Jump to content

Analytics ruining sports?


rico

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I just think the pitchers are not being trained right to pitch a lot of innings early so when they get to the minors they are not ready to throw many innings.  Also I think to many pitchers are trying to throw 100 instead of learning to pitch and they throw there arms out.

On the other hand, it may be that due to kids being funneled into just one sport, and then playing it, depending on where they live, 8,9, 12 months of the year, the overuse of those muscles has made it impossible for them to pitch deep into games 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 5fouls said:

I'm kind of with Scott on this one.  Pitchers are babied too much.  I'm not saying you should have them throw 200 pitches.  But, let them go beyond 5 or 6 innings every once in a while.  

All about the pitch count, I don't like it either.  About cost the Cubs the game today actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 5fouls said:

Pitchers don't pitch to contact any more.  Greg Maddux used to throw 85 pitches in a complete game.  Pitchers these days (especially Reds starters) seem to get to that number in the 4th or 5th inning.

There ya have it.  And I blame that on metrics a tad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, rico said:

All about the pitch count, I don't like it either.  About cost the Cubs the game today actually.

As a Cubs fan who watched Dusty Baker shorten the careers of Prior, Wood, and Zambrano because of high pitch counts I don't mind being a little cautious. Especially with pitchers who have a history of injury (like Chatwood does in Cubs game today). 

In terms of analytics. I think there's absolutely a time and place. Smartest coaches in any sport always used stats or data to exploit an opponent's weakness. No different today...they just have a bigger platform because data is so prevalent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

As a Cubs fan who watched Dusty Baker shorten the careers of Prior, Wood, and Zambrano because of high pitch counts I don't mind being a little cautious. Especially with pitchers who have a history of injury (like Chatwood does in Cubs game today). 

In terms of analytics. I think there's absolutely a time and place. Smartest coaches in any sport always used stats or data to exploit an opponent's weakness. No different today...they just have a bigger platform because data is so prevalent. 

And how many relievers did the Cubs use after Chatwood was pulled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

As a Cubs fan who watched Dusty Baker shorten the careers of Prior, Wood, and Zambrano because of high pitch counts I don't mind being a little cautious. Especially with pitchers who have a history of injury (like Chatwood does in Cubs game today). 

In terms of analytics. I think there's absolutely a time and place. Smartest coaches in any sport always used stats or data to exploit an opponent's weakness. No different today...they just have a bigger platform because data is so prevalent. 

If those guys had pitched to contact, their pitch count would not have gotten so high.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just love to go and shoot the guy who thought that taking the mid range game in basketball was a great idea.  I think guys taking shots that you have a better percentage of hitting is always a good shot.  To me now if you know all you have to defend is the 3 point line of the rim then you are a lot easier to defend.  To me the best shot is the open shot and should be taken and not passed up so you can take a contested shot at the rim or a 3 pointer.  the U teams of the early 90's did not shoot a great mount of 3's yet they scored around 80 points a game and shot a great percentage.  Cheaney, Anderson and Henderson made a living on hitting the 5 foot shot from the baseline but today you never see that shot at all.

Why don't we let these computer nerds program robots to play the game so we can just have a perfect game and take out any human nature out of the game.  To me that is what metrics does is it tries to take all human element out of the game and try to make everything perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

If those guys had pitched to contact, their pitch count would not have gotten so high.  

That's not what we're discussing though. Pitch to contact or not....when you run guys out there for 118 pitches every 5th day for 3-4 years straight it causes damage. I agree with you in the sense they should have changed their strategy but the number of pitches is squarely on the manager. I have no problem with coaches pulling certain guys (injuries, developing confidence,etc...). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder sometimes too if there isn't a "bigger stronger faster" mentality to baseball that doesn't necessarily work all that well. I know there are exceptions but Bill James talks about this in his historical abstract about players that are shorter in stature. I think it was under the Yogi Berra comment, but when you look at all time greats, those guys weren't all that all. I know Mickey Mantle was listed at 5'11 but my father has a picture of himself & Mantle. My dad was maybe 5'7 and a half. Mantle is taller, but I'd put him in the 5'10 category at best. I'm 6'0 and have had met Greg Maddux. He's not 6'0. Neither is Pedro Martinez. Willie Mays was sub-6'0 as well. Pete Rose less than 6'0. So was Joe Morgan. I know for a fact George Brett wasn't 6'0. Neither was Kirby Puckett. Even today's game has some sub-6'0 guys that are pretty good such as Jose Altuve, Javier Baez and the like. Tim Hudson wasn't 6'0 tall when he was pitching really well. Yogi Berra was like 5'6-5'7! Dustin Pedroia isn't 6'0. I've met Don Mattingly on numerous occasions and he's not 6'0 although he's close. 

I know we can go in a ton of directions here with PEDs and what not, but I wonder if we'd see less injuries and more traditional baseball if the players were more in the 5'7-6'1 range. There are always going to be exceptions of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

That's not what we're discussing though. Pitch to contact or not....when you run guys out there for 118 pitches every 5th day for 3-4 years straight it causes damage. I agree with you in the sense they should have changed their strategy but the number of pitches is squarely on the manager. I have no problem with coaches pulling certain guys (injuries, developing confidence,etc...). 

Nothing wrong with what you said.  But who exactly calls the pitches?  Is the catcher not constantly looking over to the dugout?  The managers are over thinking themselves yet again with their pitch chart on every batter.  No different than they do with the shift, etc.  

I completely concur with you on the pitch count though and how it is used in various situation to handle pitchers.  And there are other variables that go into that as well.  Such as going through the line-up the second or third time.  Weather conditions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A different thought. I don't know if any of you guys are familiar with the book Lords of the Realm by John Helyar. It's an outstanding baseball book if you haven't read it, but it definitely got me thinking about the game & how it changes post 94-strike in that it really did turn into a sport about home runs and then the sabermetric revolution took over. Basically baseball underwent quite a few changes in 1968 after it was such a pitching dominated era. I thought that Bud Selig really missed the boat with baseball in that once it swung the other way in that offense was dominating, he should have then switched it back to more pitching/defensive friendly. Raise the seams on the baseball. Make the parks bigger. Raise the pitching mound. That might have saved A LOT of trauma for baseball if he had been that proactive.

Sure PEDs were a problem, but if he had made baseball a "harder" game for power then PEDs in theory wouldn't have mattered. Pitchers might be more able to pitch to contact if it was 350 down the lines, 400 in the alleys and 450 to CF. That clearly would have led to an emphasis on defense as well because you'd need guys to cover that much ground.

It's something I think Manfried should actually entertain as the game has become more like a 3-true outcomes game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hoosiermd said:

I wonder sometimes too if there isn't a "bigger stronger faster" mentality to baseball that doesn't necessarily work all that well. I know there are exceptions but Bill James talks about this in his historical abstract about players that are shorter in stature. I think it was under the Yogi Berra comment, but when you look at all time greats, those guys weren't all that all. I know Mickey Mantle was listed at 5'11 but my father has a picture of himself & Mantle. My dad was maybe 5'7 and a half. Mantle is taller, but I'd put him in the 5'10 category at best. I'm 6'0 and have had met Greg Maddux. He's not 6'0. Neither is Pedro Martinez. Willie Mays was sub-6'0 as well. Pete Rose less than 6'0. So was Joe Morgan. I know for a fact George Brett wasn't 6'0. Neither was Kirby Puckett. Even today's game has some sub-6'0 guys that are pretty good such as Jose Altuve, Javier Baez and the like. Tim Hudson wasn't 6'0 tall when he was pitching really well. Yogi Berra was like 5'6-5'7! Dustin Pedroia isn't 6'0. I've met Don Mattingly on numerous occasions and he's not 6'0 although he's close. 

I know we can go in a ton of directions here with PEDs and what not, but I wonder if we'd see less injuries and more traditional baseball if the players were more in the 5'7-6'1 range. There are always going to be exceptions of course.

Interesting thoughts there.  I would say the law of averages applies to baseball as far as the average height of a man.  What is it now?  5-9, 5-10?  But Willie McCovey was tall, McGwire, Randy Johnson, Frank Thomas....so I don't know.  Thinking that the taller guys gravitate to football and basketball?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rico said:

Interesting thoughts there.  I would say the law of averages applies to baseball as far as the average height of a man.  What is it now?  5-9, 5-10?  But Willie McCovey was tall, McGwire, Randy Johnson, Frank Thomas....so I don't know.  Thinking that the taller guys gravitate to football and basketball?

Absolutely! Throw guys in there like Ted Williams, Mike Schmidt, Babe Ruth & Lou Gehrig too. There is definitely going to be exceptions like I say, but I wonder sometimes with just how the human body adapts. I don't practice orthopedic surgery, but I know a lot of guys who talk about taller guys just being more injury prone because their limbs are so long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hoosiermd said:

Absolutely! Throw guys in there like Ted Williams, Mike Schmidt, Babe Ruth & Lou Gehrig too. There is definitely going to be exceptions like I say, but I wonder sometimes with just how the human body adapts. I don't practice orthopedic surgery, but I know a lot of guys who talk about taller guys just being more injury prone because their limbs are so long. 

Well, I definitely think that agility would be an issue for tall baseball players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m against the grain on this one.  I have no problem with the shift whatsoever.  “Hit ‘em where they ain’t.”  If you can only pull the ball and can’t go the other way, those are the breaks.  You live and die that way.  I’d be very disappointed if they ever changed that rule artificially.  Hitters can adjust or not, it’s up to them and their respective hit tools.  If you’re a dead pull hitter with power and can’t figure out how to read a breaking pitch outside and go the other way with it, that’s a tradeoff in the player’s skill set.  You get the power but have to die with the inability to understand hitting. 

Same thing with pitching changes.  I don’t see a need to limit pitching changes. It’s boring in one sense but on the other hand there’s no need to change the integrity of the game.  

Baseball has been played for 150 years and there are evolutions but making fundamental changes to adjust or wipe out modern strategies isn’t the answer.  

To answer the original question, I like what the math tells you and how strategies adjust accordingly.  I still believe in stats like rbi’s and batting average and some poo poo it.  OPS is probably more telling, but I judge a hit tool based on average.  

Plus, there’s always a place for the eye test and film work.  Math can’t tell you everything.  The football sites like PFF are particularly challenging.  They grade individual players laughingly quickly, without having any way to know the player’s responsibility on a play.  When you look at something like an offensive guard, he’s working in a unit.  You might think he got beat but perhaps it was an impossible play call where the offensive coordinator got caught with his pants down, or the player is compensating for his linemate who got beat, or the back completely improvised or messed up the play.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that analytics don't work doesn't make any sense.  There is a reason every team follows a lot of them.  It isn't like it is the only thing we've ever known and a different way of playing hasn't come out yet.  Do we really think all 30 MLB teams are so stupid and stubborn that even though the old way was better, they won't go back to it?

This isn't old school baseball.  Some of the stud pitchers will go deep, but it is usually better to have a sub 3.00 ERA guy coming in fresh from the pen throwing 99 than a 3rd starter going through the lineup for the 3rd time.  Sometimes people take it too far (looking at you Joe Maddon, game 7 of the World Series), but the odds work.  Baseball isn't a perfect game.  Even if a guy has a 3.00 ERA, there is a 1 in 3 chance that he will give up a run when coming in for relief.  That makes it really easy to second guess manager's decisions, but the numbers work.  If a s starter has a record of having a 4.50 ERA the 3rd time through a lineup in 90 career starts, and you have 3 relievers with sub 3.00 ERAs to finish the last 3 innings, the numbers work.  Over time, more often than not the right decision would be to go with the relievers.  Obviously you take into account how the starter is doing, but the eyes can easily deceive.

As far as injuries, a big part of it is simple physics.  If you have guys who are bigger, stronger, and throwing harder, there is more force placed on parts of the body that weren't meant to handle it.  Elbows weren't meant to deal with the stress of repeatedly throwing 100 mph fastballs under maximum effort.  Same in basketball and football.  The human knee wasn't meant to handle a near 7 foot, 280 pound guy running a 4.7 40 time and then trying to stop on a dime.  Much less force required for a 6 foot tall, 200 pound guy doing the same thing.

What do people think Greg Maddux was?  He was a human computer.  He knew the tendencies of every single hitter he was facing.  How they hit each pitch, what to throw to each guy in each count.  How to set up the 3rd at bat in the 1st at bat by pitching against those tendencies once, and pitching to them later.  Obviously being able to hit his spot every single pitch helped a ton, but he isn't a hall of famer without being an analytical person and knowing all the numbers.

As for bunting against the shift, these aren't guys who are getting a bunt down every single time.  As I once heard it put, people assume it will be like Steph Curry going to the line, but what they really get is Shaq.  And don't start with, well, these guys should have been taught the fundamentals of how to bunt.  The guys who are getting shifted against were probably hitting 20 home runs in 30 high school games.  No coach in their right mind makes them bunt in a game.  Same thing in college.  Same thing going through the minors.  They'll occasionally practice bunting, but it is a different game to try to put a bunt down in a game against an MLB pitcher.  If Bryce Harper doesn't get it far enough or close enough to the line and gets thrown out at 1st, that's a complete waste of an at bat for one of the best hitters in baseball.  Harper would probably have to successfully bunt close to 10 times to get rid of a shift on him.  The other teams know the numbers play out to let him try to do it, so they aren't going to care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, rico said:

A 3.00 ERA does not translate into a 1-3 chance of giving up a run.^^^^^^^^^

In an over simplified way. 3 runs every 9 innings is 1 every 3. Yes, obviously some of those runs came from multiple runs in an inning, so if the person pitched 90 innings and gave up 30 runs, they might have only given up runs in 20 different innings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leathernecks said:

In an over simplified way. 3 runs every 9 innings is 1 every 3. Yes, obviously some of those runs came from multiple runs in an inning, so if the person pitched 90 innings and gave up 30 runs, they might have only given up runs in 20 different innings.

My point was that you used a bad example and I know all to well how the ERA stat is formulated.  But you are missing out on something there when it comes to relief pitchers.  And that be what they do with inherited runners.  A reliever can come into a game with 2 out and the bases loaded and promptly give up a bases clearing double and the runs don't count against his ERA.  There are lots of metrics out there that don't get tracked out there efficiently enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

I didn't see people saying that, rather that analytics are effective enough to potentially ruin the game.

That I can agree with.  Coaches using analytics over common sense.  My star is 0 for 15, do I use the team's superstar because all analytics suggest it or go with someone who has been hot.  (0 for 15 is meant to be for several sports).  Analytics are a tool or an aid, not a how-to instruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...