Bill Simmons Writes a Sabermetrics Column

[Outshined_One]

It's actually pretty good.

 

He does a fairly reasonable job of explaining certain stats plus he gives shoutouts to places like Fan Graphs and Baseball Prospectus.

[NonProfitCow]

Just read that this afternoon. Good to see people finally coming around.

[imb]

Wow, that was about 1,000 times better than I expected.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't believe that he wrote this.

[CubbieBum]

Wow, that was about 1,000 times better than I expected.

 

That was my reaction. I saw this thread and for awhile I avoided going and reading it because in general Simmons annoys the crap out of me. However, the column was very well done and his critiques made sense.

[cubsfan]

What a coincidence, because that's exactly how I felt about your post.

[CubbieBum]

What a coincidence, because that's exactly how I felt about your post.

 

April Fool's was yesterday. You don't have to hide your feelings for me anymore.

[TruffleShuffle]

But after researching Damon's defensive stats (2009: minus-12.1 UZR/150), if we stuck Damon next to Ellsbury in Boston's 2010 outfield, we should have just signed Ted Williams' head to play right. It would have been a defensive apocalypse.

 

:lol:

[rocket]

i listened to the b.s. report with jonah keri a few days and you could hear keri selling simmons on sabermetrics. i guess he's now 100% in the saber camp.

[UMFan83]

Eh, it was okay. I like how he tried to dumb down the stats to the common fan, but some little things were stupid, like talking about how OPS+ is confusing, and should be used as Player X is Y% better than the average hitter, instead of saying 124. But good for him to finally embrace advanced stats, despite by his own admission being wary of them in the past.

[TruffleShuffle]

Eh, it was okay. I like how he tried to dumb down the stats to the common fan, but some little things were stupid, like talking about how OPS+ is confusing, and should be used as Player X is Y% better than the average hitter, instead of saying 124. But good for him to finally embrace advanced stats, despite by his own admission being wary of them in the past.

 

i kinda agree with him on that, though. if it's one percent per OPS+ point - like the albert pujols example of being 44% better than the average player - then why not just have the average player be 0 and the OPS+ represent the actual percentage? seems like that's easier to understand than 188.

[UMFan83]

Eh, it was okay. I like how he tried to dumb down the stats to the common fan, but some little things were stupid, like talking about how OPS+ is confusing, and should be used as Player X is Y% better than the average hitter, instead of saying 124. But good for him to finally embrace advanced stats, despite by his own admission being wary of them in the past.

 

i kinda agree with him on that, though. if it's one percent per OPS+ point - like the albert pujols example of being 44% better than the average player - then why not just have the average player be 0 and the OPS+ represent the actual percentage? seems like that's easier to understand than 188.

 

Eh I don't know. Maybe it's because I learned it that way, but I feel like having 100 as a benchmark and rating them above or below 100 is a good way to make it understandable. Saying Albert Pujols is 44% better than the average player just doesn't really appeal to me for whatever reason. Maybe it's just me but it's more difficult for me to quantify that in my head than looking at 188 and comparing it to someone with 166 or 110 or whatever.

[CubbieBum]

Eh, it was okay. I like how he tried to dumb down the stats to the common fan, but some little things were stupid, like talking about how OPS+ is confusing, and should be used as Player X is Y% better than the average hitter, instead of saying 124. But good for him to finally embrace advanced stats, despite by his own admission being wary of them in the past.

 

i kinda agree with him on that, though. if it's one percent per OPS+ point - like the albert pujols example of being 44% better than the average player - then why not just have the average player be 0 and the OPS+ represent the actual percentage? seems like that's easier to understand than 188.

 

Eh I don't know. Maybe it's because I learned it that way, but I feel like having 100 as a benchmark and rating them above or below 100 is a good way to make it understandable. Saying Albert Pujols is 44% better than the average player just doesn't really appeal to me for whatever reason. Maybe it's just me but it's more difficult for me to quantify that in my head than looking at 188 and comparing it to someone with 166 or 110 or whatever.

 

Simmons way is easier if you are just introducing the stat. Everyone knows exactly what 44% means without having to explain anything. If you tell someone who doesn't know OPS+ that someone is at 90 they will probably assume that is pretty good. With the current way you must explain that 100 is the starting point. With Simmons' way you don't have to explain anything.

[Illini Iceman]

Eh, it was okay. I like how he tried to dumb down the stats to the common fan, but some little things were stupid, like talking about how OPS+ is confusing, and should be used as Player X is Y% better than the average hitter, instead of saying 124. But good for him to finally embrace advanced stats, despite by his own admission being wary of them in the past.

 

i kinda agree with him on that, though. if it's one percent per OPS+ point - like the albert pujols example of being 44% better than the average player - then why not just have the average player be 0 and the OPS+ represent the actual percentage? seems like that's easier to understand than 188.

 

Eh I don't know. Maybe it's because I learned it that way, but I feel like having 100 as a benchmark and rating them above or below 100 is a good way to make it understandable. Saying Albert Pujols is 44% better than the average player just doesn't really appeal to me for whatever reason. Maybe it's just me but it's more difficult for me to quantify that in my head than looking at 188 and comparing it to someone with 166 or 110 or whatever.

 

Simmons way is easier if you are just introducing the stat. Everyone knows exactly what 44% means without having to explain anything. If you tell someone who doesn't know OPS+ that someone is at 90 they will probably assume that is pretty good. With the current way you must explain that 100 is the starting point. With Simmons' way you don't have to explain anything.

 

Or you could take 2 seconds to learn that 100 is the baseline and then always understand the stat. How dumb are people if they can't figure that out?

[Banedon]

Or you could take 2 seconds to learn that 100 is the baseline and then always understand the stat. How dumb are people if they can't figure that out?

 

People are very, very dumb. Sit in the crowd at any MLB game and listen to the fans near you discuss the game. They are morons. Making stats easier to understand with minimal explanation can only be helpful.

 

Is there a reason that you're resistant to the idea? Or is it just "I like it the way it is and I don't wanna have to change"?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well, for one thing, putting a normalized stat into negative numbers frequently can make some calculations kind of nasty.

[Exile on Waveland]

Or you could take 2 seconds to learn that 100 is the baseline and then always understand the stat. How dumb are people if they can't figure that out?

 

People are very, very dumb. Sit in the crowd at any MLB game and listen to the fans near you discuss the game. They are morons. Making stats easier to understand with minimal explanation can only be helpful.

 

Is there a reason that you're resistant to the idea? Or is it just "I like it the way it is and I don't wanna have to change"?

 

I once heard a (Cardinal fan in St. Louis, if you must know) explain to his girlfriend that slugging percentage was "um, uh . . . possible doubles?" So, yeah, people are very, very dumb.

 

On topic, that was a very, very good article coming from Simmons.

[Bluescale]

Come on folks...being ignorant and being dumb are not the same thing. I know plenty of smart people who could give a rats ass about OPS+. Have a passion for baseball statistics doesn't necessarily make you any smarter than the next guy.

[TruffleShuffle]

Come on folks...being ignorant and being dumb are not the same thing. I know plenty of smart people who could give a rats ass about OPS+. Have a passion for baseball statistics doesn't necessarily make you any smarter than the next guy.

 

usually the people who don't care about the more advanced metrics are also the people who talk about guys playing the game the right way, knowing how to win and being gritty. and i'm definitely smarter than those people.

[Bluescale]

Come on folks...being ignorant and being dumb are not the same thing. I know plenty of smart people who could give a rats ass about OPS+. Have a passion for baseball statistics doesn't necessarily make you any smarter than the next guy.

 

usually the people who don't care about the more advanced metrics are also the people who talk about guys playing the game the right way, knowing how to win and being gritty. and i'm definitely smarter than those people.

 

You're less ignorant than those people...

[UMFan83]

I once heard a (Cardinal fan in St. Louis, if you must know) explain to his girlfriend that slugging percentage was "um, uh . . . possible doubles?" So, yeah, people are very, very dumb.

 

 

Shut up, they are the best fans in baseball and you know it.

[Exile on Waveland]

Willful ignorance is equivalent to stupidity.

[TruffleShuffle]

Willful ignorance is equivalent to stupidity.

 

bingo