We've earned TV treating us like idiots. This is the nation that gets emotionally invested enough to call a hotline to determine whether Pamela Anderson or Evan Lysacek is the better dancer.


[Photo via Washington Post]

So I'm not surprised, as we start the 2010 baseball season, that broadcasts still feature outdated statistics. You know what I mean. A guy steps up to the plate and up pop "batting average" and "RBI." Serious baseball analysts prefer new-age baseball stats, called "sabermetrics" because that sounds more official than "tenth-grade algebra."

Take on-base percentage. In the old days, "batters" were evaluated by the number of hits they "averaged" ("ERA"). But this figure ignored walks, which are valuable because they put runners on base without causing any outs. So sabermetricians invented on-base percentage, which takes walks into account and was so efficient and revolutionary that baseball players promptly rejected it.

Seriously. Although on-base percentage was a more statistically significant metric than "traditional" stats, a lot of players refused to accept the change. Mets outfielder Jeff Francoeur was quoted as asking, "If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it up on the scoreboard?" This attitude is shared by managers like Cincinnati's Dusty Baker, who derives key strategic insights from the Kiss Cam.

Part of the resistance is because people tend to think of sabermetricians as the opposite of the baseball archetype: techie geeks who spend their free time arguing about "Star Wars." This couldn't be further from the truth. They also argue about "Star Trek." But the important thing is, sabermetricians are constantly reevaluating what really matters in their quest for the heart of baseball. On-base percentage, for example, has lost favor to a stat called "OPS+," which aggregates more factors and smells like cinnamon.

So the trick is to teach fans to love the new numbers. Believe it or not, it's possible. Football broadcasts proved this with "passer rating," a stat that takes into account touchdowns, interceptions, completion percentage and razor blade endorsements. These numbers are churned until placed on a scale from 0 to 158.3, because 0 to 158.4 was too confusing.

But the thing is, people understand it. You see passer rating on TV all the time, and fans get that this nonsensical number somehow correlates to a quarterback's success. I credit decades of sheer repetition. We're like rats who sense that, if we can just reach the end of the maze, we'll get to see a concussion.

Baseball has more complex metrics than football, so fan reeducation probably won't be as easy. I consider myself pretty advanced when it comes to sabermetrics, but I still have a hard time understanding, when I look at my 2010 copy of Baseball Prospectus, how I covered it with so many mustard stains.

Also I have no clue what a lot of the numbers are. Actual statistical abbreviations include "EqBRR," "BABIP," "SN/WX" and "CS2." They can't all mean something. I suspect the Prospectus people are fluffing their 600-plus page book with stuff like Stolen Bases per Kilowatt-Hour and IQ Points Above Jeff Francoeur.

But never mind that. Let's gently start bringing the TV audience into the world of sabermetrics. If we take a number that really means something – say, OPS+ – and start plastering it on broadcasts, fans will get a better sense of how good their favorite players are. Analyzing baseball will become simpler, and we'll have time for more important things, like watching Erin Andrews dance.

Scott Green is an award-winning humor columnist who has written regularly for the Washington Post and CBSNews.com. In 2009 he was named one of the top 100 young journalists in America, and now shares his thoughts on pop culture, politics, sex and relationships at ScottSays.com. He lives in Chicago with his fiancée and their two TVs, ages 4 and 3.