Yet one increasingly hears the tensions between old and new analysis tentatively creeping into the broadcasts thanks to more SABRmetrically inclined co-hosts, e.g. not just the once-exotic OBP but also occasionally FIP, WAR, etc. The shift is happening slowly as producers try to handle the on-air analysts, the analysts try to imagine their audiences, and audiences increasingly experience the game through multiple channels. In other words, what we’re seeing is a slow but perceptible real-time audience-driven shift in sports broadcast practice, as the paradigm clash that is so loud on the internet gets worked out more quietly on television.

Thanks for your post!

Beyond the dogma argument, I have a slightly different take on how the context of online interactions might shape the particular forms of argument among baseball fans. The online participatory nature of SABRmetrics is a really interesting case, one in which the kinds of arguments that have gained traction happen to be some of the easiest to communicate in the medium. It’s hard for someone to accurately describe a “5-tool player” verbally without relying upon some kind of reliance upon authority, and so less-subjective, abstracted statistics become even more salient in such a context. It’s much easier to hop on a forum or Twitter and type, say, a .280/.380/.930 slash to convey a player’s value than it is to accurately convey the “intangibles” that folks like Goldstein are saying should get back into the conversation. Math works as a great, clear communicative tool in such online contexts, but isn’t going to capture everything.

Just a thought. Great piece!