A Realistic View at 2019: Part I

[moonslav59]

Batting average tells accurately what percentage you hit the ball safely in all your at bats which you hit the ball either for a hit or an out. That is what at bats are considered in baseball and everyone is aware of that fact. Hitting is so difficult that slight variations in average indicate wide variation in the ability to hit safely.

 

SLG is flawed and OPS more flawed. And it appears that not everyone is aware of that.

 

OPS is flawed, but to me, OPS tells me way more than BA.

 

The biggest flaw of OPS is that OBP should be weighted more highly than SLG. Although SLG% is flawed as well, it does help distinguish between a .300 hitter with 15 XBHs and a .300 hitter with 65 XBHs. One is clearly much better than the other, and BA, flawed as well, doesn't tell you about. BA also counts walks as zero. That's a major flaw.

 

Since OPS actually counts BA twice, I'd think you like it.

[dgalehouse]

OPS is a good measure of offensive productivity. However , it is not a true stat . It is a concoction. Someone had the idea to add two stats together and create a new one . Now , it is pretty much accepted. I don't like the fact that it ignores stolen bases .

[moonslav59]

You misunderstand. Three catchers isn’t about catching or the bullpen. It’s about getting Vazquez’s .881 OPS in the lineup more often by letting him DH sometimes.

 

Do you really expect Vaz to continue hitting .880+?

 

Do you really want to play JD in the OF more?

 

Do you really want to add a catcher, when we already are facing a roster crunch when Holt and Pedey return? (I'm fine with DFA'ing Nunez, if Pedey proves his health, but to keep Holt, Pedey and Chavis around, we'd have to DFA or trade Pearce to make room for a 3rd catcher.) I seriously doubt we dump Pearce and bench JBJ, so Vaz can DH more.

 

If we want to DH Vaz, we can do it without a 3rd catcher. The only risk is losing the DH, if Leon gets hurt or PH for.

[Bellhorn04]

OPS is a good measure of offensive productivity. However , it is not a true stat . It is a concoction. Someone had the idea to add two stats together and create a new one . Now , it is pretty much accepted. I don't like the fact that it ignores stolen bases .

 

If you want a stat that tries to incorporate all offensive production including baserunning, it's offensive WAR.

[OH FOY]

I like simple, BA tells me the basic thing, can a Batter hit a ball in play that nobody can catch, consistently. Or more like better consistency, since you fail 7 out of 10 times, and are a very good hitter. Their is no difference in a 2 run single and a 2 run HR, to me. The 2 Runs scored is the important thing.

Fans forget the word Runs is the most important thing, in baseball.

Every game is so different, that's why its great. You can get No-hit and win, crazy.

Edited May 18, 2019 by OH FOY!

[moonslav59]

I like simple, BA tells me the basic thing, can a Batter hit a ball in play that nobody can catch, consistently. Or more like better consistency, since you fail 7 out of 10 times, and are a very good hitter. Their is no difference in a 2 run single and a 2 run HR, to me. The 2 Runs scored is the important thing.

Fans forget the word Runs is the most important thing, in baseball.

Every game is so different, that's why its great. You can get No-hit and win, crazy.

 

I'd rather have a guy who gets 2 hits and 2 walks every 10 PAs (.250 BA) than someone who gets 3 hits and no walks every 10 PAs (.300 BA), unless he hits for much more power, but then again, BA does not "capture" HRs and XBHs either.

[notin]

OPS is a good measure of offensive productivity. However , it is not a true stat . It is a concoction. Someone had the idea to add two stats together and create a new one . Now , it is pretty much accepted. I don't like the fact that it ignores stolen bases .

 

 

Not many offensive stats do include stolen bases. There was a stat called “total average” that included SB, CS, and just about everything else from a box score. But it was abandoned for being too cumbersome. Of course, this was in the days before computers. Not sure why it never resurfaced...

[notin]

Batting average tells accurately what percentage you hit the ball safely in all your at bats which you hit the ball either for a hit or an out. That is what at bats are considered in baseball and everyone is aware of that fact. Hitting is so difficult that slight variations in average indicate wide variation in the ability to hit safely.

 

SLG is flawed and OPS more flawed. And it appears that not everyone is aware of that.

 

 

Batting average tells you everyone basically hits the same. You draw the conclusions on your own. But the reality the the difference between a .280 hitter and a .240 hitter is not that great. One hit every 25 at bats. Over 6 months, that’s only 20 hits. Batting average tells you the whole league gets hits between 20 and 30 percent of the time. That you interpret this to be a wide range is a greater indication of the actual flaw in the stat. By your own admission, small differences show a wide range of ability. That’s an indication of a problem in any type of measuring system. If you took a class in school and the teacher said “This test is worth 100 points, and if you score 90% you get an A, 87% is a B, 84 % is a C and anything below 80% and you fail and have to repeat the class and the teaching staff will bully you on Instagram,” wouldn’t you wonder why that tight range encompassed such a wide variety of outcomes? Yet you accept it with batting average solely out of familiarity.

 

Also you cslll SLG flawed and OPS flawed, but you haven’t yet said what the flaws are...

[notin]

I like simple, BA tells me the basic thing, can a Batter hit a ball in play that nobody can catch, consistently. Or more like better consistency, since you fail 7 out of 10 times, and are a very good hitter. Their is no difference in a 2 run single and a 2 run HR, to me. The 2 Runs scored is the important thing.

Fans forget the word Runs is the most important thing, in baseball.

Every game is so different, that's why its great. You can get No-hit and win, crazy.

 

 

There’s a big difference between a 2 run single and a 2 run home run. You can’t hit a 2 run single with one man on base...

[Bellhorn04]

The worst thing about batting average is that it spawned that stupid expression about even the best hitters failing 7 out of 10 times.

 

Williams and Ruth both got on base 48% of the time.

[notin]

The worst thing about batting average is that it spawned that stupid expression about even the best hitters failing 7 out of 10 times.

 

Williams and Ruth both got on base 48% of the time.

 

 

OBP > Batting Average

 

OBP is essentially the “percentage of times the hitter does not make an out.” And it doesn’t have any of the stupid exceptions batting average has...

[moonslav59]

OBP > Batting Average

 

OBP is essentially the “percentage of times the hitter does not make an out.” And it doesn’t have any of the stupid exceptions batting average has...

 

...and SLG% > BA

 

OPS> OBP> SLG> BA

[moonslav59]

Roster moves to ponder....

 

Leon returns: O Hernandez goes down.

Price returns: Josh A Smith goes down

DFA Thornburg: Call up Pedey or Holt

Eovaldi returns: DFA Brewer

 

The toughest call is when the last one healthy out of Pedey & Holt are healthy. We'll need to choose from these options (assuming everyone is healthy):

 

1) Create a phantom IL stint to prolong the choice (Pearce, Nunez, JBJ).

2) Trade or DFA Nunez or Pearce.

 

When Johnson is healthy, we may have to demote Weber or ______?

 

 

 

[notin]

Roster moves to ponder....

 

Leon returns: O Hernandez goes down.

Price returns: Josh A Smith goes down

DFA Thornburg: Call up Pedey or Holt

Eovaldi returns: DFA Brewer

 

The toughest call is when the last one healthy out of Pedey & Holt are healthy. We'll need to choose from these options (assuming everyone is healthy):

 

1) Create a phantom IL stint to prolong the choice (Pearce, Nunez, JBJ).

2) Trade or DFA Nunez or Pearce.

 

When Johnson is healthy, we may have to demote Weber or ______?

 

 

 

 

 

The Sox will demote before DFA.

 

Brewer, for example, has options left. He isn’t getting DFAd. But he might go to Pawtucket.

[moonslav59]

The Sox will demote before DFA.

 

Brewer, for example, has options left. He isn’t getting DFAd. But he might go to Pawtucket.

 

True.

[vegasbob]

Roster moves to ponder....

 

Leon returns: O Hernandez goes down.

Price returns: Josh A Smith goes down

DFA Thornburg: Call up Pedey or Holt

Eovaldi returns: DFA Brewer

 

The toughest call is when the last one healthy out of Pedey & Holt are healthy. We'll need to choose from these options (assuming everyone is healthy):

 

1) Create a phantom IL stint to prolong the choice (Pearce, Nunez, JBJ).

2) Trade or DFA Nunez or Pearce.

 

When Johnson is healthy, we may have to demote Weber or ______?

 

 

 

 

Moon, with nothing but huge respect, when Brian Johnson is the answer to your pitching staff, then you are in the weeds so deep you can't see out. The season is far from over but after 25 %+ of the year, this bunch is going nowhere fast. Cora has finally found out the magic wand doesn't work, the starters were awful then 2 are out of commission, the mixed bag bullpen is marginal , RISP is sunlight to a vampire, and the bench is laughable for a team that should win 100 just showing up. Sometimes raw talent and ability does not jell as it should. This may well be one of those years.

[jad]

Batting average tells you everyone basically hits the same. You draw the conclusions on your own. But the reality the the difference between a .280 hitter and a .240 hitter is not that great. One hit every 25 at bats. Over 6 months, that’s only 20 hits. Batting average tells you the whole league gets hits between 20 and 30 percent of the time. That you interpret this to be a wide range is a greater indication of the actual flaw in the stat. By your own admission, small differences show a wide range of ability. That’s an indication of a problem in any type of measuring system. If you took a class in school and the teacher said “This test is worth 100 points, and if you score 90% you get an A, 87% is a B, 84 % is a C and anything below 80% and you fail and have to repeat the class and the teaching staff will bully you on Instagram,” wouldn’t you wonder why that tight range encompassed such a wide variety of outcomes? Yet you accept it with batting average solely out of familiarity.

 

Also you cslll SLG flawed and OPS flawed, but you haven’t yet said what the flaws are...

 

No I wouldn't wonder or worry about the the fact that "tight range encompassed such a wide variety of outcomes." This is exactly how grading systems work. BA is useful because it's easily intelligible, has a long tradition, and doesn't require an advanced degree in statistics to understand. Plus, we can bring to it other factors: we all know, for example, that Ted WIlliams hit more home runs than Pete Runnels, even though their BA was sometimes similar; no proponent of BA argues that Runnels was a better hitter, even when his average was higher. The problem I have with OPS was nicely described above; the problem I have w/ various "WARs" is that I have never been given an explanation IN PLAIN LANGUAGE that is convincing or even intelligible. Since I'm a fan, not a GM, (just as I am a user of rear-end differential gears rather than a designer of them--and btw, I have been given plain language descriptions of those!), I don't have much interest in the kinds of statistical analysis that cannot be explained to me.

[Bellhorn04]

No I wouldn't wonder or worry about the the fact that "tight range encompassed such a wide variety of outcomes." This is exactly how grading systems work. BA is useful because it's easily intelligible, has a long tradition, and doesn't require an advanced degree in statistics to understand. Plus, we can bring to it other factors: we all know, for example, that Ted WIlliams hit more home runs than Pete Runnels, even though their BA was sometimes similar; no proponent of BA argues that Runnels was a better hitter, even when his average was higher. The problem I have with OPS was nicely described above; the problem I have w/ various "WARs" is that I have never been given an explanation IN PLAIN LANGUAGE that is convincing or even intelligible. Since I'm a fan, not a GM, (just as I am a user of rear-end differential gears rather than a designer of them--and btw, I have been given plain language descriptions of those!), I don't have much interest in the kinds of statistical analysis that cannot be explained to me.

 

WAR is not that complicated if you accept that its intent is to measure how many RUNS a player produces or prevents above what a replacement player would.

 

WAR is derived from RAR - runs above replacement.

 

Obviously there are a lot of moving parts involved in trying to calculate runs produced and prevented.

 

I'm not interested in all the minutiae of how the calculations are done. I'm satisfied that the metrics folks are doing the best possible job they can. I also accept that there are going to be flaws and anomalies.

[jad]

WAR is not that complicated if you accept that its intent is to measure how many RUNS a player produces or prevents above what a replacement player would.

 

WAR is derived from RAR - runs above replacement.

 

Obviously there are a lot of moving parts involved in trying to calculate runs produced and prevented.

 

I'm not interested in all the minutiae of how the calculations are done. I'm satisfied that the metrics folks are doing the best possible job they can. I also accept that there are going to be flaws and anomalies.

 

It's the "lot of moving parts" that bothers me. Whenever I have tried to follow a detailed explanation, I always run into areas that involve 'guesswork,' 'the eye test' (or variants), unstated assumptions, various forms of arbitrariness. (e.g., as in BA, which of course, I accept for what it is; what could be more idiotic statistically than failing to credit a bunter for a sacrifice if you think he was trying to get a hit; it would be like refusing to grant an S to the guy who hits a fly ball because you determined that he was actually trying to hit a home run). I'm not questioning the good faith of the statisticians (although I probably should, since some of them are doubtless working for agents); I'm just questioning their abilities to produce a system that doesn't incorporate the same flaws much simpler systems have.

Edited May 19, 2019 by jad

[Bellhorn04]

It's the "lot of moving parts" that bothers me. Whenever I have tried to follow a detailed explanation, I always run into areas that involve 'guesswork,' 'the eye test' (or variants), unstated assumptions, various forms of arbitrariness. (e.g., as in BA, which of course, I accept for what it is; what could be more idiotic statistically than failing to credit a bunter for a sacrifice if you think he was trying to get a hit; it would be like refusing to grant an S to the guy who hits a fly ball because you determined that he was actually trying to hit a home run). I'm not questioning the good faith of the statisticians (although I probably should, since some of them are doubtless working for agents); I'm just questioning their abilities to produce a system that doesn't incorporate the same flaws much simpler systems have.

 

It's an inexact science like many other inexact sciences.

[notin]

No I wouldn't wonder or worry about the the fact that "tight range encompassed such a wide variety of outcomes." This is exactly how grading systems work. BA is useful because it's easily intelligible, has a long tradition, and doesn't require an advanced degree in statistics to understand. Plus, we can bring to it other factors: we all know, for example, that Ted WIlliams hit more home runs than Pete Runnels, even though their BA was sometimes similar; no proponent of BA argues that Runnels was a better hitter, even when his average was higher. The problem I have with OPS was nicely described above; the problem I have w/ various "WARs" is that I have never been given an explanation IN PLAIN LANGUAGE that is convincing or even intelligible. Since I'm a fan, not a GM, (just as I am a user of rear-end differential gears rather than a designer of them--and btw, I have been given plain language descriptions of those!), I don't have much interest in the kinds of statistical analysis that cannot be explained to me.

 

 

The only good thing about BA is that it’s readily understood and relatable, but this also has lead to some of the worst misconceptions in baseball. And the widespread acceptance of the fact that it lumps every hitter into a very tight range and the excuses people make for this is an immense part of those misconceptions.

 

 

Even if WAR is too complicated, OBP and SLG are far more informative than BA. Of course, SLG has some of the same stupid exceptions as BA...

[Bellhorn04]

With BA, let's look at a real life example for fun.

 

Mitch Moreland's BA is .227. Does that mean he's having a lousy season at the plate?

 

Well, he leads the team in SLG, HR and RBI, so there's that.

[oldtimer]

Roster moves to ponder....

 

Leon returns: O Hernandez goes down.

Price returns: Josh A Smith goes down

DFA Thornburg: Call up Pedey or Holt

Eovaldi returns: DFA Brewer

 

The toughest call is when the last one healthy out of Pedey & Holt are healthy. We'll need to choose from these options (assuming everyone is healthy):

 

1) Create a phantom IL stint to prolong the choice (Pearce, Nunez, JBJ).

2) Trade or DFA Nunez or Pearce.

 

When Johnson is healthy, we may have to demote Weber or ______?

 

 

 

 

Most of us still believe the Sox have a solid chance for a wild card slot this year so want us to continue to put our strongest team forward and not start thinking of rebuillding.

 

The move of Leon back and Hernandez down is a no brainer.

Price should be back for Toronto and at that time sending Josh Smith down makes sense.

I'm guessing Eovaldi comes back some time in early June and at that time possibly we lose Brewer.

 

I'm wondering if briging Pedey back at all makes any sense. He appears to be fragile and is not likely to shake the rust off quickly. We have Chavis who while not a good fielding 2nd baseman is at least an acceptable hitter if not more and he is young and durable. Holt is another one of those fragile sorts that would take time to get up to speed and may not add more value than a Lin would.

 

Bringing Johnson back is as a 6th pitcher to be used in spots. He should be given plenty of time to get his act together. He certainly is no answer for our pitching limitations.

[Kimmi]

I always felt Nomar made himself look a lot better than he really was by making those spinning twirling plays from the hole, when others simply planted and threw the guy out easily like it was routine.

 

I agree.

 

And JD Drew made plays look so easy because he almost never had to dive for the ball.

 

Sometimes, that defensive 'flair', or lack thereof, can be deceptive.

[notin]

With BA, let's look at a real life example for fun.

 

Mitch Moreland's BA is .227. Does that mean he's having a lousy season at the plate?

 

Well, he leads the team in SLG, HR and RBI, so there's that.

 

 

We have one person arguing Vazquez needs to be in the lineup everyday, unlike Moreland. Vazquez does have a higher BA, but only 5 more hits and half as many home runs. And in only 18 fewer at bats, which is about 2 per week at this point in the season...

[Kimmi]

Usually they are, actually, almost always they are, but Matt Holliday was not a plus defender nor at about 0.0 for his career.

 

I never watched Holliday play enough to know what kind of defender he was. The defensive metrics are not kind at all to him in his last 6 years. They were better for the 5 years prior to those. Maybe you are influenced on your overall opinion by the recency effect? And have you watched him play enough to really know?

 

I'm not saying that the metrics are perfect, but looking at the consistency of the data for Holliday over a large sample size, I'm okay with accepting what the data says, that he was a good defender early on and not so good in his later years.

[moonslav59]

Moon, with nothing but huge respect, when Brian Johnson is the answer to your pitching staff, then you are in the weeds so deep you can't see out. The season is far from over but after 25 %+ of the year, this bunch is going nowhere fast. Cora has finally found out the magic wand doesn't work, the starters were awful then 2 are out of commission, the mixed bag bullpen is marginal , RISP is sunlight to a vampire, and the bench is laughable for a team that should win 100 just showing up. Sometimes raw talent and ability does not jell as it should. This may well be one of those years.

 

I'm not implying Johnson is any kind of "answer" to our issues, but he'll probably be better than Brewer, Thornburg and Weber.

 

My guess is we trade for some pitching at the deadline, and one or two of these guys end up off the 25 man roster - one way or another.

[a700hitter]

I always felt Nomar made himself look a lot better than he really was by making those spinning twirling plays from the hole, when others simply planted and threw the guy out easily like it was routine.

The way that Nomar made that play from the SS hole was spectacular. He would somehow twist and throw to first base while he was his momentum continued toward 3B. It was amazing how much he got on those theory and the accuracy.

[Kimmi]

Stats fall into different categories of course. From the simple, familiar 'stats' no one can argue about to some of the new and sophisticated 'analytics' or 'metrics' that a lot of people don't understand and are suspicious of.

 

Of course. And I'm not saying that everyone has to embrace the new stats. I'm really not. I firmly believe, though, that if one is going to debate on a baseball forum, being able to support one's opinion with numbers goes a lot further than anecdotal evidence.

 

I do understand that not everything can be supported by data. I have made arguments that I cannot support by data. However, if someone showed me strong statistical data that went against my opinion, I would not brush the data off as being wrong or useless. I would rethink my opinion and consider that I might be wrong.

 

It's okay if you don't embrace analytics. It's not okay, IMO, to say that you embrace analytics or see the value in them, use them when they support your opinion, but then blow them off as useless when they say something that contradicts your beliefs or opinions. And I don't mean 'you' personally.

[moonslav59]

It's the "lot of moving parts" that bothers me. Whenever I have tried to follow a detailed explanation, I always run into areas that involve 'guesswork,' 'the eye test' (or variants), unstated assumptions, various forms of arbitrariness. (e.g., as in BA, which of course, I accept for what it is; what could be more idiotic statistically than failing to credit a bunter for a sacrifice if you think he was trying to get a hit; it would be like refusing to grant an S to the guy who hits a fly ball because you determined that he was actually trying to hit a home run). I'm not questioning the good faith of the statisticians (although I probably should, since some of them are doubtless working for agents); I'm just questioning their abilities to produce a system that doesn't incorporate the same flaws much simpler systems have.

 

Whenever we try to compare players without using "metrics" there are a ton of "moving parts" anyways. Yes, TGeddy hit more HRs than Runnels. We include fielding, base running, OBP, and other stats that may be easier to understand, but hard to weigh in order of importance. We have to more or less wing it by looking at numerous stats to decide who we think is a bigger plus overall.

 

WAR tries to do all that and put it all into one number. Of course, it's flawed, but so are we, when we try to juggle all the stats to compare players.

 

The people who created WAR used a lot of science and data to determine how much each aspect of the game contributes to runs created (offense) or saved (defense). Personally, I don't need to have to understand every algorithm and computation to trust that they probably do a better job than I do at pulling everything together into one determination.

 

To me, the defensive input is probably the hardest for casual fans to factor into overall value. If you don't use defensive metrics, what do you use? Eye test on players you barely see play? Fielding percentage? Then, how much more valuable is it to be the best fielding SS in MLB vs the best fielding 1Bman? What weight do we assign to positional value?

 

WAR is not perfect. OPS is not perfect, but no singular stat or metric tells the whole story. WAR probably comes the closest.

 

To me, OPS does a pretty good job at showing all around batting value- it's better than BA alone, OBP alone or SLG% alone.