We have now
completely skewed the results of the poll.
Look specifically at the question in re: sabermetric vs. traditional stats.
Labels: observer effect, polls, sabermetrics
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
