• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Michael Lewis says Moneyball made baseball more boring

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.
 
Lewis' message is correct, what helps you win a game isn't what we grew up looking to see in a baseball game. Fielding mattered, bunts mattered. Yes HRs were cool but that was because it was a special event. Now every position player is swinging for the fences; seeing Reggie go down swinging was exciting; seeing the .225 SS go down swinging (and most everyone else) not so much.
 
Funny, many of the same people who claim to pine for more bunts go into screeching fits over the "ghost runner" rule in extra innings, despite the fact that the one thing it undeniably does is instantly resurrect the sac bunt as a strategically optimal move.
 
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, fork 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'll gently push back on this, especially considering my lifelong favorite team did tank to get better and won the 2016 World Series.

With expanded playoffs now, though, I think more MLB teams feel like they are in the hunt longer than they did in the past. KC is a good example this year. MLB teams know that their tournament is the most random one of all of them, and anyone who makes the tournament has a real chance, just like the D'Backs last year. It's made for a less interesting trade deadline the last few years because more teams go for it than in the past.
 
I'll gently push back on this, especially considering my lifelong favorite team did tank to get better and won the 2016 World Series.

With expanded playoffs now, though, I think more MLB teams feel like they are in the hunt longer than they did in the past. KC is a good example this year. MLB teams know that their tournament is the most random one of all of them, and anyone who makes the tournament has a real chance, just like the D'Backs last year. It's made for a less interesting trade deadline the last few years because more teams go for it than in the past.

The 2019 Nationals are also a great example of how anything can happen in a baseball postseason. The "best" team sometimes doesn't win, which is what makes baseball's diluted postseason more interesting to me.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top