Baseball is a historical game of statistics. No other sport
wraps the past and the present together with a warm blanket of numbers like
baseball does.
Unfortunately, over the last the last few years that
blanket has become suffocating.
Computer-crazed statisticians are digging up too much
irrelevant data and creating confusing new statistical categories. TV
announcers love to read off the stats which leave my head spinning under the
avalanche of information.
The irrelevant information overload is amped up during
national telecasts. ESPN spits out more stats than today’s players emit tobacco
juice. The other day I learned that rookie phenom Mike Trout is hitting .411 on
pitches in the bottom third of the strike zone. And since he’s hitting over
.350 he’s probably doing quite well on pitches in the middle and top third of
the strike zone too. Then I was told that Josh Hamilton misses hitting the ball
on 36 percent of his swings. The other 64 percent of his swings usually send
the ball over the fence for a home run.
Speaking of home runs, I’ve always been curious as to
how they accurately measure their distances. Homers rarely complete their
travels. And there isn’t a guy out there with a tape measure like a judge at
the Olympics marking the distance of the javelin throwers. So, EPSN was able to
tell me that Mark Trumbo has the best average home run distance, at 418 feet.
Then ESPN went one crazy detail further. Now they are measuring the speed of
the home runs. Torii Hunter and Trumbo have the top two homer
speeds at 107.5 and 107.3 mph respectively. I don’t care. It’s just technology
overkill.
Thankfully, once in awhile a useful tidbit of data is
revealed that prevents me from hitting the mute button. For example, ESPN said
that Trout is the first player ever to get 100 hits, 15 homers, and 30 stolen
bases in his first 75 career games. Additionally, nobody has ever hit .340 with
20 homers and 40 steals in a season, as Trout is on pace to do. Now there’s
info that tells me something by comparing his numbers to the historical greats
of the game.
There has also been an onslaught of new statistical
categories. One of them is OPS which stands for “on base percentage plus
slugging percentage”. This category is
supposed to be a better gauge of a hitter’s productivity. In the past, we
judged a hitter on his batting average, homeruns, and RBI. Now with OPS, we can
take into account how often he is getting on base and how many bases he is
accruing with each hit. The trouble with OPS is that I never know how it
compares. I don’t have the great OPS numbers of history lodged in my memory
like I do with batting average, homers, and RBI. I have to look up the top OPS
stats to get an idea. It’s too much work.
Then there’s WHIP, which apparently is like OPS for
pitchers. This one is figured by dividing a pitcher’s walks and hits by his
innings pitched. Again, as with OPS, I don’t relate to WHIP number because the
all-time top WHIPs haven’t been passed down to me over time. A pitcher’s ERA is
all I need to know if he’s good or not.
The most confusing new stat is WAR, or “wins above
replacement”. WAR is supposed to show how many more wins a player would give
his team over a replacement minor league or a substitute player. WAR can be
calculated for pitchers and hitters. Good luck if you want to understand how WAR
is actually figured. Looking at the stats, there are only three household names
in the top 20 single-season WAR leaders: Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, and Dwight
Gooden. The other names on the list played in the 1800s. Does this mean that
the players back then were better? Or maybe the replacement players weren’t so
good. I have no idea. The career WAR leader board looks like a list of Hall of
Fame members. So WAR is correct in telling us that the great players of history
were actually just that, great. Thanks for the newsflash.
All of these new categories can be dissected at the
mother-load of all stat websites, baseball-reference.com. The best thing this
site does is it connects today’s players with those from history. For example,
say you want to see how Chipper Jones stacks up against the best of the best.
Plug his name in and baseball-reference.com will give you the players most
similar to him based on their career stats. Four of the top 10 names on list
are Hall of Famers. A few others have a chance to get in too. Chipper looks
like a lock for Cooperstown.
That’s the kind of information I want to hear during a
telecast. Don’t try to blow me away with numbers based on hyped-up technology.
Instead, keep the announcing moving forward by connecting the present with the
past.