There’s Nothing Wrong with Baseball — Except the Production Values

The game of baseball itself is fine. There are other areas in which it can improve, though. (via U.S. Navy)

The prevailing opinion among baseball stalwarts is that the recent aesthetic changes in the game — namely, the increase of home runs, strikeouts and defensive shifts, and the decrease of hits and small-ball strategies such as the hit-and-run— have been bad. This reaction is to be expected. In nearly every era of baseball, players and commentators from previous eras have expressed displeasure with the changes they saw in the game. The current era’s baseball conservatives, though — those who would prefer the game to be played like it was for most of the 20th century — are pinning to these changes the fact that attendance is down and that baseball is attracting fewer and fewer young fans. Major League Baseball’s experimentation with banning the shift and moving back the pitcher’s mound would seem to suggest that even MLB believes that there is some validity to this connection.

Few seem to believe that the problem attracting younger fans may have nothing to do with the game at all. Home runs are fun, and there are more of them. Strikeouts are fun, and there are more of them, too. It seems at least likely that the problem baseball has with attracting new young fans is its production values.

The primary assumption from baseball conservatives is that prospective younger fans are noticing (and not liking) a historic spike in home runs and reduction of hits. For example, in a Bleacher Report article about “Why MLB Greats Think Baseball’s In Trouble,” after listing the number of ways the game has recently changed, author Scott Miller notes that “perhaps not coincidentally, per-game attendance…has dropped to its lowest point in 15 years.”

In fairness, many baseball critics also point to an increase in average game length, and a few are going so far as to correlate increased fastball velocity (in pursuit of strikeouts) as a reason why games are longer. But when one looks at the context of the per-game averages of these “historic” highs and lows, one may also notice that these changes are not as extreme as advertised. The reason for the focus on per-game averages is because that’s what casual fans watch — a game. They don’t watch stats, nor are they paying attention to a series of games like they’re an aggregate event. The past, present, and future of baseball rely on how much fans enjoy watching the individual event of a game.

A “new era” of baseball had its first notable impact in 2016, when the average number of home runs per game exceeded 1.15 for just the second time in history. And while it’s a relatively small sample size, 2016-2019 does indeed to be the beginning of a new home run era. From 1994 (the first season home runs per game cracked 1.00) through 2015, the average number of home runs per-game was 1.04. Since 2016 — and including pre-All Star break 2019 — it’s been 1.22. The average number of hits since 2011, when the use of the shift began to rise, has stood at 8.63. From 1994-2010 it was 9.13.

It would be naïve to assert that these are insignificant statistical changes, but it is also reactionary to assume that while watching a game, casual fans, young fans, and new fans are really noticing a 0.18 home run increase, or the reduction of half of a hit. Even the increase in game length isn’t appreciably drastic. Excluding extra-inning games, in 15 of the 20 years from 1994-2013, average game length took at least two hours, 50 minutes. The average length of a nine-inning game hit three hours for the first time in 2014, but has yet to exceed three hours, five minutes. Again, this is not an insignificant increase, but noticing the addition of 10 minutes of game time is generally the sort of thing that happens when one is bored or anxious, not when one is engaging in the experience of a new sport.

What prospective fans are assuredly more able to notice is the outdated presentation of the sport. Unless one is knowledgeable of the rules, the strategy, and the history, a baseball broadcast will look like a game of catch with 8.63 hits. This is barely hyperbole. Watch nearly any major league broadcast and you will hear mostly the following: narration of things that have already happened (“swing and a miss”) or that a viewer can see on the screen (balls and strikes), anecdotes from former players, news from around the league, and even discussions of things that have nothing to do with baseball.

The latter topics are exemplary of how many play-by-play and color commentators appear to be bored by the game. Some announcers even go so far as to passive-aggressively vent about their distaste for baseball’s changes. For example, in the bottom of the 10th of a July 7 Rangers vs. Twins game, Dick Bremer, the Twins play-by-play announcer, let fans know of a Twins defensive shift by saying, “Twins shift to a four-man (pause) five-man outfield. Whatever.” And of course, there was no explanation as to why the Twins made the switch.

Critically and unfortunately, this resistance to talking about the game, let alone accepting its changes, is often most noticeable during national ESPN broadcasts. During the July 14 Dodgers vs. Red Sox game, it appeared as though producers decided on topics to be addressed before the game even started. In the third inning Matt Vasgersian, Jessica Mendoza and Alex Rodriguez discussed Dodgers prospects and Alex Rodriguez’s marriage to Jennifer Lopez (who was shown on camera) more than any individual plate appearance. In the fourth inning, the topic was Fenway Park, complete with the background on Boston’s mascot, and information on ticket prices. The game seemed an afterthought. The pregame show for the July 21 broadcast included a feature where players tried to guess the meaning of acronyms like FIP, WOA, and UZR.

Sure, every sport has its share of “back in my day” voices, but baseball’s competitors are often sports that are so inherently action-packed that even when the communicators of the sport criticize, it may not matter to a prospective fan. Baseball is not one of them. It is difficult for new fans to recognize some of the most important aspects of the game without a little guidance and it should be no surprise that young people are bored by a game that they don’t understand. It seems unlikely that new fans are going to invest their time in baseball when the communicators debase the strategies and statistics and often aren’t interested enough to pay attention.

Going to baseball games further illustrates how little the sport seems to want to welcome new fans. At a recent Yankees vs. Rays game, the most current song played inside Tropicana Field (other than the players’ walk-up music) was an organ rendition of “Seven Nation Army,” which is a 16-year-old song. Even its use as a “fight song” is pushing a decade. In addition to the entertainment being outdated, there are some distinct disadvantages to outdoor stadiums (of which there are 23). Baseball is played in the hottest regions of the country during the hottest time of year, and outdoor stadiums are limited in the kinds of between-action entertainment they can muster.

If Major League Baseball is genuinely concerned about attracting new fans, these are the places it should start. Both baseball broadcasts and baseball stadiums desperately need to update the ways they engage with new fans. First, broadcasts need to do a better job explaining to a viewer the most important battle of the entire game: that between a hitter and pitcher. This confrontation is so important that Cubs manager Joe Maddon once said that the game could easily be called “pitching.” Yet, some broadcast crews often talk over entire plate appearances while barely acknowledging that a player has come to bat. Some of the most important insights are virtually non-existent: how a pitcher will attempt to approach a plate appearance based on his arsenal, the situation, and the batter’s strengths; predictions of what pitch will be used in a particular count and where it will be located, and how a previous plate appearance is affecting a current one.

Football would serve as a reasonable example of how a game should be narrated, in particular the way Tony Romo announces games. Romo does an excellent job explaining how defenses and offenses are set up and what a team is attempting to accomplish, and at times appears clairvoyant in his ability to call plays before they happen. He is fun, engaging, and — importantly — willing to talk about plays in non-football speak.

Attendance may also be improved by updating in-game entertainment, and coming to terms with a likely reality that all stadiums will soon need to be domed. As for the former, baseball can look to the NBA as a model of how to reach younger fans: playing more hip-hop, pop, and other contemporary music — including music that is popular with the nationalities that are largely represented in baseball. Other ideas: updating light/laser shows, investing in 3D projection technology, and increasing the number of ways fans can use augmented reality, Twitter, Snapchat, and/or Instagram before, during, and after the game.

Down with the Three-Inning Save

by Tom Joyce

The case against the save's least useful definition.

It’s time to accept that younger fans will need a little more than the game to get them to buy a ticket and travel to a ballpark. The American entertainment industry, from musicians to movie theaters have had to figure out how to market their product to a generation of individuals who have more ways to spend their disposable income, but less disposable income to spend. A recent Merrill Lynch report found that Americans aged 18-34 collectively hold about $2 trillion dollars’ worth of student loan, credit card, mortgage, and car payment debt. Young adults are also saving money at record rates. Baseball’s decline was probably inevitable, but maintaining even the status quo will take some work.

A big boost to these efforts would be making all stadiums domed, whether it be entirely, partially, or with a retractable roof. For a variety of reasons, it is much easier to create a spectacle of light and sound indoors, and it is a much more comfortable environment for fans. It should not be overlooked that the past decade has seen a succession of record-breaking summer temperatures in regions where many teams play. Granted, there is no empirical evidence for this, but isn’t it possible that young fans are not excited about sitting in 90-degree heat to watch a game that they barely understand, all while listening to music that was made before they were born, and watching hot dog mascots race each other? Does that need a chart?

At the ballpark, even in open-air stadiums, event coordinators need to play a lot more contemporary music in between innings, and in-between away-team plate appearances (home players have their own entrance music). They could borrow from NBA games and show, on the Jumbotron, pictures from the game that fans have posted on Twitter and Instagram. They could hold special events in which fans are allowed on the field to take advantage of the Instagram-ability of that field as well as the dugout. Stadiums could even begin using augmented reality platforms to get fans to walk around the stadium. And of course, following U.S. Cellular Park’s lead, stadiums could also make fireworks more than just a “Friday night home game” type of thing. Indoor baseball stadiums will be even better equipped to use new projection technology and put more effort into creating a concert-type atmosphere.

There are even improvements that can address pace of play and the home run spike (which is attracting the ire of even progressive baseball outlets like FanGraphs). As for the latter, outfield fence distances merely have to be 400 feet at center and 325 feet at the foul poles, a regulation put into place in 1958 (and a few stadiums don’t even meet those standards). The median average distance for home run hitters in 2019 is 399 feet. We are seeing the strongest and most skilled home run hitters in the game’s history hit home runs over walls that were regulated 60 years ago. Additionally — as the aforementioned FanGraphs article points out — there is mounting evidence that the ball at the major league (as well as the Triple-A) level is “juiced.” This could be remedied.

As for average game length, the league’s first three-hour per-game average coincided with the first season of expanded replay, which is likely not a coincidence. Currently, even though replays are viewed and decided upon at an office in New York, fans still have to endure every umpire running off the field to wait for a verdict. Why? Can MLB simply hire more umpires to watch games at the Replay Command Center so they are able to anticipate when a challenge may occur and make a quicker decision? Can a crew chief also be equipped with an earpiece so that decision can be easily relayed without requiring all umpires to walk off the field?

On television, commentators could work through a fairly standard process to keep fans aware of what’s happening. When a hitter comes to the plate, commentary can focus on his strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, and if he is on a notable hot streak. They should even be able to work in how the pitcher will likely approach this hitter and whatever the situation might be. Then, a prediction of where the next pitch will go and what it will be. Then, by the time a pitcher gets into his windup, silence. After the pitch is delivered, depending on what type of pitch it was, where it went, whether it was a ball or strike, and whether the batter swung, commentators can discuss whether that pitch and location will be repeated, or whether the pitcher will try something different. Additionally, commentators can let fans know if a batter will be looking for the same pitch or whether he will prepare for something different. In addition to these details, subsequent plate appearances will be able to include insight about how previous plate appearances impact the current one.

Increased awareness of the devastating effects of concussions in recent years has had a significant impact on the number of kids playing contact sports, particularly football. Baseball’s relative safety and need for less equipment make it an appealing alternative to football — and, indeed, the specter of CTE may be partially responsible for the concurrent drop in youth football enrollment and rise in youth baseball enrollment that we’ve seen over the past few years. Baseball currently has an opportunity better than any since the rise of the NFL to capitalize on the youth market.

Still, when it came down to it, Kyler Murray chose football over baseball — and an increased risk of getting CTE — because he loves the game of football. Major League Baseball should want the next Kyler Murray to love baseball. Baseball can help accomplish this by using broadcasts to offer insight into the intricacies that have made fans like me such avid appreciators of its cruel beauty. The next Kyler Murray may also enjoy being in a stadium that is designed to speak to his sense of fun.