Michael Lewis says Moneyball made baseball more boring

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

That's the thing. The pitchers have become so filthy it necessitates maximizing your chances of hitting a homer. If the pitchers of 1963 were pitching today, some of them would probably be dead from liners right back at them.

Those guys would be in their 80s. Hell, they're mostly dead now.
 
It absolutely did. The quants solved the game competitively but broke it aesthetically.
I think that the published work of Bill James in the 80's was what really started the analytical movement, especially after James got hired by the Red Sox, and they won the World Series. Moneyball exposed the concepts to a much wider audience but the changes were already taking place because the analytical people basically got it right.
 
Baseball's leadership has to be more proactive to restore movement in the game. Not necessarily more offense, but movement. The bigger bases have helped that. Now find a way to make contact matter again and keep the game in motion - and motion other than a player walking to the dugout or first base or jogging around the bases.

There's plenty of movement. What needs to change is plate approach. Putting the ball in play, by some teams anyway, is still discouraged over swinging for the fences.

I think that the published work of Bill James in the 80's was what really started the analytical movement, especially after James got hired by the Red Sox, and they won the World Series. Moneyball exposed the concepts to a much wider audience but the changes were already taking place because the analytical people basically got it right.

There's an element of truth to this, but batting averages hung in the 250s until 2018 when they began to plummet. That coincides with shifts, rampant staff days and "openers".

Combined with three true outcomes? It sunk offense apart from home runs which are being hit a higher clip than the steroid era. The five highest home runs per game seasons were in the last five years, peaking at 1.39 in 2019. This year is down in comparison (1.13), but would still be top 10 all-time.

I'm glad some teams are starting to zag instead of zig to employ a running game, but until plate approach changes, it will only go so far.

Edit: Balls In Play rate for 2024 is top five worst in history at 24.35 per game. The highest in my lifetime of watching baseball was in 1979 when it was at 28.75. The number hasn't been above 30 since 1948.
 
The problem with analytics is that people decide that because some strategies and playing techniques are statistically preferable much of the time, they are universally preferable all of the time. Thus you have banjo-hitting infielders swinging from the heels for home runs.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
That's the thing. The pitchers have become so filthy it necessitates maximizing your chances of hitting a homer. If the pitchers of 1963 were pitching today, some of them would probably be dead from liners right back at them.
At a game at Dodger Stadium in the '80s, 50 year old Sandy Koufax, just for a laugh, threw some Dodger BP. After about three batters, Tommy Lasorda came out and shooed him off because the Dodgers couldn't hit his stuff out of the cage. So I think he'd do fine today, just like I think Henry Aaron would hit pretty well.
 
Sorry for making a joke at the expense of the White Sox. I was mostly referencing the Athletic story about Reinsdorf and how they've lagged other organizations in their analytics department. Carry on.

Also, Go Cubs (who will also be at home this winter for as long as the Sox).
 
At a game at Dodger Stadium in the '80s, 50 year old Sandy Koufax, just for a laugh, threw some Dodger BP. After about three batters, Tommy Lasorda came out and shooed him off because the Dodgers couldn't hit his stuff out of the cage. So I think he'd do fine today, just like I think Henry Aaron would hit pretty well.

How about Johnny Podres?
 
At a game at Dodger Stadium in the '80s, 50 year old Sandy Koufax, just for a laugh, threw some Dodger BP. After about three batters, Tommy Lasorda came out and shooed him off because the Dodgers couldn't hit his stuff out of the cage. So I think he'd do fine today, just like I think Henry Aaron would hit pretty well.
It was before a World Series game against the Yankees.
 
One of the main principles of analytics which has become pretty much universal across all sports is, if you're not going to win the championship, **** it, tear down the entire organization to the blocks and start over again.
"Tanking" has become the operative philosophy.

So essentially, if a team makes the playoffs and advances one round then loses, the immediate inclination is to blow it up and suck for 6-8 years. It's a never ending race to the bottom.
 
I think that the published work of Bill James in the 80's was what really started the analytical movement, especially after James got hired by the Red Sox, and they won the World Series. Moneyball exposed the concepts to a much wider audience but the changes were already taking place because the analytical people basically got it right.
Baseball Prospectus and Baseball Primer were pretty big around the time John Henry bought the Red Sox. A few of the posters got major league jobs from research they did independently.
 
The stat I saw a couple of years ago was telling: More than one-third of the at-bats in baseball result in the ball not being put into play: homers, strikeouts, walks and hit batters.

The analytics are great over a 162-game season and getting to a 90-72 record to make the playoffs. Not so good for a seven-game series.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top