I don't completely disagree with every point made there, but overall I think the author has trouble defining refinement culture in part because its not so much a coherent idea, and more a rambling rant against things changing. I don't really find most of their post to make any substantial points at all, beyond a few of the points about basketball and baseball.
I agree that those sports have suffered in terms of watch-ability at the hands of maximizing competitive efficiency. But I don't really know why anyone would expect anything different. The point of the game from a team/player perspective is to win. Using analytics to determine that there are advantages to three-point shots or walks isn't any different than any other strategic layer of the game. The solution shouldn't be to rail against analytics (which is no solution at all), it should be for the leagues to use analytics of their own to control for some of these strategies, like a government is supposed to hedge against externalities in an market. For basketball, simply push the 3-point line back a few feet so its no longer so much more advantageous than a midrange jump shot. I'm not much of a baseball fan, but surely the league can do something, like increases the number of balls to walk to 5, that might bring some of the boring-but-efficient strategies into line with more exciting ones.
Though I suspect the author and many others would be against any substantial rule alterations given their abhorrence towards change, and would rather just pine about the good old days.
+1 for "just" changing the rules or ball or whatever to improve (or at least test) game dynamics for greater balance and (presumably) interest.
My personal interest is for soccer to allow more substitutions to let coaches tweak the team more as the game is played. Small change; maybe big results in scoring.
I agree that those sports have suffered in terms of watch-ability at the hands of maximizing competitive efficiency. But I don't really know why anyone would expect anything different. The point of the game from a team/player perspective is to win. Using analytics to determine that there are advantages to three-point shots or walks isn't any different than any other strategic layer of the game. The solution shouldn't be to rail against analytics (which is no solution at all), it should be for the leagues to use analytics of their own to control for some of these strategies, like a government is supposed to hedge against externalities in an market. For basketball, simply push the 3-point line back a few feet so its no longer so much more advantageous than a midrange jump shot. I'm not much of a baseball fan, but surely the league can do something, like increases the number of balls to walk to 5, that might bring some of the boring-but-efficient strategies into line with more exciting ones.
Though I suspect the author and many others would be against any substantial rule alterations given their abhorrence towards change, and would rather just pine about the good old days.