Below is a sneak peek of this content!
On Tuesday night in Washington (hat tip to brilliant reader Owen Ranger), the Miami Marlins and Nationals played a game that meant absolutely nothing. The Marlins are abysmal, and few people care (they are the first MLB team in more than a decade to draw fewer than a million). The Nationals are mediocre and utterly frustrating; my partner in Passions in America, Dan McGinn, and his wife, Debby, are enormous Nationals fans, longtime season-ticket holders, and they both lost a lot of interest this year. Anyway, it was the Nationals' penultimate home game of this surprisingly dreary season, and the Marlins now have four or five road games until their unhappy journey ends, and 26,483 fans spent a lot of money to come anyway, because,...
Hi, I would love for you to become a member of the site. You can sign up here. We're counting down the 100 best Major League players every week, and also counting down the Shadowball 100 which tells the story of baseball through 100 different people. There is lots of other stuff including the ongoing Harry Potter Diet series, plenty of essays about family and life and probably a few infomercial reviews. If you are already a Patreon member struggling to sign in please click here and go to Posts.
Unlock with Patreon
I couldn’t agree more and, in fact, I would suggest that he is doing a disservice to his own team. With nothing really at stake, why not tell your pitcher to go for it and try and strike those guys out? Instead, you send a message to your pitcher that you don’t think they can handle those guys, even when absolutely nothing is at stake.
For the second time in a few weeks, I strongly disagree with Joe!
I mean, I don’t disagree with his premise that this is part of the reason attendance has flatlined in baseball — I don’t AGREE either, because I think there are many, many reasons and I’m not sure his matters at all — but I just don’t know. Personally, I think attendance is the way it is across all sports because we’re at a point where watching a game on TV is a far more pleasant experience in almost every way for a lot of people. I don’t really care much about baseball, but I also don’t want to go to basketball or football games. It’s more fun to me (not to mention cheaper) to watch at home. That’s doubly so if it’s a game I really care about (i.e. a UNC basketball/football game or a Carolina Panthers game) because you miss way too much being in the stadium. Of course not everyone feels that way, but I think it’s a bigger factor than anything else.
I disagree with the premise that wins and losses aren’t the only thing that matters. For a manager? Of course they are what matters. It’s their job to win games. It’s not their job to entertain the fans like professional wrestling. They lose their job if they don’t win games. Now, in Don Mattingly’s case, sure, you can point out that his moves actually weren’t helpful, and I agree with that. But that’s a different argument. Criticizing someone for making bad moves in an attempt to win is totally different from criticizing someone for trying to win instead of trying to entertain. I find that asinine.
I’m reposting this to make it easier to read, for anyone who cares.
—-
For the second time in a few weeks, I strongly disagree with Joe!
—-
I mean, I don’t disagree with his premise that this is part of the reason attendance has flatlined in baseball — I don’t AGREE either, because I think there are many, many reasons and I’m not sure his matters at all — but I just don’t know. Personally, I think attendance is the way it is across all sports because we’re at a point where watching a game on TV is a far more pleasant experience in almost every way for a lot of people. I don’t really care much about baseball, but I also don’t want to go to basketball or football games. It’s more fun to me (not to mention cheaper) to watch at home. That’s doubly so if it’s a game I really care about (i.e. a UNC basketball/football game or a Carolina Panthers game) because you miss way too much being in the stadium. Of course not everyone feels that way, but I think it’s a bigger factor than anything else.
—-
I disagree with the premise that wins and losses aren’t the only thing that matters. For a manager? Of course they are what matters. It’s their job to win games. It’s not their job to entertain the fans like professional wrestling. They lose their job if they don’t win games. Now, in Don Mattingly’s case, sure, you can point out that his moves actually weren’t helpful, and I agree with that. But that’s a different argument. Criticizing someone for making bad moves in an attempt to win is totally different from criticizing someone for trying to win instead of trying to entertain. I find that asinine.
I think going to games is fun. In the case of football, the tickets are too expensive & the crowds are so large that it’s a hassle to even get there and then try to get out. Basketball is an issue here just because the team is horrible and no fun to watch. I should have every reason to watch baseball. The team is winning, prices aren’t too expensive, the crowds aren’t too large. I even like going to games. But, for whatever reason, I find baseball less exciting then I once did. Games are slow, there are too many strikeouts, all the things people complain about. When I started going to games as a kid, games started at 8:00 and we where home by 10:30-11:00. Home. Now games here start at 7:30 and we don’t get home until 11:30-12:00. When my kids go, they almost always leave early. They go less for the game, obviously, and more for entertainment. The allure of a 9th inning comeback just isn’t there for them.
“Now games here start at 7:30 . . . ” -> I had heard that the games cannot start later than 7:05, except the Sunday night 8pm start or unscheduled events like rain delay.
The Braves weekday games start at 7:30 to let traffic clear out. The built Suntrust Park at the interchange of two extremely busy freeways, in an area that was already gridlocked. I’m not aware of any start time rule, but if there is one, the Braves got an exception.
I don’t know when you were a kid, Rob, or where you live. But I’ve been going to Mets games since 1982 and I can tell you regularly scheduled home night games have never started later than 7:35 during that time.
Someone with power in MLB needs to push the long-proposed-by-many idea of an intentional walk and a four-pitch unintentional walk rewarding the batter with *two* bases.
You also would need to grant two bases for a HBP and catcher’s interference as well.
When I was in little league, I was pitching in a playoff game for the right to go to the city tournament, against other teams from our city. We had a zero-zero game in the bottom of the 6th. I walked their #3 hitter and then wild pitched him to 2nd. With their best hitter up, I threw him a fastball down the middle and he banged it into right field to win the game. After the game, I was frustrated at the 1-0 loss and asked my Dad, the coach, why we hadn’t issued an intentional walk. He looked at me and said “we’re not baby girls, that’s why”. Well, OK. It was interesting too because we had a large crowd for this game since it was the last game of our league. All of our friends and all of their parents came to watch. After the game, I got a lot of kudos for pitching a good game, though I had lost. Honestly, and you just made me realize this, that’s what everyone came to see. A big matchup with the game on the line. If I had walked him intentionally, the game may have gone into extra innings, and we would have had to change pitchers. Whatever happened, there would have been 2nd line pitchers in the game for both teams, so I doubt I would have gotten the credit I was given, even if we had won. It would have been anti climatic. The buzz of the game would have been lost. The Intentional Walk is a scourge, not only because they don’t work pretty often, but because they kill the excitement. I totally agree with you.
This reminds me of something I meant to say in my original post — I agree that the intentional walk is terrible and should go (and it’s also usually bad strategy anyways). But that’s an MLB issue. It’s important to the MLB as a whole that games are entertaining, and thus it’s their responsibility to make rules that promote that outcome. It’s definitely not the responsibility of a manager to do it for them.
When I was in little league we won a playoff game 1-0, with the only run scoring on a wild pitch which came while the other team was trying to intentionally walk our best hitter. At first the other team’s manager said “just put him on” and the umpires started to just send our guy to 1b. But our manager came out and said “no way, if you want to walk him you have to throw the 4 pitches.” And sure enough, being inexperienced at intentional walks (I doubt the pitcher had ever issued one before) he threw the second pitch a little to high and wide and it went past the catcher and the only run of the game scored from 3rd.
I have found it interesting as a Mets fan that after a good deal of early-season bowing to the whole “only twice through the lineup” doctrine, Calloway has been leaving his starters in there longer, and at times bringing the (more) unproven young relievers into tight spots. Yeah, at times it blows up, but remember: If we win this game, we’ll finish fourth… if we lose this game, we’ll finish fourth. But our pitchers might learn something about themselves and about pitching in tight spots that might be a huge benefit when truly meaningful games get here.
What’s the Marlins pitcher gonna do when he has to face a hitter of that caliber with the bases loaded? Can’t walk him, and no experience to draw on.
I agree. As a Braves fan, that’s what the Braves were doing the past three years. When a young pitcher was “ready” he got put into the game, sometimes in tough situations. Starters got put in the rotation to figure things out. If they were terrible, it didn’t matter. The teams were going to win 70 games. If it worked out, then they became solid like Folty and Newcomb have become. The issue for the Braves is actually that this process didn’t happen fast enough…. in terms of having low leverage innings and at bats available for their prospects. Now the games mean something, but to the Braves credit, they are still bringing in the prospects and giving them the ball, like with Touki Toussaint. He just started a game in the midst of a losing streak that was pretty important. They are also bringing in other prospects to pitch out of the bullpen.
Bottom line: what Don Mattingly is doing is incredibly stupid. Pitchers gotta work it out, including getting out of tough spots. If they work it out, then they become key players for next year. If they don’t work it out, you cut them and bring in somebody else. To do the opposite is moronic. I’m thinking about both Folty and Newcomb. Both had a tendency to get wild and turn a tough spot into a 3 run inning. Both have worked it out & have learned to bear down and limit the damage. Folty is farther along since he’s been up for three years, while Newcomb has only been up for a little over a year. It shows. Newcomb still has bouts of wildness and still sometimes gives up the big inning early. It’s definitely a process. A process that you might as well be working on when you’re bad. You don’t want to have too many guys still figuring it out when you’re in a pennant race. Not that the Marlins are in danger of having that happen to them anytime soon.
At least fans at that game got to see Scherzer stay in the game long enough to get his 300th K of the year.
Hi Joe. As a lifelong Red Sox fan/Yankee Hater, I know all too well it is Donnie Baseball, not Donnie Ballgame.
I agree with your premise that we are strategizing some of the fun out of the game, and I really agree that you should be letting your pitchers try to get guys out in big spots regardless of who they are when you reach the point of the season where the win or loss doesn’t matter. You could even sell it is as a learning experience for your pitcher or that you wanted to show confidence in your pitcher.
Unfortunately, he’s got to answer to people and be able to explain himself to keep his job. And, as much sense as it makes, I don’t think “it was more fun for the other team’s fans” would be considered a valid reason for doing anything anymore.
If you’re a RS fan, then you know Donnie manages a game with as much ‘strategery’ as say … Renteria. At the Calc. Blancos. Joe’s remark gets to the sad deflating irony of watching Donnie Baseball ‘paint by numbers’ his way through a meaningless September game. More pointedly, a HoF* BASEBALL PLAYER so intent on showing off** contemporary managing chops that he LOSES THE FEEL of a baseball game. The stadium doesn’t give a damn about Donnie’s coloring book. Even less so in September. Maybe the Fish should go get Baker. They do have young arms.
Go v No Go. I love going to pro baseball games. Hockey, MLS fit too. The rest? Absolutely TV.
*Quibblers. Donnie is in, or at least is via one of Joe’s ‘slice it THIS way’ great players list.
**no idea who. Please don’t tell me ‘Jeter’. That’s Pat Ewing trying to impress Jordan, all over again. Great players, but is there a clue between the two of them?
I was drawn to the ending of the piece. Baseball cuts to the chase. It cuts through the red tape and appeals. I always liked that what you saw happen is what happened. No appeal. No rule interpretation. A single is a single. A called out is out. There’s no great play followed by a search for flags, whistles, or red bean bags… at least that’s the way it used to be. …
In thinking about why fans come out, I’m reminded of a game I went to a few years back between the Braves and Giants when Barry Bonds was still playing. The Braves got a lead of a couple of runs and it might typically have been time for the fans to start filing out. But everyone knew what was coming in the 9th inning. Barry Bonds was coming up and the Braves were going to have John Smoltz come in to close the game. Smoltz vs Bonds. That’s must see stuff right there. Nobody left. People were at a fever pitch during the At Bat. Bonds ended up flying out to rightfield (on a mighty swing where he just got under the ball a fraction), but it was a great moment to watch. How many times does something like that happen that causes everyone to stay in their seats…. at least during the regular season.
Would have been a better finish, in my opinion, if Smoltz hit him in the ass, and then struck out the next guy.
I don’t know… Would you blame a chess player for using any strategy that is less flashy, but more successful ? Or a tennis player for playing a drop shot instead of a smash ? Maybe my analogies are flawed, but I see a lot of similitudes in other sports. The trap in hockey. Other defensive strategy I don’t know about in basketball or football… They are called “professionnals players”, we expect them to be the best, but also to win at all cost, even the entertainment one… No ? Same goes for the manager. We don’t have to agree with them, and we can feel cheated or less entertained, but I don’t blame him for using the best strategy (in his mind), at that time.
Matchs and games are loaded of moments “that could be”, like bases-loaded-with-no-out innings or half-court shots or hail-maries… Sometimes you are lucky to witnessed them in person, or on TV, sometimes they don’t happen at all. I’ll still go to my next hometown baseball game, though. You never know…
Sure, there are always kill-joy strategies employed that do work. In hockey, they started enforcing interference more to try to make the trap less effective. I don’t watch hockey so I have no idea how that worked. In basketball they have the restricted zone that keeps players from standing under the basket to take a charge. They actually have to defend the player. Obviously charging rules, etc. The defensive 3 seconds is another one that’s had the impact of making big players have less impact defensively. So you see more all around big guys who can shoot, score, etc. That’s helped the scoring. In football, of course, they’ve cracked down on certain physical plays that defenses have used to slow down other teams, or even take good players out of the game with an injury. So it’s pretty common for leagues to legislate boring strategies, that make the game less watchable, out of the game. At least in the case of football and basketball, they haven’t been at all shy about rule changes to keep the game exciting. Baseball, however, dithers whenever a change is needed. And by dithers, I mean they take a decade to think about it. I think that’s the biggest issue for baseball, the averseness to change. Here they have games that go longer and longer with a new generation of sports fans that don’t have the patience for it (if any of us do). They also started with the 9:00 p.m. World Series games a long time ago, and so you have a generation (or two) of young people who couldn’t stay up and watch the World Series. Baseball has really dropped the ball in terms of keeping it exciting and inviting in new generations of fans. There aren’t enough old white guys to keep the lights on. At least there won’t be as the years go by. (I’m an older white guy btw).
Here are some facts that some of you guys really need to assimilate:
– The average attendance at games is MUCH higher now than it was than when most of us were kids. You’d actually have to be a teenager (or younger) to be able to say that attendance is lower now than it was when you were a kid.
– The players now make MUCH, MUCH more money than they did when we were kids.
– The number of dollars paid to televise games now is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH higher than it was when we were kids.
…
The only thing that I know of that is significantly down from when we were kids is World Series TV ratings. Of course, everything on TV except football has significantly lower TV ratings than when we were kids.
…
I think it’s just stupid to say that baseball is on death’s door, or will be anytime in our lifetimes. But hey, it’s thrilling to think some American institution is almost dead. I guess.
I just checked out average attendance in 1990 vs. average attendance in 2018 and there’s very little difference. I didn’t bother adding up each team’s attendance to get an overall average, but from just eyeballing each team it’s mostly the same. Definitely not much higher.
It DOES seem like it’s much higher than 1980 attendance, though.
OK. I was looking at a graph of percent of stadium capacity filled/purchased. That might not be the best measure. The 1990 average is 26k. Attendance was >30k from 2004-2016, and is down to 29k this season. It’s a 10% increase from 1990 to 2018. I’d call that significant, but not “much” higher.
…
I might have to stop grousing about slowness of games. The 2018 average is 3:04, but in 1987 it was 2:52. That’s 7% longer. It looks like the period of most rapid slowing-down of games may have been 1978 to 1987, when games went from 2:30 to 2:52, a 15% increase in 9 years. I heard an ex-player say on TV that the slowness is entirely due to Mike Hargrove. Maybe?
…
Sources:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/misc.shtml
https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/2/10/5390172/major-league-attendance-trends-1950-2013
OK. I was looking at a graph of percent of stadium capacity filled/purchased. That might not be the best measure. The 1990 average is 26k. Attendance was >30k from 2004-2016, and is down to 29k this season. It’s a 10% increase from 1990 to 2018. I’d call that significant, but not “much” higher.
…
I might have to stop grousing about slowness of games. The 2018 average is 3:04, but in 1987 it was 2:52. That’s 7% longer. It looks like the period of most rapid slowing-down of games may have been 1978 to 1987, when games went from 2:30 to 2:52, a 15% increase in 9 years. I heard an ex-player say on TV that the slowness is entirely due to Mike Hargrove. Maybe?
…
Source:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/misc.shtml
Also, baseball has always or nearly always had very serious problems. The most popular choices for baseball’s biggest problems seem to be slow games and high strikeout numbers. Are these problems really worse or more difficult than:
– Segregation?
– The ultra-low scoring of the 1960’s?
– The very low attendance caused by ballpark neighborhoods becoming ghettos? (I think this was most notable in the 1970’s and some of the 1980’s.)
– Constant labor fighting, and strikes/lockouts?
– Rampant use of cocaine?
– Steroids?
I don’t think so.
In the 2015 playoffs, the Dodgers lost to the Mets, who took advantage of an opportunity when the Dodgers failed to cover third base. After the game, Mattingly told the media it was the job of the rookie shortstop, Corey Seager, to do that. Zack Greinke, the pitcher, was asked about that and he replied that he could have done it, too, and the main point is whether someone covers the base.
So, Mattingly decided to stick it to a rookie, and one of the team’s pitchers is left to defend the kid.
Sorry, I lost a lot of love for Don Mattingly.