April 02, 2008
Exciting and Low Scoring
One person who leaves comments on this site is obsessed with criticizing low scoring games. I just watched the end of the Angels-Twins game, won 1-0 by the Angels, and saw a number of fine defensive plays in two innings. The best was Nick Punto making a barehanded grad and throw on a slow roller down the third base line. There were nice throws, nice scoops, and the fans seemed to be into it. That person should really develop an appreciation for the other aspects of the game.
The other thing the Twins can take away from this game is the excellent pitching of Nick Blackburn. He pitched seven innings with one walk and six strikeouts, allowing the lone run of the game. Minnesota will take many more outings like that from the young pitcher.
Joe Saunders made a case for sticking in the rotation as well, giving up just four hits over eight shutout innings. He wasn't as good as his 15-8 record prior to this season indicated, but he's improved his ERA every year, and at age 27 might be ready to pitch as well as he wins.
Posted by David Pinto at
10:24 PM
|
Games
|
TrackBack (0)
I love low scoring games. 1) I admire good pitching efforts; 2) every play is important. Nothing bores me more than a 12-7 score...might as well watch a slow pitch softball league game.
Give me a well-pitched 1-0 game anyday. There's nothing worse than a 12-10 slugfest with each team using five or six pitchers.
But all these low scoring games by these high paid players! They're just not producing. I heard the average salary is over $3M, but for what? Low scoring games? Maybe the recession is being caused by ballplayers' ballooning salaries and lowered run production. It's a classic example of decreasing worker efficiency!
I always love low scoring games where my team isn't involved. When it is, they send me into a slow agonizing death ("STOP SWINGING AT THE FIRST PITCH!"). Also, hate to say it but pitchers duels just aren't the same live rather than on t.v., so every time I buy I ticket I hope for a high score.
I guess I'm the "obsessed" person who should develop an appreciation for a game I've only been following for longer than David Pinto has been alive.
Hey, David, you can mention my name. Anyhoo, for some reason baseball has set repeated attendance records with high-scoring games over the past decade-plus. I really wonder if all those tickets would have been sold for a parade of 1-0 "thrillers".
In fact, I watched much of the 1-0 Minnesota game that David rhapsodizes about. Pinto apparently missed the best defensive play, which was a fantastic stop by Morneau on a grounder down the line, followed by a no-look backhand shovel-pass to the pitcher for the out.
Throughout the game the noise level in the Metrodome was about that of a crowded public library. If the Twins had managed a little scoring now and then, the crowd might have made a bit more noise, doncha think?
Anyway, despite Pinto's condescending non-appreciation of my baseball appreciation, I can enjoy a pitcher's duel. I just don't think a steady and monotonous diet of them is good for baseball. As Pinto hero Bill James once said in one of his Abstracts, if baseball returns to the days of the deadball sixties, okay, I can stand it. A lot of interesting things can happen in that kind of baseball.
But as James also said - and I agree - I think the higher-scoring baseball of the last decade-plus is honestly a lot more exciting. Anyway, we may soon get a test case. Baseball is averaging about eight runs a game so far this season. (Yes, tiny tiny sample.) Let's see how the game fares at the gate if that kind of scoring continues.
Maybe this is out of place, but I have to make an analogy to baseball's ancient and distant cousin. The "iconic" form of cricket is the sport's equivalent of a pitcher's duel, namely test cricket.
This grinding form of the sport is a true multi-day test of cricket ability. Over four or (for international matches) five days, players grind out runs at an excruciatingly slow rate as the bowlers - the equivalent of pitchers - strive mightily to get batsmen out.
Purists love this form of the game. Or at least they say they love it. Except for international matches in a few countries, this form of the sport goes virtually unwatched. Nobody buys tickets for this supposedly "pure" form of the sport.
Meanwhile, the hottest thing is cricket is Twenty20. (No, the name doesn't have anything to do with vision. I'd have to explain some of the rules of cricket to explain the name, and you don't want me to do that.)
This kind of cricket usually concludes more quickly than the average major-league baseball game. Scoring is fast and furious as batsmen smash the ball hither and yon and back to hither. Three hundred or more runs get crammed into a couple hours.
Purists turn up their noses at this form of the game, much as baseball purists sniff at slugfests. But for some obscure reason, Twenty20 sells tickets like no other kind of cricket. In fact, Twenty20 is subsidizing all forms of cricket throughout the world.
They just played the first Twenty20 world cup in South Africa, and it was a smash at the box office. India is about to launch the biggest Twenty20 competition yet, and it's selling tickets like nobody's business.
I'll let you draw the obvious analogy to baseball's ticket sales over the past high-scoring decade-plus.
But there is lots of scoring in test cricket. As far as I can tell, Twenty20 is just test cricket with a time limit.
What drove baseball attendance was free agency. Once players were free to move and sign big contracts fans got interested. "Let's go see the $1 million dollar pitcher. Let's go see the $10 million hitter. Let's go see the quarter billion dollar shorstop."
Sure fans don't want to see a boring game. Low scoring tends to bring back other elements that fans like, and also tends to lead to more edge of your seat games. I'm not taling about six runs per game. I think nine is optimum. Enough scoring to make it interesting, and the game moves along without constant pitching changes.
Actually, nine runs is slightly above the average season since 1900, which is about 8.8. And that overall average has risen due to the high-scoring seasons since 1993. Nine runs a game would be quite high compared to, say, much of the sixties and seventies.
So maybe we don't disagree, after all. You seem to want a pretty high level of run-scoring, too.
As for cricket, of course the final tally in test cricket is high. They play for days and days! But the rate of run-scroing is extremely slow compared to Twenty20. The much more concentrated offensive action in Twenty20 makes the game far more attractive to ticket-buyers than test cricket.
By the way, I should explain my references to cricket. When I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Kenya in the seventies, I first saw the game. (Kenya isn't yet a test-playing country, one of the cricket elite, but it's getting there.)
Like all Americans first exposed to cricket, my reaction was confounded: this is some weird kind of baseball. The truth is more complicated. Baseball originated from rounders, an old English bat-and-ball game almost certainly related to cricket in some way.
Trouble is, nobody knows exactly what the relationship was, because nobody was keeping track of these silly little games in Olde England. It's not liike basketball, which can be tracked back pretty reliably to Dr. Naismith's peach basket.
If "pretty reliably" = "definitively", then yes.
The cricket analogies are lost on almost all of us. How many Americans have ever watched even one entire cricket match, test, Twenty20, or otherwise?