View Full Version : Why are baseball announcers so anti-Sabr
PaulieIsAwesome
04-05-05, 12:24 AM
The real question, for me, is why they are so anti-SABR to the point of absolute idiocy. In the 8th or so of the Cubs game, Rick Sutcliffe started talking about how the little things (Corey Patterson taking 2nd on a wild pitch in the first, and scoring on a grounder, 1 time going from 1st to 3rd, and a sac fly) were the reason the Cubs were winning the game 16-6. Nothing to do with the 23 hits, the 4 doubles, 2 homers. It had everything to do with the one wild pitch in the first.
Of course, Dusty Baker's comments after the game angered me also:
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20050404&content_id=999719&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Sorry to add another thread to Sabermetrics Symposium about yet another SABR vs. traditionalists story, but this really angered me. I'll try and find something cool to weigh against this.
Prickly Pete
04-05-05, 08:55 AM
I think Joe Morgan said it best when he explained that Billy Beane shouldn't have written "Moneyball."
I think Joe Morgan said it best when he explained that Billy Beane shouldn't have written "Moneyball.":lol: That is hilarious.
RhodyYanksFan
04-05-05, 11:49 AM
I think Joe Morgan said it best when he explained that Billy Beane shouldn't have written "Moneyball."
:lol:
He really shouldn't...that'd be plagerism.
Paulie: what did Dusty say to upset you?
brosiusbuddy
04-05-05, 06:06 PM
The real question, for me, is why they are so anti-SABR to the point of absolute idiocy. In the 8th or so of the Cubs game, Rick Sutcliffe started talking about how the little things (Corey Patterson taking 2nd on a wild pitch in the first, and scoring on a grounder, 1 time going from 1st to 3rd, and a sac fly) were the reason the Cubs were winning the game 16-6. Nothing to do with the 23 hits, the 4 doubles, 2 homers. It had everything to do with the one wild pitch in the first.
Of course, Dusty Baker's comments after the game angered me also:
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20050404&content_id=999719&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Sorry to add another thread to Sabermetrics Symposium about yet another SABR vs. traditionalists story, but this really angered me. I'll try and find something cool to weigh against this.
viewers arent interested in hearing about the science of baseball... they want the exciting stuff that's recognizable as the games big events
PaulieIsAwesome
04-05-05, 08:45 PM
viewers arent interested in hearing about the science of baseball... they want the exciting stuff that's recognizable as the games big events
Yeah, but the two home runs and 23 hits were what changed the game. I think most fans are smart enough to recognize that the Cubs won that game more because of the 2 homers and 23 hits than they did because of 2 extra bases taken by players early in the game.
Prickly Pete, it was this line:
This spring, Baker talked about how the team may need to "create" runs. The Cubs did just that in the first when Corey Patterson singled to open the game, advanced on a wild pitch by Javier Vazquez, and reached third on Todd Walker's flyout to center, before scoring on Nomar Garciaparra's groundout.
Of course, I put that into the context of what I already know about Dusty, so that changed things a little.
It is not unique to baseball. I think alot of it comes down to the age-old conflict between those who "do" and those who "analyze".
In the military, "analysts" are looked at with great disdain by "operators" -- same thing in the intelligence community.
In business, "sales & marketing" looks with a jaundiced eye at "bean counters".
Throughout most disciplines, there is an arrogance among analysts that they "know better" because "numbers don't lie". They scoff at concepts like "intangibles", "clutch", and the "fog of war" because they can't be neatly quantified.
Those in the field -- whether in sports, war, or business -- have their own arrogance. They think they know better because they have an inherent mistrust for folks who contend they have the real story yet have never actually done the tasks they attempt to measure.
iamdoingthat
07-03-05, 08:41 PM
I was going to say
Most announcers/managers are old-school baseball heads, so they are reluctant to give in to statistical analysis. There are just some beliefs that have been in baseball for so long, that people are not willing to give them up. "Old-school" beliefs include things like "sac bunts are good" and "aggressive baserunning creates runs."
But then I read Jasbro's post, and he summed it up so damn well.
It is not unique to baseball. I think alot of it comes down to the age-old conflict between those who "do" and those who "analyze".
In the military, "analysts" are looked at with great disdain by "operators" -- same thing in the intelligence community.
In business, "sales & marketing" looks with a jaundiced eye at "bean counters".
Throughout most disciplines, there is an arrogance among analysts that they "know better" because "numbers don't lie". They scoff at concepts like "intangibles", "clutch", and the "fog of war" because they can't be neatly quantified.
Those in the field -- whether in sports, war, or business -- have their own arrogance. They think they know better because they have an inherent mistrust for folks who contend they have the real story yet have never actually done the tasks they attempt to measure.
Outstanding answer right there.
__starr69
07-04-05, 11:33 PM
Because stats are numbers, and numbers are (for the most part) just straight up facts. You can't really argue or discuss verbatim a player or team's stats, because it is what it is, and that's that. But you can be a lot more verbose with play-by-play and intangibles. Plus, it's a lot more entertaining for the masses, because numbers freak a lot of people out.
Little Big Sheff
07-20-05, 05:57 AM
The funny thing with Joe Morgan is that he would have been a SABR wet dream back when he was playing : Career .392 OBP for a .271 BA.
PaulieIsAwesome
07-20-05, 08:30 AM
The funny thing with Joe Morgan is that he would have been a SABR wet dream back when he was playing : Career .392 OBP for a .271 BA.
It's a crying shame that he's so stupid.
RIyankee
07-22-05, 11:35 AM
The funny thing with Joe Morgan is that he would have been a SABR wet dream back when he was playing : Career .392 OBP for a .271 BA.
I apply sabrmetrics to my Strat-O-Matic teams. I had a team with Joe Morgan (1974 season) and he was my leadoff hitter. At the peak of his career, Morgan, a BB machine with power and a career SB% of 81%, was one of the greatest players of all time.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0