Timmy Kurkjian, I am over you.

There's only so far pure stats can get you. Sometimes you have to acknowledge numbers are not everything.

I have always been interested to hear what Kurkjian has to say. There is no doubt that he loves baseball with a passion few have. But I have always thought he had a creepy fetish with the numbers baseball provides. After reading his book, I was pretty sure the last time he had sex was when he blew his own wad in a hotel room writing an article about some triple play turned by a low level A-ball player during a day game on the road.

Now I know he's a one-trick-pony. And I'm bummed. I've been a fan of the MLB Network since it aired. I think it's because they have no nonsense ex-ballplayers who talk about how it was, and how it should be, from the trenches. When I watch Baseball Tonight these days, I see the Mickey Mouse ears trying to please their "targeted" audience. Who "targeted" this audience, anyway? I think it had to be some 40 year old exec who thinks they know what the current young baseball generation is - a bunch of stat monkeys who have the attention span of a five-year old (thank to the Internet) and want to be the first one in their group to throw out some meaningless stat that makes them feel like baseball jesus. Bleh.

So allow me to present when I felt Kurkjian "jumped the shark". In a summation of how the (First Place) Texas Rangers got to where they are this year, Kurkjian applauded the output of Elvis Andrus and what an improvement he was in the infield over the prior year. He said that Andrus was a "much improved replacement" to the "less than stellar Michael Young".

Hey, Dill...Michael Young won the Gold Glove last year. Now the statement that Andrus is better at short than Young does not bother me. But it's the matter-of-fact way Kurkjian laid his statement down. So it is Kurkjian, so it is said. Andrus is a pure "eye-ball guy". His stats are not phenomenal. He makes plenty of errors. Young does not. What I have expected Kurkjian to do is back up his statement with fact - but he has none. Young is, statistically a much better shortstop than Andrus... So WHY make this statement? It goes against everything Tim-ahy has ever said. I might be okay with this change in trend except he has beating me to death with stat after stat after stat after stat. And now - he doesn't even back up the Gold Glove winner with any stat-based facts.

If Kurkjian wants to set his new precedent of going with the eye-balls over the stats, so be it. But I will no longer be able to pay attention to his 30-second rants that describe how a second baseman's OPS rating in 1921 translates to a pitchers WHIP in 2008, thus declaring a catchers pitch selection in the top-fifth of his league, only to not be relative in the 2009 playoffs due to the manager's history of sending runners with one out and the infield at double play depth.

I guess I'm rambling, but here is my summation. Andrus is a better athlete at short than Young is. I can say that But I have never backed any of my infield thoughts with stats, only eye-balls. But Kurkjian never has, and now he's dissed the face of The First Place Texas Rangers. And I will never jump that shark. Unlike The Doctor, who likes to blow the shark.