Comment by lprubin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lprubin | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I completely agree that modern analytics has made baseball more boring. More strikeouts, more pitching changes, less stolen bases, more walks, and more pitches per at bat all make the game more boring for sure.

But basketball seems the opposite to me. Analytics has shown that except in a few superstar cases, back to the basket isolation mid range jumpers while the rest of the team stands around and does nothing (IMO the most boring play in basektball), is a terrible play call.

Analytics has shown that the pick and roll is a fantastic play in terms of points expectancy and I find it to be a really enjoyable play to watch because it often results in dunks and nifty passes or acrobatic layup attempts.

Analytics has shown that faster pace, shooting earlier in the shot clock, and getting out in transition more often to be hugely valuable strategies, all strategies that I think are more enjoyable to watch.

The perceived value of 3-pointer shooting has caused offenses to spread the floor creating more driving lines and making it harder for defenses to pack the paint which has created more offense which I think most people enjoy seeing.

I'd love to hear what you think analytics has done to make modern basketball more boring.

I find this interesting, as it actually emphasizes baseball's role as a _passtime_. One of the key aspects in sabermetrics is that activities that carry the risk of an out are disincentivized because baseball is not time-limited, but out-limited. Therefore all the activities that are interesting, but carry that extra risk like stealing, are taken out of the game.

Basketball is time-limited, and therefore the strategy of maximizing the number of shots within that time period as well as maximizing their value, make sense.

I'll note that I don't necessarily think one is better than the other, as each game can have a different approach. I also think that maximizing purely for excitement (from a rules perspective), can lead to gimmicks rather than genuine improvements to the sport.

It's interesting in baseball (I agree the game is less exciting!) because the new way of playing is optimized for winning games, not for fan enjoyment. To me, this says that baseball's structural balance between pitchers and hitters is fundamentally unstable, with both sides optimizing to increase variance.

Analytics only uncovered these structural issues for teams to exploit. Personally, I think if the strikeout rate were tamed back to 1990s levels, the game would balance.

I believe MLB management agrees with you because they're considering testing moving the mound back a foot which would give hitters more time to react and should help balance the strikeout rate.

They also keep messing with the damn ball, which this year has the league hitting about .230 because more fly balls are falling inside the park.

The drop in batting average is primarily due to the increase in strikeout rate. Homers are down, but it's the K rate that is the problem. This is a problem because pitchers are better, but also because analytics has taught that strikeouts are the pitchers best friend, while homers are the hitters'. More attempts to hit homers mean less "2 strike swings" as players used to be taught.

The optimal strategy for both sides is for pitchers to go for the K (increases K rate) and for hitters to try and hit the homerun (also increases the K rate).

Sure those are two of the three true outcomes that the pitcher and hitter have the highest degree of individual control over, so how are you distinguishing that the K-rate is the issue compared to the HR%, which as you noted, is also down? From my POV the hitters optimizing for launch angle (long fly balls instead of lower-trajectory line drives) is just the other side of the equation from pitchers throwing hard and going for high K-rate.

They are considering it, but I don't think there's a ton of evidence that it will balance the strikeout rate. It will probably decrease it, but would also possibly increase walk rates as well as potentially increase SP injury.

Personally I think its boring simply because there really isn't any variety in strategy. I agree that iso basketball can be boring but that isn't really the same thing as having a viable midrange shot. The pick and roll and the drive and kick can all be used to create shots that aren't 3s or immediately under the basket, they just aren't because those shots aren't worth it. And I personally think the most boring playstyle in basketball is exemplified by Kyle Korver: a player who really does nothing but stand on the perimeter and run around screens until someone passes him the ball to shoot a 3.

Ultimately I guess I don't mind if some teams play like today's style of basketball, but I do mind if its the only viable strategy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com