Limitations of OPS Discussion

[Elktonnick]

This for all those who wish to have an intellectual discussion of the value and limitations of OPS. Have at it

 

Keith R. Thompson, January 2008

 

In recent years the OPS ratio in Baseball (On-Base Plus Slugging Percentage) has gained widespread acceptable as an analytical tool in evaluating a player’s skills. The argument is that it effectively captures the ability of a player to both get on base and hit for power – two very valuable hitting skills. The alleged value of the tool is also compounded by the fact that an OPS of .900 or higher typically puts the hitter in the upper echelon of offensive ability, with the league leaders in OPS generally scoring at or near the 1.000 mark.

 

 

In 2006 only one player (Albert Pujols) ranked in the top ten in OPS, RBIs and Runs Scored.

 

In 2005 four hitters (Pujols, Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez) ranked in the top ten in all three categories.

 

In 2004 only Pujols again ranked in the top ten in all three categories.

 

In 2003 five hitters (Pujols, Rodriguez, Todd Helton, Gary Sheffield and Carlos Delgado) ranked in the top ten in all three categories.

 

In 2002 only Alex Rodriguez and Jason Giambi ranked in the top ten in all three categories.

 

In 2001 five hitters ranked in the top ten in all three categories.

 

In 2000 Todd Helton and Jeff Bagwell were the only hitters ranked in the top ten in all three categories.

 

What then do we make of the OPS statistic. Since 2000 in less than 30% of the time does a player ranked in the top ten in OPS also rank in the top ten in Runs scored and RBIs. OPS is therefore a poor measure of players’ performance when it comes to run contribution (whether scored or driven in). Given that runs is the true determination of wins and losses then shouldn’t we be utilizing a metric other than OPS that also considers the hitter’s ability to score runs and contribute via RBIs.

 

The second limitation of OPS is that it double-counts the number of hits that a player has. Since the total number of hits is already counted in both on-base average and slugging percentage then using OPS will naturally be biased towards players with a high batting average.

 

There is also a third limitation of the OPS measure. At its heart it aggregates On-Base Percentage (which divides Hits, Walks and Hit-by-Pitch by a measure resembling total Plate Appearances) and Slugging Percentage (which takes Total bases and divides by total At-Bats). This is like adding apples and oranges.

 

The denominator for On-Base Percentage is Plate Appearances, whereas it is At-Bats for Slugging Percentage. It is a basic premise of addition that one cannot add two fractions with different denominators unless certain adjustments are first made. Again, it is like adding apples and oranges. What does an OPS of 1.000 mean, for eg.

 

Intuitively we know that a batting average of 0.300 represents three hits in ten at-bats. An on-base average of 0.400 means getting on-base in 4 out of every ten plate appearances. And a slugging percentage of 0.600 (or 60%) means 6 total bases for every ten at-bats. However, an OPS of 1.000 means what exactly? Does it mean 1 hit for every at-bat. NO. Then does it mean 1 time on base for every plate appearance. Definitely Not. Well then it means absolutely nothing since its adding two very different numbers. The OPS adds two fractions with different denominators which renders it practically meaningless. Literally like adding apples and oranges. Hence the results cannot be properly interpreted. Therefore the statistic called OPS is not a true statistical measure. Just because it may produce plausible results from time to time does not mean that it is an accurate measure. Likewise, the OPS with all its flaws is also limited in its ability to indicate the top run contributors in the game.

 

© 2008 PER Sports, Inc.

[User Name]

OPS and OPS+ are not the same thing.

 

This is OPS+:

 

Adjusted OPS. Essentially OPS normalized to the league. Think of it as a rate above the league average expressed as a percentage.

 

1. Compute the runs created for the league with pitchers removed (basic form) RC = (H + BB + HBP)*(TB )/(AB + BB + HBP + SF)

 

2. Adjust this by the park factor RC' = RC*BPF

 

3. Assume that if hits increase in a park, that BB, HBP, TB increase at the some proportion.

 

4. Assume that Outs = AB - H (more or less) do not change at all as outs are finite.

 

5. Compute the number of H, BB, HBP, TB needed to produce RC', involves the quadratic formula. The idea for this came from the Willie Davis player comment in the Bill James New Historical Baseball Abstract. I think some others, including Clay Davenport have done some similar things.

 

6. Using these adjusted values compute what the league average player would have hit lgOBP*, lgSLG* in a park.

 

7. Take OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP* + SLG/lgSLG* - 1)

 

8.Note, in my database, I don't store lgSLG, but store lgTB and similarly for lgOBP and lg(Times on Base), this makes calculation of career OPS+ much easier.

 

And how exactly do you use it?

 

It allows for comparison of players from diffrent teams and/or different years. A .750 OPS from Colorado in 1999 isn't very good at all and OPS+ would expose that.

 

OPS is one thing, OPS+ is another statistic, which attempts to fix the issues regular OPS has.

[Elktonnick]

OPS and OPS+ are not the same thing.

 

This is OPS+:

 

Adjusted OPS. Essentially OPS normalized to the league. Think of it as a rate above the league average expressed as a percentage.

 

1. Compute the runs created for the league with pitchers removed (basic form) RC = (H + BB + HBP)*(TB )/(AB + BB + HBP + SF)

 

2. Adjust this by the park factor RC' = RC*BPF

 

3. Assume that if hits increase in a park, that BB, HBP, TB increase at the some proportion.

 

4. Assume that Outs = AB - H (more or less) do not change at all as outs are finite.

 

5. Compute the number of H, BB, HBP, TB needed to produce RC', involves the quadratic formula. The idea for this came from the Willie Davis player comment in the Bill James New Historical Baseball Abstract. I think some others, including Clay Davenport have done some similar things.

 

6. Using these adjusted values compute what the league average player would have hit lgOBP*, lgSLG* in a park.

 

7. Take OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP* + SLG/lgSLG* - 1)

 

8.Note, in my database, I don't store lgSLG, but store lgTB and similarly for lgOBP and lg(Times on Base), this makes calculation of career OPS+ much easier.

 

And how exactly do you use it?

 

It allows for comparison of players from diffrent teams and/or different years. A .750 OPS from Colorado in 1999 isn't very good at all and OPS+ would expose that.

 

OPS is one thing, OPS+ is another statistic, which attempts to fix the issues regular OPS has.

 

I'll let Tango on Baseball respond for me

 

" OPS is a nice shortcut, which will ensure its survival. But, to add the level of complexity required to get it to OPS+ is not the best option. It may be an ok option, it may be a passable option. It may even be half-decent option.

 

OPS+ is nowhere near the best option, and there’s no point in debating for it on that basis. The argument for OPS+ requires you to concede that you are not interested in the best. And if you want to argue for OPS+ the way you’d argue that you’re happy at your crappy job because it pays the bills, then so be it. It gets the job done."

[User Name]

What he says is that it's not a better option because of the "level of complexity required to get there". I'm assuming he's definitely half-assing it then.

[iortiz]

1.- Who does usually get better contracts, a guy with a 1.- high BA, 2.- high OBP, 3.- high SLG or 4.- high OPS?

2.- Considering each spot in the lineup, where do you consider that OPS weigh more, (ex. #3, #4, #5)?

[User Name]

1.- Who does usually get better contracts, a guy with a 1.- high BA, 2.- high OBP, 3.- high SLG or 4.- high OPS?

 

Empty batting average guys are becoming less and less of a commodity as the correlation between OBP and runs gains more steam.

 

High OPS guys (depending on position) make the most money.

 

2.- Considering each spot in the lineup, where do you consider that OPS weights more, (ex. #3, #4, #5)?

 

Everywhere in the lineup, but that's just the way i see it.

[Elktonnick]

What he says is that it's not a better option because of the "level of complexity required to get there". I'm assuming he's definitely half-assing it then.

 

I suggest you visit the Tango on Baseball website if you haven't already. It designed for those who are interested in advanced sabermetrics For those interested in the subject OPS+ is are not the most sophisticated nor most advanced statistical tool it has it limitations do all these tools. You may find it interesting. It may also demonstrate some of the inherent drawbacks with this approach to baseball.

[User Name]

Both the "pure scouting" and "pure sabermetric" approach to baseball have their flaws. You need a combination of both for competent player evaluation.

 

Since we're on the subject, what do you believe to be the best tool for player evaluation and/or direct player-to-player comparison?

[Elktonnick]

Both the "pure scouting" and "pure sabermetric" approach to baseball have their flaws. You need a combination of both for competent player evaluation.

 

Since we're on the subject, what do you believe to be the best tool for player evaluation and/or direct player-to-player comparison?

 

It is a combination of factor and measures. That's why being a GM is more art than science. BTW If I were advising the FO I'd do psychological profiles on players. Even a simple personality test such as the Myers Briggs would have been useful. Attutude and temperment has been devalued by this FO. Why did this team underpreform in September? From where I sat and what I saw and based on some of the clubhouse dynamics now being reported, the collapse was probably predictable if someone knew what they were looking for.

[Dojji]

Not answering the question in as many words as possible...

[Elktonnick]

 

I answered the question there is no best measure IMO The sabermetricians opine linear wieghts for hitting but in the final analysis for the reasons as I have articulated in other threads I believe there is no one measure. Go read Tango' book and log on to his blog and read his opinion for yourself. It is an excellent wbsite for those love that approach to baseball.

[iortiz]

Everywhere in the lineup' date=' but that's just the way i see it.[/quote']

 

Well, 1.- I wonder Why in the hell we paid 142 MUSD to a guy who had .781 OPS but a .293 BA before coming to Boston. 2.- Sure it weighs everywhere, but lets face the true, you don't usually have a bunch of .800+ OPS guys in the lineup, specially in limited teams. I would say that the highest OPS guys should occupy the 3-4 spots.

[User Name]

Well' date=' 1.- I wonder Why in the hell we paid 142 MUSD to a guy who had .781 OPS but a .293 BA before coming to Boston.[/quote']

 

That's a question that flusters me to this day.

 

2.- Sure it weighs everywhere, but lets face the true, you don't usually have a bunch of .800+ OPS guys in the lineup, specially in limited teams. I would say that the highest OPS guys should occupy the 3-4 spots.

 

2004 Red Sox, 2007 Red Sox, most Yankee teams of this decade.

 

You want your higher OPS guys in the spots where they will get the most AB's, AKA 1-5.

[Laser Show]

OPS and OPS+ are actually very good stats. And like User Name said, if you aren't using OPS+ because of complexity, you are in fact half-assing it. You can't pick and choose stats when arguing a point. You need to use all available resources. So what if one of them is a players 5th PA of the game, against a LH starter, before the 5th inning? You use whatever you can find. You can't just brush statistics aside because they are complex or obscure.

 

You know that a 1.000 OPS guy is an excellent hitter, there's just no way around it. You also know that a 150 OPS+ hitter is an excellent hitter. If you bisect Barry Bonds career into 2 parts, '86-'99 and '00-'07, you'll see that he was still an excellent hitter who has 2 200 OPS+ seasons by the time the steroids accusations started. There had only been 53 such seasons in MLB baseball history, and Bonds had 2. You'll see some seasons that make you wonder, like Dante Bichette's 1995. 340/.364/.620/.984 40 hr/128 rbi and led the league in hits. It was only worth a 129 OPS+. Outside the top 10. Why? Because of where and when he played. Today, that would be a damn good season. 1995 in Colorado, not so much.

 

You can't disregard the OPS+ stat when comparing players either. Just take a look at the career OPS+ leaders and you'll see a damn good list of hitters, broken down very well, considering some played over 110 years apart. JD Drew has a 125, an indicator of a pretty good hitter. Some other players at 125? Jason Bay, Yogi Berra, Matt Kemp, Magglio Ordonez, Ron Santo, Bernie Williams.

 

The top 10

Babe Ruth 206

Ted Williams 190

Barry Bonds 181

Lou Gehrig 178

Rogers Hornsby 175

Mickey Mantle 172

Dan Brouthers 170

Albert Pujols 170

Shoeless Joe Jackson 169

Ty Cobb 168

 

Is there any player on that list you can argue doesn't deserve to be there? I sure as hell can't. They make up the best hitters the game has ever seen, compared to their contemporaries.

 

It's not perfect, but between it and OPS, you get a pretty damn good estimation of a players value to a team.

[Elktonnick]

OPS and OPS+ are actually very good stats. And like User Name said, if you aren't using OPS+ because of complexity, you are in fact half-assing it. You can't pick and choose stats when arguing a point. You need to use all available resources. So what if one of them is a players 5th PA of the game, against a LH starter, before the 5th inning? You use whatever you can find. You can't just brush statistics aside because they are complex or obscure.

 

You know that a 1.000 OPS guy is an excellent hitter, there's just no way around it. You also know that a 150 OPS+ hitter is an excellent hitter. If you bisect Barry Bonds career into 2 parts, '86-'99 and '00-'07, you'll see that he was still an excellent hitter who has 2 200 OPS+ seasons by the time the steroids accusations started. There had only been 53 such seasons in MLB baseball history, and Bonds had 2. You'll see some seasons that make you wonder, like Dante Bichette's 1995. 340/.364/.620/.984 40 hr/128 rbi and led the league in hits. It was only worth a 129 OPS+. Outside the top 10. Why? Because of where and when he played. Today, that would be a damn good season. 1995 in Colorado, not so much.

 

You can't disregard the OPS+ stat when comparing players either. Just take a look at the career OPS+ leaders and you'll see a damn good list of hitters, broken down very well, considering some played over 110 years apart. JD Drew has a 125, an indicator of a pretty good hitter. Some other players at 125? Jason Bay, Yogi Berra, Matt Kemp, Magglio Ordonez, Ron Santo, Bernie Williams.

 

The top 10

Babe Ruth 206

Ted Williams 190

Barry Bonds 181

Lou Gehrig 178

Rogers Hornsby 175

Mickey Mantle 172

Dan Brouthers 170

Albert Pujols 170

Shoeless Joe Jackson 169

Ty Cobb 168

 

Is there any player on that list you can argue doesn't deserve to be there? I sure as hell can't. They make up the best hitters the game has ever seen, compared to their contemporaries.

 

It's not perfect, but between it and OPS, you get a pretty damn good estimation of a players value to a team.

 

Actually the sabermetricians ( the real experts in the field) tend to deprecate OPS+ . Go on to Tango's website and read his blog. There are very detailed discussions. OPS and OPS + are okay for the average fan but they have their biases and limitations is a quick summation of their point of view.

[Laser Show]

Actually the sabermetricians ( the real experts in the field) tend to deprecate OPS+ . Go on to Tango's website and read his blog. There are very detailed discussions. OPS and OPS + are okay for the average fan but they have their biases and limitations is a quick summation of their point of view.

 

Every stat has it's limitations and exceptions to the rule. Crawford is a good hitter, but his OPS suffers because he isn't a power hitter and doesn't take many walks. You use multiple stats to get as accurate a view as possible.

[Elktonnick]

Every stat has it's limitations and exceptions to the rule. Crawford is a good hitter' date=' but his OPS suffers because he isn't a power hitter and doesn't take many walks. You use multiple stats to get as accurate a view as possible.[/quote']

 

Can't disagree with that. My only additions is that any quantatative data sets (stats) have their limitations. Qualatatative data is also relavent.

[SoxSport]

Aside from park adjustments and duplications, there is also the large effect of walks on OPS. Or rather, OBP. A lot of intentional and semi-intentional walks, for example, can blow up the OPS--as it did for Ruth, Williams and Bonds. Indeed, intentional walks are still used in certain situations with certain players--with mixed success. Walks can have defensive value.

 

Bill James has been using "runs produced" for years as a stat; and there is Steve Winters' "bases produced". Winters is a math PhD. Both these stats correlate well with the "best" hitters. I don't know what the correlation is with OPS, but both runs and bases produced are more direct measures of a hitters' game effectiveness--without heavy weighting of walks. You can google these terms for references.

 

Baseball is about moving baserunners and scoring runs--and that can be done a variety of ways. It is also about NOT making outs. There is, to an extent, a conflict between these two approaches, since sometimes one must make an out to score a run--to put it simply.

[Kimmi]

Actually the sabermetricians ( the real experts in the field) tend to deprecate OPS+ . Go on to Tango's website and read his blog. There are very detailed discussions. OPS and OPS + are okay for the average fan but they have their biases and limitations is a quick summation of their point of view.

 

Just wondering Elktonnick, if you HAD to pick one single stat as the best stat to measure a player's offensive production, what would you use?

 

Obviously, trying to evaluate a player on a single stat is ridiculous, but I'm wondering where you rank OPS and OPS+ relative to the other stats out there. In your opinion, is it a better measure of a player's offensive production, than RBIs, for instance?

[User Name]

Aside from park adjustments and duplications' date=' there is also the large effect of walks on OPS. Or rather, OBP. A lot of intentional and semi-intentional walks, for example, can blow up the OPS--as it did for Ruth, Williams and Bonds. Indeed, intentional walks are still used in certain situations with certain players--with mixed success. Walks can have defensive value.[/quote']

 

Notice how you're talking about three of the most accomplished hitters in the history of baseball? The only hitters whose amount of int. walks affects their OPS are excellent hitter.

 

Also, due to scaling issues, it's easier to "blow up" the OPS of a hitter via SLG% than OBP.

 

Bill James has been using "runs produced" for years as a stat; and there is Steve Winters' "bases produced". Winters is a math PhD. Both these stats correlate well with the "best" hitters. I don't know what the correlation is with OPS, but both runs and bases produced are more direct measures of a hitters' game effectiveness--without heavy weighting of walks. You can google these terms for references.

 

wOBA.

 

Baseball is about moving baserunners and scoring runs--and that can be done a variety of ways. It is also about NOT making outs. There is, to an extent, a conflict between these two approaches, since sometimes one must make an out to score a run--to put it simply.

 

In context, in about 90% of the situations, it's better to not make an out than to trade an out for a run.

[User Name]

Actually the sabermetricians ( the real experts in the field) tend to deprecate OPS+ . Go on to Tango's website and read his blog. There are very detailed discussions. OPS and OPS + are okay for the average fan but they have their biases and limitations is a quick summation of their point of view.

 

Tango is not "the sabermetricians". Stop that.

[Elktonnick]

Tango is not "the sabermetricians". Stop that.

 

Sorry you are incorrect, yet again. He and his group can certainly be properly called Sabermetriciaans by any accepte definition of the term.

 

Tom Tango, (aka Tangotiger) runs the Tango on Baseball website, where one will find a large number of research pieces devoted to sabermetrics. His inspirations have been Pete Palmer and Bill James, and is thankful for the generosity of Retrosheet and Baseball1 in providing data to the public. He works as a consultant for major league teams in hockey, and has worked as one in baseball. Born and raised in Canada, he now resides in New Jersey with his family.

 

Mitchel Lichtman has been doing sabermetric research for over 17 years. He is currently the senior analyst for a major league team. He has a B.S. degree from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Nevada. He lives in the Finger Lakes Region of N.Y. with his family, three dogs, and three cats.

 

Andrew Dolphin has been working on sports statistics for over 10 years; some of his work is posted on the Dolphin computer rankings website. He has a B.S. from Harvey Mudd College and a Ph.D. from the University of Washington. He lives in Tucson, Arizona.

 

I can heartily recommend a couple of books that are on my desk right now: John Dewan's THE FIELDING BIBLE ... and a book called THE BOOK: Playing the Percentages in Baseball, by a trio of talented sabermetricians. Both are, to my mind, essential.

— Rob Neyer, Author of Neyer/James Guide To Pitchers

 

Tango et al authored the "The Book" If Rob Neyer calls them sabermetricians whom am I to disagree. I suggest you may want to more research and know what you are talking about before you post, telling other people to stop. I could go on but what's the point.

[iortiz]

Sorry you are incorrect, yet again. He and his group can certainly be properly called Sabermetriciaans by any accepte definition of the term.

 

Tom Tango, (aka Tangotiger) runs the Tango on Baseball website, where one will find a large number of research pieces devoted to sabermetrics. His inspirations have been Pete Palmer and Bill James, and is thankful for the generosity of Retrosheet and Baseball1 in providing data to the public. He works as a consultant for major league teams in hockey, and has worked as one in baseball. Born and raised in Canada, he now resides in New Jersey with his family.

 

Mitchel Lichtman has been doing sabermetric research for over 17 years. He is currently the senior analyst for a major league team. He has a B.S. degree from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Nevada. He lives in the Finger Lakes Region of N.Y. with his family, three dogs, and three cats.

 

Andrew Dolphin has been working on sports statistics for over 10 years; some of his work is posted on the Dolphin computer rankings website. He has a B.S. from Harvey Mudd College and a Ph.D. from the University of Washington. He lives in Tucson, Arizona.

 

I can heartily recommend a couple of books that are on my desk right now: John Dewan's THE FIELDING BIBLE ... and a book called THE BOOK: Playing the Percentages in Baseball, by a trio of talented sabermetricians. Both are, to my mind, essential.

— Rob Neyer, Author of Neyer/James Guide To Pitchers

 

Tango et al authored the "The Book" If Rob Neyer calls them sabermetricians whom am I to disagree. I suggest you may want to more research and know what you are talking about before you post, telling other people to stop. I could go on but what's the point.

 

If that is not to be a sabermetrician, I don't know what it is.

 

BTW Impressive resumes.

[User Name]

Sorry you are incorrect, yet again. He and his group can certainly be properly called Sabermetriciaans by any accepte definition of the term.

 

Tom Tango, (aka Tangotiger) runs the Tango on Baseball website, where one will find a large number of research pieces devoted to sabermetrics. His inspirations have been Pete Palmer and Bill James, and is thankful for the generosity of Retrosheet and Baseball1 in providing data to the public. He works as a consultant for major league teams in hockey, and has worked as one in baseball. Born and raised in Canada, he now resides in New Jersey with his family.

 

Mitchel Lichtman has been doing sabermetric research for over 17 years. He is currently the senior analyst for a major league team. He has a B.S. degree from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Nevada. He lives in the Finger Lakes Region of N.Y. with his family, three dogs, and three cats.

 

Andrew Dolphin has been working on sports statistics for over 10 years; some of his work is posted on the Dolphin computer rankings website. He has a B.S. from Harvey Mudd College and a Ph.D. from the University of Washington. He lives in Tucson, Arizona.

 

I can heartily recommend a couple of books that are on my desk right now: John Dewan's THE FIELDING BIBLE ... and a book called THE BOOK: Playing the Percentages in Baseball, by a trio of talented sabermetricians. Both are, to my mind, essential.

— Rob Neyer, Author of Neyer/James Guide To Pitchers

 

Tango et al authored the "The Book" If Rob Neyer calls them sabermetricians whom am I to disagree. I suggest you may want to more research and know what you are talking about before you post, telling other people to stop. I could go on but what's the point.

 

So they're the only group of sabermetricians out there? And their "opinion" is gospel?

 

I stand corrected.

[User Name]

If that is not to be a sabermetrician, I don't know what it is.

 

BTW Impressive resumes.

 

Then you didn't read what i said. I didn't say they weren't sabers. I said they weren't the only sabers. Which they are not.

 

I know who Tango is. I respect his opinion on the flaws of sabermetric analysis, and they have value. Sometimes i (and other sabers and people who have also written books on the subject, like Gabriel Costa and several authors from baseball Prospectus) disagree with that opinion.

 

Succes of Playing the percentages aside, Tango is not the definitive authority on sabermetrics. There isn't one.

 

I could waste my time posting other people's "resume" in regards to sabermetrics research, but their resume doesn't influence my opinion on statistics. My personal research does.

[iortiz]

So they're the only group of sabermetricians out there? And their "opinion" is gospel?

 

I stand corrected.

 

Are you a sabermetrician? Or have a record like them?

 

Hope don't take it in the wrong way...

[User Name]

Are you a sabermetrician? Or have a record like them?

 

Hope don't take it in the wrong way...

 

Not like them. With them.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Well' date=' 1.-[b'] I wonder Why in the hell we paid 142 MUSD to a guy who had .781 OPS but a .293 BA before coming to Boston[/b]. 2.- Sure it weighs everywhere, but lets face the true, you don't usually have a bunch of .800+ OPS guys in the lineup, specially in limited teams. I would say that the highest OPS guys should occupy the 3-4 spots.

 

Crawford started playing for the Rays when he was 20. 20 years old. You're arguing that we shouldn't have signed Carl Crawford because his stats are manipulated by numbers that he put up when most players are in A ball??

 

Come on man. Be real. In the two years preceding his deal, which encompasses over 1,300 plate appearances, he put up a .306 Average, an .834 OPS while averaging 54 SB, 17 HR, 30 Doubles, 10 Triples, 80 RBI, and 103 Runs.

 

People who dog on the Carl Crawford signing either 1. Are lying hypocrites who loved it when it happened and hate it now, or 2. Overvalue Crawfords OPS when he was 20 and undervalue his OPS in the 2 years before coming here.

 

EDIT: I'm not saying we didn't overpay for him, because we did, but he was (and still is, in my mind) a player worth overpaying. He brings way more than just power to the table.

[Laser Show]

Are you a sabermetrician? Or have a record like them?

 

Hope don't take it in the wrong way...

 

Whether or not he is, you can't take one groups thoughts and ideas on a subject as gospel and completely disregard others, some of whom are more qualified and knowledgeable in the subject.

[User Name]

Crawford started playing for the Rays when he was 20. 20 years old. You're arguing that we shouldn't have signed Carl Crawford because his stats are manipulated by numbers that he put up when most players are in A ball??

 

Come on man. Be real. In the two years preceding his deal, which encompasses over 1,300 plate appearances, he put up a .306 Average, an .834 OPS while averaging 54 SB, 17 HR, 30 Doubles, 10 Triples, 80 RBI, and 103 Runs.

 

People who dog on the Carl Crawford signing either 1. Are lying hypocrites who loved it when it happened and hate it now, or 2. Overvalue Crawfords OPS when he was 20 and undervalue his OPS in the 2 years before coming here. 3. Didn't think his skills would translate smoothly to Boston due to park factors and difference in offensive philosophy.

 

EDIT: I'm not saying we didn't overpay for him, because we did, but he was (and still is, in my mind) a player worth overpaying. He brings way more than just power to the table.

 

You forgot something.