Neyer asked what the future of sabermetrics ought to be now that offense, pitching, and defense had been adequately addressed and James responded that the future of sabermetrics is to stop looking at how clubs are run and start looking at how the league is run. Rules changes that would alter the game to benefit the fans is something he seemed particularly interested in; he suggested that the number of pitching changes per game be limited in some fashion. James summarized his thoughts thusly (and I paraphrase): "I used to compose letters to teams telling them why I thought what they were doing is wrong. Now I compose those letters to the commissioner."

You know, this is kind of a big deal.

It'll be a big deal if Selig is willing to put more stamps on the game in his remaining time. Otherwise, the next commissioner (Alderson?) is going to be the other half of that big deal.

It'll be a big deal if Selig is willing to put more stamps on the game in his remaining time. Otherwise, the next commissioner (Alderson?) is going to be the other half of that big deal.

Whether it's Selig or his successor, I hope the commish does sincerely listen to thoughtful suggestions from smart, serious people, James certainly included.

In the NBJHBA, James makes some great points about how football and basketball have done a great job over the past few decades in playing close attention to fluctuations in scoring levels and playing styles, and being ready and willing to make frequent minor adjustments in the rules in an effort to keep the game as lively, interesting, and fun as reasonably possible. MLB, meanwhile, has this weird approach which sees the rule book as somehow carved in stone -- since the DH in 1973 there have been no meaningful rule changes, and the only real effort has been to get the umpires to actually follow the stated rules vis-a-vis the strike zone. Yet MLB allows for the introduction of all kinds of changes in ballparks, equipment, player conditioning techniques (and feel free to read PEDs in there, too), and so on, all of which have significant impacts on the way the game is played.

Are all these changes for the better? Would it not make sense for MLB to realize that if conditions have changed that are impacting the way the game is played in a suboptimal direction, they might make an adjustment to the rules to try and mitigate it?

Steve, James made the point about football especially that the league has a way of finding out selfish strategies (things that benefit a team but reduce the fan's enjoyment of the game) and using rule changes to discourage them. I can't think of any examples from football - I'm not really a football fan - but James gave the example in baseball of pitching changes. Lots of pitching changes can benefit a team but can also detract from the fan experience.

It seems that most of the changes made recently by the NBA, NHL, and NFL (2 point conversion, new possession at spot of missed FG, illegal defense, legalizing the 2-line pass, limiting goalie movemement and pads, stricter penalties...) are all designed to increase scoring (or attempts at least attempts at more scoring in the NFL's case). I would guess most people advocating for change in baseball would like to decrease scoring (or for another goal that would have the effect of decreasing scoring).

but how do you limit pitching changes? one of the recent rules is that a new pitcher has to face at least one batter (at least I think it was a relatively recent rule)

I mean I could see a rule stating that the pitcher can't throw any warm-ups once he is called in. (has to finish his warm up in the bullpen) but beyond that I don't really see a way to reduce pitching changes that is fair and makes sense.

I can't think of any examples from football - I'm not really a football fan

The football examples would be uses of defensive tactics that have periodically made it extremely difficult for teams to effectively use the passing game. As a result, the league has periodically tightened up pass interference definitions, and imposed rules to protect the quarterback from getting slaughtered, that have successfully revived the passing game.

one of the recent rules is that a new pitcher has to face at least one batter (at least I think it was a relatively recent rule)

That rule has been in effect for as long as I can remember. It isn't at all recent.

don't really see a way to reduce pitching changes that is fair and makes sense.

You could limit the time per inning the staff can goto the mound rather than time per pitcher. You can limit the number of changes per inning, or allow one change per inning, but no more unless X baserunners are given up by that pitcher...

In otherwords ways to make LaRussa sit on his hands the prick.

cfb might be confusing things with the limit on how many times a manager can visit the mound during an inning.

Of course, even that rule isn't that recent.

In the NBJHBA, James makes some great points about how football and basketball have done a great job over the past few decades in playing close attention to fluctuations in scoring levels and playing styles, and being ready and willing to make frequent minor adjustments in the rules in an effort to keep the game as lively, interesting, and fun as reasonably possible. MLB, meanwhile, has this weird approach which sees the rule book as somehow carved in stone -- since the DH in 1973 there have been no meaningful rule changes, and the only real effort has been to get the umpires to actually follow the stated rules vis-a-vis the strike zone. Yet MLB allows for the introduction of all kinds of changes in ballparks, equipment, player conditioning techniques (and feel free to read PEDs in there, too), and so on, all of which have significant impacts on the way the game is played.

Are all these changes for the better? Would it not make sense for MLB to realize that if conditions have changed that are impacting the way the game is played in a suboptimal direction, they might make an adjustment to the rules to try and mitigate it?

I think baseball suffers from its own history and fan base. "Purists" resist any major change of the rules, which is why baseball today is much more similar to what it was fifty years ago in contrast with basketball, hockey, or football.

As for pitching changes, I am really resistant to constraints on strategy simply to "speed up" the game. With the crappiness of pitching depth, this could actually make games longer if a manager has to leave a terrible pitcher out there to take a beating because he can't make a pitching change.

The tinkering I'd like to see with the game would involve the equipment. Restricting body armor, regulating bat width/weight, altering the balls, raising fences. That could reduce offense, create a more exciting play, and without altering the strategy and structure of the game.

really? I thought it was a relatively new rule(by new I mean post 1979) I thought that you could go to a pitcher, a team could bring in a pinch hitter, and you could then go to another pitcher without having the pitcher throw even one pitch. I guess not.

I wouldn't be in favor of making any cap on pitching changes per game - if we want to go that route, doing something more indirect that would affect usage patterns would be a better idea. For instance, an 11-pitcher cap on the 25-man roster.

One person who had worked with front offices told me that, even today, only three or four teams in baseball are as rigorous with and as receptive to analytics as they ought to be.

So only a handful of teams have research departments who perform analytical tasks for the team?

And if so, does anyone care to guess which teams?

Boston, Toronto and Oakland and maybe San Diego are the obvious answers.

Another thing to consider is that in football, there are stoppages in play all the time. Yet people seem to think of it as a more exciting game. I don't think pitching changes are boring per se, so long as the play in between stoppages is exciting. Reducing the time between pitches, and making the actual game play more exciting (more stolen bases? more triples? fewer walks?) makes the issue of pitching changes irrelevant IMO.

A boring game with no pitching changes is still a boring game.

So only a handful of teams have research departments who perform analytical tasks for the team?

That was this guy's opinion, but then again his view of what teams "ought" to do may have been colored by his interests in seeing hardcore analysis in all front offices. It does, however, jive with what Ricciardi said about Moneyball actually opening people's eyes.

I think something folks here need to keep in mind is the relative salaries of many folks involved in baseball NOT on the baseball field.

Long-time employees in the front office rarely get beyond $60k. Certainly scouts don't make anywhere close to that. The only folks who make market money are the very highest levels. After that folks get "played" because everyone and their cousin wants to be in baseball.

If you are a good stats person, meaning 5 plus years experience with a Master's you are going to expect something well beyond 60k even factoring in cost of living differences. Well, no ballclub is going to pay somebody in excess of 80k and bennies to pour over numbers when they can buy a subscription to BP, and read multiple multiple free websites like THT or BBTF with all of its great content. The chances of gaining an advantage pales relative to the acrimony and hard feelings among existing employees. Especially when that incoming person isn't a baseball "lifer".

Just something to keep in mind............

If you are a good stats person, meaning 5 plus years experience with a Master's you are going to expect something well beyond 60k even factoring in cost of living differences.

My girlfriend has these sorts of qualifications. She just smiles when someone mentions sports statistics.

If I owned a baseball club, I wouldn't hire some stats nerd. Like Harvey points out in #19, there are lots of free sabermetric stats and commentary sites. I would just expect people in my front office to be able to understand the widely known stats, at least.

I have a brother-in-law who is fairly high in a MLB front office. He gets paid relatively poorly. Less than me, who gets paid to post to this web site most days.

JP analyzes OBP and OPS, but questions VORP?

Neyer asked what the future of sabermetrics ought to be now that offense, pitching, and defense had been adequately addressed

Defense has been adequately addressed? There has been progress made but I don't think it's time to light the cigar just yet.

Neyer asked what the future of sabermetrics ought to be now that offense, pitching, and defense had been adequately addressed

Integreate findings from fields other than statistics and econ; like physics, psychology, and kinematics.

Sal's recap and Pinto's blog posts were all illuminating reads, and the thread about front office salaries has also been good.

Steve, James made the point about football especially that the league has a way of finding out selfish strategies (things that benefit a team but reduce the fan's enjoyment of the game) and using rule changes to discourage them. I can't think of any examples from football - I'm not really a football fan - but James gave the example in baseball of pitching changes. Lots of pitching changes can benefit a team but can also detract from the fan experience.

The big NFL change re: pass defense was made in 1978, after scoring had decreased to a record low level in the modern NFL era.

My impression is that the NFL and NCAA basketball rule tweaks are meant to encourage "fairness and balance" as much as increase scoring. The football rules changes to help the passing game could be looked at as to increase scoring in one light, but can, in another light, allow WRs and short passing a chance to be a part of the game.

James' example of NCAA basketball was included in the NBJHBA. It used to be a common tactic for a player scrambling for a loose ball to call a timeout just as he grabbed it and was leaping out of bounds. This was regulated out of the game -- both college and pro -- because it didn't meet the spirit of the gain-possession rule.

The pitching example is specific to the TLR selfish strategy which is allowed by the "unlimited pitching substitution" rules. It's quite successful for individual teams (Mike Hargrove would flounder without its comfortable structure) but it has led to LaRussification of the game as a whole. From Bill's perspective, there is no reason why MLB should not consider altering these rules.

Then again, this opinion of Bill's re: modification of baseball's rules has been in print for, what, 6 years now? I've seen no one, insider or outsider, back him up or seriously consider or lobby for it. I think that, once again, he is a lone wolf.

Long-time employees in the front office rarely get beyond $60k. Certainly scouts don't make anywhere close to that.

Not accurate at all, Harvey.

Keith beat me to it. Baseball teams are cheap, but they're not running on a shoestring budget either. I also have to disagree with the notion that a major league team should have little interest in hiring a full-time stats person (or three) because they can always just read BP and THT. One run is worth $200-500 thousand to these teams; one run! So if a stats guy can squeeze out just one run for them doing some research that isn't done online (or doing it better, even if just a little better), he's going to be worth whatever he gets paid.

Then again, this opinion of Bill's re: modification of baseball's rules has been in print for, what, 6 years now? I've seen no one, insider or outsider, back him up or seriously consider or lobby for it. I think that, once again, he is a lone wolf.

I have no illusion of being anything but the most outside of outsiders. But I've been beating the drum for James's suggestions about the batters' boxes, and bat-handle-circumference minimums, every chance I get.

I'm not sold on his pitching-change rule suggestion, but I'm not dead-set against it either.

Keith and DSG:

My frame of reference were from conversations with folks out of the NL Central. I presume that either I was given bad info or they are at the lower rung of the pay scale?

And by the way, this conversation evoked a memory from a section of an old BP. And there it was specifically mentioned by the anonymous GM that they wouldn't pay anybody a salary when they could access free sites or pay a subscription fee.

So I may have plagiarized and not even realized it.

And by the way, this conversation evoked a memory from a section of an old BP. And there it was specifically mentioned by the anonymous GM that they wouldn't pay anybody a salary when they could access free sites or pay a subscription fee.

***

Well, that GM isn't maximizing his team's ability to win then, IMO. Again, if a GM believes that I can get him ONE run working 40 hours a week on this stuff, I'm worth a lot more than he's going to pay me. And trust me, despite all this "on the margins" talk, there are still plenty of big fish to fry. If people don't see them, it's because they're not looking.

So only a handful of teams have research departments who perform analytical tasks for the team?

From ESPN Page 2's coverage of the Winter Meetings (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=nelson/061208)
"Suite 9039 was the working space for the Diamondbacks' contingent of about 15. Byrnes, the team's 36-year-old GM, scans scouting reports on the first day of the meetings as his team chats in small groups. The age range in the room is impressive: from Helen Zelman, a 22-year-old MIT graduate whose expertise in statistics got her a full-time gig this fall, to 63-year-old Bob Gebhard, a baseball lifer and former GM of the Colorado Rockies."

See, 22-year-old MIT graduates can find work in baseball too!

Further down in the article...
"Jeff Pickler, Arizona's scout and video coordinator, peruses the computer Tuesday afternoon as Byrnes, assistant scouting director Chad MacDonald and stats guru Shiraz Rehman view video of a player named in a possible trade"

Is stats guru really a job title?

See, 22-year-old MIT graduates can find work in baseball too!

Helen was well-qualified to work in baseball besides just being smart. She was a questec operator for some time and her undergraduate thesis was titled "An analysis of baseball pitch data : quantifying the effect of speed, location and movement on a batter’s chances of getting a hit."

now that offense, pitching, and defense had been adequately addressed

"Everything that can be invented has already been invented."

We now understand how physical component skills combine probabilistically into a certain narrow range of results? We understand the multitude of effects of mental factors on these three facets of the game? We now understand which players we should sign, and when; which positions to move them to; which players to release? We understand how best to develop each individual player for optimal performance? We understand the mathematics of, and the effects of, any measurable cycles related to players and teams? We understand how best to exploit ever-changing inefficiencies from year-to-year, month-to-month? Sabermetrics has hardly adequately covered any of this, let alone well.

I understand next to nothing about baseball compared to many of the conference attendees, but I humbly offer that what has been discovered up to this point is a mere foundation, and only for certain types of analysis. Experts must by definition be narrow in a sense, and there is no harm in that per se, but there are so many untapped perspectives, and so many unknown cause-and-effect relationships, all of them fundamentally mathematical and therefore potentially measurable, that the quote seems absurd to me, even if within its context it apparently made sense.