When will JD get his Due?

[Dipre]

They are very polite around here. When they call you an idiot' date=' they refer to you as "sir" or "my friend".[/quote']

 

You're so cool, man.

[example1]

There's a Good reason I can think of not to Do that' date=' [b']P[/b]ersonally.

 

Very clever. With Drew's OBP I would think about hitting him 3rd or 4th against righties.

[example1]

And let me tell you something else, OPS (On base plus slugging in case you didn't know) is the best measure of offensive performance there is. Now answer me this, how can a man who was third in this team in OPS and 11th out of all Major League outfielders, be a "crap time" performer.

 

It makes no sense, because it's an exercise in stupidity.

 

I don't argue with anything you're saying here.

 

On a tangent, however: I agree that OPS is a very important stat. However, it is widely acknowledged that OBP is more important than SLG. If that is the case, then how does OPS (which measures them equally) accurately reflect value? It seems like OBP should be weighted more heavily.

 

I suppose we all do it subjectively, but when I look at OPS I also look at OBP to see how much of the larger number is created by the MOST important batting skill--not making outs.

 

Are there numbers out there that reflect the extra value of OBP over SLG? Does anyone know of one?

[Cocos Disciples]

I don't argue with anything you're saying here.

 

On a tangent, however: I agree that OPS is a very important stat. However, it is widely acknowledged that OBP is more important than SLG. If that is the case, then how does OPS (which measures them equally) accurately reflect value? It seems like OBP should be weighted more heavily.

 

I suppose we all do it subjectively, but when I look at OPS I also look at OBP to see how much of the larger number is created by the MOST important batting skill--not making outs.

 

Are there numbers out there that reflect the extra value of OBP over SLG? Does anyone know of one?

 

Solid point. It can definitely be deceiving to look at OPS and just OPS. Looking at OBP and SLG side by side but not combining them (if that makes any sense) may be a more telling statistic. And no, I don't know of one that balances it out better.

[Dipre]

I don't argue with anything you're saying here.

 

On a tangent, however: I agree that OPS is a very important stat. However, it is widely acknowledged that OBP is more important than SLG. If that is the case, then how does OPS (which measures them equally) accurately reflect value? It seems like OBP should be weighted more heavily.

 

I suppose we all do it subjectively, but when I look at OPS I also look at OBP to see how much of the larger number is created by the MOST important batting skill--not making outs.

 

Are there numbers out there that reflect the extra value of OBP over SLG? Does anyone know of one?

 

I don't think there is, but when referring to a player's ability to both get on base and drive the ball there's no better indicator than OPS, i will agree with the OBP being more important part of your argument though.

[example1]

I don't think there is' date=' but when referring to a player's ability to both get on base and drive the ball there's no better indicator than OPS, i will agree with the OBP being more important part of your argument though.[/quote']

 

I actually think that when referring to a players ability to both get on base and drive the ball, looking at OBP and SLG individually does the job. When looking at overall value (while implying that getting on and driving the ball are very important factors) OPS is the best we've got. It seems like two different tasks though.

 

I think there is some understanding about how much more valuable OBP is than SLG. I would think that the telling number would include that "how much more valuable (X)" number included. So if that number were 1.4 then the number would be like (OBP * 1.4) + (SLG) = OPSadj.

 

The fact that this obvious change hasn't been made tells me either

a) It is so simplistic that it misses an obvious problem or

OBP + SLG is still too basic a measure to accurately reflect value if context (league, competition, stadium, etc.,) isn't taken into account.

 

Still, it would be nice to see something like that.

[Dipre]

I actually think that when referring to a players ability to both get on base and drive the ball, looking at OBP and SLG individually does the job. When looking at overall value (while implying that getting on and driving the ball are very important factors) OPS is the best we've got. It seems like two different tasks though.

 

I think there is some understanding about how much more valuable OBP is than SLG. I would think that the telling number would include that "how much more valuable (X)" number included. So if that number were 1.4 then the number would be like (OBP * 1.4) + (SLG) = OPSadj.

 

The fact that this obvious change hasn't been made tells me either

a) It is so simplistic that it misses an obvious problem or

OBP + SLG is still too basic a measure to accurately reflect value if context (league, competition, stadium, etc.,) isn't taken into account.

 

Still, it would be nice to see something like that.

 

Someone's probably working on it as we speak.

[example1]

Someone's probably working on it as we speak.

 

That's what I'm saying though, it is SUCH a simple idea that I'm sure it either isn't practical or has huge flaws in it. Bill James comes up with stats like that while he shits on the toilet (or otherwise ). That tells me there's some reason not to do it. Perhaps the other variables involved mean that if someone is going to go the extra step of factoring the value of OBP over SLG, you might as well start including park factors, league quality, schedule, pitchers faced, etc., and just go the whole way (at which point you're getting closer to a VORP type stat).

[ORS]

It's already been determined, and it's 1.7, approximately.

 

However, that is really only a scale adjustment. SLG is on a 4.000 scale, OBP is on a 1.000. It's important to remember that SLG actually has a higher correlation to team run scoring. I forget the exact numbers, but it's something like .88 to .85. OPS is around .92.

[Dojji]

How close does OPS+ get to what you're looking for? Basically I'm wondering what the flaws are and how it compares to a "perfect" offensive analysis.

[Cocos Disciples]

How close does OPS+ get to what you're looking for? Basically I'm wondering what the flaws are and how it compares to a "perfect" offensive analysis.

 

OPS+ is a very good metric but it doesn't solve the problem of OBP being more important than SLG, it just adjusts for league and ballpark.

[ORS]

OPS+ only takes actual OPS and adjusts it for home park and pitching staff. It's still got the different scale error.

[Dojji]

Is there a number someone came up with that could recalculate SLG with walks added to Total Bases? That would weight heavily in favor of OBP without ignoring power entirely.

[jacksonianmarch]

That would be an interesting calculation. Using that model, JD Drew's "number" would be .595. That would be walks + total bases per plate appearance. That being said, OPS correlates well to that number and is easier to calculate

[Dojji]

That would be an interesting calculation. Using that model' date=' JD Drew's "number" would be .595. That would be walks + total bases per plate appearance. That being said, OPS correlates well to that number and is easier to calculate[/quote']

 

Only because the numbers themselves are predigested for you

[ORS]

The best system is linear weights. It assigns a run value to every offensive outcome, both at the plate and on the bases.

 

Conceptually, think about it like this, each outcome is a variable in an equation.

 

1B + 2B + 3B + HR + BB + HBP + IBB + SF + SH + Out + HIDP + SB + CS + RoE = Runs

 

That's 14 variables, and each year you have 30 team outputs. Since the number of equations is greater than the number of variables, you can solve it as a system of equations and determine the value of each outcome.

 

On BB-Ref, they keep this stat. It's called Batting Runs, only it's displayed relative to league average (for all players - not by position). So a player with 10 BtRns is 10 runs better than average by linear weights.

[jacksonianmarch]

they are predigested through any site that deals with baseball. The whole point of these numbers is to compare how good someone is vs the field or vs another. So OPS works as does this new number. All it really is actually is BA + IsoD+IsoP

[Dojji]

Yes, but if you counted walks as part of total bases, it would help the criticism that OBP is more important than its segment in OPS allows it to be.

[Dojji]

The best system is linear weights. It assigns a run value to every offensive outcome, both at the plate and on the bases.

 

Conceptually, think about it like this, each outcome is a variable in an equation.

 

1B + 2B + 3B + HR + BB + HBP + IBB + SF + SH + Out + HIDP + SB + CS + RoE = Runs

 

That's 14 variables, and each year you have 30 team outputs. Since the number of equations is greater than the number of variables, you can solve it as a system of equations and determine the value of each outcome.

 

On BB-Ref, they keep this stat. It's called Batting Runs, only it's displayed relative to league average (for all players - not by position). So a player with 10 BtRns is 10 runs better than average by linear weights.

 

That's very interesting. I've always been a little confused by some of BBRef's more esoteric stats.

[jacksonianmarch]

But then, do you count SBs as total bases too? Maybe subtract CS's?

[jacksonianmarch]

that was up and away there Chuck

[a700hitter]

that was up and away there Chuck

Get your threads straight. Okay?

[Dojji]

Another crucial playoff homer.