Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Baseball Reference dot com changes...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    140

    Baseball Reference dot com changes...

    .
    So baseball reference dot com has changed the design/layout of their site ...apparently to make it more mobile device friendly.

    What do you all think of it..??


    Also ...they have dropped the Elo ratings pages across the site. Players were displayed side-by-side and the readers choice one as being better.


    Were any of you users of it..?? I found myself on the page quite often. Apparently I was one of the few. I am going to miss it.

    .

    ...tom...

  2. #2
    Oh, I think it's okay; once ya get the hang of it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,692
    The new layout is certainly 100% better now than the old mobile site. Maybe a tad harder to navigate on my PCand tablet, but it is more than a fair tradeoff.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    12,204
    I think it's about time. They did all the other sites first and then Baseball Reference last. Looks good to me, I don't have any issues with it.
    52 wins to match last year's total

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,684
    I dislike the change quite a bit, but that comes from the perspective of someone who only checks it on a PC. I understand why they did it though.
    "If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it on the scoreboard?" -Jeff Francoeur"

    Play the Who am I? game in trivia and you can make this signature line yours for three days (baseball signatures only!)


    Go here for all your 1920's/1930's OF info

  6. #6
    I dislike the new design. Because of nerve damage in my hands, I only use a PC. The site is more difficult to navigate now.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    3,742
    Love the new design, just has a more modern look to me. Also they scrapped the Elo-Rater quite a few years ago. It was a crapshoot anyways.
    Rest in Peace Jose Fernandez (1992-2016)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    408
    Totally agree.. I much prefer the old site on my MAC

    Quote Originally Posted by Reds5 View Post
    I dislike the new design. Because of nerve damage in my hands, I only use a PC. The site is more difficult to navigate now.
    North of the Big Apple but missing Central Fla

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post
    I dislike the change quite a bit, but that comes from the perspective of someone who only checks it on a PC. I understand why they did it though.
    This post ^ sums it up for me. I prefer the old site, but understand also they did it for the benefit of phone users, who apparently out number the rest of us by a wide margin.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    12,204
    I access it both on my phone and the computer. While I do have to get a little used to it on the computer, I think I'll manage.
    52 wins to match last year's total

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    10,089
    At first glance, I like it. And that is unusual. It certainly looks more modern.
    2016 World Series Champions

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,851
    No problems from this fan at all. On a desktop keyboard, the drop-down menus actually make it seem easier to use by easily presenting choices you're looking to find. Maybe I don't remember much about the old site, but there isn't anything missing on the site after checking. All the info is available and presented in much the same fashion. Boxscores might be easier to find, and that might have been a major impetus on the change. It all looks good to me.
    Catfish Hunter, RIP. Mark Fidrych, RIP. Skip Caray, RIP. Tony Gwynn, #19, RIP

    A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill.

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test first and the lesson later. -- Dan Quisenberry.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by abolishthedh View Post
    Maybe I don't remember much about the old site, but there isn't anything missing on the site after checking. All the info is available and presented in much the same fashion.
    The fielding statistics for the seasons prior to 1914 no longer indicate which outfield positions were played. They used to list "OF" in the position column, and then in a column at the far right, something like 14-105-27, which would indicate that the individual played 14 games in left field, 105 games in center field, and 27 games in right field. This information is no longer available, as far as I can tell.

    Edited to add: One day later, and the outfield position stats have been restored. (I had posted a request on their blog about this.) As long as I use Chrome rather than Explorer to browse the site, I'm OK with the changes now.
    Last edited by RUKen; 03-22-2017 at 05:48 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Out There
    Posts
    2,453
    I don't access it on a mobile device, and I find the site now isn't worth accessing at all. Pages now take too long to load, I get the 'long-running script' message, etc. I can go to other sites more quickly now, while bbref takes its time.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Macker View Post
    I don't access it on a mobile device, and I find the site now isn't worth accessing at all. Pages now take too long to load, I get the 'long-running script' message, etc. I can go to other sites more quickly now, while bbref takes its time.
    I don't get the script message, thankfully, or I'd stop using it. i tried a little timeline to get used to it and to me, on a PC, it was sort of like if someone comes and rearranges where all your stuff is. Being legally blind, once i found things I liked it, but I do kind of miss having everything there versus having to click to see more options. Still, I am getting used to it.(I use Firefox so i don't know if that makes a difference)

    Seems to me they restored a few things from when I first noticed the difference, so perhaps there was more that needed done.
    If Baseball Integrated Early - baseball integrated from the beginning - and "Brotherhood and baseball," the U.S. history companion, at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Baseballifsandmore - IBIE updated for 2011.

    "Full House Chronology" at yahoo group fullhousefreaks & fullhouse4life with help of many fans, thanks for the input

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,684
    Baseball Reference is SO slow for me right now with the new configuration; it is very frustrating. Is anyone else having this issue? Or, has anyone paid the $20 to get rid of the ads, and has that sped up the pages uploading? I'm hating site as is currently.
    "If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it on the scoreboard?" -Jeff Francoeur"

    Play the Who am I? game in trivia and you can make this signature line yours for three days (baseball signatures only!)


    Go here for all your 1920's/1930's OF info

  17. #17
    I'm with TI and Macker. The site takes forever to load on my PC- the only way I access it. I used to use it multiple times per day, now it's so frustrating I only use it a couple of times per week. It's awful the way it is now. If I knew of another comprehensive baseball data site I'd probably stop using it.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post
    Baseball Reference is SO slow for me right now with the new configuration; it is very frustrating. Is anyone else having this issue? Or, has anyone paid the $20 to get rid of the ads, and has that sped up the pages uploading? I'm hating site as is currently.
    Why pay $20 bucks when you can use ad blocker for free? The site loads as it always has for me, though I do not like the new layout.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    785
    Lately it's been doing better. But at first, it was not only slow to load, but would freeze that page and any other tab I also had up.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    52
    It took a little getting used to, but overall it's not too bad.
    "Last season, I led this team in ninth-inning doubles in the month of August!" -Jack Eliot

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •