it's bored sportswriters who want to file their stories, and it metastasized from there. I ask because, while I don't watch golf tourneys, I recently read they are going longer and no one seems to complain. I think this is a legitimate point that is often dismissed. The people complaining about the length of games are not the players. It's the writers, broadcasters, and some fans who apparently have other, better things to do (so go do them). For whatever reason, the main argument these people use is that longer games are bad because baseball will lose young fans. This is a losing argument that people have been making for 50 years (e.g. in a broadcast of the 1971 WS that I watched recently -- OMG! televisions have remote controls now that make it easier for kids to change the channel!) and those young people that were feared lost are now old people (i.e. us) who still love baseball. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the 2021 Red Sox season was that Fenway was filled with rowdy, YOUNG people most of the time. (What was keeping them away before? Maybe astronomical ticket prices?)
As I've pointed out before, everyone can see that NFL games have lengthened from three hours between Sunday games, to 3:15, to 3:25, and it shows no signs of abating. The 5-minute replay reviews and endless "TV timeouts" make the game absolutely drag (e.g. after most TDs, there are three minutes of commercials, they come back for the extra point, and then there are three more minutes of commercials...). And yet it's the most popular thing around for young and old and you never hear broadcasters complaining about the length of NFL games (especially since the NFL would have them fired if they uttered a critical word -- good way to prevent that narrative from creeping in like it has in baseball).
That said, I agree with those who blame "pace of play" in particular on the three-true-outcomes revolution. More swinging for the fences = more Ks, fewer balls in play; more pitchers throwing 98 = more Ks but worse command, more walks; more runs overall = less reward for SBs (need to be >80% successful now to make it worthwhile); more shifts = fewer hits; etc. Notice that none of these things would be fixed with a pitch clock or giant bases (they won't get you to 80% success) or most of the other innovations being cooked up in order to just "do something." Getting rid of extreme shifts should help but ultimately it's going to take a strategy that slays the TTO beast -- e.g. with pitchers inducing weaker contact; hitters who command the strike zone, make more consistent contact, and can also field well -- that finally rejuvenates the beautiful game.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Apr 5, 2022 10:25:37 GMT -5
"Our ass is in the jackpot" ??
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 5, 2022 12:06:44 GMT -5
Comparing the length of an NFL game to an MLB game is misguided because each NFL game is the equivalent of about 9.5 baseball games. If the Red Sox played once a week it'd be different too.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 5, 2022 12:39:19 GMT -5
"How was work today?" Earl NSFW Weaver:
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 5, 2022 12:51:33 GMT -5
"How was work today?" Earl NSFW Weaver: That Earl Weaver (Tom Haller I think?) video is my all time favorite managerial meltdown. Hillarious!
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Apr 5, 2022 14:04:29 GMT -5
Comparing the length of an NFL game to an MLB game is misguided because each NFL game is the equivalent of about 9.5 baseball games. If the Red Sox played once a week it'd be different too. So are you saying MLB should shorten its season so that people don't complain about long games?
There are three NFL games televised every Sunday, one (sometimes two) on Monday, one (sometimes two or three) on Thursday, and occasional games on Saturday (after the college football season ends) and they're all long and they're the most watched programs on television. Plenty of fans will watch all of them, 5+ games per week, regardless of whether the game has a bearing on their favorite team.
People aren't tuning into NFL games for 15-20 hours/week (plus hours of hype during the week) because they need to see how their team will do, they're tuning in because they like watching football and don't care how long a game takes. Turns out that's exactly how I feel about baseball (and hockey -- for football, I only really follow the Patriots and watch their games when I can).
A big part of the NFL's success is that it's more conducive to generating drama than baseball and is much more TV-friendly: one day of games for each team and six days of hype in between. The NFL is also much more centralized, with a unified narrative (like a totalitarian state) compared to baseball; this is reflected in its superior marketing, which is league-centric all season long. Baseball can't even properly market generational talents like Mike Trout. If baseball knew what the hell they were doing with marketing, Andrew McCutcheon would be a household name, even today. Finally, probably the biggest separator of all, NFL games are incredibly intuitive to bet on, which is not the case for baseball.
Ultimately, the games are about the same length between the two sports; one sport clutches its collective pearls constantly over game length and one sport doesn't care. The NFL definitely gets it right on that account too.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 5, 2022 15:26:38 GMT -5
Comparing the length of an NFL game to an MLB game is misguided because each NFL game is the equivalent of about 9.5 baseball games. If the Red Sox played once a week it'd be different too. So are you saying MLB should shorten its season so that people don't complain about long games?
There are three NFL games televised every Sunday, one (sometimes two) on Monday, one (sometimes two or three) on Thursday, and occasional games on Saturday (after the college football season ends) and they're all long and they're the most watched programs on television. Plenty of fans will watch all of them, 5+ games per week, regardless of whether the game has a bearing on their favorite team.
People aren't tuning into NFL games for 15-20 hours/week (plus hours of hype during the week) because they need to see how their team will do, they're tuning in because they like watching football and don't care how long a game takes. Turns out that's exactly how I feel about baseball (and hockey -- for football, I only really follow the Patriots and watch their games when I can).
A big part of the NFL's success is that it's more conducive to generating drama than baseball and is much more TV-friendly: one day of games for each team and six days of hype in between. The NFL is also much more centralized, with a unified narrative (like a totalitarian state) compared to baseball; this is reflected in its superior marketing, which is league-centric all season long. Baseball can't even properly market generational talents like Mike Trout. If baseball knew what the hell they were doing with marketing, Andrew McCutcheon would be a household name, even today. Finally, probably the biggest separator of all, NFL games are incredibly intuitive to bet on, which is not the case for baseball. Ultimately, the games are about the same length between the two sports; one sport clutches its collective pearls constantly over game length and one sport doesn't care. The NFL definitely gets it right on that account too.
Obviously not. I'm saying comparing the length of individual games without even mentioning the massive difference in schedules is a bad way to make a worthy comparison. It's like the difference between going to the gym once a week and going every day, or auditing one class vs being a full time student, one is casual and one is a lifestyle. Compare the length of MLB games to the NBA or NHL, and they feature regular seasons half as long as the MLB. If the length of games were the exact same, the Red Sox would still be asking for 9.5X more of your time than the Patriots require for a regular season. While the large majority of Pats games are concentrated on Sundays and usually in the afternoons during colder weather months, the Red Sox ask for many nights during the summer. The time allocation is just not remotely similar for a fan. You could follow nine NFL teams throughout the year and watch all their games and it'd still be less total games played than just the Red Sox. This is part of the reason why the MLB is a regional game and the NFL isn't. You can watch the Pats and Bucs every week and it's nothing like the time you have to invest to follow the Red Sox. I'm a life long Red Sox fan and care more about them than the Pats, yet I either have most Sox games on as background noise or miss them entirely while I do other stuff - for the Pats, I'm almost always closely watching every play because the stakes are much higher per game.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Apr 5, 2022 16:09:19 GMT -5
|
|
|