Ranting about Players Turned Analysts

One of the things I can't stand in baseball is when former players turn into analysts, and then give their analysis based on stats like RBIs, pitcher wins, and saves. It's not only the fact that I believe that their analysis is off-base because of the statistics that they use. It's the fact that they've played the game, and still believe what those stats are telling them. In my younger years, I was told to that the best way analyze players were by stats like runs batted in, pitcher wins, saves, and batting average. At the time, I took this to be fact, and never really questioned it.

I remember the first time that I questioned these traditional stats. I was playing in high school at the time, and was usually a leadoff hitter. As a leadoff hitter, my job was to get on base, make my way around the bases, and score runs. I remember thinking, "Why aren't runs scored a more important stat that RBIs. I have to get on base, navigate my way around them successfully. And then score on either a hit, or sometimes a ball that's put in play, but not a hit. Why is the other player's RBI more important than my run scored, I did most of the work?" This happened when I was 15 or 16 years old.

I watch MLB Network a lot. And for the most part, I like their mix of analysts and former players especially when explaining how to execute plays or pointing out details during the game that would otherwise go unnoticed. The thing I can't stand though, is how the former players can still see the value in the traditional stats. At one point, you have to think critically about your profession, and after being around the game is a professional nature (either as a player or analyst), I don't understand how they can be so ignorant that they think that the best way to analyze individual players is by statistics that are so largely based on team performance.

I'm not saying that former players should dive head first into saber metrics and solely use them. Even I site stats like earned run average and batting average if I think that they're appropriate. But on MLB Network last night, Mitch Williams admitted to having never heard of UZR. He also stated that he thought that the Rangers have better starting pitching than the Rays because all of the Rangers starters have double digit wins. Larry Bowa followed this up by stating that the Yankees defense is better than the Rays because of the fact that the Yankees have won more gold gloves than the Yankees. I disagree with both of these statements, but that's not what's important here. I think we can all agree that gold gloves are more based on offense than they should. Derek Jeter won a gold glove last year, even though every defensive metric shows him as being below average. These men have obviously dedicated their lives to baseball, but I don't understand how they can be so oblivious to the change in analytics that's happening all around them. Front offices and media are starting to use newer metrics when looking at players performance, but it seems like former players refuse to acknowledge them. You see this also with network announcers.

I'm assuming that anyone who runs a TV network, but I'm assuming that most of the time that they are progressive thinking. I can't imagine why none of them have tried to take a chance by employing a color analyst with a saber metric mindset. Newer metrics are a better way to analyze players and judge their performance, and the best way to spread the knowledge is to have them incorporated during the live analysis of the game.