Tonight the World Series between the Cinderella darlings, the Kansas City Royals, and the champions of even years, the San Francisco Giants, begins in Kansas City with coverage on FOX. While the viewers will finally be spared the inanity of Tim McCarver’s “baseball truisms” since he mercifully retired last year, you can bet that Joe Buck and Harold Reynolds will be sure to continue the long storied tradition of announcers spouting nonsense about baseball. To his credit, Tom Verducci may occasionally try to steer the conversation back to some evidence based analysis, but will mostly fail in this endeavor.
Ever since FOX began broadcasting the MLB playoffs and the World Series back in 2000, the network seems to have made the assumption that at least a significant minority, if not the majority, of their viewers have never watched a baseball game before in their lives. This philosophy led to some ill advised and purely ridiculous gimmicks like Scooter, the cartoon baseball, who would explain different types of pitches and basic rules, presumably to kids who were new to the game. After all, why should your fondest memories of baseball be about watching the game with your dad when FOX could give you Scooter to reminisce about? Fortunately, Scooter died a fan poll driven death after the 2006 series, but the propensity towards dumbing the game down persists.
In addition, baseball announcing in general and FOX post-season coverage in particular lag far behind the rest of the industry – front offices, print journalists, and bloggers – in embracing a more advanced analytical approach to the game. There are exceptions like Brian Kenny on the MLB Network’s show MLB Now, a show where he takes the sabermetric approach to baseball analysis and the aforementioned former Seattle Mariners second baseman, Harold Reynolds, takes the “traditional” point of view.
But, for the most part, viewers of almost any baseball game in the country will be forced to listen to endless droning on and on about the importance of “intangibles,” about players who “play the game the right way,” the necessity of “playing small ball” in order to “manufacture runs,” and other completely unsubstantiated claims about the nature of the game.
The aversion to math, statistics, and objective analysis is by no means unique to baseball, as most sports television announcers and analysts are former athletes and not statisticians or economists, unlike the trends in many of MLB’s front offices. But the vehemence with which some baseball announcers out right disdain the sabermetric movement borders on a mini culture war.
Certain announcers and analysts at ESPN, MLB Network, and FOX have gone so far as to assert that the success of the Kansas City Royals in these playoffs, with their bunts and stolen bases, out and out “disproves” sabermetrics altogether. Like a nine game sample by one team that has actually also hit their fair share of home runs during the post-season disproves years and years of observations?
So, for the more sophisticated baseball fan, and the casual fan who wants to avoid the pablum, be aware of three general topics Buck and Reynolds are certain to discuss and keep your nonsense detectors sharp. When they start talking about strategy, clubhouse chemistry, and player makeup, watch out.
On Questions of Strategy
A hot topic of discussion among Buck, Reynolds, and Verducci will be the implementation of certain strategies by the two managers. You’ll notice that, after the fact, the correctness or incorrectness of a strategy is directly tied to whether or not it succeeded – a major fallacy. It’s perfectly possible to make the “wrong” decision and have the outcome be positive in exactly the same way it is possible to make the “right” decision and not achieve the desired outcome.
Take the case of bunts. Much has been made of KC manager Ned Yost’s love of the bunt and how successful it’s been in getting the Royals to the World Series and how “small ball” completely disproves sabermetrics.
The reality, of course, is that run expectancy matrices based on years and years of data prove again and again that the bunt is a low percentage play. Does that mean they NEVER work? Of course not. But over time, they decrease a team’s likelihood of scoring.
Ironically, the scenario from game 4 of the ALCS when Yost called for a sac bunt by his number three hitter, Lorenzo Cain, in the first inning neither “worked” because of the strategy (the Orioles made a throwing error) nor did it directly contradict sabermetric thinking.
The likelihood of scoring actually increases with a man on second and third with one out over first and second with no outs, but the number of runs expected to score goes down. The Royals got “lucky” that the Orioles made some uncharacteristically bad defensive plays and two runs scored. The strategy was “wrong,” but the outcome was favorable.
Sabermetrics also acknowledges that late in a game, with the score tied, it may actually be a good idea to sacrifice, as the opportunities to score dwindle. And, bunting for base hits is fine also. Not all bunts are created equal.
Just be skeptical when you hear Harold Reynolds calling for the batter to “lay one down” any time before the seventh inning.
The Myth of Clubhouse Chemistry
To be honest, I don’t know if there’s such a thing as “clubhouse chemistry.” I can understand that you might work better if you like the people you work with. Then again you might just goof off all the time.
The New York Yankees of the “Bronx Zoo” era in the mid to late 70’s certainly had chemistry. They all hated each other. As did the Oakland A’s of the early 70’s. (Any coincidence that Reggie Jackson was on both teams)?
What I do know is that there’s yet to be a way to measure this elusive “chemistry.” How many points on a players’ batting average does chemistry add? And while a different type of chemistry has been said to enhance home runs, how many does the clubhouse kind add?
The lack of evidence for how much of a factor respecting or even liking your teammates contributes to winning won’t stop the litany of clichés. A bold prediction – we won’t get past the second inning of game one before we hear a story about a player who “is the first to the clubhouse and the last to leave” and who while on the field “plays the game the right way.” (That doesn’t even count the Derek Jeter stories we’re sure to hear despite the fact the Yankees aren’t in the series).
Both Ned Yost and Giants manager, Bruce Bochy, will be heralded for getting their players “on the same page,” and “buying into what their trying to do in Kansas City / San Francisco.”
I guess to the extent that this sort of commentary brings a human element to the game, it’s okay. It’s just that it so often substitutes for any meaningful understanding of the incredibly wonderful game that is baseball, especially playoff baseball.
Player Makeup
Most of the time announcers, both local and national, act as little more than PR men for the respective professional leagues. It’s rare that you’ll ever hear a hint of criticism of a league, a team, a manager, or a player. Everyone is super and can do little wrong.
The one exception in baseball tends to come after the starting pitcher is removed and the carousel of relievers begins to revolve. Usually, you can file commentary about who the manager should bring in under “strategy,” but sometimes it bleeds over into “player makeup,” as in which pitchers “have what it takes” to pitch in the ninth inning.
The myth here is that certain pitchers lack the emotional toughness to pitch under the pressure of the ninth. Such steeliness is reserved for “proven closers,” although it’s not entirely clear how one gets to be a proven closer before first pitching in “save situations” as an unproven closer.
A secondary argument, along the same vein, is that “veteran” players have the experience to perform in the “clutch” in ways young players can’t.
While I’m willing to admit that nerves can surely play a part in athletic performance and that certain players handle pressure better than others, I don’t think there’s anything mystical about the ninth inning and I certainly don’t believe in “clutch.”
The pitcher who loses his release point when he’s nervous isn’t necessarily nervous because of a number in the innings column on the scoreboard, but rather he’s adverse to high leverage situations, situations in which the game is on the line.
So often, almost nothing is on the line in a “save situation.” The team has the lead, no one is on base, and there are three outs to get. A truly high leverage situation in the playoffs is just as likely to occur in the sixth with two on and no one out and a one run deficit might get out of hand. The pitcher with the “good makeup” should be in the game in those situations, not in a “save situation.”
But see how often during the World Series the announcers talk about bringing in or not bringing in the closer in a non-save situation. If that guy is truly your best pitcher, bring him in when the game is on the line, not just the ninth.
As for “clutch” hitting, there are volumes of data to show that there’s no such thing. Some really good hitters get a chance to hit in “clutch” situations and come through. Some do not. The same holds true for the guy you’ve never heard of.
The 16 to 28 at bats that most everyday players will get during the series simply isn’t enough sample to draw any conclusions about the “make up” of any given hitter. But, I certainly wouldn’t suggest you play drinking games that require you to drink when an announcer says “clutch.” You’ll be under the table in no time.
The Good Stuff
To be fair, in addition to a good dosage of nonsense about how the game of baseball works, you should see some really exciting baseball (in spite of the managers’ decisions) and even hear some great stories from Joe and Harold. And besides, I enjoy looking up the statistics to disprove the announcers almost as much as I love the game of baseball itself.
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
