Why do announcers use antiquated stats?

[sane]

"Why do announcers use antiquated stats?"

 

Because not everyone in the audience is a geek?

[jimmer]

Are there still people in the world who think of the term geek as a negative? Obviously there are still people who like to try to belittle others by using labels like that, but smart is in nowadays, is it not?

[drjim]

Except less and less people (especially the young) are watching the 6 o clock news.......again, I think people are way underestimating their fellow humans' desire to learn something small every few days.

There is a difference between learning something new and having a foundation for understanding be shifted.

 

There is a place for soft introductions to some advanced stats (Provus does this quite well imo) but that is quite different than shifting the stats that are cited most often.

[drjim]

MLB Network and Fox Sports One have both done game broadcasts with a more advanced point of view and somehow, the game was still fun to watch, the conversation still witty and informative without being bogged down.

Great that they do this, plenty of space on tv for different presentations. And things that work well will probably be adapted by more broadcasts.

[h2oface]

 

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.

 

That would be a sure way to bring the ratings down! The market would be reduced to such a small sample. It is nice for people to enjoy baseball without all the dribble behind the scenes. Many people enjoy baseball just fine without arguing about everything. I like to visit both, and don't want them the same.

[formerly33]

 

You got me curious, so I searched and found this...

 

http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-are-iq-and-interest-in-sports.html

Lol ... I know I wasn't supposed to agree with this nut, but I think that even non-sports fans would shrug that article off because of the limited data and people he had to work with. But did anyone else find it offensive the way he insinuated that minority groups are stupid? Reading that, I got the impression that this guy was a lot dumber than he thought ... not that I mind being ranked about average intelligence, but I'd prefer to be slotted there by a smart person than a not so smart person.

[sane]

smart is in nowadays, is it not?

Yes, but arrogant-smart and entitled-smart is not.

If someone expects to have all announcers and all other fans (who are not really THAT into the game) to spend their time learning baseball metrics because THEY are interested in that subject.......I think that their sense of entitlement is askew.

[Brock Beauchamp]

"Why do announcers use antiquated stats?"

 

Because not everyone in the audience is a geek?

To quote my wife's favorite character from Leverage:

 

Age of the geek, baby.

 

Maybe your thinking is why baseball is having a hard time capturing the under-40 crowd. Treat your audience like idiots and you'll guarantee yourself an audience full of idiots.

[sane]

Treat your audience like idiots and you'll guarantee yourself an audience full of idiots.

Treat your audience like geniuses, and you will guarantee yourself a small audience of bored EX-baseball fans.

[h2oface]

The Triple Crown stats and Wins-Losses and ERA are and will always be part of baseball. The record stats. I love the advanced metrics (self titled a little arrogantly, evolved might be a better word than advanced, especially since many advanced stats advocates think many advanced stats are worthless and unrepresentative and a stretch, too) but the record stats should and will outlive the current batch of advanced metrics, as they are sure to change and evolve. I mean...... we still use umpires to call balls and strikes! A lot of advanced metric guys still like that..... I mean...... If the strike zone was called the same and truly accurately, how could they argue about pitch framing any more?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Treat your audience like geniuses, and you will guarantee yourself a small audience of bored EX-baseball fans.

Who said anything about geniuses? Unless your definition of "genius" is "able to understand basic arithmetic", I don't think we're talking about the same thing here.

 

Also, I'm curious what you find so exciting about the Error and Win that it makes you tune into baseball games just to hear those magical words spoken multiple times per game.

[Pius Jefferson]

I think there's little instances to introduce new stats to viewers. Like yesterday, Dick mentioned Sano in 43 games had 33 rbi's. Instead he could have said Sano's OPS which combines power numbers and getting on-base is .970. 

 

 

[sane]

 

Who said anything about geniuses? Unless your definition of "genius" is "able to understand basic arithmetic", I don't think we're talking about the same thing here.

Also, I'm curious what you find so exciting about the Error and Win that it makes you tune into baseball games just to hear those magical words spoken multiple times per game.

I don't tune in to hear either. I can survive advanced metrics discussions, but most baseball fans are escaping from PBS, musicals, book clubs, charity events, flea markets or whatever their family members and friends prefer. The often have beer in their hands, mouths and bellies. Many can't spell OPS or their wives name by the 8th inning. I just don't want to chase away baseball fans, because the game becomes like a book review with their wife.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I just don't want to chase away baseball fans, because the game becomes like a book review with their wife.

1. I'd hope most people would want to discuss a book with their wife.

 

2. Advanced stats do not fundamentally change baseball or a broadcast, they enhance it by telling a more complete story about the sport. You seem to believe we are advocating half the screen to be filled up with complex formulas to explain Brian Dozier's WBIAREAGBARGH stat when all we're saying is "use OPS because it's better while still very easy to understand".

 

When you get right down to it, if a person can't understand OPS, they can't understand baseball. It's a fundamental part of the sport that has been around for 60 or so years and uses some of the most commonly understood statistical measures we have in the sport.

[TheLeviathan]

OPS should be in more regular use for sure.

[sane]

 

1. I'd hope most people would want to discuss a book with their wife.

 

2. Advanced stats do not fundamentally change baseball or a broadcast, they enhance it by telling a more complete story about the sport. You seem to believe we are advocating half the screen to be filled up with complex formulas to explain Brian Dozier's WBIAREAGBARGH stat when all we're saying is "use OPS because it's better while still very easy to understand".

 

When you get right down to it, if a person can't understand OPS, they can't understand baseball. It's a fundamental part of the sport that has been around for 60 or so years and uses some of the most commonly understood statistical measures we have in the sport.

Discussing a book with your wife is OK; Listening to other people discuss it....not so much.

OPS is simple enough. I just hope that terms, with which the majority of baseball fans are familiar, don't disappear from baseball vernacular, and those fans don't disappear with them.

[twinsnorth49]

Sheesh, someone makes a simple suggestion and all you get is discussion on the extreme ends of both sides.

 

Good grief people, find a middle ground, progress is  good, new ideas are good, familiarity is good. There is room for all of it, it's all good.

[sane]

 

Sheesh, someone makes a simple suggestion and all you get is discussion on the extreme ends of both sides.

 

Good grief people, find a middle ground, progress is a good, new ideas are good, familiarity is good. There is room for all of it, it's all good.

Actually, it started with a question: ""Why do announcers use antiquated stats?"

And a simple answer: "The speaker uses terms that the audience will understand".

And a resulting disagreement.

But change IS good;

OPS, OBP and SLG are better than BA and RBI.

ERA and OBA are better than W-L.

You are right!..It's all good.

[Thrylos]

 

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.

 

Didn't Monday night football try something similar before?

[Twins7]

Devil's advocate here. I like the RBI and Win stats. I am a firm believer in "clutch" performance. Not that some players are more "clutch" than others, that some confluence of events lead players to get it done when it matters. Especially a good clubhouse environment, where the players have strong emotional connections, and really truly believe in each other and want to beat the hell out of those damn Yankees together and represent the great state of Minnesota. Just that spark, that feel of a team with a chip on its shoulder who want to show the world what it can do. Yeah, maybe that team will have a good ops and drs, but they'll have good numbers with risp and a bunch of rbis, and a lot of wins late in the game.

 

Dunno, I just like RBI and wins because they're better connected to the human aspect of the game, the love and emotion that comes with winning, as opposed to war and uzr and drs that seems to dissect a players performance into isolated compartments solely based on the individual's talent. I think that a lot of what happens in baseball is heavily affected by emotion and comraderie, or lack-there-of. And rbis and wins frame the narrative that way, even if they don't measure performance as well as other advanced stats.

[Jham]

If dazzle took the time to explain siera in the first inning he'd finish 5 runs later in the 4th inning and he'd run out of time to tell us how many coors lights he was planning on drinking on his birthday. So not that different... except i wouldn't be thirsty. ..

[jorgenswest]

Most stats are not used well. The sample size to be meaningful is larger than a partial season.

 

Strike out rate, walk rate, ground all rate and fly ball rate are the most meaningful in season. The rest, antiquated or not, need a very large sample.

[Turd Furgeson]

It is pretty annoying. People have such a strange attachment to these stats even when you explain the flaws of them, some people just don't care, they want to use those traditional stats because they are the stats they've always used, it's more comfortable or something.

 

A lot of the color commentators are former players right? From my experience listening to them, most of them are pretty dismissive of advanced analytics. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

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.

and really, when was the last time you heard a TV baseball announcer say anything of value? they just babble for 3.5 to 4 hours per day with a baseball game playing behind them.

[bluechipper]

I'd rather read about the advanced stats and keep the broadcasts the way they are. Does anyone really want to listen to Dick take two minutes to explain to everyone what BABIP is?

 

By the way, at times I cannot stand guys like Brian Kenny who talk so arrogantly about baseball as if the players are robots and all former players are the ones who don't understand the game.

[sane]

 

"OPS... It's a fundamental part of the sport that has been around for 60 or so years"

 

"On-base plus slugging was first popularized in 1984"...wikopedia

[Craig Arko]

By the way, at times I cannot stand guys like Brian Kenny who talk so arrogantly about baseball as if the players are robots and all former players are the ones who don't understand the game.

http://youtu.be/jD21cb_Wyk8

[theBOMisthebomb]

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.

[theBOMisthebomb]

If it gets rid of Dick and his yammering non-stop about his hometown of 300 people then let's do it.

[jimmer]

 

I'd rather read about the advanced stats and keep the broadcasts the way they are. Does anyone really want to listen to Dick take two minutes to explain to everyone what BABIP is?

 

By the way, at times I cannot stand guys like Brian Kenny who talk so arrogantly about baseball as if the players are robots and all former players are the ones who don't understand the game.

B Kenny takes about 2000% more abuse from former players and their sidekicks on MLB Network than he gives (especially the MLB Tonight cast).  They constantly takes shot on him, unprovoked, without him even on set.  At least Kenny says things to their face. and only when when they are praising things like the pitcher win/loss stat and RBI stats.  And he does it in a much nicer way.

 

It's like when a former player Daryll Hamilton, who worked for MLB Network, was murdered this year, B Kenny talked about how he was one of those former players who was always interested in what everyone had to say about the game.  He talked about how Hamilton didn't think he was better than anyone else and he didn't assume only players knew about the game.  He said that he was genuinely interested in hearing people's opinions and why they thought the way they did. Basically, the anti-Harold Reynolds.