4 ms·

I was a big baseball fan when I was a kind (like under 12). I lost interest after that and it was rekindled by watching Japanese baseball. My own personal opi

I was a big baseball fan when I was a kind (like under 12). I lost interest after that and it was rekindled by watching Japanese baseball. My own personal opinion is that the length of the game is not really a problem. Take a look at cricket -- it's both longer, more boring and dramatically more popular than baseball. The thing I find about American baseball is that I think it lacks drama. I've felt the same way about a lot of Premier league football (soccer). At the top end in soccer, they can pass the ball endlessly and then suddenly score for 30 yards out. It's breathtaking, but ultimately boring, IMHO. With American baseball, it's similar. You have guys who can hit ridiculous home runs. You have pitchers that are so good that they can play the entire game without really losing much. Often, in American baseball, you'll only have 2 pitchers for the whole game. What I've enjoyed about Japanese baseball is that it's really never over. Your pitcher can suddenly just stop being able to throw the ball over the plate. Or the batters learn their timing. Even if you are losing 7 - 0, you still have a chance! There is a saying that baseball doesn't start until there are 2 outs. Your whole goal is to get a man on base and then start putting on the psychological pressure. In Japanese baseball, it is common strategy if you have a man on base and no outs, to throw away your next 2 outs advancing that man to 3rd -- because this is where baseball starts. With American baseball, the pitcher will just shut you down. The batters usually have a single goal: hit a home run. There are obviously amazing players in the US and all the best players in the world want to play there.... But, I don't find it as interesting, personally. Nothing at all to do with the length of the game. Longer games mean that I can drink more beer! (Just like cricket... Um... I assume that's not true of Pakistan. They must actually love cricket ;-) ).

ryanhuff 7y ago
I'm not sure about of many of your facts (only two pitchers?), but I do agree that the drama is missing in today's game. One thing that MLB can do, and they have been trying to address recently, is trying to get players to be more expressive during games. For years, the culture of baseball has promoted a certain behavior that goes against today's social trends. For example, after you hit a home run, it hasn't been considered acceptable for a player to be overly expressive immediately after hitting the home run (watch the ball, flip the bat, etc), as its been seen as embarrassing to the pitcher. Honestly, today's fans want to see it, and the apparent conflict that results between the pitcher and batter brings more interest to the game.
wayoutthere 7y ago
I feel this way about all the big professional sports! The sport the pros play is not the same as a normal human plays. These guys are genetic freaks selected for size at a young age and then trained to obsession. I prefer college football for this reason (health / exploitation aside). A player can catch fire and dominate another team in college. In the pros, every single player on the field was “that guy” dominating other teams in college. The skill gap isn’t there, which makes it feel formulaic imo.
paulintrognon 7y ago
A volleyball female player once told me that she watched only female pro games, because it was much more dramatic than men's, you just as you described. More strategy involved, more "wow" moments, whereas men games were just endless "serve - smash - point". I don't know if that's true but I have heard the same argument made over football (soccer) when some friends watched the Women's World Cup.
bsder 7y ago
> I lost interest after that and it was rekindled by watching Japanese baseball. Try to find your local minor league team. It has many of the same elements.
fernly 7y ago
College baseball has that character. While the student-athletes are good, maybe AAA-league good, they are not as perfect as the pros. You never know when a pitcher will suddenly lose the zone, or a routine double-play will turn into a two-base run-scoring error. Also the tickets are far cheaper and the parks are small and comfy (Stanford Sunken Diamond for the win!)
zinckiwi 7y ago
Boring is in the eye of the beholder. Sports like soccer and the longer forms of cricket are the opposite of boring to those who value suspense more than constant "action" (where I use "action" to mean the scoring mechanism moving). Ctrl-F this Freakonomics episode for "soccer" to read it put better than I can: http://freakonomics.com/2015/07/29/how-to-create-suspense-full-transcript/ http://freakonomics.com/2015/07/29/how-to-create-suspense-fu...
shirro 7y ago
> Take a look at cricket -- it's both longer, more boring and dramatically more popular than baseball. There has been a lot of innovation in cricket to make the limited overs form of the game more spectacular for modern audiences. Test cricket is the purest form of the sport and contains elements that are missing from the shorter versions but limited overs has experimented with a lot of rule changes over the years in an attempt to balance the game for the audience. They limit the number of deliveries for any single bowler(pitcher). This means you have all rounders in the team who perhaps get hit a bit more. Imagine if a baseball team was required to share the load amongst 5 pitchers. And they have fielding restrictions in the game to balance things otherwise teams tend to start slow so they don't get out and chase runs towards the end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_overs_cricket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_overs_cricket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty20
fred_is_fred 7y ago
> Often, in American baseball, you'll only have 2 pitchers for the whole game. What? I think that in fact the main problem with baseball is that you end up with 4+ pitchers per game, and in fact, science will back me up on this[1]. "In 1964 (four years after the save rule first came to baseball), teams used an average of 2.58 pitchers per game, including the starter; today, they're using 3.92 pitchers per game". [1] - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-bullpens-took-over-modern-baseball/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-bullpens-took-over-...
astura 7y ago
>Often, in American baseball, you'll only have 2 pitchers for the whole game. !!!??? You must have not watched baseball in the past several decades, major league teams are averaging 4.5 pitchers per game now and it's rare for a team to use three or fewer pitchers in a game. [1] [1] https://baseballwithr.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/historical-look-at-pitcher-usage/amp/ https://baseballwithr.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/historical-lo...
- mikekchar 7y ago
  Admittedly this is the truth :-) Maybe I should start watching American baseball again!

ryanhuff 7y ago

I'm not sure about of many of your facts (only two pitchers?), but I do agree that the drama is missing in today's game. One thing that MLB can do, and they have been trying to address recently, is trying to get players to be more expressive during games. For years, the culture of baseball has promoted a certain behavior that goes against today's social trends. For example, after you hit a home run, it hasn't been considered acceptable for a player to be overly expressive immediately after hitting the home run (watch the ball, flip the bat, etc), as its been seen as embarrassing to the pitcher. Honestly, today's fans want to see it, and the apparent conflict that results between the pitcher and batter brings more interest to the game.

wayoutthere 7y ago

I feel this way about all the big professional sports! The sport the pros play is not the same as a normal human plays. These guys are genetic freaks selected for size at a young age and then trained to obsession. I prefer college football for this reason (health / exploitation aside). A player can catch fire and dominate another team in college. In the pros, every single player on the field was “that guy” dominating other teams in college. The skill gap isn’t there, which makes it feel formulaic imo.

paulintrognon 7y ago

A volleyball female player once told me that she watched only female pro games, because it was much more dramatic than men's, you just as you described. More strategy involved, more "wow" moments, whereas men games were just endless "serve - smash - point". I don't know if that's true but I have heard the same argument made over football (soccer) when some friends watched the Women's World Cup.

bsder 7y ago

> I lost interest after that and it was rekindled by watching Japanese baseball. Try to find your local minor league team. It has many of the same elements.

fernly 7y ago

College baseball has that character. While the student-athletes are good, maybe AAA-league good, they are not as perfect as the pros. You never know when a pitcher will suddenly lose the zone, or a routine double-play will turn into a two-base run-scoring error. Also the tickets are far cheaper and the parks are small and comfy (Stanford Sunken Diamond for the win!)

zinckiwi 7y ago

Boring is in the eye of the beholder. Sports like soccer and the longer forms of cricket are the opposite of boring to those who value suspense more than constant "action" (where I use "action" to mean the scoring mechanism moving). Ctrl-F this Freakonomics episode for "soccer" to read it put better than I can: http://freakonomics.com/2015/07/29/how-to-create-suspense-full-transcript/ http://freakonomics.com/2015/07/29/how-to-create-suspense-fu...

shirro 7y ago

> Take a look at cricket -- it's both longer, more boring and dramatically more popular than baseball. There has been a lot of innovation in cricket to make the limited overs form of the game more spectacular for modern audiences. Test cricket is the purest form of the sport and contains elements that are missing from the shorter versions but limited overs has experimented with a lot of rule changes over the years in an attempt to balance the game for the audience. They limit the number of deliveries for any single bowler(pitcher). This means you have all rounders in the team who perhaps get hit a bit more. Imagine if a baseball team was required to share the load amongst 5 pitchers. And they have fielding restrictions in the game to balance things otherwise teams tend to start slow so they don't get out and chase runs towards the end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_overs_cricket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_overs_cricket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty20

fred_is_fred 7y ago

> Often, in American baseball, you'll only have 2 pitchers for the whole game. What? I think that in fact the main problem with baseball is that you end up with 4+ pitchers per game, and in fact, science will back me up on this[1]. "In 1964 (four years after the save rule first came to baseball), teams used an average of 2.58 pitchers per game, including the starter; today, they're using 3.92 pitchers per game". [1] - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-bullpens-took-over-modern-baseball/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-bullpens-took-over-...

astura 7y ago

>Often, in American baseball, you'll only have 2 pitchers for the whole game. !!!??? You must have not watched baseball in the past several decades, major league teams are averaging 4.5 pitchers per game now and it's rare for a team to use three or fewer pitchers in a game. [1] [1] https://baseballwithr.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/historical-look-at-pitcher-usage/amp/ https://baseballwithr.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/historical-lo...

mikekchar 7y ago
Admittedly this is the truth :-) Maybe I should start watching American baseball again!