Elktonnick

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.

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."

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.

If you recall I said in my lifetime. Piersall played center. Evens, Conig and Jensen played right Nixon Leary and Q played during my liketime Hooper and Freeman were before my time. Drew has Three above and three below Nixon o'Leary and Q . Three above and three below is in the middle, the classic defintion of mediocre. You admit there are uncontrollable variables which precisely the point about the limitations of OPS and its inherent subjectivity. Ojective as "you can get" is still subjective. Again the larger point I was making. BTW the perfect is the enemy of the good. QED

While you didn't address the point I raised. Iin no way does OPS except in a very minor way reflect juicing because it refers to eras not individuals. Compare Bonds to players in his era who weren't juicing ? It can't because who knows. Hence the limitation. As to the season, again you don't see the point. You are judging the seasson purely based on the rest of the league which is a subjective a prior assumption on your part. The logical fallacy is to say you are right and I am wrong . The question was posed was their season a disaster, above average or mediocre you chose above average based on your objective data set . I choose disaster based on my objective data set. They didn't make the playoffs. It is illogical to say you are right and I am wrong. Or that your assessment is more subjective than mine. We are both being subjective. You just won't admit it. So too with Drew, I say mediocre using my set of objective data which you say is irrelevelent which is subjective determination on your part I say "Tomato" You say Tomahto.

First of OPS etc doesn't take the variable in to account about Bonds being juiced up. That was the point I made when I referred to comparing Ruth and Bonds, I was talking about steroids as the variable. (Go back and check the post) There are other variables that one could use but don't. Even the most ardent supporter are always refining their methodology in an attempt to be more "objective" so that in one sense indicates that there is a recognition on their part that the method has its flaws and limitations. Again in my two previous posts I pointed out the criterea apparently you didn't read the posts closely. Again I understand you don't see the point because your perspective is too narrow. You made a subjective judgment when you said "against the rest of the league". That was your value judgment which is fine it is your right to make that subjective determination as to what to measure. But others are equally valid. For example, another judgment based on objective data is : since the Sox play in the ALE their season was mediocre because they finished third. Another objective judgment could be that the seassn was a disaster because they didn't make the playoffs. In each a subjective assessment was made as to what to measure but each assessment was objective based on what was decided to be measured. None is better than the other to suggest otherwise would be subjective. That is why I stated earlier from rhetorical and logical point of view that you made an a priori assumption which is a classic fallacy in scholastic logic.

You reminded me of that person but I didn't accuse merely wondered! Regarding the rest, It is about perspective. OPS,OPS+ and wOBA are useful but only as a descriptor When we speak of data we speak of process measures and outcome measures. OPS etc may well show that he was 7 th. I'' ll concede that point but the flaw in James et al data is that the only indirectly measure and are predictive of outcomes ie wins which are the only outcome that matters in baseball While they measure past production they do't necessarily measure performance that direct translates into outcomes. . They are in my world process measures. In toto, OPS etc. is interesting but not determinative. (I'll leave future discussion for the flaws in OPS et al and limitations perceived in these measures within the sabermetric community for later In summation, it is like the analogy I made to the Red Sox team as whole in an early post. Was their season disasterous, above average or mediocre. There are objective statistical measures that support all three. It solely depends on which data set one selects as determinative. All three are correct. We are probably talking on diffeent planes and may never agree, fine but don't presume to insult me that I don't understand advanced baseball statistics or statistics in general because you haven't the foggiest idea what I know or don't.

Talk about ad hominum argumentum WOW You didn't address any of the points I raised. Just because I've read Remington and James's work and don't ascribe them the same status as sacred scripture gives you no right to say I don't understand advanced statistics because you have no idea what or who you are talking about. Fred will tell you I find them interesting but only a guide not an absolute. I am glad you ignore me because simply you aren't up tp the rigors of intellectual debate. You kind of remind me of the kid with whom we used to play pick up games of ball in the park, back in the fifties. If he didn't get his way so he took his bat and ball and went home. Did you ever play pick up games of ball in the park? Did you ever play ball? Did you ever coach or manage a ball team at any level? I know Fred and I have. The only differnece is I did it in Spanish. Catch the drift amigo! Vaya con Dios!

I was wondering much the same. We'll see who is that behind the curtain!

I don't mean to be evasive but scroll back to where this debate started I think you will find my arguments and data sets posted previously.

It is not a fact but rather your subjective interpretation of a prescribed set of selected quantatative data to support your conclusions. There are numerous other data sets both quantatative and qualatative that one could draw upon to support an alternative conclusion. Fred, I and others (I submit the majority of RSN) chose to accept an alternative set of data which we believe is a more accurate description of actual performance. What you call logic really isn't because you have fallen into a classic logical fallacy; IMHO the a priori assumption. Even your advocacy of OPS(from a previous post) has its detractors within the sabermetric community. In short as I posted above there really is no such thing as a purely objective analysis. Every statistical analysis has within it the seeds of subjectivity. To argue otherwise is a fools errand.

You do come off as a jerk. Sorry for being so blunt! I've read James's book and am quite familar with statistics in general and their interpretation since I use and interprete them daily professionally. I just have become less enamored with his (James's) work than I was several years ago when I first posted defending his thesis on another board. Not to be provocative, but the subjectivity begins when one makes the decision as what to measure or which variables to factor in as important. I was making a larger point that all data is subject to interpretation. And the various variance formulae are attempts to objectify and assign quantative values to assist in that interpretation. What you refer to as objective perhaps is a misnomer when actually quantative may be a better description. (The whole question of objective truth and statistics is larger question for someother board )l In the end it is a subjective analysis which quantative data can assist. That was my original point which you may finally understand. Otherwise Carmine would manage the team. Let me make another provocative analogy to illustrate this point. The Red Sox 2011 season has been described as disasterous. Why ? They didn't win the title when many expected them to. Okay that's one interpretation. Yet, they won 90 games. Compared to the thirty other teams they had an "above average" season. Yet in the American League East they finished third or mediocre. Which was it, disasterous, above average, or mediocre. All are objectively true. There is data supporting each interpretation. Which, one accepts depends on one's perspective. I don't demean someone or another poster because they choose one of the three options. I may disagree but not demean. I choos to describe Drew as mediocre based on the data I consider important.

I agree 100% Tek went way down hill in my book. As far as CJ Wilson he is Lackey lite. I don't see the Sox doing anything significant in the FA market except perhaps at the margins.

That is not accurate. In the compilation of any data there are wide number of variables that effect the data.. The idea that statistics by themself present an absolute truth is simply not true. For example, during the steroid era weren't power numbers higher? So Bond's home run total and Ruth's home run total are not comparable without interpretation of the variables that effected how and when the data was obtained. This why statisticians talk of margin of error, variance validity and reliability factors when presenting any statistical analysis in psychology, economics or politics etc.

Back in the day, no red sox fan was anything but a pessimist who called themselves realists. The attitude if you recall was "They killed my grandfather, my father and now they are coming for me!" 2004 changed that ...for now:D

From Mazz's recent column and Cherington's presser after Alomar, I don't get the sense that the FO is in any big hurry to sign a major FA quickly if at all. Also based on the above, I think Cherington and Lucchino appear to favor Sveun but as part of a package. Cleearly many Boston sportwriters have been talking up Sveun. It wouldn't surprise me if we get a managerial annoucement followed very quickly by a new benchcoach.

That is a fair, reasoned and rational defense of JD Drew. I enjoyed reading it. While it is not the position I would take, it was an excellent piece of writing and analysis, nevertheless. Sincerely. At some point I would like to amplify the discussion as to the role attitude and temperment play in player evaluation as well a more detailed analysis of the proper interpretation of statistics rather than the face validity given the raw data. But, that will be for another time when the climate is right perhaps after the Red Sox have chosen their management team

That was a clever retort ! I' find it amusing how quickly some resort to personal ad hominium attacks. Usually it means they know they've lost the intellectual argument. BTW I will come back as often as I like. I guess Tony laRussa is a fraud also:D

Oh but I do. I don't you understand what they mean at all. I could give the texts concerning variance etc on statistical analysis and the difference between medium mode and mean when discussing averages. But what's the point. You all seem to think that all 250 hitters are alike. While I don't have a graduate degree in statistics I have taken enough graduate level courses in statistics to understand the difference. The point is this discussion is futile because I won't accept your narrow view of performance and you say attitude or the opinion of experts such as LaRussa on Drews level of committement are unimportant. In summation Drew was a fraud. He defrauded ownership and the fans because he never gave it his best. What you who defend him fail to understand was, he is a mediocrity not because of what he did on the field but for what he didn't do and could have. To be vulgar he couldn't hold Jensen's, Congliaro or Even's jock strap. When it is all written he was the most average of all regular right fielders to play for the Boston Red Sox since before you were born. I assume of course that you never saw Jackie Jensen play. Drew couldn't even be bothered to study Price's strikeout. Appalling and indefensible!

That is false he did not produce above average numbers on average throught the length of his contract. take this year for example. If you don't agree with my calling him a mediocirity so be it but that doesn't change the fact the that's the way he will remembered

Those are totally misleading stats and comparisons. Performance is based on context and depend on variaables that affect the results. To illustrate if a ball players plays only against weak opponents it is obvious that his results would be better. I admit that is a generalization but it illustrates the point. The point is that stats are not absolutes, not all 250 hitters are the same. Attitude is important and highly relevent . In the end I'd prefer to have LaRussa on my side. Drew will go down in Red Sox history as a mediocrity because he wanted to be. Most RSN agrees with my point of view Drew is best forgotten. A could have been but a never was because he didn't give a s*** enough to ever study the pitches the Dvid Price to strike him out even though he would play the Rays more than 19 times over the next three years. Defend him if you must! In doing so, however, you a putting in more effort than he ever would. I find that to be the most ironic twist of all in this highly enjoyable intellectual diversion.

No you are interpreting stats subjectively. Look I am talking about Rfer who played for the Red Sox over the past fifyy years ---Mediocre. Similar ballplayesr historical performance age 30 35: below average. Attitude: Lousy. Tony Larussa et al ;doesn't play up to talent classic definition of mediocrity. Spin it any way you want but for the past two years he downright sucked. Yes 2007 - 2009 was above average but only one year an all star. June of 2008 great. Highs and lows sum total mediocre. One thing the stats don't show when he got his hits. Was it crunch time or garbage time? I say the latter.

The facts prove otherwise. Your opinion isn't fact. In the final analysis during his tenure when totaling up his body of work the stats prove he was a mediocrity for the Boston Red Sox.

I think an elite manager such as LaRussa can tell the differnce between a player who plays hurt and one who plays injured. Drew refused to play with any pain and said so. However, Jerry Remy last season related a more telling antecdote that is reflective of Drew's attitude. He asked Drew if he had ever watch a replay of Price's strikeout of him with the basses loaded. Drew said no he hadn't. Remy thought it unusual that he hadn't and made some comment about that being JD Drew. It appeared by this time even Remy had gotten tired of Drew's Didn't give a s*** attitude.

Agreed ! As Brando said in On the Waterfront, "I could have been a contender I could have been a somebody. " For me he committed the worst offense any ball player with his talent could have committed,he was mediocre becuase he never tried to be better than that, even though he had the talent to do so.