If your job is to cover and report on baseball, you have absolutely no excuse for not staying current with developments on the new ways to understand the game. You don’t have to become a statistician, but understanding what the “advanced stats” mean is not complicated. Stubbornness and laziness are not good qualities in a person expected to provide insights to the general population of layman, regardless of the focal topic.

The vast majority of both sabermetricians and fans that use “advanced stats” completely understand the limitations of the stats; the people that typically try to say that statisticians think the numbers can tell you everything or that such analysis removes the human element or that statisticians should watch more baseball (they probably watch as much or more than anyone because they subscribe to MLBtv) are people that can’t be bothered to listen long enough to understand the situations in which people are saying that analysis can enhance understanding. No sabermetrician has ever said than analysis can or should replace scouting (as the common argument goes), just that is is a usefully complement.

Is everyone who dislikes traditional sports reporting a misanthrope?

But he steps on his own argument by slamming writers who don’t use stats to the extent he wants, as somehow being bad people. Craig is right to challenge that.

However, there are better ways to understand the game than using the above. You can read up on advanced stats (basic math is enough to understand them). You can read on what statistics are better predictors of the future, how much credit a player should get for what happened, how much value they’d be worth in FA, etc.

It’s your choice what you want to read/not read.

um, that’s not what he said at all.