Last week, during the increasingly gruesome Tigers-Yankees ALCS, TBS analyst John Smoltz got a burr in his bonnet. I’m not sure precisely what was going on in the game, but something came up that got Smoltz thinking about sabermetrics. At least I think it was sabermetrics; he could barely stand to even mouth the word.
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. As the immortal Twitter account @oldhossradbourn succinctly summarized, “‘Sabermetrics? What’s next? Marrying an animal?’ - J. Smoltz.”
... And look: This is not simply just some nerd complaining that the people on the TV aren’t using his nerd states. (It is that; it’s just not simply that.) This is how baseball is being played and discussed and assessed in the year 2012. By the front offices, by the arbitrators, by the people making all the decisions … heck, increasingly, by the players themselves. This is simply television doing a poor job of describing what we are watching. It’s the trading of reality for John Kruk and Mitch Williams to hang out with their friends and be paid for it.
This is going to take time. Four years ago, you’d never see a player’s slash-line and a starter’s pitch count shown on broadcasts; they’re regular features now. Pitch-f/x data and Hit-f/x data are too impressive technological breakthroughs not to be used on broadcasts. Many younger broadcasters are embracing the data as a way of breaking through to an audience that’s hungry for something more than the old broadcasting tropes.
But we’re not there yet.
Maybe someday we’ll have a broadcaster describe the way baseball is being played, managed and evaluated without, you know, spitting the words at us as if they were venom. A fan can dream.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. flournoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4279257)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.
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.
Shut up.
There are so many cool, quaint and ridiculous things about that statement.
These guys are all full time announcers and have to keep up with the game. Smoltz probably doesn't.
Eh. I'd say, OBP/SLG and either R or RBI, depedning on which the player was better at.
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.
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.
Did you ever have a burr in your bonnet? Pretty damn annoying, I'd say.
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.
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.
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.
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 had a burro in my bonnet once, but it wouldn't stay there.
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.
I'm pretty sure ESPN puts up Avg/HR/RBI/OBP on its broadcasts.
I had a burrito in my bonnet once, but then I ate it. The burrito, not the bonnet.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main