Nerds, you did it. Observer effect. I only realized this after I posted, but by linking to that ESPN baseball statistics poll, I totally wrecked the results I was making fun of.
It's true.
Here were the results of question 3 as of this morning:
3) Which stat do you use the most when evaluating hitters?
43.6% Batting average (AVG)
25.7% On-base plus slugging (OPS)
18.2% On-base percentage (OBP)
10.2% Runs batted in (RBI)
2.4% Slugging percentage (SLG)And here they are now:
3) Which stat do you use the most when evaluating hitters?
36.2% On-base plus slugging (OPS)
35.0% Batting average (AVG)
18.6% On-base percentage (OBP)
7.9% Runs batted in (RBI)
2.2% Slugging percentage (SLG)That's right. FJM's asshole readers (readers who are assholes, not readers who read assholes) have propelled OPS into the lead over that mustache-twirling villain, batting average. You guys are doing some work on the fielding question, too.
Before:
5) Which stat do you use the most when evaluating fielders?
69.4% Errors (E)
13.1% Range Factor (RF)
12.5% Fielding runs above average (FRAA)
5.1% Assists (A)After:
5) Which stat do you use the most when evaluating fielders?
59.8% Errors (E)
20.3% Fielding runs above average (FRAA)
15.7% Range Factor (RF)
4.2% Assists (A)Begone, errors and range factor!
Um, well done, I guess? Not really the point of me posting that link, but I enjoyed it anyway. Now we'll never know the scientific fact of what percentage of Americans prefer range factor to assists according to a stupid online poll!
Labels: fjm readers, observer effect, sabermetrics, statistics
So, we're in the process of enrolling in Google's Ad Sense program, which means, yes, there will be advertisements on the site. They should fit in pretty seamlessly and hopefully won't get in the way of your favorite HatGuy criticisms, or ramblings about Jason Bay's EqA.
Guys, come on. Why? Well, mostly to pay for the small costs of running the site, the domain name (firejoemorgan.com), and all the e-mail accounts. These things add up over time and, listen, we're not going to get rich off this.
Now that you're going to see some income, shouldn't you pay someone to design a better looking site?
Nah, I'm good.
But dak, don't you subscribe to Adbusters and everything? Yes, I do. Believe me, I have mixed feelings about the situation. But we hope you'll visit our sponsors and continue to support us.
Hey, this isn't totally relevant, but since we're doing this whole Q and A thing...I keep e-mailing you guys and I never get a response. What in Robinson Cano's codpiece is up with that? Yeah. I'm sorry -- we're not the best at getting back to people. We read every e-mail though and often use suggestions from readers. I will say one thing to keep in mind: we're just not going to publish anything unless we can verify that it was said or written verbatim. What that means is, we'll totally read your account of what that Mariners' color guy said about Jamie Moyer's incredible poise or whatever, and we'll probably enjoy it, but we're not going to post any paraphrasing e-mailed to us.
Also one of the Angels announcers just described Coco Crisp as having a "calm, confident swagger." At the time Crisp was standing on first base following a foul ball.
Labels: ads, coco crisp, fjm readers
