Caveat: I didn't watch any of this, so take my opinion for what it's worth.

Sabermetrics didn't exist, at least not in the mainstream, for the majority of John Smoltz's career. He formed his understanding of baseball with different terms and concepts. If I were John Smoltz, the illustrious former baseball player, I would take offense to someone hiring me to talk about baseball, but telling me to talk about baseball in a way that was inconsistent with how I understood it during my career. Hey, if that is what you want discussed, get someone else.

Apparently TV networks have decided that having a well-spoken, recognizable name makes for a better broadcast (or at least a more marketable one) than discussing newfangled terms and concepts. I'm not sure that they're wrong.

Either way, as players who grew up with sabermetrics as part of the baseball lexicon retire and start broadcasting careers, we'll get that kind of broadcast. The problem will eventually take care of itself.

Who does talk sabermetrics well? I know David Cone does. I think Ron Darling does. I believe Jon Miller has talked about them.

I've noticed the Royals TV production staff used WAR once in a graphic. I know they use OPS a lot more now, even if the announcers (Ryan Lefebvre in particular) are pretty dismissive of sabermetrics.

Costas uses them a lot, at least when I've listened to him.

There is market pressure on teams to be right in their evaluation of players. There is no market pressure on broadcasters to be right in their description of players.

Len Kasper is good.

It went something like: “So … [audible snort] … there’s all these people with their … [choked-off inhale, as if he had entered the Cardinals clubhouse bathroom right after Lance Lynn had left it] … mathematics, trying to understand … [grasping of the microphone as if it is the neck of Bill James] … the game. It’s … it’s just …” I don’t have the exact quote right, mostly because it was hard to hear Smoltz through the blood vessels bursting and his teeth grinding.

Shut up.

Boog Schambi does a good job of using them.

Just getting rid of AVG/HR/RBI and replacing it with AVG/OBP/SLG would be enough for me.

Jim Deshais, who broadcasts Astros' games, has discussed advanced stats on air for several years. His pitching career predates Smoltz's. I'm sure that baseball analysis was different in his days as a player. My impression is that Deshais finds the new stats to be useful and interesting. He is an example that older players don't have to be anti-sabermetrics. I haven't heard Darling or Cone broadcast games, but based on No. 2, they would also be examples of players from that same era are willing to consider new ideas.

Miller has consistently brought them into the broadcast in a way where he seems to want to educate without alienating. The first time I remember him bringing up advanced stats was in 2001 when he said that by one advanced metric ( I forgt which but did read the article) rich Arriulla was having one of the 10 best hitting seasons for a shortstop in the history of baseball.

There are so many cool, quaint and ridiculous things about that statement.

Jim Deshais, who broadcasts Astros' games, has discussed advanced stats on air for several years. His pitching career predates Smoltz's. I'm sure that baseball analysis was different in his days as a player. My impression is that Deshais finds the new stats to be useful and interesting. He is an example that older players don't have to be anti-sabermetrics. I haven't heard Darling or Cone broadcast games, but based on No. 2, they would also be examples of players from that same era are willing to consider new ideas.

These guys are all full time announcers and have to keep up with the game. Smoltz probably doesn't.

Just getting rid of AVG/HR/RBI and replacing it with AVG/OBP/SLG would be enough for me.

Eh. I'd say, OBP/SLG and either R or RBI, depedning on which the player was better at.

What sabermetric stats would one actually want announcers to use? Announcing games is a different format than writing an essay or a book.

What sabermetric stats would one actually want announcers to use? Announcing games is a different format than writing an essay or a book.

Ops+, ERA+...this allows people to contextualize park effects. and of course use obp as frequently as batting average. Batting average should never be mentioned without mentioning obp, except if the discussion is centered on the batting average crown.

Requiring a disclaimer when mentioning RBI, "that it's as much a product of the slot in the batting order, and the quality of the batters in front of them"

Using win shares (which I think is easier to get the fans behind) as an uber stat. Or if you use war, always say "bWar" or if you are stupid "fWar" but don't just say war.

I wouldn't mind runs created also being used, instead of Rbi or runs and then get used to RC/9.

It would crack me up if fox came up with their own war implementation, and their announcers started calling it FWar. Or foxwar. Or Fox HittyWins, and Fox PitchyWins, to avoid copyright infringement, or something. But I'm fairly easily amused.

Anyway, I'd just like to see them start calling out managers for doing things like starting Skip Schumaker at second against a lefty because skip was 3 for 7 against him, in two games, three years ago. Or asking Jon Jay to bunt with a man on second, no one out, and Beltran/Holliday/Craig behind him. And the converse- acknowledge that it might not be a good move, tactically, but explain that their connections tell them that replacement-level RHB 2Bguy is suffering from flu-like symptoms, or whatever.

Picking nits: he would mean burr under his saddle, or bee in his bonnet, right? Sorry. I had to.

I'm picturing announcers going 'his WAR against this pitcher is just 0.2 lifetime' without figuring out that would be meaningless (over, say, 20 PA over 4 years). Situational stats are what kills broadcasts and the reputation of stats with average fans.

Picking nits: he would mean burr under his saddle, or bee in his bonnet, right? Sorry. I had to.

Did you ever have a burr in your bonnet? Pretty damn annoying, I'd say.

There is no market pressure on broadcasters to be right in their description of players.

While true, and important, I think the moment that a broadcaster becomes popular & successful in part *because* of smart usage of the stuff will begin to change that dynamic.

Most people who watch postseason baseball don't understand balls and strikes, let alone wOBA and WAR.

Umpires are a really small demographic.

What sabermetric stats would one actually want announcers to use? Announcing games is a different format than writing an essay or a book.

Really, just understand principles, its not essential that they use the jargon. Quit applauding for bunts. Quit suggesting matchup stats of 13 ABs means anything. Quit using fielding percentage.

I would guess though that most announcers are resistant to sabermetrics because most managers are resistant to sabermetrics, and announcers don't like to criticize the home manager.

Quit applauding for bunts. Quit suggesting matchup stats of 13 ABs means anything. Quit using fielding percentage.


Announcers have to fill up space and bashing a manager or even just saying it was the wrong move a lot is going to fill up air time but it is also going to ruffle feathers.

Really, just understand principles, its not essential that they use the jargon. Quit applauding for bunts. Quit suggesting matchup stats of 13 ABs means anything. Quit using fielding percentage.

Yeah, this would be a big start. I don't care if they start talking about xFIP or not, though a mention here or there would be cool. Start by getting rid of the absolutely ridiculous stuff.

I'll say that ESPN is better at making some progress in this regard than Fox Sports Detroit, on which I watch the majority of my baseball. They throw fielding percentage around like crazy. They love the meaningless small sample size stuff, and they usually don't present it as trivia.

I don't think former players should be filling the statistical analysis role in the booth. They should be offering insight into what they know best, and those are on field and clubhouse issues. Let someone else provide the statistical insight.

National broadcasts can move more than local since they don't have to worry about ticking off the club as much as the local guys do.

Did you ever have a burr in your bonnet? Pretty damn annoying, I'd say.

I had a burro in my bonnet once, but it wouldn't stay there.

I remember 1992; the Yankees were struggling through another lost season. And Andy Stankiewicz came in. I followed his progress every day, and his BA went a-sinking. I wished for some way that I could see his OBP (I remember wishing for that metric specifically) because it measures his walks. And, I figured, it would be impressive. This was not available in the two ways I could get my hands on sports statistics - the MSG telecasts and the Sunday newspaper.

Sure enough, it was close to .340 that year. That's a bright spot - there wasn't a lot else for me to cheer for.

Just getting rid of AVG/HR/RBI and replacing it with AVG/OBP/SLG would be enough for me.

I'm pretty sure ESPN puts up Avg/HR/RBI/OBP on its broadcasts.

YES puts Avg/HR/RBI/OBP in the "hero" graphics.

Did you ever have a burr in your bonnet? Pretty damn annoying, I'd say.



I had a burro in my bonnet once, but it wouldn't stay there.

I had a burrito in my bonnet once, but then I ate it. The burrito, not the bonnet.

I seem to remember Sciambi posting here at one time or another -- true? I agree with 7, he's the sabr-savviest of the guys I've heard.