Interesting baseball take

Joe Maddon on the use of analytics:

"It's been kind of difficult overall. I'm into
analytics, but not to the point
everybody wants to shove it down
your throat. Real baseball people have
felt somewhat impacted by all of this.
You're unable to just go to the ballpark
and have some fun and play baseball.
It's too much controlled by front
offices today ... In general the industry
has gone too far in that direction and
that's part of the reason people aren't
into our game as much as they have
been.'
In other words, Maddon is telling the
Nerds to stay in your lane.

Analytics win. Any team that decides not to use them because "it's more fun without them" or whatever can have "more fun" losing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

Analytics win. Any team that decides not to use them because "it's more fun without them" or whatever can have "more fun" losing.

---

I disagree. They work to a point. Which was his opinion. He's a weirdo, but he's won a couple WS and been manager of the year 3 times. There's a time for getting away from analytics. Go with your gut. And he's right that's it's making baseball worse to watch too. I'd say baseball is starting to agree since they're looking at eliminating some of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooterpoot

I disagree. They work to a point. Which was his opinion. He's a weirdo, but he's won a couple WS and been manager of the year 3 times. There's a time for getting away from analytics. Go with your gut. And he's right that's it's making baseball worse to watch too. I'd say baseball is starting to agree since they're looking at eliminating some of it.

---

He won a WS with the Cubs who's GM at the time full embraced Analytics.

I'm fine with eliminating certain things, but arguing against analytics is like arguing against math.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HancockCountyDog

He won a WS with the Cubs who's GM at the time full embraced Analytics.

I'm fine with eliminating certain things, but arguing against analytics is like arguing against math.

---

And if you understand how things went down with the Cubs and Maddon, he said Theo took over things and tried to control things more after they won the World Series. And look, Joe is the guy that routinely put his best hitter in the 2 hole and his pitcher in the 8 hole. So he's got his things too. But he's not wrong. Anyone that can prove analytics work 100% of the time is certainly welcome to prove that. It works to a percentage. Varying can be good, or bad. But simply following kills the game.

I mean, if you have a coin that lands 55% heads and 45% tails, and you bet on tails regularly, you'll win sometimes. But you are still much better off in the long run betting on heads.

You can't gamble if you're scared. Can't make the shots you're too scared to take. Can't hit the pitch you don't swing at. When you become so predictable, the variables change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

I mean, if you have a coin that lands 55% heads and 45% tails, and you bet on tails regularly, you'll win sometimes. But you are still much better off in the long run betting on heads.

---

Here is where baseball analytics vary from your example. The opposition understands your analytics and will combat it. For example, a batter is a pull hitter 75% of the time so you decide to play the numbers and shift the infielders. The problem is that he was a pull hitter 75% of the time when the infield played him in normal positions. As soon as you shift, he starts hitting the other way 75% of the time. When you change his odds, he changes with you. It's constant adjustments.

"Guys don't make me point at Pete"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebodyshotmypaw

Here is where baseball analytics vary from your example. The opposition understands your analytics and will combat it. For example, a batter is a pull hitter 75% of the time so you decide to play the numbers and shift the infielders. The problem is that he was a pull hitter 75% of the time when the infield played him in normal positions. As soon as you shift, he starts hitting the other way 75% of the time. When you change his odds, he changes with you. It's constant adjustments.

---

The problem with the game now is that the hitters WONT go the other way when they see the shift. They believe they can still beat it with "launch angle" more often then not. It's why the game is now filled with .240 hitters who hit 20 HR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

The problem with the game now is that the hitters WONT go the other way when they see the shift. They believe they can still beat it with "launch angle" more often then not. It's why the game is now filled with .240 hitters who hit 20 HR.

---

I was about to make a similar point. The opposition not only puts the shift on the pull hitter, but they also pitch inside to him. And if he has that ?launch angle? swing like our guys who totaled 95 Homeruns this year they can get a lot of weak pop ups inside of 2 run singles, like we needed about 100 times this year. Also, if you are using the analytics, why are you shifting on a guy who is hitting .240, is 1 for his last 25, and desperate to get it going. On the other side, that analytical coach needs to tell him to bunt it the other way for a hit.

The sad thing about the launch angle phenomenon of today is that now teams are okay with .250 with 20 HRs. So they have taken a sport that you
Already only have to achieve 3 out of every 10 times, now they have made you successful 2.5 out of every 10 times. Try that in the real world!

High school guys who hit .310-.340 are getting drafted or signed. 3/4?s of every pitcher they face can?t throw it harder than 80 mph. Good high school hitters should be hitting . 380-.450 against the average pitching they face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebodyshotmypaw

Here is where baseball analytics vary from your example. The opposition understands your analytics and will combat it. For example, a batter is a pull hitter 75% of the time so you decide to play the numbers and shift the infielders. The problem is that he was a pull hitter 75% of the time when the infield played him in normal positions. As soon as you shift, he starts hitting the other way 75% of the time. When you change his odds, he changes with you. It's constant adjustments.

---

That's good though, right? A defense adjusts to a player's tendencies, so the player adjusts to the defense. We want that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santiago

"Guys don't make me point at Pete"

---

LOL! Well played.