Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
I don’t think I understand what the objection really is.
Do people object to any new stat or data point because it is new?
Do they think velocities and angles are just irrelevant to outcomes and future probabilities and these particular figures are junk false data?
Do they think it may be mathematically valid but find these particular stats obnoxious to hear in a broadcast?
Is it something else?
|
For me, the issue is the overreliance on new data points during broadcasts. Was watching a Fox broadcast of the Mets vs. Padres (the Musgrove ear-check game) a week ago, and found it pretty unbearable. Every other word was about how many feet someone had covered to catch a ball, how many feet on average Brandon Nimmo has stood from home plate in the outfield, etc.
I usually like David Cone as a broadcaster, but it was tough to listen to his comments on spinrates. He was throwing out spinrate numbers without giving any context. If he had just said "Musgrove's spinrate is 20% higher today) that would have been fine. But saying his spinrate is 300 means nothing by itself.
However, in defense of the spinrate comments--it did prove influential, as that is probably why Buck Showalter had the umps check Joe Musgrove's ears. He couldn't believe the increased spinrate was natural.