So do you agree with him in principle, but disagree with the way he fashioned his message? Because I don't think that he's wrong, and philosophically, I'd say that most of baseball agrees with him in evidence by the fact that teams aren't running as much as they did in the 60s, 70s and 80s.Mazz's argument is McCarver-esque - he thinks OPS is the end-all-be-all of statistical measures, and as such, prefers home run hitters to stolen bases. He then poorly phrases this argument so that it becomes a debate about whether stolen bases are valuable. In the binary world of sports talk radio, stolen bases can't be "useful" - they are good or bad. And compared to home runs, they are bad, because a stolen base doesn't contribute to OPS.
It's a mind-numbingly stupid argument and would never show up in a written column. In a written column, Mazz would explain the success rate value to SB, the importance of getting on base, the value of power when compared to speed. It would probably make sense. On radio? It sounds dumb and gets dumber with each mention.
And like you touch upon in your final paragraph, let's remember the medium that Mazz is getting this message out: radio. He has to keep it simple because a highly detailed, highly nuanced treatise on why the running game is not that big of a deal will cause people to change the channel. You have to be quick, loud and to the point to be "good" on radio. That's fact, not opinion.