Stat forum?

[Brutus]

Boss,

I just started a social group for discussion of sabermetrics, stats, fantasy valuation, etc. I got to thinking - would it be worth considering a devoted board for that? Clearly there's an awful lot of interest in the concepts. Sometimes discussions admittedly become about the stats themselves than the players being discussed.

I wonder if it would be cool to have a separate sub forum for discussion of the actual stats, studies, how to value fantasy baseball players, preferences of stats, how to calculate them, etc.?

Just a suggestion. The social group is a good start if you don't think it's a good idea. I kind of think it would be a popular forum, though. Food for thought.

[Boss-Hog]

I appreciate the idea, but as long as the discussions are baseball-related, I believe that's the proper forum for the threads. I don't want to start creating sub-forums for baseball-related discussion. I have no problem with the social group.

[medford]

You know what I wouldn't mind, some pinned threads somewhere w/ some discussion about different sabemetric stats, their value, what consitutes a good number vs a bad number.

For instance, most are familar w/ OPS by now, those that are familar know that a higher OPS is better than a low OPS, however how many have a grasp on what exactly is a solid OPS, a great OPS, abover average, etc.. Gets even more confusing when discussing VORP, WC, OPS+, etc... There's lots of things out there that rarely get discussed by the beat writers we read everyday or the talking heads we listen to why watching the game or listening to analysis.

I realize pinning these to the top of the main forum would clutter things, perhaps a pinned thread to each topic, or placed somewhere else where it won't get in the way. With offseason about to hit, I think it could create an interesting offseason side-bar about different stats, perhaps one a week or something along those lines as a series of discussions, how it relates to the Reds, potential free agents, minor league prospects, etc.. Would probably need an upfront explanation of each stat, a break down of what's good, bad, etc.. then the general discusion b/w users here to expand the conversation.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Count me in for the group that knows what some of the new stats are but really has no clue what a good OPS is compared to a great OPS, or an OPS+, etc.

Maybe just one thread pinned with the acronyms, their formulas, basic use and basic quality ranges of the stat.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Count me in for the group that knows what some of the new stats are but really has no clue what a good OPS is compared to a great OPS, or an OPS+, etc.

Maybe just one thread pinned with the acronyms, their formulas, basic use and basic quality ranges of the stat.

I have no problem with that if someone would like to get the ball rolling.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

I have no problem with that if someone would like to get the ball rolling.

I would be willing to take on that project.

[wolfboy]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

I would be willing to take on that project.

Thanks Brutus. IMHO, there's been a need for a while.

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Count me in for the group that knows what some of the new stats are but really has no clue what a good OPS is compared to a great OPS, or an OPS+, etc.

Maybe just one thread pinned with the acronyms, their formulas, basic use and basic quality ranges of the stat.

Sounds like a good idea for a FAQ.

[wolfboy]

Originally Posted by paintmered

Sounds like a good idea for a FAQ.

Well, the one that's up there didn't include any sort of glossary of terms and had little discussion. Not only that, but it hasn't been updated in around five years.

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by wolfboy

Well, the one that's up there didn't include any sort of glossary of terms and had little discussion. Not only that, but it hasn't been updated in around five years.

I meant a separate FAQ. But yeah, the RZ FAQ is horribly out of date.

[marcshoe]

I'd love to see that. I complained a little recently when an acronym showed up that I couldn't figure out at all in context. I'm a teacher learning a new system with new jargon, and it all gets a bit overwhelming.

A quick on-site reference guide would be nice.

[TRF]

Thanks for the invite, but I declined as I really am not well versed in the stats past OPS and OPS+ for hitters. I also find some of the stats to be a little... subjective, like LD% since what constitutes a LD makes no mention of how hard the ball is hit. but many use it as a benchmark for a player doing well or poor.

Just don't think I have anything to offer in the way of discussion

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by TRF

Thanks for the invite, but I declined as I really am not well versed in the stats past OPS and OPS+ for hitters. I also find some of the stats to be a little... subjective, like LD% since what constitutes a LD makes no mention of how hard the ball is hit. but many use it as a benchmark for a player doing well or poor.

Just don't think I have anything to offer in the way of discussion

Well, later this week I'll be putting up a FAQ/QRG type thread for everyone to see.

As far as that group, it was meant for anyone that either knew the stuff or wanted to learn more about it. But it's OK. Because the groups are kind of hidden and not necessarily a part of the everyday routine, I don't anticipate them being all that active. I hope I'm wrong, obviously, but it's hard to get in the habit of staying active a lot.

BTW, I've never thought line drive determination was very subjective. Line Drives are basically when the ball travels further out than it does up. Or more to the point, if it goes more out than up off the bat. I think most people that watch a lot of baseball would probably agree on 95% of the labeling without much debate.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

BTW, I've never thought line drive determination was very subjective. Line Drives are basically when the ball travels further out than it does up. Or more to the point, if it goes more out than up off the bat. I think most people that watch a lot of baseball would probably agree on 95% of the labeling without much debate.

Not to take this too off topic, but if player A has a 22% LD rate, and player be has a 23% LD rate, it tells me nothing other than the ball was hit on a line. not how hard, not if it fell in, nothing. Maybe it's a part of a bigger picture, but imo it has almost no context. a soft liner to 2B has the same exact weight as a liner to the gap.

Is there a site that has LD% for mlb players? I see it for minor leaguers on minorleaguesplits.com.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by TRF

Not to take this too off topic, but if player A has a 22% LD rate, and player be has a 23% LD rate, it tells me nothing other than the ball was hit on a line. not how hard, not if it fell in, nothing. Maybe it's a part of a bigger picture, but imo it has almost no context. a soft liner to 2B has the same exact weight as a liner to the gap.

Is there a site that has LD% for mlb players? I see it for minor leaguers on minorleaguesplits.com.

Fangraphs shows LD%.

It does have a context, though. Line drives historically (and consistently) fall in for hits almost 75% of the time (to be precise, it's usually about 73%). This is true for almost every single baseball season since it has been tracked.

Even soft line drives fit under this pretense. So while you are correct that it doesn't necessarily tell us who is actually hitting the ball harder more often, a line drive hitter will see a much higher BABIP, and therefore, BA. The example you show, though, is certainly not discernible. And over the course of 500 balls in play, it really only would be expected to make a difference in four hits from line drives between the two players.