According to the Don Martin Sound Effect Dictionary, FIP-FIP is the sound of a "cow's udder moving." This is not to be confused with FIP FOP FIDDIT FAP, which is a survival raft inflating.

The site is unclear. What is Joey Votto's BREEDEET? Who led all relievers in TOONK? What is replacement value SKLERCH?

It's going to be an uphill climb if the Indians are to contend in the AL Central this year, but their projected SNAP PLOOBADOOF scores would suggest they've got a shot.

(Great link, GB.)

TINSSAAPP will always be my favourite baseball acronym, and its not even a stat. I'm sure if a troglodyte sportswriter saw that and believed the statheads actually had the nerve to create a stat so obscure and complex that it required a 9-letter acronym they'd freak out.

TINSSAAPP will always be my favourite baseball acronym

You like it so much, you can't even spell it right?

Because we are readers of Baseball Prospectus, most of us are prone to Reaction A. But that does not mean that we are operating with brains that have evolved to the point where they are immune from Reaction B. For example, how would your brain have reacted if I had started this column off by telling you that, since 2006, no player in the major leagues has more RBIs than Ryan Howard? And what if I told you that I was going to use part of my allotted space to defend the RBI as a legitimate part of a player’s record? If I read those words from another writer, my internal siren would have started flashing, “Fraudulent! Fraudulent! Fraudulent!”

This is of course dumb. I am assuming most of us know why RBI's are dumb. Thus when we see the acronym we go through a process similar to the one described by Frank's brain in the first part.

1. Primate reads the word “RBI” in a story about Ryan Howard’s performance.
2. Primate’s eyes feed the term “RBI” to his brain.
3. Primate’s brain processes “RBI” as Runs Batted In, a metric that relies mostly on things outside of Ryan Howard's control, such as opportunity, park factors, baserunning ability of the runners on base, etc.
4. Primate’s brain reacts with a judgement that Ryan Howard's RBI total is virtually meaningless in trying to evaluate his actual performance..

There Is No Such Thin.....bahh!

This is a false equivalence so strong that it's on the order of saying that people that accept evolution and creationists both have faith. Really, it's that bad. I'm fine with the critique that us statsy folks overestimate our knowledge at times, but I'd wager that just about none of us see "RBI" and think \"#### that ####, I don't even know what that means, but I do know it means nothing". The Reaction B to FIP shown above really is the reaction of an idiot; Reaction B against RBI doesn't exist outside of the fevered imagination of the writer.

The Reaction B to FIP shown above really is the reaction of an idiot; Reaction B against RBI doesn't exist outside of the fevered imagination of the writer.

Because everyone you disagree with is an idiot, and no one you agree with would ever be short sighted, ill tempered or intellectually ungenerous. Later, you can tell me about how beautiful your women are and how large your penis is, too?

Here's the thing; it's perfectly reasonable for "Joe" in the above example to skim the intro to FIP and think "dude, I really don't need this deep dive #### to enjoy a baseball game."

Because everyone you disagree with is an idiot,

That's not implied in what I wrote. People that refuse to understand concepts, but are angered by them are, however, idiots.

no one you agree with would ever be short sighted, ill tempered or intellectually ungenerous

That's not implied in what I wrote. Many people that I agree with about specific issues are all of the above.

Here's the thing; it's perfectly reasonable for "Joe" in the above example to skim the intro to FIP and think "dude, I really don't need this deep dive #### to enjoy a baseball game."

This is not fundamentally equivalent to Reaction B. The reaction you're showing is that of someone that doesn't care one way or the other about FIP, but likes baseball. Reaction B is that of someone who's angered by the idea that someone else would drill down deeper than they cared to. I would have thought Reaction B was all but non-existent until I started reading impassioned Facebook comments from people that were positively furious that people thought Mike Trout should win MVP just because of a "stupid stat". Sure, there was some unjustifiably rude and condescending response from the pro-Trout people, but they weren't fundamentally ignorant of what the debate even was.

Joe’s brain reacts by telling him to write a poorly punctuated and improperly capitalized email telling David Murphy to go bleep himself and that we need to go back to the days where pitchers were judged on the things that actually matter, like striking batters out and limiting runs and walks.

You give camp B too much credit. None of those things matter. Everything you need to know about a pitcher is summed up by his won-lost record.

Jack Morris had an excellent PTTS

Reaction B is that of someone who's angered by the idea that someone else would drill down deeper than they cared to.

"Reaction B" is 1) a cartoon of what stat-dork Q thinks "Joe" might be thinking, and 2) a response of "someone who's angered by the idea that someone else would drill 'down deeper' than they cared to and then have the gaul to lecture the rest of the class on how they're too stupid and ignorant to understand the 'deep stuff' and really get how much Mike Trout was totally cooler than Miggy Cabrera."

The fact that you think FIP fans "drill down deeper" rather than looking at it at another angle gives you away.

That you're willing to insist that FIP and Win-Loss are just different angles gives you away. Really, this is a stupid argument. As I said initially, this is just false equivalence for the sake of pseudointellectual wankery.

I think the article is missing a Reaction C that

1. Dave reads the word “FIP” in a story about Jonathan Papelbon’s performance.
2. Dave’s eyes feed the term “FIP” to his brain.
3. Dave’s brain processes “FIP” as a pitching stat that analysts use; he doesn't really how it's derived.
4. Dave’s brain reacts with a judgment about Jonathan Papelbon’s ability to prevent runs, even though that's not quite what FIP is.

Like others have pointed out, its not the words that matter. ERA and RBI are not elegant words that quickly convey meaning. Or if they do, its because those terms have been ingrained in us for generations. The same is happening for FIP and WAR whether old school sportswriters like it or not. These terms are becoming more mainstream, and the people that have a vociferous backlash against them will die out before too long.

"Reaction B" is 1) a cartoon of what stat-dork Q thinks "Joe" might be thinking

"Joe" may just be a theoretical construct, but there are lots and lots of people who genuinely do think that way. I run into them all the time.

If people would rather just watch a game, instead of making deep analyses of performance, that's fine. But that doesn't excuse overt hostility toward people who are interested in that stuff. It's part of a disturbing strain of anti-intellectualism that's cropped up in American culture at some point over the last ten-or-so years, on a par with Jenny McCarthy's anti-vaccine brigade and the "teach the controversy" creationists.

List 1        List 2           List 3
Headley       Braun            Posey
Braun         McCutchen        McCutchen
Soriano       Posey            Braun
A Ramirez     Headley          Votto
Pence         Votto            Headley
Posey         Stanton          Cabrera
Holliday      Cabrera          Stanton
LaRoche       Goldschmidt      Holliday
Bruce         Holliday         Wright
Beltran       A Ramirez        A Ramirez

One of these lists is last season's top ten National League players by by WPA/LI (another measure towards which there is a great degree of saberist scepticism), one by BB-ref Rbat and the third by RBI.

The thing is, having WPA/LI or Rbat widely available required computers. As the lists illustrate, RBI is an imperfect, but not useless, measure of player value, and one easily calculated in a day of pencils and adding machines. In those days, one needed to look as well at hits, runs, slugging percentage, etc to get one's rankings of good players.

It's part of a disturbing strain of anti-intellectualism that's cropped up in American culture at some point over the last ten-or-so years...

It is way older than that:

In the USA there was, apparently, an erosion of public appreciation of science in the early 1970s. Polls during the 1950s and 1960s showed buoyant support for science, mainly on account of its ability to achieve desirable goals rather than for its inherent interest. The subsequent drift in support was, however, parallelled by loss of confidence in public institutions generally... By the late 1970s scientific research seen as increasing individuals' control over their own destiny was welcomed, but research that might decrease personal control was not. There was a strong preference for applied over more fundamental research. In 1976 only 9% of the general public saw fundamental research as a priority for science and technology expenditure (down from 21% in 1974 and 19% in 1972).

That is from an extremely influential report by the Royal Society entitled 'The Public Understanding of Science', which led to a concerted campaign to ensure that what the Joes of Britain thought about science was at least well-informed.

There Is No Such Thin.....bahh!

"There Is No Such Species..." works.

double post, the fault of demons, no doubt

"Reaction B" is 1) a cartoon of what stat-dork Q thinks "Joe" might be thinking

No, Reaction B is overly generous hypothetical to what the anti-stat people think. If they actually paid attention to run prevention, strikeouts, and walks, they would give a lot more HOF support to Curt Schilling and Kevin Brown instead of focusing on Jack Morris. If they got the concept, I think most of us could care less if they like the vocabulary of FIP. It's not a cartoon at all, as numerous examples of this species can be easily found.

Unless you think Murray Chass is a cartoon instead of an actual person.

4. Primate’s brain reacts with a judgement that Ryan Howard's RBI total is virtually meaningless in trying to evaluate his actual performance..

This actually isn't close to true, but that aside, the idea that fans should strive and spend time seeking to measure "actual performance" is unproven and little more than an assumption.

In other words, simply saying that RBI doesn't measure "actual performance" -- again not true, but assumed arguendo -- does not itself intellectually damage the measurement and description contained within RBI.

The fact that you think FIP fans "drill down deeper" rather than looking at it at another angle gives you away.

FIP actually drills less deep, reducing pitching to walks, strikeouts, and homeruns when it's plainly far more. As the BB Pro annuals note, FIP is to not-insignificant degree, really measuring "pitching-independent pitching."

If people would rather just watch a game, instead of making deep analyses of performance, that's fine. But that doesn't excuse overt hostility toward people who are interested in that stuff.

"Overt hostility" is driven by 1) sportswriters who are worried that they're being edged out of a job, and 2) casual fans who tire of being lectured by the "deep dive" crowd who just want to be recognized for being educated and cultured enough not to be "anti-intellectual" like the common pig-#######.

According to the Don Martin Sound Effect Dictionary, FIP-FIP is the sound of a "cow's udder moving." This is not to be confused with FIP FOP FIDDIT FAP, which is a survival raft inflating.

Indeed, that is an excellent link.
However, it does not include my all-time favorite Don Martin sound effect:

SQUEEBEEDEEBEEDAP!

(the sound of stepping on a plank with five cockroaches underneath it)

If one just looked at the headline and read TFE without noticing it came from BPro, one could be forgiven for thinking this was just another anti-advanced stat rant.

SQUEEBEEDEEBEEDAP!
Exchanging glances
SQUEEBEEDEEBEEDAP!
What were the chances
We'd be sharing love before the night was through?

No, Reaction B is overly generous hypothetical to what the anti-stat people think. If they actually paid attention to run prevention, strikeouts, and walks, they would give a lot more HOF support to Curt Schilling and Kevin Brown instead of focusing on Jack Morris. If they got the concept, I think most of us could care less if they like the vocabulary of FIP. It's not a cartoon at all, as numerous examples of this species can be easily found.

No. The reason the "stat-dorks" don't want people talking about things like RBIs, reduced to its essence, is that they believe those people will "misuse" the number and cause other people to misuse the number. Why do they think that? Because they think everyone is stupider than they are. They truly believe that none other than themselves can know both a traditional piece of baseball data and the contradictions and limitations embedded in that data.

The irony is that they're blind to the contradictions and limitations embedded in their pet numbers.

Why do they think that? Because they think everyone is stupider than they are. They truly believe that none other than themselves can know both a traditional piece of baseball data and the contradictions and limitations embedded in that data.

Come on, this is just blatantly not true. What they think, if "they" can be so monolithic, is not that *none* other than themselves can understand. They realize, from a wealth of empirical data, that there are couple of metric shittons of people out there who don't understand and aggressively, in some cases evangelically, reject any step toward understanding.

Most reputable articles follow any reference to FIP or other acronyms with a definition or a link to an article explaining it. So this article is mostly arguing against a strawman. Secondly, how would the author suggest fixing this problem? Should we say "according this concept (but not a specific word or calculation because those are bad) which only looks at strikeouts, walks and home runs.."? The only way a metric gains larger acceptances is if it's referenced repeatedly and becomes familiar. WAR is regularly quoted on MLB Network now. You'd sound like an idiot if you tried to work around ERA, there's a reason we have the acronyms.

Dumb article.

Come on, this is just blatantly not true. What they think, if "they" can be so monolithic, is not that *none* other than themselves can understand. They realize, from a wealth of empirical data, that there are couple of metric shittons of people out there who don't understand and aggressively, in some cases evangelically, reject any step toward understanding.

Shocking. SBB makes inflammatory and untrue statement.

SQUEEBEEDEEBEEDAP!
Exchanging glances
SQUEEBEEDEEBEEDAP!
What were the chances
We'd be sharing love before the night was through?

Had no idea Skrillex posted here.

Come on, this is just blatantly not true. What they think, if "they" can be so monolithic, is not that *none* other than themselves can understand. They realize, from a wealth of empirical data, that there are couple of metric shittons of people out there who don't understand and aggressively, in some cases evangelically, reject any step toward understanding.

1. The "if 'they' can be so monolithic" hedge is precious coming as it does in the preface to a broadside against "metric shittons of people" who "aggressively", nay even "evangelically, reject any step toward understanding." It's so cute when you boys do that sort of ####.

2. You assume that people who aggressively push back against FIP or WAR or whatever the quantum derivation du jour might be by definition don't "understand." Because they're stupid.

Because they're stupid.

BTAS!

quantum derivation du jour

QDDJ!

Come on, this is just blatantly not true.

It's entirely true, as demonstrated by the rest of your post presuming possession of a level of "understanding" others are not adequately striving to obtain.

Saber types tend to be iconoclasts (*) who tend to be uncomfortable with the contradictions in life. Rewards aren't always bestowed on those that earn them, or who are "responsible" for good things. Nor is reputation. We all know that reputation and rewards often accrue to an undeserving person who lucks into an opportunity that a bunch of other people could have done the same or more with. In fact, economic and organizational life is so complex that useful things are almost never accomplished by single individuals.

They're compensating for that by striving (to the point of bursting veins) to reduce baseball to an endeavor in which those contradictions of life are abolished (**), and that's the primary reason we see the bile reserved for things like RBIs and why we constantly hear things like, "b-b-b-b-b-but Ryan Howard isn't responsible for that run, why is he getting credit." The sabermetric striving to strip out everything for which a player isn't completely "responsible," and to credit him entirely for those things he is responsible for, is properly seen not as a quest for understanding, but as more of a Tao of life.

And thus, when a hapless sportswriter takes note of a player's RBI's or a pitcher's wins, he isn't merely misunderstanding baseball -- he's misunderstanding life. A simple misunderstanding of baseball could never unleash the bilious response the mainstream sportswriter gets around here.

(*) Not that there's anything wrong with that; indeed, there's a lot right with it.

(**) Not that there's anything wrong with that, either. Baseball is supposed to be an escape from daily life, but that escape can be found in a myriad of ways.

So are we still in the backlash against the backlash against the backlash age of saber stats, or have we now officially moved into the backlash against the backlash against the backlash against backlash stage? It's hard to keep up.

They're compensating for that by striving (to the point of bursting veins) to reduce baseball to an endeavor in which those contradictions of life are abolished (**), and that's the primary reason we see the bile reserved for things like RBIs and why we constantly hear things like, "b-b-b-b-b-but Ryan Howard isn't responsible for that run, why is he getting credit." The sabermetric striving to strip out everything for which a player isn't completely "responsible," and to credit him entirely for those things he is responsible for, is properly seen not as a quest for understanding, but as more of a Tao of life.

Bursting veins? Do you actually interact with statguys to the point where you can make this diagnosis? Or is this pure projection?

I can't speak for anyone else, but it doesn't bother me one bit if you want to talk about Ryan Howard's RBI. RBI are merely facts. They might be interesting for their own sake. They can be cool (hey, I thought Don Mattingly getting 145 was cool, and Manny Ramirez getting 165 was cool. Both were levels not seen for a long time). You only lose me when you try and turn RBI into a value metric, like trying to tell me Howard was/is as good or better than guys like Pujols, Fielder, Gonzalez, and Votto.

Do you actually interact with statguys to the point where you can make this diagnosis? Or is this pure projection?

Do you apply this same criteria to non-statguys? That is to say, do you interact with any of them outside of internet flame wars?

Do you apply this same criteria to non-statguys? That is to say, do you interact with any of them outside of internet flame wars?

Yes, the buddy that I occasionally occasionally go to Nats games with is a non-stat guy. He probably follows baseball closer than I do, really, but he's just not a numbers guy at all. I don't really find that problematic, I sure don't think he's "stupid", and I don't think he has any particular problem with stat nerds.

The vitriol is mostly an online thing in general though, isn't it? Two people arguing about the MVP over beers and pool are almost never actually angry at each other, in my experience.

The vitriol is mostly an online thing in general though, isn't it?

Yeah, it is. But it's one of those things where both sides pretend the other side is made up of completely impossible concepts and ideas and must be morally lacking to believe such falsities. The bottom line is that a lot of stat nerds got butthurt over the fact that their 19 year old super-fave didn't win the MVP last year and are out to yell down the heavens because of it.

You only lose me when you try and turn RBI into a value metric, like trying to tell me Howard was/is as good or better than guys like Pujols, Fielder, Gonzalez, and Votto.

RBI is a 'value metric'. It captures some of a player's value to his team in the past. Those runs counted, and some of them won games. It is useless for telling whether said player will be just as valuable in the future.

Do you actually interact with statguys to the point where you can make this diagnosis? Or is this pure projection?

Huh? I've been reading and participating on these boards for years and first read Bill James starting 30 years ago.

You only lose me when you try and turn RBI into a value metric

It is a value metric, albeit an imperfect one. The runs a player drives in helps his team win games. How is that even debatable?

To some degree, RBIs are a function of opportunity, but so what? (See post 33.)

The vitriol is mostly an online thing in general though, isn't it? Two people arguing about the MVP over beers and pool are almost never actually angry at each other, in my experience.

On that note, I never actually like quote stats in conversations or something. It's much easier/simpler to say "great fielder" or "great at taking walks" and that way you aren't an ass. Honestly, all stat people might be evil or something, but I know that I personally try very hard not to sound like I know everything.*

*since it's very clear I know very little about anything.

RBI is a 'value metric'. It captures some of a player's value to his team in the past. Those runs counted, and some of them won games. It is useless for telling whether said player will be just as valuable in the future.

Typically, the value was mostly created by guys who didn't get an RBI.

Someone who treats RBI as the ultimate value metric and categorically rejects/denigrates more advanced metrics has a lesser understanding of baseball than someone who understands *and properly contextualizes* advanced metrics *and does the same for basic metrics.* This statement is not arrogance on the part of statheads, it is fact. Just like someone who knows only algebra and writes screeds against calculus has a lesser understanding of math. That does not make them "stupid" in the general sense, and I have not implied that they are, but an aggressive resistance to new, more accurate information is a questionable approach to thinking.

There are a lot of people out there who fit the former description, and go even further by actively trying to convince others to reject and mock advanced metrics. That is also fact. Acknowledgement of both of these facts does not make statheads arrogant.

RBI is a 'value metric'. It captures some of a player's value to his team in the past.

It's only a value metric if you remove the part that the player had no control over. There might actually be some value in knowing the number of rbi a player drove in over and above what you'd expect given his power (the actual value part) and opportunity.

I say might, because I've actually checked this Joe Carter really did drive in more runs than you'd expect (at least according to my simplistic rbi estimator. No idea how he does on Tom Ruane's -- which deals with actual baserunner distribution). Thing is that his teams didn't tend to score more runs than you'd expect given their counter stats.

I believe it was Arne Olsen who posted a study about "rbi vultures" in rsb. He found that it was generally true that the teams with guys like Carter (low walks, strong offensive point being ISO) do not tend to score more runs than you'd expect given the team's counter stats.

Typically, the value was mostly created by guys who didn't get an RBI.


What value?

And so what, anyway? The guys who didn't get an RBI didn't qualify to get an RBI.

On that note, I never actually like quote stats in conversations or something. It's much easier/simpler to say "great fielder" or "great at taking walks" and that way you aren't an ass. Honestly, all stat people might be evil or something, but I know that I personally try very hard not to sound like I know everything.

I find myself adjusting for audience. I know a lot of stats off the top of my head, or at least know something reasonably close to the exact stats. Some people find that infuriating, some find it helpful, I just need to know which sort of person I'm talking to. For the friends I have that relate to things numerically, they're going to think I'm just talking out my ass if I don't give at least rough numbers.

Typically, the value was mostly created by guys who didn't get an RBI.

How so?

There are a lot of people out there who fit the former description, and go even further by actively trying to convince others to reject and mock advanced metrics.

This is very irritating. Personally, I find arguing useless...but that's true for anyone who believes very strongly about something I disagree with. Often I don't find it worth the effort to engage. Pointless yelling never accomplished anything, whether it's about UZR or the Gaza Strip. Maybe that's just a personal thing.

I am surprised to know that apparently I'm an insufferable know-it-all and "butthurt" (aside: ever noticed how many terms males use to insult males originate in homosexual activity?) or think everyone is stupider than me or whatever.

For the friends I have that relate to things numerically, they're going to think I'm just talking out my ass if I don't give at least rough numbers.

I find I don't really have that problem, since everyone sort of assumes I *could* back it up if I really wanted to (and searching things on B-Ref in a pub or wherever is fairly dumb). Besides, it's a little more fun to discuss a little more in the abstract, I find.

Typically, the value was mostly created by guys who didn't get an RBI.

What value?

You know, the value as described in the excerpt I was replying to, and quoted in my post:
RBI is a 'value metric'. It captures some of a player's value to his team in the past. Those runs counted, and some of them won games. It is useless for telling whether said player will be just as valuable in the future.

You know, that value.

Typically, the value was mostly created by guys who didn't get an RBI.

How so?

By getting on base. Getting into scoring position. Running the bases well. Advancing other baserunners. You know, all those things that contribute to a run scored other than driving in the runner.

Sam, you should really change your handle to 'Ricky is entering his Bill James phase' or something. I can't remember the last time you made a post that wasn't being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.