Why do announcers use antiquated stats?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I've been watching a lot of out-of-market baseball this season. Tons of Astros games, Rays games, Royals, Nats, etc.. And the amount of out-of-date stats used in broadcasts has really worn me down. Dickbert are certainly part of the problem here but it's not only them... It's the entire frickin' sport. Even the vaunted Astros crew routinely makes me want to bang my head into my television.

 

I know part of the reason for this - announcers seem to believe the fanbase is dumb - but there are a few oddities that continue to stand out to me.

 

1. At-Bats. Why did we ever use this as a metric to talk about playing time? ABs don't actually track playing time... Plate Appearances do that. Why does anyone use the AB statistic? Comparing ABs between Danny Santana and, say, Joey Votto will leave unaccounted roughly 10-15% of Votto's playing time. It's really dumb and I do not understand why it's used at all for anything, really.

 

2. RBIs. Yeah, I know... We've done this one before. The other day, Dickbert actually referenced Bird's RBI total in the minor leagues as a measure of... something. It's bad enough to use RBI for MLB players. I just can't even.

 

3. Batting average. Seriously. Yes, it's a useful stat but lacks so much context it's basically irrelevant unless the player is an outlier.

 

4. Errors. Dickbert spent the entire Orioles series talking about how great their defense was because, well... You know. *brain explodes*

 

5. Pitcher wins. No comment.

 

The game has moved on in so many ways... Why are announcers one of the last parts of the game hanging on to this old terminology and how long are we going to have to suffer through this nonsense?

 

I know this is preaching to the choir a bit but it has really worn me down this season. It's really hard to listen to these guys and respect what they're saying when they're spewing antiquated nonsense for most of an "at-bat" (plate appearance).

[jimmer]

Because it's what everyone understands. It's simple. Doesn't require much thinking, if any at all.  Doesn't matter if it actually tell us anything of value.  It's what our fathers told us, and what their fathers told them, and so on.  Plus, most announcers have been around quite some time and it's what they know.  

 

Even worse, though, is how often they get even the simple stats completely wrong.  Dick and Bert do it all the time. Why bother to dig further or even do any research?  I was watching MLB Network this morning and Altuve was on.  One of the hosts was talking to Altuve and complimenting him on how he has had multiple seasons of 200 or more hits.  He hasn't.  I knew that before even looking it up, but I verified and yup, one time.  He hasn't really come close to a second time. I'm sure Altuve knows he hasn't had more than one season with that many hits.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yeah, I get we're all used to it and it wasn't until this season where I started paying attention to at-bats versus plate appearances.

 

No announcers I've heard this season use plate appearances more often than at-bats.

 

It's so entirely nonsensical. Even a cursory examination of the stat should reveal it's an inferior statistic to use and plate appearances should be the referenced statistic. It's not even "old school vs. new school" argument... It's just dumb.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I love the RISP stats they show: AVG, HR... and RBI. Like really, this guy gets most of his RBI with runners on base? Wow, very informative.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I love the RISP stats they show: AVG, HR... and RBI. Like really, this guy gets most of his RBI with runners on base? Wow, very informative.

Yeah, that one often gets a laugh out of me.

[Otto von Ballpark]

To be fair, even I sometimes use AB as a shorthand for PA, depending on who I am talking to.

[sane]

The speaker uses terms that the audience will understand. How complex is that?

[Craig Arko]

It's television. Will advanced stats sell more cars or Arby's food?

[drjim]

I can't remember where I heard it but Cory Provus had a great interview on this topic. He is fully aware of advanced stats but doesn't use all that often because he needs to tell a story that relates to the most fans.

 

The fact is that most fans don't know/care about any stats beyond the basics. The people who spend time on message boards, frequent Fangraphs, etc. is such a small percentage of the people that consume baseball.

[Shane Wahl]

 

I've been watching a lot of out-of-market baseball this season. Tons of Astros games, Rays games, Royals, Nats, etc.. And the amount of out-of-date stats used in broadcasts has really worn me down. Dickbert are certainly part of the problem here but it's not only them... It's the entire frickin' sport. Even the vaunted Astros crew routinely makes me want to bang my head into my television.

 

I know part of the reason for this - announcers seem to believe the fanbase is dumb - but there are a few oddities that continue to stand out to me.

 

1. At-Bats. Why did we ever use this as a metric to talk about playing time? ABs don't actually track playing time... Plate Appearances do that. Why does anyone use the AB statistic? Comparing ABs between Danny Santana and, say, Joey Votto will leave unaccounted roughly 10-15% of Votto's playing time. It's really dumb and I do not understand why it's used at all for anything, really.

 

2. RBIs. Yeah, I know... We've done this one before. The other day, Dickbert actually referenced Bird's RBI total in the minor leagues as a measure of... something. It's bad enough to use RBI for MLB players. I just can't even.

 

3. Batting average. Seriously. Yes, it's a useful stat but lacks so much context it's basically irrelevant unless the player is an outlier.

 

4. Errors. Dickbert spent the entire Orioles series talking about how great their defense was because, well... You know. *brain explodes*

 

5. Pitcher wins. No comment.

 

The game has moved on in so many ways... Why are announcers one of the last parts of the game hanging on to this old terminology and how long are we going to have to suffer through this nonsense?

 

I know this is preaching to the choir a bit but it has really worn me down this season. It's really hard to listen to these guys and respect what they're saying when they're spewing antiquated nonsense for most of an "at-bat" (plate appearance).

 

I have noticed that some have added OPS as a graphic on screen. But to get announcers to even talk about that one . . . like it isn't even a weird stat . . . it's just a happy sum of two very important stats . . . it's the easiest valuable stat to discuss . . . blergh.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I can't remember where I heard it but Cory Provus had a great interview on this topic. He is fully aware of advanced stats but doesn't use all that often because he needs to tell a story that relates to the most fans.

 

The fact is that most fans don't know/care about any stats beyond the basics. The people who spend time on message boards, frequent Fangraphs, etc. is such a small percentage of the people that consume baseball.

I'm not expecting baseball announcing to pivot overnight and start using xFIP... But every front office makes extensive use of advanced metrics. Why are announcers using stats no longer respected by front offices around major league baseball?

 

I'm not asking for a complex explanation of DRS... But refusing to reference horrible stats like Errors is a good place to start. They don't even have to replace it with another stat, just get rid of Errors and pretend they don't exist.

 

And use OBP/OPS. Use the triple slash that is so commonplace in baseball as the "quick and dirty" reference of a player's ability. They're not difficult to understand.

[Shane Wahl]

Responding to many who talk about simple this and simple that:

 

People aren't total buffoons. Perhaps announcers could *educate* quite simply. It doesn't have to happen in one day. How look does it take to explain OPS or K/9? Or even FIP?

 

[Shane Wahl]

In fact, going with my long-held belief that the TD main crew plus Gleeman should be broadcasting Twins games instead of Dick and Bert . . . Brock can be the educator every game explaining or reiterating what these stats mean.

 

Just. Make. It. Happen.

[Willihammer]

 

I can't remember where I heard it but Cory Provus had a great interview on this topic. He is fully aware of advanced stats but doesn't use all that often because he needs to tell a story that relates to the most fans.

 

The fact is that most fans don't know/care about any stats beyond the basics. The people who spend time on message boards, frequent Fangraphs, etc. is such a small percentage of the people that consume baseball.

I agree but it wouldn't hurt to add an "advanced" stat like BABIP or something onto a graphic when its notable. Eg. Danny Santana in 2014. The problem is whenever a new stat is displayed the programmer has the announcer go into a long winded explanation which is just boring. If it were up to me, a few extra stats could be added where notable and just let the viewers who get it, get it, and let everyone else google it if they're interested and then let the announcers call the game as usual.

[Mike Sixel]

The at bats one is interesting to me. I think that is a product of the pre-1970s thinking that a walk was laziness by a hitter, and not a skill. So,  ABs actually matter, instead of plate appearances. It goes waaaaay back to the day when a walk wasn't viewed as a valuable at bat.

 

I think they could squeak in some other stats, but all those you list (except pitcher wins) actually do tell something of a story. doesn't make them good predictors, but the past did happen, and those stats do tell a story.

[Jham]

Baseball is a game of numbers and history.  It is a game with infinite intricacies and variables.  In many respects, the game is ultimately a game of results.  Who cares if a stat line reflects luck or skill if you're comparing and analyzing results and not making predictions?  It's not like our advanced metrics are perfect or even accurate to begin with.  

 

If you want to take the luck element out of the game, then combine the best metrics we have, put them in a computer, and name a champion after a season's worth of statistical input simulated over an additional 10,000 seasons.  

 

IF we can agree that our statistics have flaws which can be debated, but results are what they are and cannot be debated; then in the interest of brevity, understanding, and respect for both the history of the game and casual baseball fan, can we agree that results-based stats DO in fact have some value, just perhaps not for prediction or talent evaluation?

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

IF we can agree that our statistics have flaws which can be debated, but results are what they are and cannot be debated; then in the interest of brevity, understanding, and respect for both the history of the game and casual baseball fan, can we agree that results-based stats DO in fact have some value, just perhaps not for prediction or talent evaluation?

I don't think anyone would argue results-based stats have no value, they're simply a lousy tool to evaluate a player from a single data point.

 

And it's not like there aren't just as easily understood stats out there that tell a more accurate story. SLG is not a difficult stat to understand and OPS is even easier to digest.

 

And again, why are we so enamored with history when MLB front offices no longer put stock in these stats? If you want to tell the story of 21st century baseball, it makes sense to use stats 21st century front offices study to compile a team.

[Seth Stohs]

Because 90% of viewing audiences just don't care about the advanced stuff. And as others have said, it's easy.  Most fans don't go to Baseball-Reference, much less any of those sites like FanGraphs (that I don't even go to).  They can give some basics and if people want more, they can go to those sites or even come here to find some of it. 

[Jham]

 

And again, why are we so enamored with history when MLB front offices no longer put stock in these stats? If you want to tell the story of 21st century baseball, it makes sense to use stats 21st century front offices study to compile a team.

 

Well, many viewers are as enamored with the history of the game, as much as they are in love with watching the present games played out, let alone analyzing it at a mathematical level.  

 

I agree that there are many other stats that should get run on the broadcast. And probably some explanation and discussion that can be worked in pre-game or during their KG/Jamie cuts.  

 

Part of baseball's magic is its timelessness which is why the Steroid era is so difficult for fans to get past.  Even if our evaluation has changed, the game remains roughly the same.  ERA, W/L, K's, BA, HR, RBI remain staples in evaluating results.  Frankly, those tuning in who care about advanced metrics are probably already fangraphs regulars and/or members of this blog and don't need them referenced during the broadcast.  

 

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

Oh, I understand now - Arby's, RBIs, Arby's, RBIs ... They gotta sell that "Roast Beef" somehow!

 

Maybe some marketing is needed? Like "Denny's Plate Appearances" or WAR presented by the U.S. Army?

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Because 90% of viewing audiences just don't care about the advanced stuff. And as others have said, it's easy.  Most fans don't go to Baseball-Reference, much less any of those sites like FanGraphs (that I don't even go to).  They can give some basics and if people want more, they can go to those sites or even come here to find some of it. 

 

fangraphs has so many baseball articles that are interesting, that don't always have a lot to do with stats, I'm surprised by this.

[ScrapTheNickname]

I know this is preaching to the choir a bit but it has really worn me down this season. It's really hard to listen to these guys and respect what they're saying when they're spewing antiquated nonsense for most of an "at-bat" (plate appearance).

You didn't mention Saves.

Saves totals tells us nothing.

SV vs. SVO tells us more.

The % of saves completed, thus, is the stat we need to know.

 

[big dog]

The box scores show ABs and BA, and that's what people discuss.  Why not change the box scores to show PAs and OPS?  That would change the tone of the conversation.

 

Not using former players from a couple of decades ago in the booth would probably help as well.  They came up in a certain system so that's what they are used to having.

[jimmer]

 

fangraphs has so many baseball articles that are interesting, that don't always have a lot to do with stats, I'm surprised by this.

Fangraphs is a daily read for me.  The articles, the chats, etc.

[ScrapTheNickname]

 

It's television. Will advanced stats sell more cars or Arby's food?

Yes, grinding stat gears in the brain makes one hungry! And it also makes one want to drive more new cars!

[Loosey]

I think it is in part because many baseball announcers have been around the game a long time and are in the group of people who don't think advanced metrics are important.  They are they guys who will argue that BABIP doesn't matter if a batting average is high.  Take Dick and Bert, they seemed thoroughly confused as to why 2015 Danny Santana was a shell of 2014 Danny Santana.  If they took at look some of those BABIP it would explain a lot.

[Shane Wahl]

As though there isn't time to educate viewers on some of the more simple statistics. Some of you are acting as though the majority of time spent by Dick and Bert talking isn't just totally useless. There's time to explain OPS once a month.

[Vanimal46]

I think there's a couple of things that goes into it. Most announcers are "old school" ball guys and may not value the advanced stats. It's more so appealing to the casual fan and 7 out of 10 in the world. Sad to say but you know there would be people calling in and complaining because advanced metrics are shown on the screen instead of traditional stats. 

[drjim]

I'm curious, what's the motivation for the angst? Do you want more fans to understand baseball better? Do you want the broadcast better for you? Do you think announcers should be better?

 

I generally think FSN works in the interest of having the most viewers having the most enjoyable broadcast possible to have to the end goal of most viewers total. I'm not certain using newer stats and spending significant time explaining them does anything to advance this goal.

 

I understand the desire to have things tailored best for your interests and/or having more people "educated" to line up more closely with your desires but I just don't see how that can happen in mass distribution like a baseball telecast.

[twinsnorth49]

 

As though there isn't time to educate viewers on some of the more simple statistics. Some of you are acting as though the majority of time spent by Dick and Bert talking isn't just totally useless. There's time to explain OPS once a month.

This, there is at least 20 hours of broadcast time to be saved if they cut the number of recycled Bert jokes by half. Also, instead of telling me the height and weight of Mike Pelfrey each and every time he pitches, maybe tell me something current, relevant and interesting.