A Realistic View at 2021: Part II

[moonslav59]

I was with you on offering the big money up front for ages 28-32. Of course, we all know these guys will always want the dough for more years.

 

Regarding JBJ, I haven't read this anywhere, but I think part of his issue is adjusting to a new league, new pitchers, new ballparks -- all factors that can make a mediocre to bad hitter have a brutal first season. He is actually the kind of guy the Sox can use going forward; not to start, but to add quality defense. Bradley would've been more valuable than Cordero this year, anyway.

 

The guy was up and down his whole career. Why do we need a special excuse, this time?

 

He may even get hot, like many years past and end up over .700 or even near .800 again. This is who he is.

 

I miss him, but his time, here, was up.

[notin]

By your logic, there's not much difference between a .220 hitter and a .320 hitter. It's only 10%!

 

I know. How dumb to think something that happens 32 times out of 100 happens 10 times more than something that happens 22 times out of 100!

 

True or false: a .320 hitter gets hits in 10% more of his at bats than a .220 hitter…

[a700hitter]

The .320 hitter is about 50% better than the .220 hitter. Edited June 19, 2021 by a700hitter

[moonslav59]

 

True or false: a .320 hitter gets hits in 10% more of his at bats than a .220 hitter…

 

It makes more sense to think of it this way, but that's not how it's taken.

 

True, you did not say "better than," so you were not wrong.

 

Wording it the way you did here make it more clear.

[notin]

It makes more sense to think of it this way, but that's not how it's taken.

 

True, you did not say "better than," so you were not wrong.

 

Wording it the way you did here make it more clear.

 

 

That’s because it’s Bellhorn being Bellhorn, like when he refused to admit the difference between “only” and “first”…

[Kimmi]

I'm in your camp on that issue.....I really trust Bloom to get the job done for us....

 

 

I am a fan of the small market type moves.

[Bellhorn04]

That’s because it’s Bellhorn being Bellhorn, like when he refused to admit the difference between “only” and “first”…

 

Ha ha. Kimmi agreed with me on that one. And everyone agrees with me on this one.

 

Don't be such a sore loser.

 

What you're talking about is an absolute difference, or 'delta', as Joe Brady likes to call it. Yes, the absolute difference between .220 and .320 is a seemingly small 10%. But the relative difference is over 40%, and that's what matters.

[notin]

Ha ha. Kimmi agreed with me on that one. And everyone agrees with me on this one.

 

Don't be such a sore loser.

 

What you're talking about is an absolute difference, or 'delta', as Joe Brady likes to call it. Yes, the absolute difference between .220 and .320 is a seemingly small 10%. But the relative difference is over 40%, and that's what matters.

 

 

No, the delta shows how we magnify small differences in baseball. The difference between a .220 hitter and a .320 really is only 10 hits in 100 at bats (and 10 hits in 100 at bats is 10 percent!!!!). The difference between a 3.50 ERA and a 4.50 ERA is 17 earned runs over 150 innings. But we lol at the lower players like they’re incapable and the treat the better ones like stars.

 

 

 

And there is a huge irony in you accusing me of being incapable of admitting I’m wrong (mvp called me out on things like 3 times yesterday. Maybe more. I made comical excuses but that’s a form of copping to them.

 

The relative difference is meaningless. A .280 hitter named Player A might be 27% better than a .220 hitter named Player B, if you like. But what does that mean? The likelihood of Player A getting a hit is still only 6% greater than Player B getting one (assuming batting averages are accurate predictors). Spin how you want and sell it to who believes you, but that’s not going to make Player A’s average 0.27 better than Player B’s…

Edited June 19, 2021 by notin

[Bellhorn04]

In baseball, the only way we know .300 is a good batting average is by comparing it to other averages. By itself, .300 seems like a low average. But it takes a lot of skill to hit .300. A .300 hitter is much more valuable than a .200 hitter.

 

These are not difficult concepts.

[moonslav59]

Let's talk OBP differentials, now...

[notin]

In baseball, the only way we know .300 is a good batting average is by comparing it to other averages. By itself, .300 seems like a low average. But it takes a lot of skill to hit .300. A .300 hitter is much more valuable than a .200 hitter.

 

These are not difficult concepts.

 

But the point is they also do not differ by all that much. That was always the point here, that we take miniscule ranges we would ignore in many other facets of life and blow them up like they are enourmous. Even you spent the last few days arguing from a perspective of total hits and trying to install the greater numbers. Why? I find it hard to believe you did not see the initial point and struggled with the concept that 28% - 22% = 6%.

 

And if I started to get into how every team in baseball wins between 40% and 60% of their games (or falls slightly outside that range), where would you take it?

 

The point is we watch a game where every hitter is successful between 20% and 30% of the time, and we trat the high end like it is massively different than the low end. Even you yourself just said "much more valuable". Heck, you even said "it takes a lot of skill" to hit .300. Know what else takes a lot of skill? Hitting .200. Sure, it's not as impressive, but it's not some throw-away either.

 

I know all this and see all this and don't try to artificially inflate differences between hitters, and even I value the .300 hitter more than the .200. Even though the difference is not great. I know how significantly each run affects ERA, but I still value the lower ERA.

 

Although a lot of these miniscule differecens are actually why I have turned to other stats, too...

[notin]

Let's talk OBP differentials, now...

 

 

At least the range comes close to doubling and there’s a greater difference between success and failure.

 

No stat really separates hitters like OPS when it comes to range between bad and good.. But as OPS is not quantifiable, then SLG is an underrated stat IMO…

[moonslav59]

At least the range comes close to doubling and there’s a greater difference between success and failure.

 

No stat really separates hitters like OPS when it comes to range between bad and good.. But as OPS is not quantifiable, then SLG is an underrated stat IMO…

 

SLG may be underrated, but it dominates OPS by more than it should.

 

Maybe a truer representation of overall value might be a metric like this:

 

(3 x OBP) + (2 x SLG)/ 5.

 

We'd still see ranges from .450 to .1050 covering just about everyone with a large enough sample size, with the vast majority falling between .650 and .850.

[notin]

SLG may be underrated, but it dominates OPS by more than it should.

 

Maybe a truer representation of overall value might be a metric like this:

 

(3 x OBP) + (2 x SLG)/ 5.

 

We'd still see ranges from .450 to .1050 covering just about everyone with a large enough sample size, with the vast majority falling between .650 and .850.

 

I've see proposals like that for new statistics. My main flaw with OPS is that it is not quantifiable. Like, if one player has an OPS of .700 and one has an OPS of .900, what does that mean, bedsides the .900 is better? Re-arranging the ratio of OBP to SLG does not fix this flaw.

 

Really, one thing that might help is a new statistic calculated by Total Bases/PA. Or better yet, (Total Bases + Walks + HBP)/PA. Sort of like OPS, but without the lack of a common denominator. I think I will call it HE, or Hitter Efficiency.

 

Although I am open to better names

[moonslav59]

I've see proposals like that for new statistics. My main flaw with OPS is that it is not quantifiable. Like, if one player has an OPS of .700 and one has an OPS of .900, what does that mean, bedsides the .900 is better? Re-arranging the ratio of OBP to SLG does not fix this flaw.

 

Really, one thing that might help is a new statistic calculated by Total Bases/PA. Or better yet, (Total Bases + Walks + HBP)/PA. Sort of like OPS, but without the lack of a common denominator. I think I will call it HE, or Hitter Efficiency.

 

Although I am open to better names

 

It certainly seems better, but the major flaw is that it treats a BB the same as a single. Many times, there is little difference, but enough times, there is.

 

How do sacrifices play into this? (Just don't count it as a PA?)

 

BTW, does OBP count HBP's?

[Bellhorn04]

It certainly seems better, but the major flaw is that it treats a BB the same as a single. Many times, there is little difference, but enough times, there is.

 

How do sacrifices play into this? (Just don't count it as a PA?)

 

BTW, does OBP count HBP's?

 

Yes, OBP counts HBP's.

[moonslav59]

Yes, OBP counts HBP's.

 

I feel so much better, now. Thanks.

[Bellhorn04]

It certainly seems better, but the major flaw is that it treats a BB the same as a single. Many times, there is little difference, but enough times, there is.

 

I wouldn't call that a 'major' flaw.

 

But if you really wanted to refine it, maybe you could apply an appropriate discounting factor to BB's and HBP's.

[moonslav59]

I wouldn't call that a 'major' flaw.

 

But if you really wanted to refine it, maybe you could apply an appropriate discounting factor to BB's and HBP's.

 

Maybe the "biggest flaw" not "Major" might have been a better choice of wording.

 

If you tinker with weighting BBs and HBPs, you change the meaning of the new stat.

 

I brought up the HBP, because it seems like a stand alone occurrence. Sometimes, it does involve the "skill" of the batter, but usually, it is a mistake by the pitcher.

 

I guess one could call a BB, 4 mistakes, or even a HR a pitching mistake.

Edited June 19, 2021 by moonslav59

[dgalehouse]

On base and slugging percentages are two stats that have been around for a while. I have no idea whose idea it was to add them together to create OPS. Why would you do that ? The problem is that it gives exactly equal weight to both stats, not to mention the redundancy involved. Another problem with it is that it gives no credit at all to stolen bases.I will agree that it is useful for a quick look at a player's offensive production. But in many cases , a hit is preferable to a walk. And a double is preferable to a single and so forth. Edited June 19, 2021 by dgalehouse

[notin]

On base and slugging percentages are two stats that have been around for a while. I have no idea whose idea it was to add them together to create OPS. Why would you do that ? The problem is that it gives exactly equal weight to both stats, not to mention the redundancy involved. Another problem with it is that it gives no credit at all to stolen bases.I will agree that it is useful for a quick look at a player's offensive production. But in many cases , a hit is preferable to a walk. And a double is preferable to a single and so forth.

 

 

OPS doesn’t treat hit and walks equally. OBP does but SLG doesn’t. I think my conceptual stat would but it’s a fixable flaw…

[harmony]

Yes, OBP counts HBP's.

And OBP counts a sacrifice fly (and a sacrifice) as a failed plate appearance.

 

A player with one hit and two sacrifice flies in three plate appearances has a batting average of 1.000 but an on-base percentage of .333.

[Larry Cook]

Does obp still penalize guys for getting in base via an error?

[moonslav59]

On base and slugging percentages are two stats that have been around for a while. I have no idea whose idea it was to add them together to create OPS. Why would you do that ? The problem is that it gives exactly equal weight to both stats, not to mention the redundancy involved. Another problem with it is that it gives no credit at all to stolen bases.I will agree that it is useful for a quick look at a player's offensive production. But in many cases , a hit is preferable to a walk. And a double is preferable to a single and so forth.

 

The simple fact is OPS tells us more than BA HR RBI- old school numbers.

 

It does factor in BBs, 2B more than 1B, but yes, no SBs, which isn't part of batting.

 

It's flawed and does count some things twice, ut since it counts singles twice but BA only once, it does weigh a single more.

[moonslav59]

And OBP counts a sacrifice fly (and a sacrifice) as a failed plate appearance.

 

A player with one hit and two sacrifice flies in three plate appearances has a batting average of 1.000 but an on-base percentage of .333.

 

In a way that makes OPS seem better, since sacrifices are awarded some value on half of the component, making it still have some value.

[moonslav59]

Does obp still penalize guys for getting in base via an error?

 

I don't see it as a penalty. The guy should have not reached base.

 

It counts as an out in OBP and SLG, as it should.

[Bellhorn04]

And OBP counts a sacrifice fly (and a sacrifice) as a failed plate appearance.

 

A player with one hit and two sacrifice flies in three plate appearances has a batting average of 1.000 but an on-base percentage of .333.

 

Wow, I didn't know that. Doesn't seem fair.

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe the "biggest flaw" not "Major" might have been a better choice of wording.

 

If you tinker with weighting BBs and HBPs, you change the meaning of the new stat.

 

Yes, it might be over-tinkering. However, I do agree that a single should have a marginally higher value than a walk.

[Bellhorn04]

On base and slugging percentages are two stats that have been around for a while. I have no idea whose idea it was to add them together to create OPS. Why would you do that ? The problem is that it gives exactly equal weight to both stats, not to mention the redundancy involved. Another problem with it is that it gives no credit at all to stolen bases.I will agree that it is useful for a quick look at a player's offensive production. But in many cases , a hit is preferable to a walk. And a double is preferable to a single and so forth.

 

And all this is why your favorite folks the stat nerds tried to come up with a number that captures it all, including the stolen bases etc. All that stuff gets factored into WAR.

[notin]

Wow, I didn't know that. Doesn't seem fair.

 

I don’t think it’s fair for sacrifices. But sac flies not being at bats will never make sense to me. And really, the entire name of “sacrifice fly” feels inaccurate. It makes it sound like the hitter is willingly hitting a fly ball deep enough to drive in a runner but not too deep so as to land for a hit. Is the hitter really sacrifice himself here.

 

I’d bet more sac flies are the product of happenstance than attempts to purposefully fly out deep enough to drive in a run.

 

(And why only on a run-scoring play? It is too ponder. Fly out and a runner scores from third? No at bat. Fly out and the runner advances from 2nd to 3b? You’re 0 for 1…