Talk:NERD (sabermetrics)

etymology?

After someone added this page's link to the Sabermetrics article, I came looking for some sort of explanation of the letters N E R D... But I don't see anything at this article. From the first reference [1], I see Cistulli's brief explanation: "Were I to construct a stat designed to appeal to the baseball nerd, I’d call that stat NERD. What would/does it stand for? Hard to say, but it just feels so right." Further context only reveals the sense of 'nerdiness' in this level of statistics... But (encyclopedically, at least) this seems insufficient to include in the article. Since so many stats in sabermetrics come from acronyms, perhaps many readers will make the same assumption here, as I did. Thoughts? -PrBeacon (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC) By the way, I also checked a couple of other references, specifically the non-fangraph ones like ESPN, with no luck on finding more about the term's origin. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a great question, I'll try to do some research on what the acronyme stands for. I looked at the footnotes a little too, it looks like the ones which are currently 12-14 (ESPN.com, Ghost Runner on First, Joba and FIP) are specifically about the luck factor, i. e. the idea that "a player with a below average ERA and an above average xFIP has been 'unlucky'". Finally, I might just mention in passing that while ESPN.com in terms of popular sports opinion is a go to destination, in terms of sabermetric research they are often actually a little behind other sites. The article for Sabermetrics recomends the following: "# Baseball HQ

1. Baseball Prospectus
2. Baseball Reference
3. Beyond The Box Score
4. Fangraphs
5. Hardball Times"

as primary sources for sabermetric research (cf. external links) -sean

A quick google search came up with the answer: "Narrative, Expositive, Reflective, Descriptive". I'll double check this but it might make sense coming from a writer/English prof. like Carson Cistulli -sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seancasey00 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

NERD Pitching expression

Current text states that the value 4.69 is a "factor", and that it is intended to put the statistic on a 0-10 scale. However, it is shown as adding to the expression, not multiplying it. And (if I understand the components correctly) the other terms are all non-negative. So adding 4.69 can't possibly produce a value as low as the desired 0: At best, it might be a 4.69-10 scale.

What's the correct expression? Anybody? Jmacwiki (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The first three terms are differences (standard deviations) from the mean (note the z's), so they could be negative. The given expression is correct. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)