Why do announcers use antiquated stats?

[Boom Boom]

OPS? What's that?

 

Now be quiet... I'm trying to tune in to the Twins game on CCO.

[twinsnorth49]

 

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.

I think more people are interested in it than you think. If the current game is driven and evaluated by new metrics, a large number of people are going to want to understand them, particularly younger generations of fans who may not be as interested in much of the history of the grand old game that their fathers and grandfathers prattle on about.

 

Hockey has entered the world of more advanced stats and HNIC broadcasts in Canada have incorporated them into every broadcast, to wide appeal. Why would baseball be all that different? The modernization of baseball broadcasts is long overdue, most of them are boring, stodgy affairs. I realize they have less scheduled breaks in the action than sports like Hockey or Football but there is still plenty of dead air. 

[70charger]

 

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.

 

This. The parameters of the conversation change and the conversation changes.

[d-mac]

 

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. 

 

I thought the old people are too busy yelling at kids to get off their lawns, catching the early bird special at Old Country Buffet or driving dangerously slow in the left lane to care.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think sample size deserves a place. It is frustrating to see an unfamiliar player, .300 AVG, 2 HR, 14 RBI, and have no idea if he is a new guy with a hot start, or a bench guy with decent numbers in part time play, or a full-timer with few RBI opportunities. Drop RBI for PA (or even AB) would be nice.

 

And as much as RBI is an interesting story stat, I find it is pretty meaningless during the season for the vast majority of players. Top and bottom of the order guys, even middle of the order guys like Mauer or Plouffe, or even partial season mashers like Sano -- what exactly is a "good" RBI total for these guys, at various points in the season? AVG and HR aren't perfect but at least I understand better what they are measuring without much context.

[jimbo92107]

 

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.

Whoa there, that's a bit much. Aaron Gleeman's okay in small doses, but his delivery is waaay too nerdy for broadcasts, not to mention his format, which half the time is broadcasting from bars. Would the Twins be okay with their announcers getting slowly plastered while chatting up a pretty waitress? Would they be okay with constant talk about what a bad season this guy or that guy has had, how totally mediocre all the prospects are, how their veterans are over the hill, etc?

 

Broadcasters are not there just to talk baseball. It's a job in sales, so they're paid to be upbeat, promote the team, to get people to come to the stadium. You can deviate from that basic formula if some guy is obviously dogging it, but if the audience hears a constant stream of negative criticism, listeners will simply think it's too much of a downer, and they'll go away. Management will not cut checks for that. Negative criticism will always be relegated to free media.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Whoa there, that's a bit much. Aaron Gleeman's okay in small doses, but his delivery is waaay too nerdy for broadcasts, not to mention his format, which half the time is broadcasting from bars. Would the Twins be okay with their announcers getting slowly plastered while chatting up a pretty waitress? Would they be okay with constant talk about what a bad season this guy or that guy has had, how totally mediocre all the prospects are, how their veterans are over the hill, etc?

 

Broadcasters are not there just to talk baseball. It's a job in sales, so they're paid to be upbeat, promote the team, to get people to come to the stadium. You can deviate from that basic formula if some guy is obviously dogging it, but if the audience hears a constant stream of negative criticism, listeners will simply think it's too much of a downer, and they'll go away. Management will not cut checks for that. Negative criticism will always be relegated to free media.

Dickbert are sober during broadcasts? 

 

I need time to digest this, it changes everything.

[Craig Arko]

 

Dickbert are sober during boradcasts? 

 

I need time to digest this, it changes everything.

Only if you are also sober during the broadcasts.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Only if you are also sober during the broadcasts.

50/50, I'm bilingual.

[d-mac]

 

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?

 

The military does a good enough job selling war on it's own to the general public. It doesn't need any help... oh wait, you mean WAR. 

[Craig Arko]

So I think my ideal broadcaster for any sport would be someone just like Jerry Burns.

 

The (bleep)ing pitcher throws the (bleep)ing baseball to (bleep)ing Joe Mauer, and the (bleep)er just watches the (bleep)ing (bleep) go (bleep)ing by. (Bleep) it all.

 

(Bleep)

[d-mac]

 

50/50, I'm bilingual.

 

Bi-drinkual? 

[Mike Sixel]

I think we mostly vastly under estimate the intelligence of viewers of sports.......and I think if things were slowly moved in, people would learn and grow in interest. Saying "we should never add anything new" is a sure fire way to stop all growth and change and improvement in life.

[Cap'n Piranha]

I think a good part of it is that the "old" stats are nearly universally understood by fans, and not just what they are and represent, but the scale of performance.  For example, if you tell a fan someone is batting .200, they know that hitter's not good.  They know .300 is good, and .400 is incredible.  They know 100 RBI's is a benchmark number, just like 20 wins for a pitcher, and a 3.00 ERA.  Most casual fans wouldn't be able to tell you what a good FIP is, or what a batter's OPS should be, or if a player's UZR is acceptable.

 

To a previous poster's point, if the causal fan becomes more sophisticated, and starts consuming, understanding, and demanding advanced stats, MLB teams will ensure they find a more prominent place in broadcasts.  Until then, get used to hearing about how the gold glove should go to whoever has the fewest errors (which by the way, isn't a terrible stat.  The Orioles would've been better off yesterday with Paredes and Machado not getting to those balls--the fact that they did, and altered where the ball ended up, is why Esco scored, and is a story UZR or DRS wouldn't have told).

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Until then, get used to hearing about how the gold glove should go to whoever has the fewest errors (which by the way, isn't a terrible stat.  The Orioles would've been better off yesterday with Paredes and Machado not getting to those balls--the fact that they did, and altered where the ball ended up, is why Esco scored, and is a story UZR or DRS wouldn't have told).

Oy. The Error is a terrible stat to judge a player unless they're an outlier with virtually no errors or have more errors than you can shake a stick at.

 

1. Escobar would have scored on that ball had Paredes missed it. Two outs, running on contact. Escobar is not a slow guy.

 

2. Paredes barely had to move to catch that ball. He could have stood in place and still put leather on it. The ball was that close to him.

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v403752183/minbal-twins-take-lead-in-12th-on-error/?game_pk=415501

 

Escobar probably wouldn't have reached second had Machado not reached the ball but come on, that ball was about as playable as a grounder can be at short.

 

Both plays would have been huge dings on a player's stats in advanced defensive metrics, whether that be UZR, DRS, etc. Those were two extremely playable balls that any competent fielder gloves cleanly nearly 100% of the time.

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6479266/v403964883/minbal-error-allows-escobar-to-reach-second-in-12th

 

 

[Willihammer]

The thing about the word "error" is it doubles for "mistake" which is really all that needs to be said when describing the defense on those plays. I don't really need a dissertation from Dickbert on how 97% of shortstops handle a ball hit to that vector and misplaying those balls result on average in a negative run value of x-fraction of a run? Just call it an error and move on.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The thing about the word "error" is it doubles for "mistake" which is really all that needs to be said when describing the defense on those plays. I don't really need a dissertation from Dickbert on how 97% of shortstops handle a ball hit to that vector and misplaying those balls result on average in a negative run value of x-fraction of a run? Just call it an error and move on.

 

Sure, if scorers were as consistent as we believe the UZR or other evaluators are, but we KNOW that isn't true.

 

If Hunter doesn't get to a ball that 90% of RF do.......there is no error, but it is still a negative play in the advanced stats. You don't even have to say anything about the fancy stat, just "90% of the time a RF catches that ball, that's going to hurt" or something like that.

[Danchat]

The only stat they use that makes me mad is pitcher wins. It's the most useless stat ever and they frequently use it to measure the talent of a pitcher. I'd tolerate the rest if they just stopped using pitcher wins.

[Willihammer]

 

Sure, if scorers were as consistent as we believe the UZR or other evaluators are, but we KNOW that isn't true.

 

If Hunter doesn't get to a ball that 90% of RF do.......there is no error, but it is still a negative play in the advanced stats. You don't even have to say anything about the fancy stat, just "90% of the time a RF catches that ball, that's going to hurt" or something like that.

I get what you mean but if Dick says "90% of fielders catch that ball" it might sound like he's just ripping the guy. It kinda begs an explanation. Which would get back to the whole thing about advanced stats being kinda cumbersome. Just from a language standpoint, "error" seems about as clear and concise as you can get.

 

But I definitely could get behind more statcast stuff, with the graphics showing batted ball data and routes, velocity, etc. That is all delivered elegantly and its awesome info.

[Willihammer]

 

 

The only stat they use that makes me mad is pitcher wins. It's the most useless stat ever and they frequently use it to measure the talent of a pitcher. I'd tolerate the rest if they just stopped using pitcher wins.

Ironically I think that's Bert's favorite stat too. He really goes out of his way to emphasize it sometimes.

[USAFChief]

 

Sure, if scorers were as consistent as we believe the UZR or other evaluators are, but we KNOW that isn't true.

 

If Hunter doesn't get to a ball that 90% of RF do.......there is no error, but it is still a negative play in the advanced stats. You don't even have to say anything about the fancy stat, just "90% of the time a RF catches that ball, that's going to hurt" or something like that.

I doubt there's been a ball hit this year that "90 percent of RF do" that he didn't get to.

 

But even if you're right, that's not a reason to be against the "error" stat.  What good does it do if those 90 percent of RFers get to the ball, but drop it?

[Craig Arko]

 

I think we mostly vastly under estimate the intelligence of viewers of sports.......and I think if things were slowly moved in, people would learn and grow in interest. Saying "we should never add anything new" is a sure fire way to stop all growth and change and improvement in life.

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

 

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

 

[drjim]

I think more people are interested in it than you think. If the current game is driven and evaluated by new metrics, a large number of people are going to want to understand them, particularly younger generations of fans who may not be as interested in much of the history of the grand old game that their fathers and grandfathers prattle on about.

 

Hockey has entered the world of more advanced stats and HNIC broadcasts in Canada have incorporated them into every broadcast, to wide appeal. Why would baseball be all that different? The modernization of baseball broadcasts is long overdue, most of them are boring, stodgy affairs. I realize they have less scheduled breaks in the action than sports like Hockey or Football but there is still plenty of dead air.

I agree with all of this and still would say that the tv broadcast shouldn't really change that much. There is probably value in incorporating the triple slash line and maybe k/bb ratios but even the second is a stretch.

 

If people want to learn more there are so many sources today to draw upon. Trying to satisfy that on the game broadcast would strike me as cluttered and counterproductive and against the main goal of FSN.

 

I take a baseball broadcast as akin to the 6 pm news. Touches on the tried and true, pretty conservative in incorporating new things and lots of fluff. Sells to the most people and if you want to know what's actually happening and have proper context you go somewhere else.

[Mike Sixel]

 

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

 

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

 

that last graph is a killer, thanks for the entertaining link

[Mike Sixel]

 

I agree with all of this and still would say that the tv broadcast shouldn't really change that much. There is probably value in incorporating the triple slash line and maybe k/bb ratios but even the second is a stretch.

If people want to learn more there are so many sources today to draw upon. Trying to satisfy that on the game broadcast would strike me as cluttered and counterproductive and against the main goal of FSN.

I take a baseball broadcast as akin to the 6 pm news. Touches on the tried and true, pretty conservative in incorporating new things and lots of fluff. Sells to the most people and if you want to know what's actually happening and have proper context you go somewhere else.

 

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.

[nicksaviking]

I would prefer TV (and radio) broadcasts spoke to us using our language.

 

It's probably a little unfair to do that though.  Doctors probably also roll their eyes at the dialogue on ER and Cops (hopefully) don't actually utter witty catch-phrases when they're blowing away the bad guys.

 

Obviously the broadcasts want to cater to the lowest common denominator (with absolutely no offense to any of our friends and family who would be considered a casual baseball fan), just like the big four networks broadcast mindless and cringeworthy scripted shows while the niche cable networks actually put effort into intellegent programming.

 

I do think there would be an unintended consequence of using newer statistics.  The broadcasts would be filled with endless debates like if positional adjustments were BS in WAR or if pitchframing was measurable.  Basiclly it would be TwinsDaily.  The more detail that goes into the stats discussed will probably end up meaning less time talking about what is actually going on on the field.  If we think Dan Gladden is poor at getting us game details now, imagine what he'd be like if he's having a discussion with Provous about BaseRuns.  I'd be entertained, but even if my mom was curious about these stats, she'd get bored quite quickly.

[jimmer]

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.

[twinsnorth49]

It would interesting to see the ratings break down between different age demographics and the reasons for them. 

[Thrylos]

 

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?

 

Sure.  But who educates the announces, to educate the rest? 

 

DickNBert think a K/9 barks and a BABIP wears diapers (and I am not even talking about WAR)

 

 

[Hrbowski]

 

I'm not asking for a complex explanation of DRS...

I was listening to Sunday Night Baseball last night, and Jim Bowden had some interesting stuff to say about it, including how Andrew McCutchen is better than it makes him out to be, because the Pirates have a groundball staff that also gets a fair amount of k's, and since Marte and Polanco are also very good he will let them take flyballs that he could get, which makes his DRS go down.

 

So even if errors are the dumbest stat out there, (which they probably are) DRS really isn't going to tell you if this guy is a Gold Glover, even if it helps. Oh, and another thing, is that I have actually heard Danny Gladden talking about what a dumb stat errors are, but he references to the stat frequently, so it probably has something to with habit since these guys having been announcing for a longtime.