I believe I read this on FJM awhile ago and it's been bothering me ever since. In football, there is one statistic in particular that has become widely accepted as one of the best ways to determine a QB's performance, the Passer Rating. Here's how they compile it: 4 primary ratings... Completion Percentage Rating: ((Comp/Att) * (100 - 30) / 20) Average Yards Rating: ((Yds/Att) - 3) * 4 TD/Att Rating: TD/Att * 20 INT/Att Rating: 2.375 - ((INT/Att) * 25) These four results are then added, divided by 6, and then multiplied by 100. Despite how complicated this might seem, this is one of the most commonly used stats in comparing QBs across the league. It's commonly used on all of the media outlets which cover football and rarely do you see people really criticize it ("Even though Kyle Orton's QB Rating sucked, he really contributed out there beyond what the numbers say!"). My question is rather simple. If people are so willing to use this statistic in judging talent in football, why the heck has baseball been so slow to catch up? Are things like OBP, OPS, OPS+, BABIP, and EqA any more complicated than how we compile passer ratings? Don't even get me started on plus/minus in hockey...