←back to thread

302 points cf100clunk | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.573s | source
Show context
kaycebasques ◴[] No.43536546[source]
If only the Yankees get access to it (e.g. they patented it and won't let other teams use it) then I could see it as an unfair advantage. In most other areas of America life, though, this innovation would be allowed or even celebrated.

I imagine it will go the way of the brilliant strategic innovation a few years back of shifting defenders heavily depending on the batter's statistical hitting patterns. It'll get banned because it makes the game more boring. If home runs happen all the time, they lose their excitement. I imagine it's quite expensive or impossible to shift the outfield walls back farther in most MLB stadiums.

I actually would love more of a no holds barred evolutionary battle in the MLB [1] but I know it's not gonna happen.

[1] https://youtu.be/gTmLz9B8wls

replies(9): >>43536774 #>>43536821 #>>43536921 #>>43537319 #>>43537857 #>>43539516 #>>43539777 #>>43540404 #>>43540699 #
happyopossum ◴[] No.43536821[source]
> If home runs happen all the time, they lose their excitement.

TV ratings show otherwise - in every instance so far, HRs put butts in seats, and defense makes people change the channel. TV and ballpark analytics show this to be true. The common thought is that's why the league ignored abuse during the steroid era so much.

edit - This is also the driving force behind multiple 'juiced ball' conspiracy theories.

replies(4): >>43536931 #>>43536976 #>>43537031 #>>43537099 #
ARandumGuy ◴[] No.43537031[source]
While home runs are exciting, there are limits to that. For several years the MLB has been dealing with "three true outcomes", where a large percentage of at bats end in either a strikeout, walk, or home run.

While this can be exciting for individual at bats, it becomes pretty boring if it's too common. This is because it invalidates every role except the pitcher and batter, and removes a lot of strategy from the game. While this may be fine if you only watch the occasional game, it can get really dull if you watch a lot of games every season.

Home runs are a lot of fun! One of the things that makes baseball exciting is that every pitch has the potential to result in a home run. This adds a lot of tension to the game, and helps keep things engaging. But when home runs become too prevalent, it eliminates other fun aspects of baseball, and makes the game one dimensional and dull.

replies(2): >>43537403 #>>43539153 #
meroes ◴[] No.43539153[source]
I don't quite get what the difference is between now and when Sosa, Bonds, and McGuire were hitting homers, where apparently homers are monotonous. Are we pretending that wasn’t peak baseball? I mean I find the whole infield outside of maybe a triple play more boring than all or nothing home run, intentional walk, and strikeout. There are no grand slams without base hits true, but without the home runs base hits are boring.
replies(1): >>43539952 #
1. duderific ◴[] No.43539952[source]
Close plays on the base paths are pretty exciting.

> I mean I find the whole infield outside of maybe a triple play more boring than all or nothing home run, intentional walk, and strikeout.

The problem is that the strikeout or walk is much more common than the home run.

replies(1): >>43540216 #
2. alabastervlog ◴[] No.43540216[source]
... On reflection, reading this thread, I think this may be yet more of the "baseball is a radio sport" thing, which is also why it dominated before TV, when football started to take over.

Descriptions of close plays are fun. Homers are flashy to watch and easy to understand. The latter may catch more casual-viewer eyeballs.