When did OPS and other Saber Stats become mainstream.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

The other day I was reading about saber stats and it surprised me that whip was invented around 1979 by some guy who took alot of flights and had to much time on his hands. I always thought Bill James created all these saber stats so i'm guessing stats like war or ops were created by different people and Bill James gets credit for em all because he wrote a book about them. I'm sure Bill James must have invented one of these saber stats though.

I remember as a kid reading some stat books which had advanced statistics and I didn't know what they were so I always stuck with the main stream stats but when did saber stats become popular. And what year did they first come out. There's probably not a real answer to this but I think I remember first hearing about whip in the late 90's.

The article I read also said baseball scouts and coaches have been using whip since the early 80's. Thats somewhat interesting because Billy Beane gets credit for being a pioneer of some sorts of advanced stats but as far as I know he started using them in the early 2000's. Who would be the first MLB team to use them.

[Bothrops Atrox]

It all depends on what you consider to be "sabermetrics." Bill James certainly didn't "create" sabermetrics, but some of his writings sparked a new era of sabermetrics in the early 2000's. Of course he wasn't alone. Voros McCracken's work was really important too. And others.

[Steven Gallanter]

The other day I was reading about saber stats and it surprised me that whip was invented around 1979 by some guy who took alot of flights and had to much time on his hands. I always thought Bill James created all these saber stats so i'm guessing stats like war or ops were created by different people and Bill James gets credit for em all because he wrote a book about them. I'm sure Bill James must have invented one of these saber stats though.

I remember as a kid reading some stat books which had advanced statistics and I didn't know what they were so I always stuck with the main stream stats but when did saber stats become popular. And what year did they first come out. There's probably not a real answer to this but I think I remember first hearing about whip in the late 90's.

The article I read also said baseball scouts and coaches have been using whip since the early 80's. Thats somewhat interesting because Billy Beane gets credit for being a pioneer of some sorts of advanced stats but as far as I know he started using them in the early 2000's. Who would be the first MLB team to use them.

Allan Roth was employed by Branch Rickey for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947. During my youth Mr. Roth did statistical work for NBC's GAME OF THE WEEK. The Los Angeles chapter of SABR is named for him.

I can remember looking at Fritz Peterson's Strat-O-Matic card, adding up his hits and walks and being impressed by the fact that they totaled less than his innings pitched. Saber stats have always been in the mind of the nerdier fans such as your humble narrator.

Red Sox radio voice of the 80's Ken Coleman often mentioned that Dwight Evans' had a good on base percentage. I can remember tending bar and hearing fans mention that as Evans would work the count.

I think the term "saber" became mainstream in the late 80's after the popularity of Craig Wrights's THE DIAMOND APPRAISED and Mr. Wright's stint with the Texas Rangers. The numbers themselves have always been in the minds of many fans.

stevegallanter.wordpress.com

[NJYankeeFan]

The other day I was reading about saber stats and it surprised me that whip was invented around 1979 by some guy who took alot of flights and had to much time on his hands. I always thought Bill James created all these saber stats so i'm guessing stats like war or ops were created by different people and Bill James gets credit for em all because he wrote a book about them. I'm sure Bill James must have invented one of these saber stats though.

I remember as a kid reading some stat books which had advanced statistics and I didn't know what they were so I always stuck with the main stream stats but when did saber stats become popular. And what year did they first come out. There's probably not a real answer to this but I think I remember first hearing about whip in the late 90's.

The article I read also said baseball scouts and coaches have been using whip since the early 80's. Thats somewhat interesting because Billy Beane gets credit for being a pioneer of some sorts of advanced stats but as far as I know he started using them in the early 2000's. Who would be the first MLB team to use them.

James was one of many. He did come up with runs created which still is quality stats.

I agree with the other poster on Mccracken.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[Jackaroo Dave]

Allan Roth was employed by Branch Rickey for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the 1947. During my youth Mr. Roth did statistical work for NBC's GAME OF THE WEEK.

I would love to get a peek at Allan Roth's spreadsheets or notebooks or whatever he used.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The first person to be hired by a major league team as a sabermetrician was Craig Wright way back in 1981. He was hired by the Texas Rangers.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

For years Craig Wright has stated that Sabermetrics is NOT statistical analysis. He stopped using the title "sabermetrician" because he saw how sabermetrics was being narrowly defined as statistical analysis.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?101787-What-is-Sabermetrics-supposed-to-be&highlight=

[Pere]

That's not a very clear or compelling concept of how sabermetrics isn't statistical analysis. "Scientific research of the available evidence to identify, study, and measure forces in professional baseball." Fine. But exactly what evidence can you study scientifically--rigorously--about baseball other than statistical records, and metrics derived therefrom?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

That's not a very clear or compelling concept of how sabermetrics isn't statistical analysis. "Scientific research of the available evidence to identify, study, and measure forces in professional baseball." Fine. But exactly what evidence can you study scientifically--rigorously--about baseball other than statistical records, and metrics derived therefrom?

Craig's point is that sabermetrics is more than just statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is just one of many tools that can used. There are things like pitching biomechanical analysis and Baseball Info Solutions' fielding systems (where they video tape and analyze defensive players) are examples of sabermetrics that are not statistical analysis. Here is how Craig Wright sees sabermetrics.

Wright-forward1a.JPG

Wright-forward2.JPG

[Ben Grimm]

This isn't geared so much toward advanced metrics as it is to the basic nature and acceptance/resistance towards statistics - in my view. I'm only throwing this out there because OPS was mentioned in the title and it's much more simplified than any "sabr" stat.

I, my friends, and any family member before me got our base statistical information off the back of Topps baseball cards. They easy to understand, comprehend and were widely accepted in the 70s and prior.

Hitting stats were basically AB, runs, hits, 2Bs, 3Bs, HRs, RBIs, SBs & Avg.
Pitching stats were GS, W, L, IP, Svs, K, BB & ERA.

I may be missing one or two, but that's the general information that was provided. Even though Topps had the most statistics on the backs of their cards (still do), many of them were team-dependant, which I believe is why many today still consider runs and RBIs very important when looking at a hitter and wins carrying the same value for pitchers.

In the early '80s (1981 or 1982), Topps added SLG% as a standard statisct moving forward. The problem was, unless the player had decent power, you still couldn't really figure out his value until you started looking at his BB totals along with his hits to get a general idea.

By the early 2000's - with the internet becoming much more accessible as well as populated with information, along with the growing numbers of roto-ball players, the production of better numbers could be addressed that much more easily. In 2004, Topps began adding OPS & WHIP to their base brand cards (still no OB% though even up thru 2012). OPS & WHIP, at least from my experience, became standards with which to do a quick-glance at a player and see if he's been productive - as well as helping with evaluating players' progressing/regressing over spans of seasons.

When my uncle was a kid, a hitter's HR totals along with RBIs and AVG were sufficient. During my time as a kid, we accepted SLG. My nephew who collects cards understands WHIP and OPS because it's built into what he sees every day. Even during games now, when a player steps to the plate we'll often see his OBP & SLG numbers in some sort of context.

Granted, like baseball itself, Topps is a bit antiquated when it comes to statistical information. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the next widely-accepted stat be introduced on the backs of their cards for the next generation. Things like K:9IP or RC or even Win Shares/WAR by that time. It may sound strange, but only a decade ago OPS wasn't understood by many and now it's become a simple accepted statistic.

[dominik]

well technically OPS is not a "modern" stat but the combination of 2 traditional stats.

[Pere]

Craig's point is that sabermetrics is more than just statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is just one of many tools that can used. There are things like pitching biomechanical analysis and Baseball Info Solutions' fielding systems (where they video tape and analyze defensive players) are examples of sabermetrics that are not statistical analysis. Here is how Craig Wright sees sabermetrics.

Yes, I read that. My point remains. How can you rigorously analyze any of these things except by numerical measurement of effects, i.e., statistics and derived metrics? I mean, that's the ultimate point, right, is the effect on the dynamics of the game on the field? Watching how a guy is moving on tape isn't particularly meaningful unless you know the effects of it.

Craig Wright correctly points to a lot of things that are necessary, or contribute, to the practice of science, but they don't define or constitute science. Measurements are the observational data that complete the picture, that turn hypothesis into conclusion. Statistical analysis is not just "one of many tools that can used." It is indispensable. That is what bringing science to baseball means--relying not on speculation and inherited wisdom that sounds good, but proving or disproving those ideas by evidence.

[Pere]

I get the feeling that Wright was sensitive about other people's perceptions of what "statistical analysis" meant, as if it was just writing down and keeping track of a lot of numbers, as if there was little more involved than keeping score and doing some calculator work.

[Pere]

Getting back to the OP (apologies for triple-posting), I think advanced statistics first began to really filter into mainstream sports-fan awareness after the Red Sox 2004 Series. Bill James' involvement with that team kind of ratified the basic concept for many non-geeky writers and commentators. They didn't embrace baseball science, but they felt compelled to admit that there was something really there. Moneyball had come out in 2003, but I remember national broadcasters kind of sneering at it (after ignoring it) during the '03-'04 seasons. It was in the next maybe three years after the Reverse that statistical analysis really became a marketable commodity in itself, with sabermetric books becoming mainline publishing events and websites starting to make money on general advertising.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Yes, I read that. My point remains. How can you rigorously analyze any of these things except by numerical measurement of effects, i.e., statistics and derived metrics? I mean, that's the ultimate point, right, is the effect on the dynamics of the game on the field? Watching how a guy is moving on tape isn't particularly meaningful unless you know the effects of it.

And you can gain understanding of this by other means besides statistical analysis. Here is an example.

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/2809/inside-baseball-info-solutions%E2%80%99-fielding-systems

Craig Wright correctly points to a lot of things that are necessary, or contribute, to the practice of science, but they don't define or constitute science. Measurements are the observational data that complete the picture, that turn hypothesis into conclusion. Statistical analysis is not just "one of many tools that can used." It is indispensable. That is what bringing science to baseball means--relying not on speculation and inherited wisdom that sounds good, but proving or disproving those ideas by evidence.

Sabermetrics is not science, though. It's closer to a subject like economics than something like physics. BBf's own SABR Matt, a trained scientist who also does sabermetic work, has stated that sabermetics is not science.

Sabermetrics is not science...I think it's important to remember that although a lot of sabermetric research is scientific, the group of research done in SABR is not all under the scientific heading. Some people find it just as interesting to study the game from a historical perspective using the data...this kind of thing is rarely strictly scientific. PCA, for example, is not science. It's just my best current attempt to put the game's metrics into a historical context so that players may be compared.

HOWEVER...to get employed in baseball today, a sabermetrician, needs to be doing work that is actually scientific in approach. The Yankees aren't interested in uberstats or simple correlational analysis (FIP, e.g.). That stuff doesn't help them make money. They DO want to know, though, if you have proof that pitchers with a release point at X position relative to their CG are more or less likely to suffer arm injuries (I've seen a few initial attempts to use pitch F/X (but not the landing spot...the starting spot) to relate mechanics to injury. That sort of thing is what they want now. My thoughts about studying weather impacts...that is what they want. It might some day help managers leverage their pitchers better (gee...it looks like starting pitchers whose primary weapon is a curveball don't do well in warm, dry climates...if you have one, use him when it's cool or humid...that sort of thing). I mean, all the teams now use uberstats to get a quick glance at players they're considering acquiring, but that's just to build the list of potential targets...after that, they need predictive tools...will he continue to produce at that rate for me...given my home park, my team defense (or surrounding line-up mates), and his health history and age? Does his type of player age well? What can we learn about players with his mindset (this is where scouting can sometimes help, BTW). And they need deeper analysis...especially when it comes to pitcher injuries/fatigue and fielding skill.

Put simply...sabermetrics is not Saberology because it didn't start out as a purely scientific pursuit. It's a statistical field...purely statistical analysis is generally not science. But great science can and sometimes has been done in this field.