Reader Survey: Is BABS here to stay?
I introduced the Broad Assessment Balance Sheet (BABS) back in January 2016. It arrived as the logical evolution of the Mayberry Method and other “embrace imprecision” philosophies that I have written about for four or five years.
BABS has made some noise. It seems that nearly every radio interview I do includes some discussion of her underlying concepts. Many, many readers have written me with positive comments and success stories.
But it’s all anecdotal feedback. Happy readers are more likely to speak up on their own; unhappy readers tend to just discard a concept they don’t embrace and won’t usually express their opinion unless asked.
So I asked.
In the recent reader survey, I tried to get a gauge on the BABS concept itself. More interesting, I asked the same questions in last year’s survey so now I have the beginnings of some trend data.
I asked respondents to read five statements about the foundation of BABS and rate each as to whether they are on board or not. Here are the results, along with some comments:
We cannot project performance with enough precision for it to matter in building our fantasy teams.
2016 2017 Buy in completely 36% 37% Agree with in theory 52 41 Still mulling over 9 15 Not on board 3 7
I was disappointed with the results from this basic foundation question. Pretty much all of BABS’ ratings are driven by the idea that player projections are faulty. Just over a third buy in completely and that hasn’t changed in the past year, but more people are uncertain. Perhaps I need to provide more examples in the future.
Grouping players into asset groups is better than trying to rank them using projections.
2016 2017 Buy in completely 45 54 Agree with in theory 40 33 Still mulling over 14 11 Not on board 2 1
It’s a bit odd to get more buy-in here given that this concept relies on faulty projections to make sense. But I won’t question positive results.
Separating assets and liabilities is better than trying to integrate risk into a player projection.
2016 2017 Buy in completely 43 44 Agree with in theory 38 38 Still mulling over 18 16 Not on board 3 2
About the same buy-in as last year. Consistently, about 80-85% of respondents at least agree with these concepts in theory.
The results of the above mean that Yasmany Tomas = Yoenis Cespedes and Khris Davis = Giancarlo Stanton
2016 2017 Buy in completely 25 28 Agree with in theory 43 47 Still mulling over 25 18 Not on board 8 7
Fewer of you are willing to take this leap, but at least the trend is in the right direction. Let’s see how these comparisons are faring thus far:
The injury to Cespedes makes the first comparison more difficult. Davis is currently earning $13 to Stanton’s $17; Davis has a few more HRs, Stanton about a 50-point edge in batting average. But Stanton cost about $10 more on Draft Day. We’ll see.
The variance in market value of the above comparisons represent profit opportunities I can trust.
2016 2017 Buy in completely 30 43 Agree with in theory 48 38 Still mulling over 20 16 Not on board 2 3
While fewer were on board with the player comparisons, many more agree that the concept provides actionable profit opportunities. That’s all that matters anyway.
In all, I think these are positive trends. Next week, I’ll address specific comments many of you made on the surveys.