Detente With The Media

“We’re not asking you to be on-air baseball scientists! We understand that you have a job to do. We just want you to consider all perspectives when you’re discussing baseball.” I don’t need to see columnists try to rile people up by stereotyping them because some don’t think like they do. I just want radio hosts who analyze players objectively instead of using things like “heart,” “grit,” or worse yet “he was a true Yankee.” And most importantly, I want a commentator who has a clue. As much as I like Howie Rose, I wanted to throw a brick through my TV screen when he said on FOX last September the reason why the Phillies perform better than the Mets is because “the Phillies players like each other.” I don’t know if he really believes that or he was trying to play to the Met stereotype, but Howie should know better in my view.

and for those in the media, i don’t think it’s fair to want/expect much more than what we’ve observed in the past couple weeks regarding the mejia situation. because like you more eloquently stated, it’s their job to drum up excitement, sell papers, create ratings, increase ad revenues and so on.

and as we saw most recently w/ joba, most memorably w/ doc and probably most notably w/ fernando valenzuela, there’s little that excites fans more than the phenom fireballer that nobody can touch. but if we asked the kevin burkhardts to utilize minor league BABIP’s and explain the xFIP’s in their analyses, it would only temper public enthusiasm causing those talking heads to get pushed aside and ultimately make them worse at their aforementioned jobs.

but i think the point to remember here is the one you pointed out about jack z (or manny acta or most importantly bill james, and the list goes on). its that there is a place within the baseball organization for the logic-minded sabermetrician. what’s more, there is a tried and tested model of the organization as a whole, utilizing sabermetrics like a strategic compass at all different levels and having success as a result (i’m talking about the red sox now).

unfortunately for us mets fans, there does not seem to be any overarching organizational sabermetric strategy, nor even a dominant metric-minded figure within the organization. even worse, ours is an organization that has shown the propensity towards image paranoia, acting based on the whims of overwhelming public sentiment and media outcry. so in this way we can’t really blame the large number of media members for doing their jobs, but the small number of weak and highly-suggestible FO suits who are not very good at theirs, starting w/ omar.

no way in hell could any sabermetric-based broadcast ever do even reasonably well, i hate to say.

I disagree. As a one-time thing, it could do huge numbers. The fact that it’s interesting and cranky types who only go “with their eyes” would drive that show a great deal.

I think the points you make are important. Essentially, it boils down to this: traditional analysis is easier for both the media and the fans. It’s easier because of points number 2 and 3 of this post: traditional analysis uses “conventional wisdom” and supports a more pleasing narrative. Having “heart,” coming through in the clutch, and “team chemistry” are all concepts we’re familiar with. And, more importantly, they’re concepts that people like. For example, a fan of the World Series champions would have much more fun saying “We’re number 1 (because we are the most talented and virtuous)!” than saying “We’re number 1 (because random chance arbitrarily favored us over a small sample-size of games)!”

It’s kind of like Michael Bay’s movies. There are a lot of people that think he’s a terrible film maker, and could cite the reasons why. But judging by the box-office numbers, most people don’t care what those people think or how many reasons they can cite. Why? Because it’s just more fun to watch cars turn into robots that punch each other than it is to think about those reasons. It doesn’t make them stupid, it just means they prefer what’s easier and more fun, like most human beings.

Of course, if people actually took the time to immerse themselves in the numbers and concepts of sabermetrics, they would probably enjoy it.

Logic can be fun too.

with Sam and other bloggers is an interesting case. Sam did a good job, but to make the case for Jon Niese’s goodness he had to make vague reference to “projection systems.” He didn’t have time to explain them, of course, so I’m sure it sounds like so much voodoo to a lot of fans. “Nonsense! How can you project a minor leaguer into the majors!”

Sam partially makes up for this by mentioning Niese’s “success on every level,” but you can see why media pros might avoid mention of “projection systems” in the first place and rely on supposed 1st hand knowledge. You can sound like a mystic or a snake oil salesman when you lean on the wizardry of numbers but can’t show what’s behind the curtain. That’s another sabermetrician’s dillema.

Goes a long way toward exploring why on-camera/in-game commentary and game stories/analyses written on deadline may shy away somewhat from modern metrics. For the reasons you outline and others, such metrics and the analyses they engender tend to get in the way or run counter to the sort of narratives these guys are telling. Fair enough.

What gets me is when the Maddens, Nobles, and Klapisches put together their weekly thinkpieces— in which they should have the time to dig a little deeper and explain the recent past— and ignore such information. The attitudes don’t help, either— I understand the frustration with “hardline” metrics folk and their holier-than-thou, dismissive attitudes… but paid professionals should be held to a higher standard, shouldn’t they? There’s almost no other profession I can think of— some financial analysts, maybe— where decision-makers and journalists who cover them PROUDLY proclaim their ignorance of the latest and best information in their field.

on-air personalities can get a pass because, yes, it is difficult to explain succinctly some of the concepts behind advanced stats, and it may actually take away from the game broadcast (although keith’s random asides and weird behavior, though amusing, can be equally as distracting).

but there is no reason that baseball writers should shy away from advanced statistics if they truly believe in them, especially columnists. it’s not that difficult to explain FIP in a single paragraph, and if the reader doesn’t want to bother learning about it, he can simply move onto the next paragraph or the next article.

Here’s a fun Jayson Stark piece about winners who have “it”!

Is that most if not anyone who subscribes to sabermetrics do not see it as the gospel truth or the only way to do things. It can be combined with the “human element” in a multidisciplinary way that works quite well (see: Billy Beane.) A couple of weeks ago ESPN was talking about BABIP and I thought I was going to have a heart attack.

sabermetrics is a language that needs to be spelled out with near geometric discipline

I really hate triangles, too!

All kidding aside, very provocative post. I would’ve appreciate more of a consideration on behalf of the audience, though. It’s tough to write a 500-word piece about Mejia’s situation when you need to dedicate 200 words to the definition of certain terms. I think that’s where the writers could take further advantage of their website blogs. Look at what Peter Abraham did at The Journal News for the Yankees and now the Boston Globe for the Red Sox. He expanded his points online to whet the appetite of those ready to crunch numbers, while offering more concise summaries to the readers of the paper.

The last point for declaring the detente is the most important. If the writer understands the terms and he knows the reader does as well, then he can skip the explanation and get right to the argument. ESPN Rob Neyer has done that successfully for years. It shouldn’t be that hard for other writers to get there, too.

This is a debate that is probably is old as mankind. I’s the same debate that Galileo had with the Catholic Church where they made him recant what he could mathematically prove(the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa). It’s why we have people who run around the country trying to strike evolution from science books and mocking global warming, it’s why a institution as no less as esteemed as the New York times made fun of Robert Goddard in print. That debate is tradition vs. science. Most people don’t understand science and it’s language mathematics and run as far as way from it possible. If it conflicts with the dominant dogma of the day they will simply mock science. Sabermetrics will be mocked until they’re is a generation unconstrained by the scientific dogma of baseball and it becomes mainstream. In other words when our parents generation is dead and us 20 and 30 somethings are in our 50s and 60s and teach our kids the game with Sabermetrics as central to its understanding.

Sabermetric savvy fans have been stereotyped as “nerds”, who are aggressive when trying to prove their points, rude and dismissive of anything that contradicts them, inexperienced when it comes to actual experience playing the sport of baseball, and generally pig headed and hard nosed. It would be incredibly worthwhile for someone to develop a “course”, if you will, that entertainingly and plainly explains the concepts behind some of the sabermetric concepts we constantly refer to. Frankly, the rise of Jack Z and the Brian Bannisters of the world are the first step for sabermetrics to achieve long term acceptance in the media. After all, they’ll be much more interested in listening to these types of analyses from executives and players they interact with regularly and actually, well, respect. It’s stupid, and I resent the media for being so thick skulled, but it’s the only realistic way to introduce these topics effectively.

Have you ever read a more populist baseball writer than funny boiler room attendant Bill James?

I don’t think there’s really much “sabermetrics vs. non-sabermetrics” fueling it. I mean, I know plenty of people who know nothing about sabermetrics, who support keeping him in the Minors. It really comes down to short sightedness vs. looking at the long term plans.

From Kelly Dwyer of the Yahoo! blog Ball Don’t Lie in response to Colin Cowherd calling Kevin Durant “overrated” on Sportsnation and not backing up his claim:

What I want to get to, besides the fish-in-a-barrel nonsense regarding this utter pillock named “Colin Cowherd,” is how little of this tripe we have to watch.

We just don’t have to. Cable stations like ESPN and your closest big-town newspaper still seem obsessed with shoving general columnist-types down our throats, and they just don’t work in 2010. A fan’s knowledge of their particular favorite sport is so great that these people can’t possibly keep up. Nobody, not the hardest worker out there, can keep up with four major pro sports plus colleges and have a fighting chance of knowing half as much as an obsessed fan who is sneaking in bits of analysis and game-watching when his or her lifestyle and responsibilities allow for it.

Check out the rest of the article here.

it strikes me that one huge area where we could help the media talk about baseball is defense. How invaluable would it be if we helped show the masses that defense really, truly matters, and that a “routine play” is only routine to a guy who gets there. It wouldn’t need to be quantified necessarily, but the idea of range needs to be better demonstrated and talked about, and how this correlates to winning ballgames.