Comments on: The Best Statement I Read Today http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/12/the-best-statement-i-read-today-2/ Economic Thinking about Baseball Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:16:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Phil Birnbaum http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/12/the-best-statement-i-read-today-2/comment-page-1/#comment-105355 Phil Birnbaum Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:34:54 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/?p=1165#comment-105355 Yes, I guess you're right. Yes, I guess you’re right.

]]> By: JC http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/12/the-best-statement-i-read-today-2/comment-page-1/#comment-105341 JC Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:57:15 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/?p=1165#comment-105341 I'm not sure how the above statement is at odds with accuracy. I’m not sure how the above statement is at odds with accuracy.

]]> By: Phil Birnbaum http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/12/the-best-statement-i-read-today-2/comment-page-1/#comment-105340 Phil Birnbaum Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:48:02 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/?p=1165#comment-105340 Shouldn't you want to use the most accurate statistic possible, without regard to how complicated it is? In other fields, like economics, do they ever revert to less accurate measures in the academic literature because they're simpler? Shouldn’t you want to use the most accurate statistic possible, without regard to how complicated it is?

In other fields, like economics, do they ever revert to less accurate measures in the academic literature because they’re simpler?

]]> By: JC http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/12/the-best-statement-i-read-today-2/comment-page-1/#comment-105331 JC Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:19:07 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/?p=1165#comment-105331 That a stat is popular does not make it worthwhile. The QB rating is about the most arbitrary and useless statistic in existence.  I don't find EqA and wOBA helpful when analyzing hitters (unnecessarily complicated); however, the metrics are designed with the intent of properly valuing player contributions.  They are far superior to the QB rating, which is a random assortment of things sort-of related to QB performance. That a stat is popular does not make it worthwhile. The QB rating is about the most arbitrary and useless statistic in existence.  I don’t find EqA and wOBA helpful when analyzing hitters (unnecessarily complicated); however, the metrics are designed with the intent of properly valuing player contributions.  They are far superior to the QB rating, which is a random assortment of things sort-of related to QB performance.

]]> By: Rick http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/12/the-best-statement-i-read-today-2/comment-page-1/#comment-105330 Rick Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:12:13 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/?p=1165#comment-105330 I don't like any stat that uses Replacement Players as a benchmark because there are no such animals in MLB besides maybe just a couple that are placeholders. Linear Weights is an excellent stat. I don’t like any stat that uses Replacement Players as a benchmark because there are no such animals in MLB besides maybe just a couple that are placeholders. Linear Weights is an excellent stat.

]]> By: Melvin Nieves http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/12/the-best-statement-i-read-today-2/comment-page-1/#comment-105327 Melvin Nieves Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:39:32 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/?p=1165#comment-105327 If this were true, how is QB rating accepted and popular with NFL fans and broadcasters? If find it comparable to EqA or wOBA in complexity, yet I see it used on TV all the time. If this were true, how is QB rating accepted and popular with NFL fans and broadcasters? If find it comparable to EqA or wOBA in complexity, yet I see it used on TV all the time.

]]> By: JC http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/12/the-best-statement-i-read-today-2/comment-page-1/#comment-105325 JC Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:43:58 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/?p=1165#comment-105325 It hinges on what you think of OPS. PrOPS is an estimate of OPS. It is complicated, and I don't rely on it for much. Without past performance and OPS, PrOPS doesn't offer much guidance.  OPS is just OBP + SLG, which most people understand; however, its chief virtue is its ease of calculation from scoreboard statisitics.  Linear Weights and Runs Created are easier to explain, but are quite difficult to calculate. I think VORP and Total Average (ironically developed by Boswell) don't make intuitive sense and are difficult to calculate. It hinges on what you think of OPS. PrOPS is an estimate of OPS. It is complicated, and I don’t rely on it for much. Without past performance and OPS, PrOPS doesn’t offer much guidance.  OPS is just OBP + SLG, which most people understand; however, its chief virtue is its ease of calculation from scoreboard statisitics.  Linear Weights and Runs Created are easier to explain, but are quite difficult to calculate. I think VORP and Total Average (ironically developed by Boswell) don’t make intuitive sense and are difficult to calculate.

]]> By: LeShawn Anderson http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/12/the-best-statement-i-read-today-2/comment-page-1/#comment-105324 LeShawn Anderson Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:06:21 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/?p=1165#comment-105324 JC, OK, I'll bite: How ambitious/complex do you think PrOPS is? JC,

OK, I’ll bite: How ambitious/complex do you think PrOPS is?

]]>