Re: Better descriptive stats?
Originally Posted by mdccclxix
You know, I wouldn't go out of the way to pander to the crowd, I'd just start putting the new slash up, mention it a few times here and there and let the people find out it's value. Be the authority and force the crowd to catch up.
Joey Votto 2-3, BB, HR Today
Almost like a horse racing program with all the codes you have to get up to snuff on. Indiscreet, but prominent, and definitely indispensable.
The racing comparison is also strangely apt since I do feel these new numbers do sort of lend themselves to a pure odds perspective. I worry a little bit that the game would be reduced to slot machine analysis.
Yep. This is how the more progressive broadcasts have been doing it with OBP and OPS -- they don't get rid of the existing stuff, they supplement.
Regarding the .123 format vs. the 12% format, my concern is that without a sufficient formatting break, you're going to confuse people when you say that Votto went from being a ".334 hitter (based on AVG)" to a ".262 hitter (based on Hit%)". The cognitive dissonance would just be too much. But that's definitely the kind of conversation/testing I'd want to have.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.