User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.2316 seconds
47 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Sunday, April 06, 2014Bill Madden: Unprecedented rise in strikeouts is sapping power and fun out of gameBill Madden probably hasn’t been this upset since the untimely death of Oscar Randolph Fladmark Jr.!
|
Login to submit news.
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: OTP 2018 Apr 16: Beto strikes out but is a hit at baseball fundraiser
(689 - 1:34pm, Apr 19) Last: DavidFoss Newsblog: OT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition) (2151 - 1:33pm, Apr 19) Last: aberg Newsblog: Bryan Price dismissed as Reds manager | MLB.com (52 - 1:28pm, Apr 19) Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Newsblog: Update: Cubs' Anthony Rizzo calls his shorter-season, pay-cut comments 'my opinion' (91 - 1:26pm, Apr 19) Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Gonfalon Cubs: Home Sweet Home (59 - 12:53pm, Apr 19) Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington Newsblog: It’s not just ownership that’s keeping Jose Reyes a Met (9 - 12:35pm, Apr 19) Last: Swoboda is freedom Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-19-2018 (8 - 12:22pm, Apr 19) Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Sox Therapy: Are The Angels A Real Team? (8 - 11:23am, Apr 19) Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Newsblog: OT: Winter Soccer Thread (1491 - 11:22am, Apr 19) Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Newsblog: Deadspin: The Mets Previewed A Dark, Mets-y Future Last Night (18 - 11:07am, Apr 19) Last: The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Newsblog: At long last, have you no sense of OMNICHATTER for March 19, 2017 (13 - 10:37am, Apr 19) Last: Tom Nawrocki Hall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1942 Discussion (10 - 9:55am, Apr 19) Last: DL from MN Newsblog: Braves sign Jose Bautista to a minor-league contract, will play third base (20 - 9:54am, Apr 19) Last: BDC Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-17-2018 (36 - 7:46am, Apr 19) Last: Hysterical & Useless Newsblog: A cautionary note about spring statistics, and other thoughts - Chicago Tribune (30 - 2:01am, Apr 19) Last: DFA |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2014 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.2316 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
What's the standard deviation, though? It seems like in the past a starter would get yanked in the 2nd when he was getting shelled, but then would average 8 IP on "normal" days. In cases like that, you'd have need for only a couple of short relievers and one or maybe two long guys. Nowadays, the starter goes 6 whether he's dealing or not and you need 3 or more short relievers per game.
We'd have 7th inning LOOGYs, 8th inning LOOGYs, and 9th inning LOOGYs.
Never underestimate the manager's desire to be able to make decisions without actually making a decision.
set it at 18, that means you can't have more than about 6-7 pitchers, double-switch becomes the norm in the NL....
I guess what I want is to minimize in-game "tactics" , while potentially increasing "strategic" (roster construction) options, since "tactics" are dull in real time; shift the fanboy micromanaging brainpower in the direction of strategy, and free up the game on the field to move more quickly.
set it at 18, that means you can't have more than about 6-7 pitchers, double-switch becomes the norm in the NL....
I guess what I want is to minimize in-game "tactics" , while potentially increasing "strategic" (roster construction) options, since "tactics" are dull in real time; shift the fanboy micromanaging brainpower in the direction of strategy, and free up the game on the field to move more quickly.
This is a really good concept. You'd have to set the number remembering that the rotation will all be on the "inactive" list. (Other than that day's starter, obviously.)
So a max of three bullpen guys per team per game. The 5th pitcher can pitch if the game extends to extra innings and the other three relievers are truly burned out -- that detail is easily worked out. I might set a limit of 14 innings, then the game is suspended if it's a tie.
Setting your gameday roster would then become kind of a cool strategic thing, that fans could chew over and that would give saberists something fun to grind the data and probabilities about.
Attendance is very tricky to model (revenue is easier, but even so the best I can do has a standard error in the range of $10 million) but to the extent that you can it's mostly how good do the fans expect the team to be followed by how good are they actually.
That is to say that winning percentage in 2013 is roughly twice as important as final winning percentage in 2014 in explaining the final 2014 attendance (and payroll for 2014 actually works better than winning percentage in 2013. But payroll lags a year. That is to say that 2014 payroll correlates more highly with 2013 winning percentage than 2014 winning percentage)
I can't find any evidence that bandwagon fans (and those are what matters in explaining marginal attendance or marginal revenue) care much about how the success is achieved.
I don't see it. If they expand rosters the first thing to be added would be a third catcher, then teams might start debating on how to balance the pitching needs with platoon bats. I would fully expect teams to go to 14 man pitching staff with a 30 man roster, even 15...but it still would expand the bench some.
Why not? When scoring went up league wide, attendance went up league wide, not really seeing anything tricky about it. Were their other factors? of course there was, but basically from 1987 to now attendance has gone up in baseball to record levels for most existing franchises and that happened to coincide with more offense. Pretty much every franchise that existed prior to 1970 has set attendance records in the past 15 years, even after applying a 20% penalty because of the change in reporting.
Exactly. Like dressing players in hoockey (on a macro basis) or announcing eligible recivers in the NFL (on a micro basis).
It would add more strategy too in terms of things like reliever usage in game as well -- if your setup guy is almost through an inning at 23 pitches, you may leave him in because you're leaving him off the dress roster tomorrow either way.
plus you'd get players complaining about not being on the gameday roster enough: a rich vein for the media to tap!
Football doesn't have rigid roster construction, either.
There are strict rules about where players can be lined up at the snap of the ball, but you can literally have any player in any one of those positions (uniform numbers in general indicate who is and is not an eligible receiver, but can be overidden on a play-by-play basis if need be). (EDIT: And there are absolutely zero rules on how many of each position you can have on your roster. A team could carry only kickers and defensive ends if they wanted to.)
Baseball doesn't have as many rigid rules for when the ball is about to be put in play, but it does have some; the pitcher must be on the rubber and the catcher in the catcher's box come to mind.
That's a fair enough opinion. I guess I misread your comment. My apologies.
There's a strong upward trend in revenue (and attendance). Any serious study has to take that into account The way Zimbalist did it (and his study started earlier than 1987) was to simply use the year in the multiple regress (actually year - 1984 iirc) and I've always followed Zimbalist.
Offensive levels are down from their peak. Revenue continues to rise.
They used to. I missed that in 2011 they changed the rules on the third quarterback.
Any serious study on attendance has to make the assumption that any changes (more offense, a mascot or whatever) won't be reflected in the attendance of the same year the change happens. At least not fully, attendance trends are going to be one year after the fact other than the late season boost from being competitive.
There is a precedent for moving the mound back too.
You mentioned that attendance didn't decline league wide in 1988.... my point is that it wouldn't if increased offense was a driving force in attendance. Of course anything like increased offense (or whatever) would have to be sustained for a few years before you can reasonably expect any noticeable jump in attendance.
I don't think scoring is all that matters, but I think the a large percentage of casual fans have a sweet spot that makes them enjoy going to the game more, when it's too boring, then you are stuck with the hard core fans. I haven't done the study or seen the study, but it seems that there is a sweet spot for all sports in amount of offense vs defense that the fans want, whether it affects attendance is subject to debate/study.
Obviously a lot of factors affect attendance, but it's hard to argue that attendance now is hurting in comparison to the 60's or some previous decade that some old fogey wants to point as the nadir of baseball fandom.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main