Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_mullen
As opposed to the inherent flaws in the old fashioned eye test, +/-, etc. Why the backlash against potentially understanding the game at a more intricate level?
|
They don't go far enough to give context, which leaves too much up for interpretation still. That's fine as it'll give a bit more understanding of the game, and that's a good thing. However, it should not be the be all and end all like some of the metrics in baseball are.
OPS (On base % (batting avg + walks and being hit by the pitch) + Slugging %) gives the user context of how good they are overall. While each of the individual stats helps, they don't tell the entire story. JP Arencibia could hit 20+ homeruns, but was terrible at getting on base to the extent that it didn't balance out and he's not a regular any more.
Until there's a stat package that's as good as OPS is in baseball at giving context, then it's just another stat. Useful, but it requires the user to fill in the blanks that the stats can't account for.