A really long post with a somewhat underlying theme.

A while back I was watching baseball tonight, and known political commentator George F Will was brought on to give his expert insight on the game of baseball today as we know it. I do not know why. I mean, I don’t see Larry King bringing on Billy Bean or even the Twins’ allegedly alive GM Bill Smith (who masterfully oversaw the Johan Santana in exchange for several Box Car Children trade) to give their two cents on the Gulf of Mexico catastrophuck.

Anywho… where were we? Ah yes, George Will. Say what you will about him politically, as I have vehemently agreed with him and disagreed with him on a wide array of topics. That is not what this is all about, because politics have become increasingly too polarizing and is making people too unreasonable. What really grinds my gears to quote the great Peter Griffin is that this dude really doesn’t have a clue when it comes to baseball.

He’s a famous fan of the game. I get it. He’s well read, respected, and articulate. Doesn’t mean he knows what the F he’s talking about. The problem with this cat is that he is trying to embrace new age stats, but really doesn’t understand their practical application.
He started prattling on about how the triple crown is dumb. I disagreed, because the triple crown seems timeless. Regardless of live ball eras, dead ball eras, steroid eras, or even the Mesozoic era, you still essentially are the best contact and power hitter in your league that respective year if you win it.

He went on to say that the problem was with the average stat being included, that this should be replaced with On base percentage. Really George Will? Your astute baseball mind thinks average is the problem? Anyone with half a brain could tell you of the 3 stats, RBI’s are the least reflective of how good a player is. That is not to say they have no value whatsoever, but they are a better reflection of how the hitters ahead of you are fairing, not your personal performance. Throughout his poorly educated rant, he failed to even mention VORP and OPS, my two favorite new age stats. OBP is a nice stat, but to make your stand at OBP is comparable to vacuuming while your house is burning down. (I know this is probably a poor simile, but when trying to think of an appropriate one, I pictured Gary Busey doing just this, and I chuckled to myself…just try it, I’ll wait)

I think these sites do a nice job of VORP if you are unfamiliar.
http://www.stathead.com/bbeng/woolner/vorpdescnew.htm (complicated VORP explanation)

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=vorp (simple VORP explanation)

And OPS is on base percentage plus slugging percentage. So basically any base you achieve from the plate is considered a hit. A walk leads to a 1000 OPS, as does a single. A 1-4 game with a home run would still equal 1000 OPS because the 4 bases would equal essentially 4 “hits”

When I look at these stats I feel I have a lot better picture as to the impact a player has on his team offensively, showing what they do compared to an average player, and how many total bases they get per plate appearance essentially. These stats are all that is good in the world

This got me to thinking- why is punditry such a huge business? It’s rampant in every sector of life. Columnists in various sections of the paper essentially are paid to give their opinion on matters, folks like Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews and other political pundits make millions attempting to find unique angles that would be pleasing to their target audience. I, myself have been known to watch two cranky old men argue sports on PTI, and have my very own blog so I can share my opinions with the world. What is its allure?

I think people enjoy listening and reading pundits work because it helps us form our own opinion on matters. I’m not saying we are all sheep that vehemently agree with everything that is said. But, rather, we may not know exactly how we felt about that new bill passing/that big basketball trade/ the latest Hollywood break up until we hear another person’s take on the matter. We can pick and choose things that are said that agree and disagree with, further narrowing the scope of our emotions and thoughts. Plus either way, we can smirk quietly to ourselves at what an idiot the particular talking head is.

Take this NBA draft for instance. As I was watching it with my buddies we had a wide range of emotions (having a few brews in us only aided these mood swings). At first we loved the Wesley Johnson pick, then complained about not moving up in the draft. Then we hated Luke Babbitt, talked ourselves into him after 10 minutes of banter, then were actually upset with the trade with the Trailblazers. It was only after the draft, and after having looked over some analysis that I came to the realization I already knew: David Kahn is a moron.

We netted 3 small forwards from our first round picks, continuing the streak of Kahn feeling the need only to address one position per draft with a serial killer-like coldness. Can we please put someone up there with a brain who understands the game of basketball? We needed a center. He said it himself. K-love and Big Al can’t play together because they are both below the rim power forwards and don’t anyone dare tell me Darko Millicic is the answer or I will stick this keyboard where the sun don’t shine! (gasping for breath while massaging knuckles in fury)

That lovely Timberwolves tangent aside, I was able to articulate these thoughts better after hearing what other people had to say, and molding and melting and rejecting those ideas to form my own unique perspective. So as annoying as pundits are (see Limbaugh, Rush) they do facilitate our processing of information, and with all the outlandish statements I’ve heard them make in my day, if nothing else, have huge cojones.

I will now go lay down a towel, face southeast, get on my knees, extend my hands towards the heavens and proclaim KAHN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for no fewer than 72 consecutive hours. Good day.