Sabermetrics

[Trotsky]

As an Old, I have trouble with the values of OPS as intuitively graspable for goodness/badness.  But I think I have an analogy with BA, the most intuitive for those of my vintage: OPS/3

Thus:

Code Select Expand

1.000 elite
 .900 good
 .800 above average
 .750 average
 .700 below average
 .600 bad
 .500 Mets bad



Is this broadly correct?

[chimpfood]

As an Old, I have trouble with the values of OPS as intuitively graspable for goodness/badness.  But I think I have an analogy with BA, the most intuitive for those of my vintage: OPS/3

Thus:

Code Select Expand

1.000 elite
 .900 good
 .800 above average
 .750 average
 .700 below average
 .600 bad
 .500 Mets bad



Is this broadly correct?

Man if you think OPS is sabermetrics there's some stuff out there that will blow your mind. I think you have it pretty much right but I would say that .900 is elite level (there were less than 10 qualified players with a .900 OPS last year) and 1.000 is MVP level. Anything below .600 is really bad and nobody that isn't an elite defensive catcher or has a history of actually being good will get enough run to stay in the majors with those numbers. Only 16 players in the past 3 years have qualified with a sub .600 OPS. Sub .500 really doesn't happen over the course of a whole season.

[Trotsky]

Man if you think OPS is sabermetrics there's some stuff out there that will blow your mind

Yes, yes, I know, I am not saying OPS is complex. I'm saying its values are not suggestive.  It's Celsius, not metric tensors.

[CU2007]

Luckily they have WAR which takes everything a player does on the field and puts it into one simple, easily understandable number. I stop paying attention when it gets to the level of fip, xERA etc

[upprdeck]

not sure how anyway says WAR is easily understandable.   I mean guessing things like would an avg player gone first to 3rd on a play isnt really clear logic

[chimpfood]

Luckily they have WAR which takes everything a player does on the field and puts it into one simple, easily understandable number. I stop paying attention when it gets to the level of fip, xERA etc

I like pretty much all of it but the defensive metrics. I'll keep an open mind but for now the eye test is way better than what they got

[billhoward]

Arcane stats pump life into the sports off-season and into lagging sports between pitches. And WAR-type stats serve us in the search for a single statistic that defines, even, say, the punter: success getting the kick off/not blocked, hang time, distance, distance less return yardage, punts resulting in fair catches, punts downed inside the 20, 15, 10, 5 minus punts into the end zone, ability to run for your life and a first down, throwing a pass for a first down, able to stand in as the backup or third FG kicker, and etcetera. Plus an adjustment fudge factor for quality of the line blocking for you. Plus maybe a historical adjustment versus quality of competition at the time (because otherwise Chris Fraser '15 matched/surpassed Ray Guy's average 40 years later).

[CU2007]

not sure how anyway says WAR is easily understandable.   I mean guessing things like would an avg player gone first to 3rd on a play isnt really clear logic

I should have clarified. Understandable as in "wins above a replacement level player" boiled down to one simple number is understandable. All of the inputs and how they are calculated, certainly not.

[Trotsky]

Luckily they have WAR which takes everything a player does on the field and puts it into one simple, easily understandable number. I stop paying attention when it gets to the level of fip, xERA etc

xFoo is Foo normalized with median = 100.  It's wonderfully intuitive.

Edit: no it isn't.  That's Foo+.  Never mind.