Michael Lewis says Moneyball made baseball more boring

Article in S.F. Chronicle Susan Slusser interviewed Lewis and a quote “I kind of agree that Moneyballing baseball made it more boring”.

Eye opening to me to see him admit that.

Maybe should have put in MLB thread but thought it could be a bigger discussion on it’s own.

 

It absolutely did. The quants solved the game competitively but broke it aesthetically.

 

Do runners ever get caught between 2nd and 3rd anymore?

 

But once Beane had figured it out, Boston had already starting doing it. Wasn't that Theo's line about the book when it became popular? "You told everyone how to do it!"

That said, I don't think Lewis is saying the book "Moneyball" hurt the game, but that the concept did. But that's the thing - once someone figured it out, eventually they all would (well, maybe White Sox excluded?!). So leadership and the commissioner's office are the ones on the hook for not figuring it out and seeing the impact three true outcomes, lineup turnover success and further specialized, max-effort relief pitching might bring. That's where the blame lies, not the GMs and scouts and analytics departments. Theo's tried a few measures and I'm sure he and other have more ideas coming (I hope), but it often takes so long to implement something in baseball that it just falls further and further behind.

The NFL figured this out and they just say, "fuck it, here's a rule change, go play this season" - often to further protect offenses and keep scoring going, and they usually just implement something new right away and tell the players to deal. Sure, unions and collective bargaining positions in the two sports are very different, etc. etc. etc., but that's at least part of the reason the NFL continues to prosper year after year. (Not all of the reason, obviously, but it's part.)

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.

 

Lewis is correct.

 

Branch Rickey was doing all kinds of proto-sabermetric stuff in the 1920s.

 

Didn't they win a World Series after Moneyball?

 

To me the NHL and NBA have pretty much the same issue. Analytics, among other factors, have led to strategic choices that increase one's chance of winning while at the same time making the game less interesting to watch - in hockey, rigid defensive structures, in basketball constant three-pointers.

 

Did Moneyball cause everyone to strike out these days?

 

Well, in a way, it did. Three true outcomes.

The swing planes of today's sluggers would be different had they been playing in 1963.

 

Same with basketball— it makes mathematical sense but I have no desire to see 80+ 3 point attempts per game.