Bob Ryan: I don't think the "average" fan cares about advanced metrics in MLB

Here's last year's MLB top 10 in both wOBA and OPS, with runs scored:

wOBA
1. Red Sox .347, 853 runs
2. Tigers .341, 796 runs
3. A's .327, 767 runs
4. Angels .325, 733 runs
5. Rockies .324, 706 runs
6. Indians .324, 745 runs
7. Rays .324, 700 runs
8. Orioles .323, 745 runs
9. Rangers .323, 730 runs
10. Cardinals .322, 783 runs

OPS
1. Red Sox .795, 853 runs
2. Tigers .780, 796 runs
3. A's .745, 767 runs
4. Orioles .744, 745 runs
5. Angels .743, 745 runs
6. Rockies .741, 706 runs
7. Indians .737, 745 runs
8. Rays .737, 700 runs
9. Rangers .735, 730 runs
10. Cardinals .733, 783 runs

Remarkably close. Wow. It would be interesting to go through years and years and years of team year-end stats to see if one correlates more precisely with runs scored than the other, and by how much.

 

It's not at all subjective. The values assigned are based on how many runs scored, on average, after different events in the same situation.

 

I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think that would be interesting and I certainly don't think it would make for a better informed telecast.

We have something that gets 95-98 percent of the information in OPS. For the other 2-5 percent we have an absurdly complicated formula that MIGHT be more useful. A bridge too far.

 

It's worth noting OPS is a supremely easy statistic for anyone to comprehend, as it's just a merger of two older stats and like all batting stats "higher" or "more" equals better.

 

Advanced metrics have made the game of baseball more enjoyable and a higher-quality product. That the game goes on so long is a function of not having a clock and batters accurately gauging the importance of each pitch.

Ryan must be lunkheaded on this issue. He really must. Making baseball more of a numbers game improves the viability of the sport.

 

Just throwing it out there: Before wOBA is trumpeted as the second coming, it really should make the second line of baseball-reference.com stats.

 

The only reason I even bring up wOBA is as a counterargument to the idea that the methodology of sabermetric stats are impenetrate and arbitrary. That's not the case here. There's a transparent methdology with a very logical basis.

 

Most folks with jobs and families have a limited amount of time to read and research. Insofar as "average" fan, I'm with Ryan on this one.

 

Again: Be that as it may, that doesn't give writers carte blanche to pass along WRONG information.

 

I agree, Dick, and admit I have not read through the entire thread. I was just responding to the OP's title.

 

Two things that bug me about this piece, though I have a lot of respect for Ryan:

1. No one can speak for the "average" fan. It is a total strawman. It's like the "middle class voter" or the "small businessman" in politics. Are we talking about someone of average interest? Average intelligence? Average attention span? It may very well be that the majority of people who still rely on the Boston Globe for their baseball news are wedded to stats like average, HRs, RBI and that's it. But if I made a Venn Diagram of "Newspaper readers" and "People who follow baseball" would there really be a huge percentage of people in both circles? Probably fewer than the old school thinkers would like to believe. It's the echo chamber theory. Writer's have a tendency to believe their social circle represents a larger percentage of opinion than it actually does.

2. The idea that metrics crowd can't enjoy at game because they're too busy punching numbers into their graphing calculator with their head down to experience, as Kinsella put it, the thrill of the grass. Or the magic of the unknown. It would wager people who really like baseball and study the numbers obsessively get an enormous thrill out of watching a game, even if they're baffled by Yasiel Puig's baserunning decisions. The "average" fan, to be honest, probably likes football a lot more than baseball, because they're more action on a minute-to-minute basis, whereas the metrics gang is constantly appreciating the beauty within the math.

 

I think you're right.