What's funny is we have heard him say that a recent win loss record hasn't reflecred how well a pitcher has pitched over that stretch.
That's what makes it extra frustrating. They understand the concept of the argument, but somehow the framing just makes them bristle so hard that they stop being sensible about it.
Just like earlier they were talking about Bryce Harper's lack of RBIs because he's not getting to hit with guys on base. They fully acknowledge that this is not fair to Harper and thus means that his RBI totals are not a real measure of his offensive output, but in the same breath boy do they get their jimmies rustled whenever they bring up how some people say RBIs are not a good evaluating stat for hitters.
They've also done the same with steals. They acknowledge that it's risky and counter-productive to send guys just to send them if they aren't good base stealers, but then go on their "rabble rabble rabble newfangled math devalues the steal!" tangents when the reality is that statistical analysis doesn't say stealing isn't valuable but actually says stealing is too risky to be worth it unless the guy who's running is extremely likely to be successful (I don't have a source to cite but I want to say that it's something like if a guy is 80%+ successful then it's a worthwhile gamble. But less than that and you're better off taking a chance that the batters move them over than you are letting the baserunner run themselves into a potential out)
If they're going to complain about stuff it'd just be nice if they understood
what they were actually complaining about instead of just snapping right to "this isn't familiar to me therefore it's bad even if it actually
is familiar just in a different way"