ESPN vs ESPN2 broadcast

I'm not prejudiced against dorky looking people. But Benetti looks like a guy who should be discussing analytics. If there’s ever another Revenge of the Nerds movie it should be ... The Nerds Take Over Baseball ... based on the move in baseball front offices towards analytics. 

I also like the analytics broadcast, maybe because the team doing ESPN is so terrible it is hard to listen to them...Now if we could get this same broadcast so I never have to listen Ripken do another game October will just continue to get better.

The conversation on why the Rockies couldn't steal a base on Lester was infuriating - they just should have left the topic alone instead of attempting to explain it.

I'm not a big sabermetrics guy, at least when discussing with those who completely throw out, or dismiss, traditional statistics.  Case in point, I watched on ESPN2, mostly because of the announcers.  Did you notice when batters came up, they did not show his Batting Average?  You could emphasis WAR (I still don't like because defensive measurements are very subjective), OBS, etc. but removing BA is just trying to make a point, IMO.  I also think they go over the top in saying Wins are not a meaningful statistic.  Analytics do not measure the bulldog attitude and doing enough to get a W (go an extra inning when tired, get the big out, etc.).

I think there's room in the game for both, but the hardcore saber guys want to throw away what they think is no longer important.

Now I understand why Catfish Hunter hates nerds in baseball 

I come to the plate with bases loaded.  I hit a bomb 405 to center field that the center feilder catches going over the wall to rob me of a GS and according to my RISP I suck. The next batter hits a floater over 3rd to drive in 2 rbi's and he's an all star. 🤔

I guess weather it's analytics or regular stats the old saying holds true, they're misleading. 

old_school posted:

I also like the analytics broadcast, maybe because the team doing ESPN is so terrible it is hard to listen to them...Now if we could get this same broadcast so I never have to listen Ripken do another game October will just continue to get better.

The conversation on why the Rockies couldn't steal a base on Lester was infuriating - they just should have left the topic alone instead of attempting to explain it.

I think A-roid is the main reason the broadcast sucks. I get it, he knows the game, but he is just so annoying and full of himself.

CTbballDad posted:

I'm not a big sabermetrics guy, at least when discussing with those who completely throw out, or dismiss, traditional statistics.  Case in point, I watched on ESPN2, mostly because of the announcers.  Did you notice when batters came up, they did not show his Batting Average?  You could emphasis WAR (I still don't like because defensive measurements are very subjective), OBS, etc. but removing BA is just trying to make a point, IMO.  I also think they go over the top in saying Wins are not a meaningful statistic.  Analytics do not measure the bulldog attitude and doing enough to get a W (go an extra inning when tired, get the big out, etc.).

I think there's room in the game for both, but the hardcore saber guys want to throw away what they think is no longer important.

I agree with much of this, it matters but gets over blown. like everything in life you need to find the balance point. Right now I things maybe a bit out of whack - it is the new toy and all but it will find its place.

Analytics don't account for human error...or mental toughness and so on. They are kind of important to the process but math guys will never agree on that.

I was watching the analytics broadcast and found myself not liking it.  Perhaps I didn't care for the personality of the analytics guy - he seemed like a know-it-all and had an answer (stat) for everything.  Except not all his answers panned out.  At one point he mentioned that the hitter had the highest ground-ball percentage in the league and the next pitch he hit a gapper (his partner said "so much for ground ball percentage").  Later on he talked about a guy with negative WAR and said "but WAR won't matter in this at-bat".  Seemed like he was grasping to be relevant.  I switched to the regular broadcast.  I can look up stats but I really enjoy a discussion of the nuance and strategy of the game and would rather they focus on these things.

Smitty28 posted:

I was watching the analytics broadcast and found myself not liking it.  Perhaps I didn't care for the personality of the analytics guy - he seemed like a know-it-all and had an answer (stat) for everything.  Except not all his answers panned out.  At one point he mentioned that the hitter had the highest ground-ball percentage in the league and the next pitch he hit a gapper (his partner said "so much for ground ball percentage").  Later on he talked about a guy with negative WAR and said "but WAR won't matter in this at-bat".  Seemed like he was grasping to be relevant.  I switched to the regular broadcast.  I can look up stats but I really enjoy a discussion of the nuance and strategy of the game and would rather they focus on these things.

That is the very definition of being results oriented.  That is what the stat guys are up against.  It's like playing blackjack and hitting on 16 vs a face card and when you bust you say basic strategy doesn't work because it didn't work that one time.    

CTbballDad posted:

I'm not a big sabermetrics guy, at least when discussing with those who completely throw out, or dismiss, traditional statistics.  Case in point, I watched on ESPN2, mostly because of the announcers.  Did you notice when batters came up, they did not show his Batting Average?  You could emphasis WAR (I still don't like because defensive measurements are very subjective), OBS, etc. but removing BA is just trying to make a point, IMO.  I also think they go over the top in saying Wins are not a meaningful statistic.  Analytics do not measure the bulldog attitude and doing enough to get a W (go an extra inning when tired, get the big out, etc.).

I think there's room in the game for both, but the hardcore saber guys want to throw away what they think is no longer important.

I'm a big stat guy, but it is very important to use your eyes in baseball.  From scouting, to in game management, to clubhouse behavior.  Stats don't tell the entire story.  The teams that merge the old school scouts/manager with the the analytics dept are going to be the most successful. 

d-mac posted:

Smitty28 posted:

I was watching the analytics broadcast and found myself not liking it.  Perhaps I didn't care for the personality of the analytics guy - he seemed like a know-it-all and had an answer (stat) for everything.  Except not all his answers panned out.  At one point he mentioned that the hitter had the highest ground-ball percentage in the league and the next pitch he hit a gapper (his partner said "so much for ground ball percentage").  Later on he talked about a guy with negative WAR and said "but WAR won't matter in this at-bat".  Seemed like he was grasping to be relevant.  I switched to the regular broadcast.  I can look up stats but I really enjoy a discussion of the nuance and strategy of the game and would rather they focus on these things.

That is the very definition of being results oriented.  That is what the stat guys are up against.  It's like playing blackjack and hitting on 16 vs a face card and when you bust you say basic strategy doesn't work because it didn't work that one time.    

Yeah, I get that.  Stats reflect probabilities, not outcome.  I just didn't find a discussion of statistics on every pitch very interesting, or useful.

I understand the value of analytics in the big picture (a significant sampling/number of games). I enjoyed the broadcast. I could deal with some analytics tossed into the conversation. But I wouldn’t want to listen to geekdom for nine innings every game.** I would rather listen to Dennis Eckersley and Jerry Remy with a play by play guy talking baseball. It’s like going to the game with the guys. The irony is Remy is brutal without Eckersley. 

** I majored in quantitative analytics in undergrad

Smitty28 posted:

d-mac posted:

Smitty28 posted:

I was watching the analytics broadcast and found myself not liking it.  Perhaps I didn't care for the personality of the analytics guy - he seemed like a know-it-all and had an answer (stat) for everything.  Except not all his answers panned out.  At one point he mentioned that the hitter had the highest ground-ball percentage in the league and the next pitch he hit a gapper (his partner said "so much for ground ball percentage").  Later on he talked about a guy with negative WAR and said "but WAR won't matter in this at-bat".  Seemed like he was grasping to be relevant.  I switched to the regular broadcast.  I can look up stats but I really enjoy a discussion of the nuance and strategy of the game and would rather they focus on these things.

That is the very definition of being results oriented.  That is what the stat guys are up against.  It's like playing blackjack and hitting on 16 vs a face card and when you bust you say basic strategy doesn't work because it didn't work that one time.    

Yeah, I get that.  Stats reflect probabilities, not outcome.  I just didn't find a discussion of statistics on every pitch very interesting, or useful.

They accomplished overkill in an attempt to make the point of the broadcast. 

RJM posted:

I understand the value of analytics in the big picture (a significant sampling/number of games). I enjoyed the broadcast. I could deal with some analytics tossed into the conversation. But I wouldn’t want to listen to geekdom for nine innings every game.** I would rather listen to Dennis Eckersley and Jerry Remy with a play by play guy talking baseball. It’s like going to the game with the guys. The irony is Remy is brutal without Eckersley. 

** i majored in quantitative analytics in undergrad

There is a nice blend of the two concepts/personalities that will be great to listen to, but we aren't there yet.  It will take a stat guy that has respect for the baseball guy and vice versa.  Both sides are going to have to be open to the other side's point of view.  That aspect was missing last night. 

Are there two broadcasts tonight for A's and Yankees?

RJM posted:

I'm not prejudiced against dorky looking people. But Benetti looks like a guy who should be discussing analytics. If there’s ever another Revenge of the Nerds movie it should be ... The Nerds Take Over Baseball ... based on the move in baseball front offices towards analytics. 

 

FWIW, he is a 10 among all the analytical nerds...eye of the beholder I guess

2022NYC posted:

RJM posted:

I'm not prejudiced against dorky looking people. But Benetti looks like a guy who should be discussing analytics. If there’s ever another Revenge of the Nerds movie it should be ... The Nerds Take Over Baseball ... based on the move in baseball front offices towards analytics. 

 

FWIW, he is a 10 among all the analytical nerds...eye of the beholder I guess

That's a picture of Jason Benetti, and though he's comfortable with advanced analytics, he was not the Statcast guy on the broadcast, that was Mike Petriello. Benetti is the White Sox play-by-play guy for television. He also calls football and basketball. And he has cerebral palsy.

Regardless of who was whom in the booth they were all talking analytics the entire game. It was overkill. To add analytics to the broadcast would be interesting. To make it the broadcast was overkill. I believe ESPN2 overplayed their hand. 

MidAtlanticDad posted:

2022NYC posted:

RJM posted:

I'm not prejudiced against dorky looking people. But Benetti looks like a guy who should be discussing analytics. If there’s ever another Revenge of the Nerds movie it should be ... The Nerds Take Over Baseball ... based on the move in baseball front offices towards analytics. 

 

FWIW, he is a 10 among all the analytical nerds...eye of the beholder I guess

That's a picture of Jason Benetti, and though he's comfortable with advanced analytics, he was not the Statcast guy on the broadcast, that was Mike Petriello. Benetti is the White Sox play-by-play guy for television. He also calls football and basketball. And he has cerebral palsy.

Why is cerebral palsy important to the conversation. Does it affect his ability to do the job? Would he look like George Clooney if he didn’t have CP?

If non athletic stats guys start driving the athletic guys(i.e. Molitor just fired up here by young GM's who want to drive the bus themselves)out of baseball, who is going to teach baseball skills?

Not the MIT grads. 

57special posted:

If non athletic stats guys start driving the athletic guys(i.e. Molitor just fired up here by young GM's who want to drive the bus themselves)out of baseball, who is going to teach baseball skills?

 

Not the MIT grads. 

The new age of managers are still former players. But they’re the ones who embrace analytics. The issue being discussed in some baseball circles is how much are managers in control now. Or are they becoming middle men between the analytics experts and the players. 

When you play blackjack there aren’t any successful gut feels and instincts on playing the cards. It’s purely see the cards and respond based on the statistical odds. The question is how much baseball will become this way.

RJM posted:

MidAtlanticDad posted:

2022NYC posted:

RJM posted:

I'm not prejudiced against dorky looking people. But Benetti looks like a guy who should be discussing analytics. If there’s ever another Revenge of the Nerds movie it should be ... The Nerds Take Over Baseball ... based on the move in baseball front offices towards analytics. 

 

FWIW, he is a 10 among all the analytical nerds...eye of the beholder I guess

That's a picture of Jason Benetti, and though he's comfortable with advanced analytics, he was not the Statcast guy on the broadcast, that was Mike Petriello. Benetti is the White Sox play-by-play guy for television. He also calls football and basketball. And he has cerebral palsy.

Why is cerebral palsy important to the conversation. Does it affect his ability to do the job? Would he look like George Clooney if he didn’t have CP?

I wish I looked like Clooney...I'd even be happy with Mr. Benetti's good looks!

57special posted:

If non athletic stats guys start driving the athletic guys(i.e. Molitor just fired up here by young GM's who want to drive the bus themselves)out of baseball, who is going to teach baseball skills?

 

Not the MIT grads. 

Great point! A PBR scout recently retweeted a tweet from a high school that posted a screenshot of some new gee-whiz pitch tracking software they are using now and how it's going to help them. Its not going to help them unless they understand how to interpret the data and know how to coach to either improve deficiencies or take advantage of strengths. Who cares what the spin rate is on Johnny's pitch if the coach doesn't know how to teach the player to improve it or take advantage of it. Swing-miss ratio doesn't mean jack if all the data show is that you threw so few balls in the zone to entice a batter to take the bat off his shoulder. Coaches know baseball. The gadgetry of this generation is a measurement tool, not usually a coaching tool, unless in the right hands.

57special posted:

If non athletic stats guys start driving the athletic guys(i.e. Molitor just fired up here by young GM's who want to drive the bus themselves)out of baseball, who is going to teach baseball skills?

 

Not the MIT grads. 

There are a lot of coaches on twitter