3 comments Gregg Easterbrook Continues to Write "N.F.L." In An Attempt to Passively-Aggressively Annoy Me

Gregg Easterbrook complained in last week's TMQ that NFL coaches play it too safe. He went on what will end up probably being his weekly complaint about how teams should start going for the two-point conversion more often. To a certain extent, I don't disagree totally. I wonder if some coaches don't go for two more often because they don't want to burn goal line plays that could otherwise get them six points in the form of a touchdown versus two points on a two-point conversion. It's just a guess, obviously. This week Gregg talks about how NFL announcers are suckers for NFL management, continues to write "NFL" as "N.F.L." in an obvious attempt to troll me, and still insists on writing unfunny skits involving the 4th Down Bot.

The good news for Gregg is this is the second straight week TMQ has appeared without a correction at the bottom. I'm sure that's probably because the "Times" just doesn't feel like correcting everything Gregg says that may be marginally correct. They've already given up. Maybe Gregg renegotiated in his contract that he wouldn't get paid to write TMQ as long as the "Times" didn't publicly correct him. Not being seen as wrong is more important than anything else.

Football aficionados, and advanced life forms like The Upshot’s 4th Down Bot, endlessly marvel at N.F.L. coaches who order punts on fourth-and-short.

If you follow that link, you see that 4th Down Bot also agreed with many of the decisions to punt where Gregg claims the team should have gone for it. I think it's hilarious that Gregg uses the 4th Down Bot as a way of keeping coaches honest, when there are plenty of 4th-and-short punts that the Bot claims were good decisions. As he is prone to do, Gregg simply provides a link and doesn't do the work required to see if the link he is providing actually proves the point he thinks it proves. It's not Gregg's job to provide links that support his opinion when he claims that link supports his opinion. That's what an editor is for. 

Gregg talks about the same shit every single week. Every week he talks about how coaches are too conservative, offenses play at a fast pace, mentions concussions, and then discusses how the offenses are so far ahead of the defense and could this be a trend? Every year the defenses seem to catch up eventually. But yes, NFL head coaches are too conservative.

Possession of the ball is far more important to victory than field position.

As a overly-general rule, this is probably very correct. If one team has the football, then it's harder for the other team to score. That is, unless the team with the football has Matt Schaub has it's starting quarterback. But yes, possessing the football is very important, but field position is also very important. In terms of whether a team punts the ball or not, I'm not sure this statement is true as a hard-and-fast rule. If the Seahawks are facing the Bears (as they were this weekend) with Jimmy Clausen as the Bears quarterback, then field position is very important to the Seahawks because they trust their defense to shut down the Bears' offense. There's no point in giving the Bears a short field and making it easy on them to score. So while possession of the ball is important in this situation, also not giving the Bears a chance to score easy points when they would conceivably otherwise struggle to score is also important. So there are situations where possession of the ball is important, but the risk of not possessing the ball is less important than giving the opposing team bad field position.

Fourth-and-short tries are about 60 percent likely to succeed in maintaining possession. Yet coaches order punts, essentially awarding the opponent a turnover.

It's not exactly awarding the opponent a turnover because the opponent doesn't usually get great field position after a punt. That's the entire purpose of a punt. If there were a turnover then the opponent would get better field position than if that opponent had to field a punt...at least in theory. I argue with Gregg's assertion that punting the football is awarding the opponent a turnover.

From this article Gregg linked:

Going for it on 4^th-and-short has had a 62.7% success rate over the last three years.

Notice that Mike Tanier (who wrote the article) says "4th-and-short tries" are about 60% likely to succeed in maintaining possession. Gregg doesn't really specify whether punting only these circumstances is awarding the opponent a turnover or just overall punting is like awarding the opponent with a turnover. I will say this...I have no doubt Gregg is going to bring up this 62.7% success rate on fourth down tries that are not fourth-and-short, as if this statistics applies to all fourth down tries. I have no doubt he will do this. 

And why Gregg linked this article:

A large percentage of fourth-down conversions take place in what Gregg Easterbrook used to call "The Maroon Zone": the region between the opponent's 40 and 20 yard lines. This makes sense, of course: that is the region of unappealing 55-yard field goal attempts and punts which will only net a few yards of field position.

It must have pleased Gregg to no end that this article on why it's bad to punt on fourth down in certain situations quoted him on "The Maroon Zone." It's probably a highlight of Gregg's career while writing TMQ. Let's be honest though. Mike Tanier probably won't link or quote much of what else is written in TMQ. 

It’s not that coaches don’t know the math — rather, it seems they don’t want to be criticized. If a coach does the expected and sends out the punt unit on fourth down, and then his team goes on to lose, players are blamed for the defeat.

Right, but if a fourth down attempt doesn't work then the blame can also reside with the players. The thinking about going for it on fourth down is changing, so going for it isn't seen as the huge risk it used to be seen as. Accordingly, if a coach has the guts to go for it on fourth down then the players can still get the blame if they don't execute the play well enough to convert, miss a block or do one of many other things that can cause a play to fail.

What's funny is that Gregg will say the following in this TMQ:

Before the game, Chip Kelly responded to criticism of the Eagles’ 0-2 start by saying “we need to execute.” In coach-speak that means, “Everything about my strategy and personnel management is perfect; the players are to blame for not doing what I tell them.”

So Gregg explains that the coach gets the blame when a fourth down conversion doesn't work (and indicates coaches should not be blamed for being aggressive like this), but then blames the coach when a play doesn't work. So he is the very person that talks about blaming the coach on a fourth down conversion if the execution by the players is poor. Gregg doesn't want to blame the coach when he goes for it on fourth down, but then blames the coach for the play's failure if the coach blames the poor execution for the play's failure. So basically, NFL head coaches don't go for it on fourth down because Gregg Easterbrook will blame them for the play's failure. 

If the coach orders a conversion attempt that fails, the coach is blamed for subsequent defeat.

Sort of like how you blame the coach when he claims his team's execution wasn't very good in a defeat? Actually, not sort of like that, but exactly like that. You do this. 

Trailing, 20-0, late in the third quarter at Seattle, the Bears reached fourth-and-inches at midfield. Chicago Coach John Fox faced this option: try for a first down or concede the game. When the punt team trotted out, the CBS booth denizen Phil Simms said: “I agree with the decision. I think I would punt it here and just go ahead and see if your defense can make a play.”

In other words, shift blame to the players, in this case the defenders.

In other words, Phil Simms is stupid and he should not be listened to. Don't use something Phil Simms says as an example of how announcers shift blame to the players and not the coaches. Punting there was a really, really conservative decision. It was a John Fox-type decision. This is the same guy who kneeled the ball down in the playoffs rather than trust Peyton Manning to get the Broncos in field goal range with less than a minute left in the regulation and the Broncos holding a timeout. This was not a good decision to punt against the Seahawks and there is no reason for Phil Simms to defend this punt.

Washington at Jersey/A on Thursday night, the visitors, mired in a three-season slump, faced fourth-and-inches. The CBS play-by-play voice Jim Nantz declared, “Now the Redskins have to punt.”

Eagles at Jets scoreless, Jersey/B was stopped inches shy of a first. “It’s a three-and-out for the Jets,” the Fox announcer Kevin Burkhardt said cheerily, seeming never to contemplate the possibility of going for it.

Here is a good example of where I don't believe Gregg understands that which he is criticizing. Jim Nantz and Kevin Burkhardt are probably not actually advocating for the Redskins and Jets to punt, but are doing their job and telling the viewer what is happening. They are calling the game. After the failed third down attempt, they see the punting unit for the Redskins/Jets go on the field and then say, "The Jets/Redskins will now have to punt." I don't think Nantz and Burkhardt are saying, "Here is my opinion that the best tactic for the Jets/Redskins is to punt," but they are doing their job and acknowledging what is happening on the field. Gregg never thinks that perhaps both announcers are simply doing their job, but instead, he thinks they are giving their opinion. I think he is mistaken or is so rabid to prove his point that Nantz/Burkhardt are trying to shift blame to the defenders that he isn't thinking. 

Because network booth crews interpret the football universe for the mainstream fan, if broadcasters criticized timid punting tactics, coaches would be embarrassed. But coaches know there is almost no chance this will occur.

I don't think network booth crews really interpret the football universe for the mainstream fan. Maybe they do, and if they did, then isn't this an explanation that supports how Nantz/Burkhardt were simply describing the action of a team choosing to punt and not necessarily advocating that as a course of action?

And also, there is no reason to think NFL head coaches count on broadcasters not criticizing them and that is why they continue to punt in situations where they may be better off going for it on fourth down. I don't think NFL head coaches really give a shit what network announcers say.

Network announcers side psychologically with management. The booth guys scoff at dropped passes or missed tackles, criticizing labor, but back up tactical decisions, validating management.

This doesn't at all explain why ex-players like Phil Simms side with management. Why would an analyst who is an ex-player suddenly start siding with management just because he's in the broadcast booth? Wouldn't these ex-players naturally side with players, since they were players at one time?

San Diego at Minnesota scoreless, the Chargers faced fourth-and-inches in Vikings territory. As the punt team trotted out, the CBS announcers Ian Eagle and Dan Fouts said not a critical word. “Knowing Mike McCoy, he wants to play a field position game,” Fouts observed,

He is an ex-player. Why would he psychologically side with management? This makes not of sense.

Sweet Play of the Week. Atlanta at Dallas in the fourth quarter, the visitors faced third-and-goal. Julio Jones lined up as a slotback on the left. At the snap, Atlanta play-faked. Jones ran a pattern behind the line of scrimmage — covered up by his own offensive linemen — then was open in the right flat for a touchdown, and the Falcons never looked back. During the contest, Jones had 12 receptions for 164 yards, ran pretty much every pass pattern in the book, and for grins once lined up as fullback.

Is this the same Julio Jones who is a "diva" and is personally responsible for the Falcons' poor record since he joined the team? Or is this the same Julio Jones who wasn't worth the mega-trade it took to acquire his rights? I get confused, because Gregg spoke so poorly of Jones at one point and now he's no longer speaking of Jones poorly. So there must be another Julio Jones who the Falcons traded up in the draft to acquire. I bet that Julio Jones still sucks really badly. 

Sour Play of the Week. Denver leading, 7-6, with 13 seconds remaining till intermission, the Broncos faced fourth down on the Lions’ 45. There’s little incentive to big-blitz since even a successful blitz would give the hosts possession at midfield with only a few seconds remaining. Whatever Detroit does, it must not allow a touchdown.

Or a first down to where the Broncos get in field goal range. You know, that's probably slightly important too.

Here is what is absolutely more important than anything else. Not lying. That's very important. The Lions brought five guys at Manning and dropped the rest into coverage. Watch that video, there's no "big-blitz" present here.

It’s a blitz! Seven Detroit defenders crowd the line of scrimmage, leaving just one safety “high” and Demaryius Thomas, Denver’s best receiver, single-covered deep. Touchdown and the Broncos never looked back. Before the play, the Lions had taken a timeout in order to come up with this disastrous defensive call. Sour.

Seven players crowded the line of scrimmage, but the Lions then dropped six guys into man coverage with a safety over the top. The Broncos had one timeout left, so they easily could have gotten into field goal range. It was decent coverage by Darius Slay. He just got out-jumped. More importantly, not lying is the most important takeaway here. Gregg describes the play like the Lions brought seven defenders at Manning, describing it as a "big-blitz" and never mentioning the Lions dropped five of the seven players at the line into coverage. Gregg is good at misleading his readers. It's what he does. 

Sweet ‘n’ Sour Play of the Week. At Oregon, Utah ran a punt return trick play that had everyone looking at the wrong guy. Expecting Oregon to punt toward the sideline — whether teams should always deliberately punt out of bounds will be the subject of a future Tuesday Morning Quarterback — the Utes put two returners back. One looked up into the sky as if the ball were sailing to him. That drew the coverage team toward Guy #1, who was careful not to fake a fair catch: Once a fair catch is signaled, no receiver may advance. Actually the ball was sailing toward Guy #2 on the opposite sideline, who fielded the punt and ran 69 yards untouched for a touchdown.

This was a very well-executed play. If the play were poorly-executed then Gregg would ask why the coach blames his players for the poor execution and then say the coach is blame-shifting fault to the players for calling the execution poor. I've established this as a true. So in this case of a well-executed play, using the same logic, does this mean the coach is to be rewarded for calling such a well-executed play and the players don't get credit? So do the players get credit in this situation where if this play didn't work then Gregg would blame the coach? If the coach is to blame for a poorly-executed play, wouldn't the coach then get credit for a well-executed play? Gregg can't have it both ways. He can't solely blame the coach for a team's failures on a play and then credit only the players for a play's success.

Sour was that Guy #2 was on the Oregon side, close enough for Ducks coaches to reach out and touch him. Oregon coaches should have been pointing at Guy #2 and shouting warnings. Yet Guy #2 was most of the way to the end zone before the Oregon sideline realized who had the ball.

Oregon coaches may not have been watching the ball in the air and were instead watching their players on punt coverage. So if they weren't watching the ball, it's because they were watching the action on the field. As Gregg himself often says, much of the important action takes place away from the ball, so that's all the Oregon coaches were doing, watching the action away from the ball. Of course, now Gregg criticizes them for doing what he claims they should be doing, watching the action away from the ball.

Also, it's entirely possible the coaches were yelling and the players just couldn't hear them. It's not like the players in punt coverage can look at the bench as they are running down the field nor is it very quiet on a football field where the players can hear individual voices yelling at them necessarily. I think it's hilarious Gregg expects the Oregon punt coverage team to be looking at the Oregon bench during punt coverage. If an Oregon player WAS watching the bench on this play, then Gregg would criticize this player for not paying attention to the action on the field. As always, Gregg doesn't care if he contracts himself and only thinks a team should use a strategy that ends up working. Hindsight criticism is all Gregg can offer.

Did Bill Belichick Stage the PSIcheated Scandal to Get Brady Fired Up? New England’s possession results in hosting Jacksonville: Touchdown, field goal, field goal, touchdown, field goal, touchdown, touchdown, touchdown, touchdown, kneels to end game.

But what was Tom Brady doing still on the field with New England ahead, 44-10, in the fourth quarter?

I'm sure Gregg has some theory that the football gods will punish the Patriots for running up the score in this game. As soon as the Patriots have a more difficult schedule and lose a game or two, this theory of Gregg's will pop up. Just wait. 

The Football Gods Chortled No. 1. While their new Santa Clara field was under construction, the 49ers were 41-14-1 with a Super Bowl appearance. Since abandoning San Francisco, the 49ers are 9-10.

The 49ers have also had a lot of internal team turmoil and the loss of important players since playing at the new Santa Clara field. I guess that's just too much of a reasonable explanation for their 9-10 record since "abandoning" San Francisco. It's too obvious of an explanation that is too football-based. 

Quarterback Matt Cassel is now with his third N.F.L. team in six months. The Buffalo Bills rented Cassel for the summer — at least they got their damage deposit back, netting a late-round draft selection in two Cassel transactions. Dallas issues his jersey now. One of T.M.Q.’s laws is that all quarterbacks suddenly become more talented when they stand behind a good offensive line. Dallas has one of the league’s best offensive lines, and if Cassel plays, he suddenly he may become more talented.

BREAKING NEWS: An NFL team's offensive line is important. If a football team has a good offensive line then it helps that team's quarterback play better.

So yes, if Matt Cassel has to play for the Cowboys, then playing behind a really good offensive line may help him play better.

Kelly jumped to the N.F.L. in 2013 thinking his Blur Offense, unstoppable in the college ranks, would be unstoppable in the pros. Steve Spurrier jumped to the N.F.L. in 2002 thinking his Fun ‘n’ Gun offense would be unstoppable in the pros. Both found that after an initial period of adjustment, N.F.L. defensive coordinators became adept at shutting their attacks down.

So does this mean there won't be a TMQ about how the Blur Offense is taking over the NFL? Or will that TMQ come about once the Eagles turn their season around and Gregg pretends he didn't just write that NFL defensive coordinators are adept at shutting the Blur Offenses's attack down? 

Bot Meets Pontiff. Last week Pope Francis visited the United States. Between meetings with rich and poor, he squeezed in some time for automatons. Here’s how it went.

4th Down Bot: Holiness, Washington has punted twice on fourth-and-inches this season, and lost both games.

Francis: I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet.

4th Down Bot: What’s your reaction when you hear the biggest sport in the world’s most important country uses a racially insensitive term for the name of the team in the nation’s capital?

Francis: The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.

Son of a bitch, this isn't funny or clever at all. It's a fake conversation that serves absolutely no point other than to kill space in an already shortened TMQ. Why include this? At least TRY to be somewhat creative. I guess when Gregg has to be out of his comfort zone of misleading his readers then he struggles for material. 

Oh Snap! When writing T.M.Q., I wear a wristband with a list of topics. If a rapid change of topics is required, I flip the wristband open to review audibles.

On my wristband was an item about how some college team was likely to break the 100-snaps barrier this season.

Again, not funny, not clever. Why does this joke exist? 

Because the clock does not stop for first downs in the N.F.L., fewer snaps are inevitable. More important, N.F.L. teams use thick, complicated playbooks: Calling the plays requires time. In the zone read era, college football play-calling is veering toward simplistic — many offenses boil down to run left, run right, pass short, pass long. N.F.L. coaches are beginning to grumble that collegians are arriving as good players at a really fast pace, but unfamiliar with learning a playbook.

Gregg with his inside sources in the NFL knows that NFL coaches are grumbling that collegians are arriving unprepared to deal with learning a playbook. This is different from how it used to be when collegians arrived in the NFL unfamiliar with learning a playbook. So nothing has really changed. In fact, considering the NFL is taking on more and more college concepts and play designs, I think current collegians may be slightly more prepared to learn an NFL playbook than they used to be. 

Branding note: In almost every corner of its website, the college is no longer Texas Christian University; it’s just T.C.U.

In another example of "Gregg Easterbrook provides a link and doesn't read the article he is linking," there are multiple mentions of "Texas Christian University" on that page Gregg linked. Be professional enough to actually read the fucking articles you are linking. Is that just too much to ask? 

Seeking an Internet-address brand, T.C.U. has followed the lead of KFC, which no longer stands for Kentucky Fried Chicken; it’s just a company named KFC; of BP, which no longer stands for British Petroleum; it’s just a company called BP;

It's been almost two decades since they changed their name to BP and it's because they merged with Amoco, which is an American company. So they didn't change their name to BP because of wanting an Internet-address brand, but because they were literally no longer a British Petroleum company. 

Contemporary short-attention-span names like KFC are not abbreviations, because the letters don’t stand for anything: We live in an age when not standing for anything is seen as a plus.

Texas Christian University still is the long form of "TCU." 

What should be the term for a string of letters that appears to be an abbreviation yet is not? Tweet your suggestions to @EasterbrookG. I’ll quote the cleverest ones next week.

I'll be sure to send the suggestion of "GFY" to Gregg. It is an abbreviation of sorts and means "Go Fuck Yourself." It's a handy way to shorten the phrase. 

BOLO of the Week. All units, all units, be on the lookout for the Detroit Lions, who, stretching back to last season, have lost five straight. Suspects are described as more interested in boasting than performing.

Here's a BOLO of the Week: Any evidence of humor or insight that can be found in TMQ. Don't bother looking, it's not going to be found. I think we can call off the BOLO and just file a Missing Persons report. 

J.J. Watt Is Very Good at Publicity, Not So Good at Helping His Team Win. After the Moo-Cows defeated the Buccaneers, J.J. Watt thumped his chest as if Houston had just won the Super Bowl. What Houston had just done was beat the worst team of last season.

I don't even know what this means. It's hard for J.J. Watt to win games as a defensive end when his quarterbacks are Brian Hoyer and Ryan Mallett. 

Before the game, Watt thumped his chest about his claim of regularly being triple-teamed. This is hokum. No defensive end has been triple-teamed: not Reggie White, not Bruce Smith and not Watt. An actual triple-team would lead to an instant jailbreak sack as 10 defenders faced eight offensive players.

The Panthers triple-teamed Watt on occasion a few weeks ago. Also, there is this video of Watt being triple-teamed by the Chiefs. So a 10 second Internet search found evidence that Gregg, once again, is talking out of his ass and is too lazy to back up his assertions with actual evidence that supports his assertion. In fact, there is evidence easily-found which directly contradicts the assertion Gregg is making. But again, he gets paid to lie. Nice gig if you can get it. 

The "Times" needs to make a correction to this TMQ that reads: 

"Gregg Easterbrook was incorrect that no defensive end has been tripled-teamed. It can easily be found that J.J. Watt has been triple-teamed. If Gregg wasn't so fucking lazy or fearful his assertions would be proven incorrect he could have easily found this information. He is an embarrassment and we apologize for his existence and constant lying." 

Against the Bucs, mostly Watt was single-blocked by the journeyman Gosder Cherilus. Sometimes Cherilus got a “chip-off” — a running back or tight end bumped Watt before beginning a pass route. Being chipped is like being 1.5-teamed, which is very different from triple-teamed. 

Look at how Gregg classified Cherilus, as a "journeyman." Doesn't Gregg mean that Cherilus is a highly-drafted glory boy? After all, Cherilus was drafted #17 overall in 2008. I guess Cherilus' draft position is irrelevant when it doesn't go to proving any of Gregg's points or he doesn't want to point out that a highly-drafted player performed well. 

Facing the journeyman Cherilus, Watt posted no sacks, one tackle for a loss and three quarterback hurries.

I mean, that's still pretty damn good for a bad day. Not to mention, Watt does get tripled-teamed at times and Cherilus has only played for three NFL teams. I'm not sure if that qualifies him as a "journeyman" or not. Be assured, if Cherilus was undrafted, his draft position would be noted by Gregg. 

Sunday, the Colts visited Tennessee, whom they’d beaten in 12 of the last 13 meetings. Leading, 24-14, and facing fourth-and-goal on the 3, the Flaming Thumbtacks — see name explanation below — had a chance to reverse years of losing psychology versus Indianapolis by going for the coup de grâce. Instead Titans Coach Ken Whisenhunt did the “safe” thing and kicked. Soon the Colts held the lead.

Because he is utterly incompetent, Gregg doesn't know that the 4th Down Bot supported this decision. I'll do the work Gregg refuses to do. It's absolutely hilarious to me that Gregg talks about the 4th Down Bot in his TMQ and has no idea this Bot disagrees with his opinion on whether some of these decisions by NFL head coaches to go for it on fourth down or not were good decisions. It's so typical Gregg Easterbrook that he either (a) doesn't know what he's providing a link to or (b) provides the link and simply doesn't give a shit if the link backs up his own assertion or not. 

T.M.Q. Lexicon Note. This column calls the Houston franchise the Moo Cows in recognition of its lovely cow-inspired logo. As for the Titans, check their helmets.

There is no reason to explain this as if anyone really cares. 

Single Worst Play of the Season — So Far. Desperate to avoid an 0-3 start, the Ravens had just pulled ahead, 17-14, against Cincinnati. Bengals on their 20, Andy Dalton threw long to A.J. Green against a soft Cover 2. It should be impossible to get open deep against a soft Cover 2, but Green did, catching a strike and motoring downfield.

Halfway to the goal line, Green was hemmed in by defenders, and seemed likely to be tackled. Ravens safety Kendrick Lewis, trailing closely, quit on the play, slowing to a jog. Green broke the tackles and continued for an 80-yard touchdown. Lewis started running again, but it was too late to catch up. And now Baltimore is 0-3.

Matt emailed me about this (he said it as well as I could), saying: 

Kendrick Lewis slows down because it looked like two other players have the tackle. Had he kept running and they made the tackle, he would have run into the play and disrupted it. Then Gregggggg would be killing him for not being aware and ruining the tackle. What a dick. 

Yep. Notice how Gregg fails to mention that A.J. Green is a highly-paid glory boy as well. If Green had gotten tackled by Kendrick Lewis then Gregg would be talking about how a lowly-drafted (5th round pick), unwanted/journeyman (he's played for three teams, which obviously means the Texans and Chiefs were wrong to not want him because he hypothetically made one good play) player took down a highly-paid glory boy who is too busy cashing the checks from his recent contract extension to work hard and avoid tackles. Alas, Lewis did not tackle Green because he thought two other players had him and Gregg's narrative turns around completely with no mention of either player's draft position. 

N.F.L. players spend the entire year preparing for a small number of games, then quit on the action as if they’re bored. Kendrick Lewis, you are guilty of the Single Worst Play of the Season — so far.

These are the types of things that happen when you rely on a fifth round pick to play well against highly-drafted glory boys like Andy Dalton and A.J. Green. 

11 comments Bob Raissman Is Surprised American Announcers on an American Sports Network Have a Bias Towards the US Men's National Soccer Team

This article should probably be filed under, "Well, I have to write about something, I'm out of ideas, and I have a deadline coming up, so I'm going to think hard and create a problem where there isn't necessarily one." Bob Raissman is a little disappointed that the ESPN World Cup voices appeared to be siding with the United States Men's National Soccer team. I sort of figured the announcers would have a pro-American bias since ESPN has the American broadcast rights to the World Cup, but perhaps that was just me. Either way, I can't believe I'm going to defend ESPN, but here goes anyway. It shouldn't be a surprise to find out these ESPN voices are invested in the American team doing well. Fans who want to watch the World Cup and happen to live in the United States most likely have an interest in Team USA.

Despite our recent enrollment in Mike (Sports Pope) Francesa’s Institute of Remedial Soccerology, there are still things we don’t get about ESPN’s World Cup voices.

By the way, I want to mention that no matter how the rest of this column goes, I still think Bob Raissman's mustache is absolutely awesome. I wish I could grow one like he has. Seeing as how I'm a pimply blogger living in his mom's attic, I don't get enough sunlight to make my facial hair grow. Don't believe that the sun makes facial hair grow? Then how the Red Sox players grow their beards so quickly last season? 

The exact nature of their role is as confusing as some aspects of the game itself. Are the voices USA fans? Master motivators? Soccer broadcasters?

They are ex-players and broadcasters who are used to either calling or playing in soccer matches. I'm not sure why this is confusing. They are the same type of voices you hear on any other broadcast for a sporting event. Networks hire professional broadcasters used to calling a certain sport, and as the analyst, they will hire an ex-coach or player in that sport. In this case, they are soccer broadcasters and ex-soccer players. 

Their credentials are quite impressive. So much so ESPN proudly displays them graphically.

Then read the credentials and that will tell you exactly who these voices are. Why ask the question if the answer is right there on the screen in English? Wait, the graphics for ESPN are written in ENGLISH? What's the exact nature of ESPN if they are only printing the graphics in English? Are they the network only for fans of the United States or people who can read English? What an outrage!

Unfortunately, the resume of Alexi Lalas, the studio analyst, did not explain where he was coming from during his pregame soliloquy Sunday evening. No sooner had he started in with his “the definition of what an American is” than our eyeballs started to itch.

As a soccer player who was a member of the United States Men's National Soccer team he brought a unique perspective of what it was like to stand on the field and hear the national anthem being played. The fact that Lalas' resume stated he played for the United States Men's National Soccer team in the 90's actually perfectly explained where he was coming from with his little speech. I don't know how his perspective could have been confusing to anyone who can read English. Though I understand how infuriating it is for Bob Raissman that the graphics were in English so a person who speak German couldn't understand where Lalas was coming from. 

Call it an allergic reaction to someone sermonizing, attempting to bring higher purpose and meaning to a sporting event where organizers (in this case FIFA) are making a whole lot of dough.

Any time there is a sporting event with the magnitude (Pop! Pop!) of the World Cup occurring the organizers are making a whole lot of dough. This isn't a reason to get pissy when someone tries to bring meaning to the event. The organizers of the Olympics make a lot of money off them and the city where the Olympics are held make a lot of money in tourism (hopefully) off the event. If Bob Raissman has an allergic reaction to someone sermonizing and bringing higher purpose to a sporting event where a lot of money is being made, then he either never watches any sports with the volume on or watches zero sports outside of a WNBA game. 

Above and beyond everything else, the World Cup is a commercial enterprise and opportunity, not a patriotic experience.

It's also a competition between countries to see which country has the better soccer team. National pride and bragging rights are at stake. The fact it is an event where there is a ton of commercial enterprise doesn't make it a non-patriotic experience just like the Olympics aren't a non-patriotic experience. I can see not enjoying ANY type of large sporting event because it is a commercial enterprise, but criticizing Lalas and the World Cup for mixing patriotism and commercialism seems a bit unfair. I don't think Raissman has the same type of criticism for other large events that are commercialism combined with patriotism.

This fact usually escapes guys like Lalas.

No, he was simply pointing out what it feels like to stand on the field during a World Cup game and hear the national anthem being played. Networks use players and coaches all the time in a studio who have a unique perspective on participating in a sporting event in order to help the viewer what it feels like to participate in that event. It's not unusual for a network to do this at all. I'm not sure why it's a problem in this situation. 

“And I don’t care where you are born (or) if you speak the language,” Lalas said. “What I care about is when you stand up there and put your hand over your heart and you are wearing that (USA) jersey and that song plays that it matters. That you understand that what you are about to do is a reflection on you, and your sport, and your country.”

I think this is part of Bob Raissman's knee-jerk reaction in trying to get a column idea out of Lalas' words, but I didn't take "wearing that jersey" to mean the United States jersey. I took it to mean "when you are wearing the jersey of your home country." I thought Lalas was talking generically as to the feeling in that specific situation, not the feeling as an American in that specific situation. Earlier, he was talking specifically about himself wearing the US jersey when mentioning "the definition of American," but was talking more in generalities about the feeling of representing your country in this passage.

We cannot recite soccer’s offsides rule, but it’s safe to say the players on Team USA know who and what they are representing. Lalas’ monologue was misplaced. Unless it was really designed to motivate viewers, make them cheer longer and louder.

The monologue was on television just minutes before Team USA was to play Portugal. Who the hell else would the monologue be designed for? The players on the field did not have televisions or phones in front of them to where they could hear Lalas speak, so there is no way in hell it was designed to motivate them. It was simply designed to give the viewer at home perspective on the feeling a soccer player gets at that moment when hearing the national anthem being played as you are about to represent your country in the World Cup. I think Bob Raissman's criticism is misplaced. 

Oh, Lalas did neglect to say how Team Portugal should be feeling when its anthem played.

Since Lalas never specifically mentioned the words "United States" and referred to it as "that" jersey I really think he wasn't talking about what it feels like as a member of the United States team, though he was a member of that team, but talking in generalities about how it feels to be representing your country on the soccer field. 

Then again, Team USA’s opponents, Ghana and Portugal, appear to be just a minor details for ESPN.

To be fair, any of the leadup to the game on ESPN would feature mostly coverage of the United States since ESPN is located in the United States. I wouldn't expect Univision to have more in-depth coverage of the Croatian National team than any Hispanic or Latino teams. It's just how it is. 

Sunday, we learned a lot about Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo, one of soccer’s greatest players. Ian Darke, the play-by-play voice, even informed viewers Ronaldo was greeted at his hotel by a thousand fans, a “topless model” and “a guy dressed as Donald Duck.”

Bob Raissman doesn't think ESPN is covering the Portugal team enough, now they are covering the Portugal team with too many details. Maybe it would be easier if Bob Raissman would write down what he wants Ian Darke to say so he can say exactly that. 

The rest of Team Portugal was a well-kept secret.

Not true. I knew nearly nothing about the Portugal team but I learned during the broadcast that the guy who scored the first goal of the game played for Manchester United, had not scored all season for them, and had not scored during any of the games leading up to the World Cup either. From watching the match, I didn't really find out anything else about American players that I didn't already know from being a soccer bandwagon fan over the past month. It's not like Darke went on-and-on about Clint Dempsey or Michael Bradley during the match. 

No problem. ESPN, and its voices, are emotionally invested in Team USA.

Yes, but it seems like this is a problem for Bob Raissman. He's writing this entire column about how this is a problem for him.

Late in the second half, with the USA clinging to a one-goal lead, Darke said: “I’m getting the sense that there are people in homes and in bars who can barely watch this now.”

How in the hell is this a pro-Team USA comment? Are there no bars in Portugal? Are there no people in homes in Portugal worried the national team won't beat the United States and could be eliminated from the World Cup? The game was tight and it was tense. So either Bob Raissman thinks no one in Portugal has a home or the entire country has no bars, or he is reading way too much into this comment.

Twellman: “Also the guy next to you. I’m dying here.”

It was tense. Portugal looked to be in trouble and the only reason Bob Raissman thinks Taylor Twellman is openly cheering for the United States in this situation is because he knows Twellman played in America and almost made the 2006 World Cup squad. If Raissman didn't know Twellman had an affiliation with the United States Men's National Soccer team then he very well could have thought he was commenting on how close the game was and how the stakes of a US victory/Portugal defeat were high. 

Let’s just say Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth would not have a similar exchange late in a tightly contested Super Bowl.

Al Michaels during another commercialized sporting event disguised as a patriotic event,

"Do you believe in miracles? Yes!" 

Sounds like Michaels was openly cheering for the United States in that situation doesn't it (at least from Bob Raissman's perspective based on this column)? Not to mention, there is a difference in a sporting event involving different countries and a sporting event like Sunday Night Football where the two teams competing are from the same country. There just is a difference.

And after Clint Dempsey left the game with about three minutes left and the score 2-1, the voices were having premature visions of a USA win. “In their 20 games in World Cup history that they conceded the first goal, they’ve never won,” Twellman said. “What a comeback!”

He's simply stating a fact. The United States had never won after conceding the first goal and then they (potentially) came back to beat Portugal, of all teams, after conceding the first goal. 

Darke: “So a bit of history (being made) here, uh, they haven’t won this, mind you.”

A few seconds later Darke said: “If it stays like this it will be one of the greatest wins in U.S. (soccer) history.”

IF. The key word there is "IF." Again, Darke was simply stating a fact that a comeback win over Portugal to advance to the group stage would have been one of the greatest wins in United States soccer history. He is simply providing perspective on what a potential win for the United States would represent. 

Then came Silvestre Varela’s header beating Tim Howard, tying the game. And then came Twellman’s reaction.

“I’m sick to my stomach,” he said.

Well, that is clearly a pro-American point of view given the situation. Still, ESPN is an American network so it's not unforeseen they would hire American talent to broadcast the games and this American talent would have a slightly pro-Team USA stance. 

Cannot report if Twellman tossed his cookies. ESPN did not stick a camera in his face. Twellman’s reaction again suggests when it comes to Team USA, impartiality is not a high priority for him or ESPN.

I think the viewer would anticipate that ESPN makes coverage of the United States team a high priority. In fact, the American television rights to the World Cup were sold to ESPN, ABC, and Univision. The AMERICAN broadcast rights. So people who live in American, who presumably will have more interest in Team USA, are receiving coverage of the team that reflects this interest in Team USA. So why in the hell would Bob Raissman take offense or be surprised that ESPN, the network with the American broadcasting rights, would take a more pro-Team USA stance? Is he angry that VGTRK in Russia isn't giving Team USA enough coverage or appear to be more biased towards Team Russia? I highly doubt it. 

So I don't really understand Raissman's point. Other countries have broadcast rights to the World Cup that most naturally would reflect partiality towards the World Cup team representing that country. 

On the postgame show, the team’s key players — and coach Jurgen Klinsmann — were interviewed by Jeremy Schaap. We stayed with the program for a while. During that time there were no interviews with Team Portugal players. Turns out some were interviewed on ESPN Deportes. Perhaps the BCCC faculty believes viewers of “regular” ESPN don’t speak Spanish.

Now this is Bob Raissman's complaint. It's not that ESPN didn't interview Team Portugal players, it's that they were interviewed on ESPN Deportes. I would bet most viewers of "regular" ESPN probably don't speak fluent Spanish. Besides, players from Team Portugal most likely speak Portuguese, seeing as how that is the official language of the country and all. I'm sure Bob Raissman, the same guy who is accusing ESPN of not being educated enough on Team Portugal, knew that already though. 

Or just want the main channel’s commentary colored red, white, and blue. It is not right, but not surprising. When it comes to these international events on American TV, the broadcasts are all USAcentric.

Why is it not right? Univision has the rights to the games also, so if a person doesn't like the pro-Team USA coverage then they can flip over to Univision. Most people who are watching the World Cup in the United States have an interest in how Team USA will do. That is why ESPN has a pro-Team USA slant to their coverage. It's the same reason a Boston area news station will have a slant towards Boston sports and doesn't give the Texas Rangers or Dallas Cowboys equal air time. It's all about what the audience watching the program wants to hear. Viewers watching in America most likely want to hear about Team USA. 

It’s good for business — the 18 million who tuned it tell you so.

So ESPN gave viewers the coverage they wanted and this is a bad thing? It hurts me to defend ESPN and I recognize not every person living in the United States is watching the World Cup to see the United States play. I haven't found the coverage of the United States Men's National Soccer team to be overwhelmingly slanted towards Team USA when I am watching the matches. There is a slant, but a lot of the analysis doesn't directly cheer for the United States. ESPN has a pro-Team USA slant outside of the normal World Cup coverage (SportsCenter, etc) but that is to be expected. I don't see the problem that Bob Raissman is trying to create here. 

Sunday, these Gasbags took it to another level. It’s time to switch to Univision.

Then do it. I think Bob Raissman has tried to find situations where he wants to claim ESPN is boldly providing analysis from an American perspective, but in a few of the situations mentioned here in the column I don't see the slant he claims to see. Lalas was talking in generalities from how I took his monologue and any mention of the United States team making history was simply a recitation of facts that was appropriate for the moment.

8 comments Local Announcers Think The Same Advanced Statistics They Don't Seem to Care to Understand Have No Place In a Baseball Broadcast

This article isn't really by Bruce Jenkins, it's more of a compilation of comments that Bruce has gathered. These are comments made by local announcers about the use of advanced statistics during a baseball broadcast and really the only opinion reflected here is the opinion that advanced statistics should not be discussed during a baseball broadcast. Includ anecdotes during a broadcast? Abso-fucking-lutley. Advanced statistics? Nah, because "the people" won't understand the message being conveyed. Bruce poses the question because the Houston Astros have decided they will encourage their announcers to use advanced statistics during the broadcast and Bruce needs local announcers for more successful teams to describe how stupid this is. After all, it's the Astros and they aren't a very good team. So obviously this has to be a very bad idea since it came from management of such a shitty team. There is obviously a correlation between a bad baseball team and bad ideas ownership of that team may have. It's just like good baseball teams never have any bad ideas.

My personal opinion is that advanced statistics absolutely has a place in a local baseball broadcast. I don't believe the announcers should bust out with a whiteboard and start breaking down these advanced statistics or talk down to their audience, but there is a place to at least mention advanced statistical theories and alternative methods of measuring a player's performance. It's important these advanced statistics aren't presented in a way that the announcer is talking over the audience's head, so the announcer will have to be well-versed enough in advanced statistics to make it simple for the audience. Therein lies the problem. These announcers aren't well-versed enough to help the audience understand exactly what WAR (since that seems to be the advanced statistic most of these broadcasters latch on to) is in the context of discussing a player's performance during a current or previous year.

The baseball season is upon us, and as we turn our gaze to the east, we find the Houston Astros taking a most peculiar stance.

Not an "alternative" stance or a "different" stance, but a "peculiar" stance which immediately shades the decision to include knowledge of advanced statistics by the announcers as out of the norm and possibly the incorrect decision. The bias is in the writing.

They not only like the idea of their broadcasters going deep into modern-day statistics, they consider it a prerequisite for the job.

It's insane to think the Astros would want announcers who are well-versed in the game of baseball to discuss methods of evaluating a player's performance outside of the traditional methods. Who would ever want to hear a broadcast as presented by a well-rounded announcing crew? Certainly not Bruce Jenkins or any of the other broadcasters that Bruce interviews in this column.

In other words, tuning into a typical Astros game: "Well, here's big Hank against a real tough lefty. You wouldn't believe how this guy's WAR stacks up against that guy's WHIP."

This example only goes to prove that Bruce Jenkins doesn't understand advanced statistics, so yet again we have the example of a sportswriter criticizing that which he doesn't understand. Bruce only shows his ignorance in this example.

At which point a torrent of statistical information unfolds, all about Wins Above Replacement - an effort to summarize a player's total contribution to a team in one statistic - and Walks Plus Hits Per Inning Pitched.

But see it doesn't have to be a torrent of information that is provided. WHIP can be summarized and given context by explaining what WHIP is and saying whether a pitcher with a 0.97 WHIP is good or not. The viewer doesn't need a calculator and there doesn't have to be a ton of information given. It can be very simple. Say a relief pitcher comes into the game against a left-handed batter. The announcer can say this pitcher's WHIP against lefties is 1.64 while his WHIP against righties is 1.00. This gives context that the relief pitcher is better against right-handed batters and gives the viewer the knowledge that this could be a rough at-bat coming up.

WAR can be more difficult to calculate during a game, but WAR is more of a macro-statistic as opposed to a micro-statistic anyway. WAR is better at giving the big picture over a larger statistical sample and wouldn't merit being mentioned constantly during a broadcast other than to compare two players and their performance over a period of time.

The Astros are sort of weird that way. Perhaps in an effort to steer folks away from the fact that their team is awful, losing a combined 324 games over the past three seasons, they are lurching earnestly into the unconventional.

Of course, because it's the Astros doing this then it means there's no viable reason to mention advanced statistics during a baseball broadcast.

For all we know, they're at the vanguard of progress. But they're facing a ton of resistance, and when it comes to filling the broadcast air with analytics,

You mean, resistance like this very article's introduction that describes using analytics as "unconventional," "peculiar," and suggests it is just a cover to make up for the fact the Astros don't have a very good team?

they won't find any allies on the Bay Area's broadcasting crews. We checked with all eight of them, and they have the floor:

What I find most interesting is that most of these broadcasting crews are like, "Oh well those analytics don't transfer to a discussion on-air," even though most of these broadcasters admit they either (a) have looked into advanced statistics and understood them but simply won't use them or (b) don't care to understand advanced statistics and clearly lack knowledge about them. Simply falling back on, "It won't work" is a lame excuse. It's just resistance to using a method these broadcasting crews either don't fully understand or don't want to fully understand.

Vince Cotroneo, A's radio: "If I'm out in the backyard barbecue, listening to a game, I want an entertaining broadcast.

Bring in puppies or kittens! Everyone loves puppies and kittens. Perhaps bears can wrestle during a broadcast. Wrestling bears are very entertaining.

Maybe I can tell 'em that Sonny Gray was a star quarterback in Tennessee, and as you watch him - leader, ornery, trusts his stuff - you see that he has those vital qualities.

I don't find the knowledge that Sonny Gray was a star quarterback in Tennessee to be entertaining at all. Why is it that an anecdote that has nothing to do with how Sonny Gray plays baseball is entertaining and explains why he's a good pitcher, but explaining Gray has the fifth best WHIP in the American League doesn't explain Gray's qualities sufficiently?

And most of all, what's happening on the field? That's what they want to know. I absolutely look at this stuff: FanGraphs, Baseball Prospectus, some other sites. I just don't think it has a place on the air.

Those aren't "stuff" those are baseball sites. That's like if I said I understand vaccinations don't cause autism, but I still believe vaccinations do cause autism because I look at stuff like WebMD and other sites. Vince Cotroneo visiting these sites doesn't mean he is in a position to make a judgment on whether advanced statistics have a place on the air.

"For all the ridicule you hear about traditional stats - RBIs, wins and losses, batting average - those things resonate with the listeners, and they are very relevant to the players. They don't want to hear that 'wins' means nothing.

No one is going to say that wins mean nothing, but staying ignorant about other methods to evaluate baseball players isn't the winning combination to have an informed audience. I don't want to hear the Braves are fucked and won't have enough hitting from guys like B.J. Upton and Dan Uggla to win the NL East, but it's not going to hurt my feelings if someone says it. Wins are a method of evaluating how well a pitcher is pitching. Giving the audience access to information that says whether a pitcher wins a game or not doesn't reflect entirely on the pitcher's performance is relevant and can resonate with the listener if explained correctly. Also, who gives a shit what the baseball players think? They are playing baseball. The broadcast is for the fans.

Bottom line: I think there are enough numbers in the sport. Give people the atmosphere. Let the game come to you."

Cotroneo can't even talk about talking about baseball without using cliches.

Dave Flemming, Giants radio/TV: "I find a lot of it extremely interesting, and there are things you can incorporate on the air. For example, the basic numbers don't tell you the difference between the Giants playing at AT&T Park and the Rockies at Coors Field - revealing that the Giants' offense really isn't that bad, and might even be above average. On the flip side, maybe we overrate the Giants' pitchers because the home park makes their numbers look so good.

Perfect. Then use a statistic to show the audience exactly what is meant by these statements. The audience will understand the point trying to be made, and if they care enough, choose to dig a little bit deeper. This is just the same as using traditional statistics to point out how two different ball parks are different from each other (by using runs scored/allowed in each park) except it goes a little bit deeper.

"Last year, Carlos Gomez came in with the Brewers, and everything the Giants hit, he caught. It was astounding. I did a little digging, and the fielding analytics said he was having a historically great season in center field - sort of confirmation of what I was thinking

I personally think this is an excellent use of fielding analytics to prove a thought Flemming had upon watching Carlos Gomez play. Contrary to what idiots like Murray Chass write when talking about Sabermetricians this is a good example of how advanced statistics should work. They can work to prove/disprove what the viewer is seeing while watching the game. Advanced statistics, traditional statistics, and watching a game are supposed to complement each other, not have one work against the others.

Still, for all of its value, you have to wonder, how much can an audience actually absorb? The answer is, really not that much. There's an arrogance behind the theory that your audience is hanging on every word, to the point where they can understand a long explanation of numbers.

Again, while I agree, there is also a way to convey this information to the audience without overwhelming the game and broadcast with a litany of numbers. Flemming could simply tell the story he just told Bruce Jenkins and explain what statistic he used to confirm what he was thinking. This is the same thing Flemming would do using traditional statistics if he stated on-air that Carlos Gomez seemed to be on a roll playing at home lately as compared to playing on the road. Then Flemming could explain he looked it up and Gomez has a .453 batting average at home and a .214 average on the road during the last month. He doesn't have to explain the statistic, but give the viewer the context and information required to prove the point made by the use of advanced statistics.

The analytics might say this guy's the best fastball hitter in the game, but maybe tonight he's late on somebody's fastball. The thing I always emphasize is to look up, not down. Don't read when you have a game in front of you."

But mention "this guy" is the best fastball hitter in the game according to a certain advanced statistic and this gives the viewer more information on just how well the pitcher is currently pitching. It's looking up, not down and is a statistic that enriches the viewer's enjoyment of the game.

Ken Korach, A's radio: "I think about this a lot, because the times have changed. Although I take interest in certain things - some of the fielding stats, or how often a pitcher tends to hit his target - my knowledge of advanced metrics is pretty rudimentary.

But the fact Korach's knowledge of advanced metrics is pretty rudimentary, this doesn't prevent him (of course) from giving his opinion on the subject as if he were an expert. I don't follow politics but let me tell you why President Obama is a crook...

I'll always feel the anecdotes, stories and human-interest elements are most important.

These are great, but these are not analysis nor are they any type of information that provides the viewer with additional information or context on what's happening on the field. The fact Freddie Freeman is engaged to a model doesn't help me understand why he is one of the better fielding first basemen in the National League.

"When I talk to young announcers, I tell 'em your pile of information is never as important as what's going on out there on the field. No matter how brilliant you think you may be, you'd better tell me if the guy's a left-handed hitter, if the center fielder is shaded over toward left-center or the third baseman's in on the grass. Unless you tell me that, I don't care about all the other information you're putting out."

Deep sigh. Obviously no one is asking announcers to simply spend an entire broadcast spouting off statistics and some description of what's happening on the field is required. Why can't the broadcaster and analyst say where the outfielder is shaded and then point out this certain batter when going against a left handed pitcher usually hits the ball to that side of the field?

It drives me crazy sometimes. I hear announcers say, "It appears the shift is on for Brian McCann" and then the inevitable overhead shot is shown that shows the shift, but no explanation is given for WHY the shift is on. Then if McCann gets a base hit to left field the announcers act like he discovered the Holy Grail. What if the statistics show McCann doesn't have pull-tendencies against a left handed pitcher and tends to spray the ball all over the field? Then the outcome was to be expected, right? Context is what I want sometimes.

Jon Miller, Giants TV/radio: "I'm fascinated with statistical information, going back to Bill James and his 'Baseball Abstract' in the '80s. I spend a lot of daytime hours poring through that stuff. But for the broadcast itself, particularly on radio, I feel it just sounds like a bunch of numbers. They don't tell you what's really happening.

I agree, advanced statistics don't tell a viewer what is happening. These advanced statistics can give context for what just happened or may happen though. Are these announcers too stupid to understand they can say what's happening on the field while also using advanced statistics to explain the action on the field?

"I grew up with Russ Hodges and Lon Simmons: 'Here's Willie Mays, hitting .317, 26 homers, and leading the league with 51 RBIs.' The whole point being, what kind of a season is he having? Most of the analytic stuff, like WAR, is more of a predictive thing, telling you someone's worth.

This is not wholly accurate.

Well, I want to know how he's doing right now, especially measured against the rest of the league. WAR is not only hard to explain, there are two different versions, and hardly anyone knows how to calculate it. How am I going to fit that into a broadcast?

Fair point, but there are other advanced statistics that aren't as complicated as WAR that could be used, even briefly, in a broadcast.

"I hate to say it, sort of like fighting words, but too often, the analytics people show a lack of understanding of the game. These aren't people who have played, managed or really experienced baseball.

I don't understand what "experienced baseball" means but I know Jon Miller isn't someone who has played or managed baseball. Jon Miller went to college to be a broadcaster and has been a broadcaster his entire life. He hasn't managed or played baseball at the professional level, yet he has the balls to act like "analytics people" who haven't played the game don't know what they are talking about, but he does because he's sat in a booth with Joe Morgan and called games. See, Jon Miller understands baseball because he's a broadcaster, that's his resume for being such a fucking baseball genius.

And yet, if you disagree with one of their statistical theories, you're stuck in the past, you don't know what you're talking about. So you take a bunch of coaches and managers, guys who have been successful for 20-30 years, and none of 'em know what they're talking about

This is the same boring, cliched argument every idiotic person who dismisses analytics makes. These are fighting words, but too often, the anti-analytics people show a lack of understanding of analytics. They aren't people who understand how analytics work.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a "theory," even though much of analytics isn't a theory but statistical calculations (which shows just how little Jon Miller does truly know about advanced statistics), and nobody says coaches and managers don't know what they are talking about. Much of advanced statistics is about learning a different way of measuring player performance. It's so frustrating these guys like Jon Miller don't even care to understand what point the analytics crowd is trying to make.

"Hunter Pence had 22 infield hits last year and he was swinging as hard as he could, every time.

Jeff Francouer swings as hard as he can each time and he sucks no matter which metric you use to judge him.

How do you measure hustle in on-base percentage against a guy like (notoriously slow) Bengie Molina?

You can't because hustle is an intangible. That's the good part about on-base percentage, it doesn't factor in made up intangible bullshit like "hustle." A player either gets on-base or he doesn't.

Willie Wilson got criticized in Kansas City for his low on-base percentage as a leadoff guy, but one year he reached base 27 times on errors. Because he was so fast, he made people panic. None of that shows up on the sheet.

Oh, so Jon Miller knows for sure Wilson made it on-base 27 times on errors because the fielders were in a panic? It must be nice to read minds. Perhaps Wilson just had a lucky year. You know what, it doesn't even matter because no Sabermetrician is saying all old statistics are useless...except for Brian Kenny with the win, but he goes overboard with his criticism of that statistics. I hate the win statistic, but it does serve some sense of a purpose.

Glen Kuiper, A's television: "I think if I started telling people about WAR, most of them would have no idea what I mean. I don't use it, I don't think about it, and my partner (Ray Fosse), who's very old school, certainly isn't going to use it. You have to define it and then explain it, and I don't think fans want to work that hard.

Why does every single person who hates analytics, and seemingly every person interviewed for this article, grab on to WAR? There are other advanced statistics that can be used during a broadcast. It's like WAR is the only advanced statistic they know...they probably latch on to it because it's easy to spell.

"I'm not saying it doesn't have value. If a general manager makes a big decision based on analytics, that's very legitimate from a player-evaluation standpoint. Or maybe you do a feature on it during a break in a telecast.

See, they latch on to WAR. I'd love to read criticism of advanced fielding metrics, but these guys don't understand those metrics and therefore can't discuss why they don't have a place in a baseball broadcast.

But you can't just squeeze these things in between pitches, and personally, telling me somebody's WAR numbers isn't going to make any difference how I see that player.

Right, because the broadcast is about you and not about the fan sitting at home. Good to hear.

I'd rather tell a story, give fans an idea of what kind of a person this guy is. That's way more entertaining for a fan."

And I wonder why baseball seems to trend toward the older crowd. I hate to point this out, but I think the younger baseball crowd are entertained by analysis of a player and not whether he likes roller coasters and playing silly jokes in the clubhouse.

"I just think the game itself, as it's being played right then, is so much more interesting than how a player values out over a full season, or how he projects for the future."

(Shakes head sadly) Right, because it's fine to talk in generalities about intangibles such as hustle, but pointing out Kelly Johnson has bad range at third base isn't relevant in the 9th inning of a close game with a runner in scoring position.

Mike Krukow, Giants TV: "What the analytics people fail to realize is that we're talking about human beings.

Oh yeah, definitely. The analytics community thinks baseball is played by robots. This is absolutely true. Do all members of the same anti-stats crowd read from the same handbook or is there just a lot of groupthink in the community?

That stuff can't measure someone's passion, toughness or feel for the game.

That stuff can't measure the amount of bullshit shoveled by Mike Krukow either.

It doesn't recognize that, as a pitcher, you might come out with only two of your pitches working. That the wind's blowing out, the sun field is in right, this umpire's got a huge strike zone. I can see where WAR would be relevant in an arbitration case.

So it's okay to not talk about WAR when a player is on the field, but when determining how much a player should be paid WAR is relevant?

But in a ballgame it's B.S., and you can tell when a guy's force-feeding a bunch of totally inane facts.

Oh ok, but it's definitely useful when determining a player's compensation though? Plus, WAR is based on how a player performs during a ballgame so it's not B.S. in that aspect.

Ray Fosse, A's television: "This game is over 100 years old. And it's a generational thing, fathers teaching their kids - just like my dad taught me. You can always get around to the numbers, but basically, you're teaching the game.

And an announcer plays the role of the viewer's father, teaching the game?

"It's depressing to me that numbers are considered more relevant than, say, a really veteran scout.

And this isn't a straw man argument at all because veteran scouts are often put on a local broadcast to impart knowledge to the viewer, right?

Then Ray Fosse starts talking about a specific Phillies scout because he obviously has no interest in answering the question posed to him.

Duane Kuiper, Giants TV/radio: "I'm probably the worst guy to ask, because I think most of the new statistics are nothing more than a distraction to the people at home.

But don't let your personal opinion affect your answer. We want as biased of an opinion as possible.

I've never received a letter saying Mike and I should do more of it, and it's really tough if you don't really believe in it.

Probably because someone who would want to see more advanced statistics are going to be writing an email rather than writing a letter like it is 1961.

"I especially resent the discounting of traditional numbers. Stuff like RBI, ERA, wins or losses, those things tell you something. They're part of the fabric our fans were raised with.

I guess these statistics are being discounted because there are allegedly more accurate metrics that can be used? God forbid that should happen. Not that the traditional statistics crowd feels threatened or anything of course.

20 years from now the part of the fabric the fans of baseball were raised with will be advanced statistics, so doesn't that mean they have some place in a broadcast?

They are part of the players' language. And there are certain things numbers can't really describe, like Hunter Pence (laughter).

The numbers have traditionally described Hunter Pence as a pretty good baseball player, but good try. Nothing can describe Pence's approach at the plate, but his performance certainly is well-quantified with numbers.

"Just because agents and general managers use analytics, that doesn't mean I have to.

Well, at least you are being open-minded about it. Just because Duane Kuiper doesn't like advanced statistics and doesn't think they have a place in a broadcast, that doesn't mean they don't have a place in a broadcast. Of course Kuiper doesn't think of it that way because he's beholden to his own biases and thoughts which reinforce his world view.

What team did you say is putting this stuff on the air? Houston? Well, I don't think you have to say any more, do you?"

Right, because if a team isn't very good on the field then that means any ideas that team has which are not considered part of the norm must not be very good either. I think broadcasters like Kupier and Mike Krukow are better off talking about baseball and not opening their mouths to talk about anything that shows their ignorance and fundamental resistant to change.

8 comments It Appears The Mike Celizic Tag Is No Longer In Use

As many of you may have heard, Mike Celizic, or "Hat Guy" as he is more commonly referred to by many, passed away today from cancer. I have gone after him a few times in the past on this blog for his New York and Boston-centric takes on everything. He tended to view every event in baseball through the eyes of how it affected the Red Sox and the Yankees and also tended to write journalism I disagree with him upon. Obviously, I am sad to hear that he has passed away and I never harbored him any ill will. The purpose of this site isn't to ensure those who write bad journalism pass away, but to mock them endlessly for writing bad journalism and hoping they live a long healthy life to eventually see the error of their ways.

Not to get overly sentimental, but it is odd to have a occasional target of mine like Celizic pass away. I never wrote about him too much, but when you read what someone has written on a weekly basis like I tried to do with his work (and I read it not to find things I liked) then you feel like you know the person just a little bit. I have never met him, but I knew enough about him from his writing to have an idea of what he was like. He was writing a cancer journal for Today.com and his last entry is a good read. It's painfully more honest and well-written (for obvious reasons) than many of his columns I covered here were and I enjoyed reading it. He had to make some tough decisions towards the end and it is clear he was at peace with his decision. I just hope they bury him with his hat. It would only be right.

-(Now for a sudden change in tone)

(No more sentimentality ahead)

(Last chance to change the tone in your mind with which you read what I am writing)

I was watching the Braves-Phillies game (more like it was a massacre if considered in the context of the entire series) on Monday evening and Joe Simpson, who analyzes games for SportSouth, made the following comment:

(Disclaimer: I like Joe Simpson on the whole and not just because he broadcasts Braves games)

He said, and I am paraphrasing since I couldn't find the comment anywhere on the Interwebs...

"Privately, and I think Phillies players and management will deny telling you this...but the Phillies do not want to come to Atlanta in October with the NL East still undecided. I think they want to wrap it up as soon as possible to avoid having to play the Braves in Atlanta with the division title still up for grabs...that's the sense I have gotten."

You think? You mean the Phillies will tell you privately, not publicly of course, that they would like to win the NL East division as soon as possible so they can rest players and set their postseason rotation? Does this differ from the feelings any team has at the end of the year? Every team wants to wrap up their division quickly so they can set their postseason rotation and not have pressure during the last days of the season.

I think, and I am sure the Phillies would tell me this privately as well, the Phillies players would like to clinch the NL East in mid-July or perhaps before the season actually starts. I think the Phillies' feelings about winning the division early has more to do with clinching the division as soon as possible than it has to do with their fear of playing the Braves in Atlanta. No team wants to play anywhere on the road the last week of the season having to win games to clinch their division.

-We all know Murray Chass hates technology, so naturally it makes sense that he wouldn't like the Wild Card system either. I personally don't hate the Wild Card because I feel like only letting four teams in the playoffs before 1994 was the wrong thing to do. It tended to leave out competitive teams that may have deserved an opportunity to appear in the playoffs. I like the Wild Card, and in fact, I think the fact that four teams have won the World Series as the Wild Card shows it has a place in baseball and was the correct move to add two more teams to the playoffs (actually four teams since three divisions instead of two divisions were implemented at the same time as the Wild Card was introduced).

I don't think it dilutes anything to have a team that didn't get first place in their division make the playoffs. The Rays absolutely deserve to make the playoffs this year since they have proven they are the third-best team in the American League this year. Why should they not make the playoffs simply because they are cursed to be in the same division as the Yankees? So I like the Wild Card and Murray Chass doesn't.

When the subject is the wild card, two thoughts come to mind: how Bud Selig gets/takes credit for its creation and how the president was the only owner who objected to it.

I don't recall Barack Obama objecting to the Wild Card in the mid-90's.

George Bush, of course, wasn’t the president yet; otherwise he wouldn’t have been the owner of the Texas Rangers and in position to object to the creation of the wild card.

George Bush, of course, isn't the President anymore. The correct term is ex-President.

He didn’t necessarily object to the wild card itself, but he opposed the change to three divisions in each league, which was tantamount to opposing the wild card.

Eh...kind of. George Bush never objected to the actual Wild Card so it is hard to say he was the only owner who objected to the Wild Card. He objected to the entire re-alignment that put his team in the AL West. So he seems to have opposed the Wild Card only through the proposed re-alignment of the divisions.

If someone kidnaps my child and takes him/her to Montana, I am not objecting to my child going to Montana, I am objecting to him/her being kidnapped. If my favorite restaurant announces it is only going to serve turkey burgers with mustard covered leeches as a side and I object to this because I don't like mustard covered leeches, it doesn't mean I am objecting to turkey burgers as well.

I'm not sure if we can deduce that George Bush objected to the Wild Card simply because it was a part of the divisional realignment plan, which was what he really didn't like.

Under the proposed three-division format, the Rangers would have been placed in the American League West and would have been two time zones from the division’s other teams. Bush believed that difference would have had too severe an economic impact on the Rangers’ television and radio advertising revenue.

Nowhere in there does it seem that George Bush didn't like the Wild Card system. He did not like how the divisions were re-aligned and he sort of had a point. Texas is sort of central in the United States, not on the West Coast. Of course one team had to go to the AL West and I guess the Rangers were the obvious choice.

I have never been a fan of the wild card because I have always believed a team should have to win something, a division or league title, to compete in the post-season for the ultimate championship.

How about out of the 15 years the Wild Card has been in place, four times a Wild Card team has won the World Series? Isn't that proof enough on its face these Wild Card teams deserve to compete for the ultimate championship? The Atlanta Braves and Tampa Bay Rays (the projected Wild Card winners in each league) going to be pushovers in the playoffs? Well, the Braves may be, but the Rays won't.

The Boston Red Sox have an 83-68 record in the AL East and will not make the playoffs because two other teams in their division have the division and Wild Card lead. The Texas Rangers have an 83-67 record, which is pretty much the same as the Red Sox. The Rangers would miss the playoffs if they played in the AL East, but because they will "win something" Murray thinks they deserve to make the playoffs and the 89 win Rays should sit at home. This doesn't make sense.

In the National League, the Braves are tied for the second-best record. Should they miss the playoffs because they happen to be in the same division as the Phillies when they would either be tied for the division lead or winning the division if they played in either the NL Central or NL West? To say a team has to "win something," that means getting rid of the Wild Card is to base a team's "winning something" on the division they were placed in and ignoring the claim a team with a better record may have to be in the playoffs. I don't see how the possibility that each year the three best teams in each league may not all be in separate divisions can be ignored.

Furthermore, the existence of the wild card undermines what otherwise would be a scintillating division race. A perfect example exists right now.

It must be opposite day. Because a perfect example of this statement being bullshit exists right now. There are 3 teams fighting for 1-2 spots in the playoffs in the NL West. Three teams and there are 1-2 spots for those teams in the playoffs and the three teams are separated by 2.5 games. Last year the Tigers and the Twins had a one-game playoff to see which team deserved to win the AL Central because they had identical records when the season ended. The winner of this one-game playoff went home and the loser went to the playoffs. So fuck the idea there is a lack of drama. It still exists.

The Yankees and the Rays have the best records in the majors. Both are in the same division and should be involved in a terrific race for the A.L. East title. But the race is meaningless. Both teams are virtually certain to make the playoffs, one as division champion, the other as the wild card.

Great cherry-picked example. How about the two examples I just gave where three teams are competing for potentially one spot in the playoffs? How about the NL East where the Braves are slowly losing the division and possibly a Wild Card spot at the same time? How about the AL East where the Yankees beat the Rays head-to-head, which gave them a large lead and decided which team got home field advantage (at the time) throughout the playoffs.

In 1993 the San Francisco Giants won 103 games but didn’t gain a playoff spot because the Atlanta Braves, then in the National League West, won 104 games and the N. L. West title. The Giants took their 103 wins and went home.

Naturally, because the Giants didn't "win something" they had to go home and miss the playoffs. That Giants team had the second-best record in MLB that year...by six games. But they didn't "win something" so they went home and that makes sense to Murray. Without the Wild Card, the second-best team in all of baseball missed the playoffs in 2003. Shit happens, but it doesn't have to happen. It's not like MLB expanded the playoffs to include almost half the teams in the majors when the Wild Card was introduced. Only eight teams still make the playoffs, which is less than any of the other major sports.

The strength and value of the wild card, its proponents argue, is that it keeps more teams in post-season contention later into the season, and it’s hard to argue with that.

Really, why would we want baseball to be more exciting? It's better to have teams out of contention late in the season to curb fan interest and all.

I also enjoy how Murray basically says he can't argue with the advantages of the Wild Card...but naturally he still doesn't like the Wild Card.

There are years like this, where the wild card is decided early.

Murray does realize there is this thing called "the National League," right? The Wild Card in the National League is not even close to being decided. So if you believe there is only one league, and that is the American League, then the Wild Card is decided, but otherwise the Wild Card has not been decided early in both the American and National League.

the N.L. wild card race is wide open. Recent developments have altered that landscape as well as the division competition.

And now Murray contradicts himself when he said the Wild Card was decided early. Murray probably thinks it is a terrible thing to have a Wild Card race. What's this "competition" thing that is going on? Isn't that bad for baseball to have more teams be in contention for the majority of the year? That's not how things were done back in his day!

Until Tuesday night, the Braves had been in first place in the N.L. East since May 31, basically 60 percent of the season that had been played. The Phillies had been the wild-card leaders. Suddenly they switched places.

The Giants were 6 ½ games behind the Padres in the N.L. West Aug. 25, but 10 games later – 10 games that the Padres lost – they were only a game behind San Diego.

Murray is doing a really shitty job of convincing me the Wild Card needs to go away forever. If anything, this is proof the Wild Card works as a way to let competitive and deserving teams into the playoffs.

Not to be overlooked are the Colorado Rockies, the comeback kings of recent seasons. They are threatening to do it again. The Rockies were 11 games out as recently as Aug. 22, cut their deficit to 7 games by the start of this month and were 4 ½ out when the Padres ended their losing streak at 10.

How boring to have three teams making a run at the division and the Wild Card like this. Get rid of the Wild Card permanently!

The wild cards have attracted enough positive attention to prompt some people to suggest that baseball should add more wild cards to the playoffs.

I don't think more Wild Cards should be added. The MLB playoffs are fine like they currently are.

Fortunately, though, the commissioner has said that won’t happen.

It's ever so fortunate, because we wouldn't want to risk the current disaster that the Wild Card system represents. How terrible that a team with a better record than a division winner would actually have a chance to play that division winner head-to-head in the playoffs to determine which team is actually better.