Fun Baseball v. Winning Baseball

by David S. Cohen on Jan 29, 2007 3:56 PM EST in News Comment 18 comments

Fun baseball v. winning baseball. Are they the same thing?

The quick and dirty answer: fun baseball is not necessarily winning baseball. But, winning baseball is going to be, in all but the most extreme situations, fun baseball.

Why am I, a Phillies blogger, writing about this? Because it seems that Phillies fans and commentators, especially those in the print and television media, focus almost exclusively on the former and completely ignore the latter.

When you hear or read about "fun baseball," what do you think of? Most people would agree on some or all of the following (among a long list of others): clutch game-winning hits, stolen bases, diving catches, running into walls, suicide squeezes, sacrifice bunts (warm and fuzzy memories of little league), not striking out and instead putting the ball in play where "anything can happen," short at-bats, complete games by pitchers, hustle, energy, 100mph pitches, triples, sliding into first base, gunning someone out at home plate, etc.

But are all of these "fun baseball" events part of "winning baseball"? And are there things that would be on a list of "winning baseball" components that aren't part of "fun baseball"? I have no doubt the answer to the first question is no and the second is yes. The explanation isn't that complicated. Let's take a few examples. Diving catches and crashing into walls are exciting and fun. But, a fielder who was better positioned or fleeter of foot wouldn't have to crash into the wall or dive for the ball. The better-positioned or faster fielder makes a boring routine play; the out-of-position fielder makes a more exciting play. Both contribute to winning if the play is made. But, what's important is that if a fielder is better at positioning or quicker in the field, he's more likely to get to more balls than the fielder who is slower or not good with positioning but makes the occasional acrobatic catch. In that instance, fun baseball can actually contribute to losing baseball.

Another example is putting the ball in play rather than striking out. Related to it is short at-bats compared to long at-bats. A batter who works the count is more likely to strike out. Working the count, to most baseball fans, is not fun and possibly even boring. Striking out, even to the most ardent sabermetric devotee, is not fun at all. But, working the count is winning baseball in many ways: tires the opposing pitcher, gives your teammates more pitches to see to evaluate the pitcher, more likely to get a pitch you like, more likely to walk, etc. Striking out can also be winning baseball because it avoids the double play. Putting the ball in play just to do so risks two outs, instead of one from striking out, when there's a man on first.

One more example from the basepaths. Speed on the basepaths is something fans love. Triples are undoubtedly good and winning baseball. But, stolen bases are good only if you do so at a clip of about 80% or higher. Too many caught stealings kill an offense. Hustling into first base by diving is also a risky play - it decreases the runner's speed while increasing the likelihood of injury. But, it sure looks fun.

The problem is that many fans and many baseball commentators, especially those in Philly, focus exclusively on what makes a game fun. Does a guy put the ball in play? Does he hustle? Does he crash into walls? Does he get his uniform dirty trying to steal bases? These are the things too many fans and commentators care about. In doing so, though, they ignore winning. Winning may be a result of these attributes, but there's no reason it has to, especially when talent and performance is missing from the equation.

Even worse, I have no doubt that not recognizing the difference between these two things (along with focusing on "complicated" small ball instead of "simple" long ball) contributes to fans' and commentators' reluctance to accept modern baseball statistics, whose central goal is to determine what makes for winning baseball. If that's also fun baseball, then great. If it's not, no matter.

Isn't that the attitude Philly fans should have? After a century and a quarter with only one championship and more losses than any other professional franchise, shouldn't our priority be a winning team, with fun a secondary concern?

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

enough

The only valid points in this post have to do with people liking shitty players like rowand. we get the fact that he is too popular because he ran into a wall once and smashed his face. he contributes little to winning and we all know this. also bobby abreau was a much better but less popular player becasue he didn't run into walls. point taken. as for the rest of the post it is a bit of a stretch to say that fans will watch a team win and then gripe that they don't steal enough bases or that hit enough triples. the thing about stolen base attempts and much else of the game that stat heads don't take into acocunt is that stolen base attempts happpen in specific situations. and each situation has different risks and rewards. stealing third with 2 out down by 4 with the three hitter up is silly, but there are times when it is a good move. you can't look at stolen base statistics as if all steal are created equal. how many CS's are part of hit and run? who is pitching who is catching? running on ivan rodriguez is not the same as running on mike piazza. the stat people isolate too much. this is not to say that there is no value in number crunching in baseball, but as even baseball prospectus admits, too many of the numbers people in baseball are third rate statistitions. also to suggest that baseball fans get bored by long at bats with positive results and would somehow enjoy shorter at bats is absurd. commentators and fans alike always enjoy players who work the count. as for the point about strikeout, there are times when fans think "please do anything but ground into a DP. strike out. pop out. just no DP" so i don't see the point of that part of the post. did the padres lose all those years because tony gwynn didn't strike out enough?

by erf on Jan 30, 2007 12:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Straw Man

Wow, you sure out-argued that straw man. Good for you. Unfortunately, sabermetricians DO take into account stolen bases in different scnearios (I believe man on 1st with 2 out is usually one of the best scenarios), and obviously there is plenty of discussion of which catchers to run on. There have also been attempts to control for hit-and-runs and other things. The general idea usually has to do with win expectancy. You can naturally control for the kind of hitter coming up too, and I'm sure people have done those studies (though I haven't seen any, I have seen discussions about the differences in WPA between different hitters being usually under half a percent in any given at-bat or something like that). One study I'd like to see done, actually, is the effect of having basestealers on first base-- study the abilities of hitters when a fast and slow runner is on first base, controling for quality of the hitter.

Furthermore, I don't know what rock you're living under, but how have you avoided hearing announcers say that teams need to play "small ball"? Stealing bases, being aggressive early in the count, and putting the ball in play is the way to go according to many analysts, and this post challenges whether that is winning baseball.

by Matt Swartz on Jan 30, 2007 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

know what's fun?

Winning. Seems obvious, huh?

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but as someone who's followed baseball for a fairly long time, I think the game makes its own drama. You don't need to go out of your way to create drama. About the best you can say for aggressive/"fun" tactics is that it might improve the vibe around the team, and as I've written here before, I don't think we can totally dismiss those considerations even though we can't quantify them.

But basically I'm happy to see Jimmy Rollins try to steal because he's been a high-percentage base thief through his career; it's likely to work, and improve the team's chances of winning. That's the value, not his making the attempt.

(Side note: I always felt like former Mets manager Bobby Valentine used tactics that were designed to draw attention to how smart he was. That guy was a jerkass...)

I guess I can see how fans eventually could find consistently winning baseball "boring"--supposedly it happened in Atlanta around Division Title #12 or so. But that's a Stephen Hawking type abstraction for Philadelphians right now...

by dajafi on Jan 30, 2007 12:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Your subject line is true

But, I think lots of Philly fans forget that. Maybe it's because they've given up on winning, so they just look for the fun? That's very possible, but it's not something I think any of us are willing to accept. Although, with the current ownership group, maybe we should, if only for our own sanity.

by David S. Cohen on Jan 30, 2007 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ignorance and winning

I think the real problem is that people have an incorrect idea of what makes a player valuable or a team successful. So when people value players who put the ball in play often, for example, it's not because they think it's more entertaining but rather because they think that strikeouts are worse than they actually are.

by enterpsmith on Jan 30, 2007 6:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What's the point?

I suppose that's what I was left wondering. As fans, our job is to cheer. Obviously we cheer at exciting plays. If one person here claims to have not cheered the moment Rowand ran into the fence, then you're either lying or not a real fan. That was fun, and so we cheered. So what?

We aren't the ones putting the team on the field. So I have to ask the question, who cares what the difference between fun Baseball and winning Baseball? Hopefully Pat Gillick, otherwise I just fail to see how it matters.

You aren't actually implying that we as fans shouldn't cheer a stolen base or a diving catch? That's not "the attitude" of Philly fans, that's just what being a fan is. I'm sorry, but a high OPS on the board just doesn't get me out of my seat cheering like a home run does. It never will.

Basically, the attitude of Philly fans should be like it always has been and like how everyone else is. They cheer exciting, fun plays. They get excited, but they expect winning baseball. It's okay for us to want fun baseball. However, if for some reason the manager or GM starts running the team in a way that favors fun baseball over winning baseball... well then they should be up in the bleachers with the rest of us fans.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Jan 30, 2007 10:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This is the problem

You write: "Basically, the attitude of Philly fans should be like it always has been and like how everyone else is. They cheer exciting, fun plays. They get excited, but they expect winning baseball. It's okay for us to want fun baseball. However, if for some reason the manager or GM starts running the team in a way that favors fun baseball over winning baseball... well then they should be up in the bleachers with the rest of us fans."

I just don't think Philly fans care about winning over fun baseball enough. And, their not caring gets the message to the management that winning isn't as much of a priority as it is in other towns. Being gritty - high priority. Being talented and putting a winning team on the field - a priority, but not as much so.

Our attitude matters because management responds to the fans.

by David S. Cohen on Jan 31, 2007 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's not our fault

It's management's. Like I said, if they manage the team the way the fans want at the expense of winning, they should be in the stands. the fans bear no culpability in that whatsoever in my opinion.

I don't really buy that it's the truth anyway. Look across the parking lot at the Eagles. The Eagles seem to do the opposite of everything the fans want. The fans want the big flashy signings, they want the name players, they want this kind of offense or defense ect... They want the Eagles to be the Redskins. The Eagles ignore it to the point of perceived arrogance. However, for the most part all they do is win and the fans support them in record numbers every year. The Phillies know this. They know that winning sells out the park more than anything.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Jan 31, 2007 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

I don't think the Phillies' management is anywhere near as smart or fan-dismissive as Eagles' management. Not in the same league.

by David S. Cohen on Jan 31, 2007 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

You've certainly made me fear that they aren't!

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Jan 31, 2007 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This raises the question...

That I have always pondered. Is it better to win the wrong way or to not win the right way? Would you prefer to have bass ackwards management that picked up a ton of no hit speed guys and pitchers who walked everyone and struck out nobody but continued to hit the statistical anomoly and win the World Series? Sure, we all want to win, but how important is doing it the right way?

The obvious answer is YES!!! we want the championship regardless. But, isn't this a morally slippery slope for you? Sure, you can say that sports are obviously on one side, but where does it end? Where does doing it the right way eventually beat out being successful the wrong way?

by jonk on Feb 1, 2007 12:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hustle

I don't agree with the premise that 'hustle' baseball is not smart baseball that leads to more wins, but is merely 'showy fan pleasing' baseball that caters to the stupid blue collar fan and does not actually contribute anything positive toward wins.

I believe that such hustle-and it's hard to hide hustle to the visible eye-seldom leads to injuries and often improves the chances of winning. Rowand running into the wall in a spot where he would be so badly injured was an absolute fluke. 99% of the time his kind of all-out hustle leads to a defensive out, and not to an injury and a passed ball.

Transposing this kind of hustle to the offensive end, you have guys going for an extra base or making a definite threat in that direction. This puts tremendous additional pressure on the defense. The few occasions in which the runner is thrown out going for the extra base are more than compensated by the additional bases taken because of the hustle and because of the increased number of defensive errors in trying to combat the hustle.

by andrewgenn on Feb 4, 2007 11:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'd love to bold the parts...

Wheer you stated opinion as fact, or you made up a statistic to defend your point or have no proof of what you wrote, but then the entire post would be bolded and what use would that be?

by jonk on Feb 5, 2007 6:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's statistically proven

that going for the extra base (if you're good at it) is the best kind of baserunning

by Alon on Feb 5, 2007 7:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

explain

Are you referring to my post or to the original article? Your accusations don't seem to make sense unless they are applied primarily to the original article.

by andrewgenn on Feb 5, 2007 9:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, here we go...

I can't really bold, or I might be able to, but I am too lazy to do it, so, here is the pretend bold..

[b]I don't agree with the premise that 'hustle' baseball is not smart baseball that leads to more wins, but is merely 'showy fan pleasing' baseball that caters to the stupid blue collar fan and does not actually contribute anything positive toward wins.[/b]

First, there was no reference to smart baseball in the entire article. So, how it could be part of the premise is confusing to say the least. Here, you have grouped the points he was making into the all-encopassing term hustle (which he did use, but as a reference and not a point). There are aspects of hustle that can help and aspects that can hurt. That was the point, in case you missed it.

[b]I believe that such hustle-and it's hard to hide hustle to the visible eye-seldom leads to injuries and often improves the chances of winning.[/b]

How you know it is hard to hide hustle to the visible eye is beyond my guess. And why you "believe" that hustle doesn't equal injuries is also questionable. A guy pulls a hammy from jogging down to first? How DO you get hurt if you aren't hustling in baseball? Jamming fingers when sliding, rolling ankles, running into walls...hustle activities that cause injuries.

[b]Rowand running into the wall in a spot where he would be so badly injured was an absolute fluke. 99% of the time his kind of all-out hustle leads to a defensive out, and not to an injury and a passed ball.[/b]

Fluke? Same kind of fluke when he slammed into Utley when he got back? See, this is your strawman argument. You are arguing hustle when the author is CLEARLY implying bad judgement in those cases. Rowand could have huslted all the way, but stopped JUST short of running into the wall. Sure, the ball wouldn't have been caught, but he would have been less injured because of it. Slamming into walls DOES cause injuries. And to say that if he slammed into the wall 100 times like that and walked away 99 times is the norm is not only a statistic you cannot back up, but makes no sense. If you want to say that 99% of the time he doesn't run into the wall, fine, but he didn't HAVE to run into the wall that one time either.

[b]Transposing this kind of hustle to the offensive end, you have guys going for an extra base or making a definite threat in that direction. This puts tremendous additional pressure on the defense. [/b]

Any evidence for the tremendous pressure, or is it just an idea you conjured out of thin air? I am wondering at all the defenses that have wilted under this kind of extra base getting pressure. Man, how did they ever get out of the minors?

[b]The few occasions in which the runner is thrown out going for the extra base are more than compensated by the additional bases taken because of the hustle and because of the increased number of defensive errors in trying to combat the hustle.[/b]

Evidence please? Seriously, this is fraught with your imaginary ideas and nothing to support it. Few occasions? What did Pat Burrell get for all his hustle 2 years ago. He got thrown out at the plate like 8 times. Wow, hustle sure did him a good deed there. Hustle alone means nothing. Hustle with good baseball judgement means a LOT more.

Wow, I did get to bold everything. Not one evidence of a sustansive argument there, no proof and all conjucture. And a strawman to boot.

by jonk on Feb 5, 2007 8:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agenda

I think your request for the type of 'evidence' that you are asking for would preclude anyone making any statement about any aspect of sports or life, at least anyone whom you have an issue with from the other Phillies boards.

by andrewgenn on Feb 5, 2007 9:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agenda?

I am not taking anything from anywhere else here. If someone has an agenda, they post on one board about another board. THAT is having an agenda. Sound familiar?

However, I don't have a problem with you. We need people like you so we can counter your points with logic. Again, point to me anything that I said that is impossible to come up with evidence and if so, why did you make something up if you have no proof?

by jonk on Feb 6, 2007 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs