Add new comment

I ask again...because my specific reason is like...right above this string of posts.
I work in atmospheric sciences.  The way climate forecasting is traditionally done is through general circulation models which are callibrated with real weather history...going back at least 100 and sometimes 200 years.  The models all do a fine job of recreating the year to year variability in temperature and precipitation over that long recorded history of ours...but that doesn't mean we should be trusting them to get the future planetary temperature right.  In fact, models that were quite well callibrated to reproduce the weather leading up to 2000 or 2005 even...have already significantly BUSTED on their global temperature forecasts for the years that have followed...as models all call for increased temperature, the planet is COOLING over the last several years in the means.
I have therefore seen firsthand the dangers of trusting a metric which is callibrated to historic data to accurate predict the future.  You ask...why should I trust ANY metric?  You should trust the ones that are grounded in sound logic that is irrefutable.  OBP will always correlate with run scoring...the logic is obvious as to why.  James' metric is not grounded in consistent logic.  It's numbers thrown together that sort of kind of measure a difficult to define pattern in the hopes of maybe giving you a heads up on some kind of future trend...a future trend which is not even correctly defined by James (if you get 400 ABs and OPS .900 one year...then get 700 ABs and OPS .895 the next year...that's an UP year...not a DOWN year...he starts with the wrong gosh darned premise!).
The GCMs that are already busting on their planetary foreecasts are based on similar mushy logic and a whole spate of very rough estimates of parameters that could be off by orders of magnitude.  There's a reason climate skeptics exist.