Sabermetric Overview Series Part II: BA vs. OPS

by BLee2525 on Jul 13, 2007 12:05 AM EDT Comment 52 comments

Before we begin, please take out a #2 pencil and answer the following question:

Your 2006 National League Most Valuable Player ballot more closely resembled which of the following?
A) 1.Freddy Sanchez, 2.Miguel Cabrera, 3.Albert Pujols, 4.Garrett Atkins, 5.Matt Holliday
B) 1.Albert Pujols, 2.Ryan Howard, 3.Lance Berkman, 4.Miguel Cabrera, 5.Carlos Beltran

For as long as everybody on this board has been watching/listening to baseball, the first statistic cited in a player's stat line is Batting Average. It's easy to calculate: Hits divided by At-Bats. Everybody knows what the numbers mean: .200 is the "Mendoza Line," .250 is mediocre, .300 is an All-Star, .350 will win you a batting title, .400 is the stuff of legend. A player's batting average gives you a pretty good idea of his hitting prowess. The top 10 players in career Batting Average include Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Tris Speaker, Ted Williams, and Babe Ruth. Looking at simply batting average, however, leaves off some great players in baseball history: Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron don't even crack the top 100 in career BA.

Take a look at last year's NL team batting averages:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=avg&split=0&group=8&season=2006&s easonType=2&statType=batting&type=reg
The teams at the top, for the most part, seem to score more runs than the teams at the bottom. However, note that the team that led the NL in runs scored was 6th in BA, one spot behind the 2nd to last place team in runs scored. Based on that, I would venture to say that batting average doesn't tell us everything we need to know about getting runs across the plate.

Let's take a look at the information that we get from Batting Average:

Out < Hit

That is a correct statement. A hit is definitely better than an out. However, there's a whole lot of information that batting average leaves out. Hits come in many different varieties, with some more valuable than others. Outcomes other than hits and outs, such as walks, can greatly effect run production. This leads to multiple choice question #2:

Which is the better statement regarding the value of a Plate Appearance?
A) Out < Hit
B) Out < Walk < Single < Double < Triple < Home Run

If only there were a way to create a statistic that provides all the information that statment (B) above does. On the one hand, we have On-Base Percentage, which includes walks, but gives no credit for hits of the extra-base variety. In essence, an out is worth 0, and singles, doubles, triples and homers are worth 1 each. On the other, we have Slugging Average, which is calculated using Total Bases, but gives nothing for walks. 0 for an out, 1 for a single, 2 for a double, 3 for a triple, 4 for a homer.

But.......

If we were to add On-Base Percentage and Slugging Average together (and call it something crazy like On-base Plus Slugging), something magical happens:

Out: 0
Walk: 1
Single: 2
Double: 3
Triple: 4
Homer: 5

That's a pretty solid valuation of probably 90% of what happens while a batter is at the plate. Also, look what happens to those NL splits I referenced above:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=ops&split=0&group=8&season=2006&s easonType=2&statType=batting&type=reg
There are the Phillies, 1st in both OPS and runs, and there are the Cubs, 2nd to last in both. The rest of the teams fall pretty neatly in line, too.

OPS, quite simply, correlates better with Run Production than Batting Average, because it provides more information. For those that hadn't figured it out, in my initial question, option "A" was the top 5 NL players in Batting Average, and option "B" was the top 5 NL players in OPS. Saber-haters often try to disparage OPS because it has no intrinsic meaning in the way that batting average is simply "average number of hits per at-bat." They're right, there's no intrinsic meaning to OPS. It's just a number. However, it's a number that does a damn good job at telling us a player's contribution to run scoring. Here's a scale, so that next time one of our resident saber-dorks references OPS, you'll know if it's Pujolsian, or more NeifiPerezian:

.700: Mendoza Line
.750: Mediocre
.775: Average
.800: Above Average
.900: All-Star
1.000: MVP Contender

For any people who don't like sabermetrics, but really enjoyed statistics in high school math, here's a table of r-squared values for various traditional stats compared to runs scored. R-squared values show a degree of correlation expressed as a number between 1 (perfect correlation) and -1 (perfect inverse correlation). This table comes courtesy of a previous post from JinAZ on this very site:

OPS 0.91
SLG 0.83
OBP 0.81
AVG 0.71
Hit# 0.68
HR# 0.52
BB# 0.35
K# 0.03
(SB-CS) 0.004
SB# 0.0005

Essentially, OPS tells us 91% of what's going on in terms of run production. Batting average does OK, at 71%, though not as well as either OBP or SLG. Interestingly, strikeouts show a slight tendency to have a positive effect on run production although, as Red Menace says, that's a Sabermetrics 300 level class.

0 recs | Comment 52 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Very Well Done

It was clear, easy to read and I learned very much. Where would Rob Deer rate on the OPS? I would think All-Star becuase he had a decent amount of walks and xbhs.

Is there such thing as productive outs? I still think there is Grr I still can't figure this out

"Always root for the winner. That way you won't be disappointed." -Tug McGraw

by Zach K on Jul 13, 2007 12:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Productive outs exist.

But you know what's more productive than a productive out? Any non-out. So is a groundout to the second baseman to move a runner to third with no outs preferred to a strikeout? Sure it is. But is a walk or a single or a hit by pitch or even a reached on error better? In every way imaginable.

by Geki on Jul 13, 2007 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I made that excessively wordy

To simplify, productive outs are only productive when compared to other outs, and outs themselves are counterproductive by nature, meaning the idea of a productive out is an impossible one unless used to compare outs to other outs.

by Geki on Jul 13, 2007 1:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Noho

Is the reds Jason Tyner...he might never hit a HR, Maybe hit .280 get some SB and be ok in the OF

"Always root for the winner. That way you won't be disappointed." -Tug McGraw

by Zach K on Jul 13, 2007 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What if...

..(said the devil's advocate)...

..it's your #6 hitter on second base in the seventh inning of a one-run game and on the mound is a guy who knows how to throw strikes. And you know that your #7 and #8 hitters have little chance of doing anything other than grounding out (and perhaps advancing the runner from second to third).

Might you prefer the #7 and #8 guys to chop and hack their way back to the dugout in order to get to the pitcher's spot in the lineup where you would insert a pinch-hitter to hopefully knock in the runner from scoring position?

by Fat Vegas Alan on Jul 13, 2007 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No and maybe

In general, no, because a non-out is always better than an out.

In this situation, maybe. Even if the run scores, you still need another run somewhere to win. Is the 7th too early to make this play? In the 9th, I certainly would - if that run doesn't score, I lose.

It wasn't part of our original series, but there are 2 charts that might come in to play: Run Expectancy (how many runs normally score in each base/out state) and Win Expectancy (how likely you are to win, given the score in each base/out/inning state (it's a really big series of charts)). Run Expectancy always hates trading a base for an out; Win Expectancy sometimes likes it.

just....wow.

by sidnancy on Jul 13, 2007 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two things...

I intentionally put this scenario in the seventh inning because I figured that in the ninth inning (and perhaps even in the eighth) you might simply pinch-hit for your weaker hitters (rather than risk a sharply hit grounder and some poor baserunning picking off your man on second.)
(Not trying to be smarmy here) My scenario takes place in "a one-run game" but I did not specify if your team was winning or losing by one run. Do the Win Expectancy and Run Expectancy charts have Insurance Run appendices?

by Fat Vegas Alan on Jul 13, 2007 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

#2

Run Expectancy does not take into account the score of the game, so insurance runs don't matter in that case. Win expectancy, however, does account for the score of the game, and you might be able to find cases where giving up an out really does increase your chances of winning, but I would guess those instances are rare, and probably only happen in the 9th inning.

In your specific example, from a Win Expectancy perspective, if the home team is leading by one run in the 7th inning and has a runner on 2nd with no outs, they have an 84.1% chance of winning. Change that situation to a runner on third and 2 outs and they're win expectancy drops to 78.0%. So, either way they still have a pretty good chance of winning, but I would think the best option is still to try to use your hitters to get that runner in from second, even if they are weak hitters.

Obviously this doesn't take into account specific pitchers or hitters or who will be pitching the 8th inning for the home team and so forth. Honestly, if that home team is the Reds, they should be playing for more than one run. But if it's a team with a solid bullpen, they might be more willing to sacrifice the outs just to get that extra run in.

By the way, I believe Red Menace will have a more in depth explanation on Run Expectancy (and possibly Win Expectancy) some time in the near future.

chandrathan has come out of the darkness and has seen a great light!

by Slyde on Jul 13, 2007 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let me re-reply, then

No, never. Your 7 and 8 hitters are pretty crappy hitters; do you really expect them to hit the ball on purpose behind the hitter?

I originally read that as bunting the runner over. That's the only way you can have any hope of moving the runner without disastrous results (think of BP last night).

I also assumed that I was down a run because giving up outs when you're leading doesn't sound like smart strategy. As slyde points out, your win expectancy goes down in your scenario, which doesn't sound like a good idea.

just....wow.

by sidnancy on Jul 13, 2007 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Deer and Dunn

Rob Deer had a career OPS of .766. His high was .884. OPS+ compares a player's OPS to the league average and adjusts for park factors. His career OPS+ was 109, or he was 9% better than league average.

Adam Dunn has a career OPS of .893. His high was .957 in 2004. He has a career OPS+ of 128, or 28% better than league average. Deer is slightly penalized in this comparison because his aging decline phase is included while Dunn's is not. On the other hand Dunn's best year might still be ahead of him.

It's not the negativity. It's the misdirected negativity.

by Red Menace on Jul 13, 2007 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why are you comparing Deer to Dunn?

I was jw about Deer cause he is the true "all or nothing" player. Dunn is 23234234x better than Deer. Deer has what 232 HRs, Dunn has 222 and more RBIs

"Always root for the winner. That way you won't be disappointed." -Tug McGraw

by Zach K on Jul 13, 2007 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because

I had the sudden realization that they're similar types of players--"all or nothing." This was a bold idea that no one has ever had before, so I thought it was worthy of exploration.

It's not the negativity. It's the misdirected negativity.

by Red Menace on Jul 13, 2007 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Have you ever looked at Dave Kingman?

I wonder if he compares at all to those guys...

chandrathan has come out of the darkness and has seen a great light!

by Slyde on Jul 13, 2007 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about Russell Branyan

Is that a baseball player? It's just a name I saw in a limerick in the men's room.

the check when it arrived we went clutch, clutch, clutch, clutch

by Man Mountain on Jul 13, 2007 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Limerick

Russell Branyan strikes out 'neath the sheets
Despite all his baseballing feats.
The ladies have said
He'd do better in bed
If he'd learn to take off his damn cleats.

by Brendanukkah on Jul 13, 2007 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh

thats why your mom had scars on her love handles. i just assumed she gave it up to wolverine.

Marty may have a shirt on, but Billy Beane just ripped his off and is squeezing his nipples. - Brendan's ukkah

by boobs on Jul 13, 2007 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sex with a UM grad

that is giving up.

the check when it arrived we went clutch, clutch, clutch, clutch

by Man Mountain on Jul 13, 2007 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Freddy's got four blades

That's Wolverine... Wolverine was in here!

Marty may have a shirt on, but Billy Beane just ripped his off and is squeezing his nipples. - Brendan's ukkah

by boobs on Jul 13, 2007 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sex with a comic book fan

that's agressively giving up.

the check when it arrived we went clutch, clutch, clutch, clutch

by Man Mountain on Jul 13, 2007 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Man, the one lady that'll screw a comics fan

and it's my mom. Damn you, universe!

by Brendanukkah on Jul 13, 2007 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's an Oedipus to do?

chandrathan has come out of the darkness and has seen a great light!

by Slyde on Jul 13, 2007 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

there were actually

points involved, although menace is the only one i really expect to pick them up.

Marty may have a shirt on, but Billy Beane just ripped his off and is squeezing his nipples. - Brendan's ukkah

by boobs on Jul 13, 2007 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only one thing to do

Fully embrace my inner geek, as well as my inner sports fan, and head over to Grand Rapids for Star Wars Night at the West Michigan Whitecaps game!

by Brendanukkah on Jul 13, 2007 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Be sure to get there early for some tailgating.

by Fat Vegas Alan on Jul 13, 2007 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And if the cops try to break it up...

by Fat Vegas Alan on Jul 13, 2007 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Transformers

So we all know these threads will probably be preserved for posterity in some form. I know you cool cats wouldn't act any differently. I just felt like pointing it out.

It's not the negativity. It's the misdirected negativity.

by Red Menace on Jul 13, 2007 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are so right -

although Pete McInconception is doing OK as Red's manager - I want it to go down for posterity that Red Menace is still the best choice for the job and I don't understand why they're waiting for the fall to announce it.

Ruth was a damn animal. He knew when it was going to rain and things like that. Nature, that was Ruth." - Rube Bressler (1965)

by Madville on Jul 13, 2007 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Limerick 2

There once was a redleg named Branyan
whose bat was carved out of a banyon
the hole in his swing
had an Indian zing
but was roughly the size of a canyon.

the check when it arrived we went clutch, clutch, clutch, clutch

by Man Mountain on Jul 13, 2007 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the key is...

that the goal should never be an out. This is why it always bugs me when announcers say, "He got the job done" when a guy grounds out to second and moves a runner to third. The way I look at it, his job was to not make an out since teams are likely to score more runs when they don't make outs. It's probably just a semantic issue, but in my mind I'm thinking, "At least he got the runner over," but I'm not congratulating him on making an out.

chandrathan has come out of the darkness and has seen a great light!

by Slyde on Jul 13, 2007 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

I don't think bunting with no or one outs on first is a great idea.

I like the idea bunting the running over to third after a lead off double with no outs. Sac Fly or base hit would score the run if it's excuted right. An Out or 2 outs for a run is something I would take.

Another question, the reds this season seem to leave the bases loaded way too often. Unless they draw a walk with the bases loaded they usually don't score. Wouldn't Average be important here? Recently they have become better in these situations but I think that is where average is very important. Everyone would love to have Bonds, Pujols or any superstar up there but very few teams have those guys or 9 players like them. If you get deep into a game an you are facing the backend of a teams bullpen they won't throw you 4 straight Balls. So thats why I would want a contact hitter up because if there is less than 2 outs that is where a strikeout does make a difference than a Sac Fly.I know thats a small sample but i'm just saying I agree you can't waste outs but you sometimes have to gamble outs as well.

"Always root for the winner. That way you won't be disappointed." -Tug McGraw

by Zach K on Jul 13, 2007 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But

Bases loaded is actually the only time when a walk means a run, so why would taking a walk be considered a bad thing? I don't think any player goes to the plate expecting to get a walk with the bases loaded, but I would argue that that is the most important time for the hitter to force the pitcher to throw him strikes. There is no down side to taking a walk in that situation. Well, except for those occasions where you are down by a couple of runs and the next three hitters are pretty much guaranteed outs, but you get my point.

Here is a report showing how the NL teams have performed with the bases loaded this season. A number that is not on the list is Runs/PA, but it would basically tell you how many runs a team scores in that situation for each opportunity they get. The Brewers lead the NL at 64 runs in 66 bases loaded opportunities, or 0.97 R/PA. This shouldn't be a surprise since the Brewers are tops in average, slugging, and OPS in those situations.

What might be surprising though is that the Reds are second at 0.83 R/PA with the bases loaded. This is despite the fact that the Reds are 9th in the NL in both average and slugging with the bases loaded. They are second because they have the highest OBP in those situations, by a fairly large margin. I won't say that OBP is as valuable as batting average in those situations because a hit could drive in multiple runs at once, but it doesn't lessen the fact that if a batter safely gets on base with the bases loaded, then a run will score. The same cannot be said about making an out - a risk that comes with putting the ball in play.

So, as always, the goal is to not make outs.

chandrathan has come out of the darkness and has seen a great light!

by Slyde on Jul 13, 2007 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kind of

I'm posting part 3 of the series later, but as part of it I link to a table that shows that strikeouts are only slightly worse than other types of outs. The reason is because of the threat of the double play - if Dunn strikes out with the bases loaded and one out, they get another chance; if Ross hits into a double play, they don't.

The other thing is, high strikeout guys are usually pretty good hitters - last year, 17 of the top 20 in strikeouts had an OPS above .800, which BLee describes as "above average"; 7 had an OPS above .900. Of the top 31 in OPS in the majors last year, 8 were in the top 17 in strikeouts.

Bottom line (as slyde says above): avoid outs. Have your best hitter available up there, whether he strikes out alot or not.

just....wow.

by sidnancy on Jul 13, 2007 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

DeWAyne SP is

Probably the only person I know from little league on up who doesn't know: A walk or a single or a hit by pitch or even a reached on error is better than a 'productive out' in every way imaginable.

Ruth was a damn animal. He knew when it was going to rain and things like that. Nature, that was Ruth." - Rube Bressler (1965)

by Madville on Jul 13, 2007 1:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Good job on this

I gotta say that even though I know what's coming, I've enjoyed the first couple of articles so far. I'm looking forward to future articles even more.

chandrathan has come out of the darkness and has seen a great light!

by Slyde on Jul 13, 2007 9:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Excellent post.

I'd like to link to it every time someone criticizes Adam Dunn for having such a low BA.

I'd also like to say that this is why Joe Morgan was my favorite player from the BRM rather than Pete Rose, but it wasn't that. It was the "chicken flap" he did when he was at bat.

Please don't trade Adam Dunn.

by Paul Householder on Jul 13, 2007 9:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Morgan

I never really saw Joe play that much so I can't really comment on whether or not I liked him as a player.

chandrathan has come out of the darkness and has seen a great light!

by Slyde on Jul 13, 2007 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Joe Morgan was an enigma

5'7", 155lbs(?) and he used the smallest glove in the the Majors, Joe was lightening in a bottle when there were RISP. Joe had that ability to focus to the point it seemed as though he could will himself to succeed - esp. in pressure situations. Joe represented the Reds.It didn't hurt that he was surrounded by some other all time greats as well.Joe Morgan is wife's all time favorite because he was a fierce competitor and was gracious in both losing and winning. It was a quite a while before I realized that he didn't have 'the palsy' and that he was just playing chicken with the pitcher.

Ruth was a damn animal. He knew when it was going to rain and things like that. Nature, that was Ruth." - Rube Bressler (1965)

by Madville on Jul 13, 2007 10:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

He was the guy the opposing manager feared, who could hurt you in about 550 different ways--getting a walk, stealing a base, hitting one out, hitting for average, making a dazzling defensive play.

Haven't had a player like him on the Reds since...well...Joe Morgan. Eric Davis was close, but oh, the injuries--a sure-fire hall of famer without them. Barry Larkin was also close, but probably a step or so below, and he wasn't the guy that gave the opposing manager headaches.

Right now, there isn't a guy like that on the Reds, with the exception of Griffey when he is on a hot streak. Hamilton has the potential to be that way, but Dunn, Phillips and Encarnacion are all just "good to great" players.

Please don't trade Adam Dunn.

by Paul Householder on Jul 13, 2007 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Griffy is a different animal. He still is feared

and rightfully so.I don't know if even Josh Hamilton can become that special kind of competitor that Morgan was. Joe was so multi dimensional. He really could do it all. Hit for average, power, drive in runs, bunt, hit behind the runner, hit the ball where it pitched to the opposite field and he gave an intelligent and professional AB almost every time at the plate. He was capable of making stellar plays in the field and rarely made a throw to the wrong base etc. He was a holy terror on the base path, great speed, anticipation and fearless. Joe honed his skills (which were extensive) in every area of the game especially the mental game. I just don't know (I'm not that clairvoyant) if Josh has as much raw talent.But I agree that he's the closest of anyone we have right now to being a player like Morgan. And maybe the closest we'll have for a long time to come.

Ruth was a damn animal. He knew when it was going to rain and things like that. Nature, that was Ruth." - Rube Bressler (1965)

by Madville on Jul 13, 2007 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Joe Morgan Clutch? Might want to think again...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=morgajo02

Career
271 392 427

Close & Late situations
264 376 407
tops+ of 91, meaning his performance dropped by 9%

See my footer below:

'Clutch' to me is the epitome of experimenter's bias.

by TheDude on Jul 13, 2007 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One of the most intersting elements

of statistical baseball is that there is no way to track how important a situation is that a batter may find himself in (someday I will learn to write). E.G. Joe Morgan was very clutch in the last at bat of the 1975 World Series when by seemingly sheer willpower he muscled a ball into center field to win the game and the series. That was ultimate money ball. Pete Rose was the other player on the BRM who could transcended the stats with regularity. Not that they were superhuman, they just had an extra mental gear that kicked in when a big pay-off was on the line.

Ruth was a damn animal. He knew when it was going to rain and things like that. Nature, that was Ruth." - Rube Bressler (1965)

by Madville on Jul 13, 2007 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

extra gears

Although I think they were extremely great players I don't agree with this:
they just had an extra mental gear that kicked in when a big pay-off was on the line.

No need to get into it now. We'll have a clutch thread later (I know we all can't wait to get into that again). I just wanted to get my objection into the record.

It's not the negativity. It's the misdirected negativity.

by Red Menace on Jul 13, 2007 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duly noted !

I want to hear your reasoning on this comment. This could be another semantics problem or you could just be right/wrong.

Ruth was a damn animal. He knew when it was going to rain and things like that. Nature, that was Ruth." - Rube Bressler (1965)

by Madville on Jul 13, 2007 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I obviously never saw him play

But statistically, when he was in his prime with the Reds, the numbers are just ridiculous. A .320/.444/.576 season out of a 2B is just incredible, especially when you realize that he stole 60 bases at an 87% clip AND won a Gold Glove that year. I don't know why he wasn't as good a player outside of Cincinnati, but man, taking position into account, his six-year span from 1972-1977 may be the best non-Bondsian/Ruthian one ever.

Of course, his career is made all the more enigmatic when you hear him as an announcer now, and listen to the way he seemingly despises moneyball, despite the fact that Joe Morgan as a player pretty much personified a perfect sabermetric player.

by Geki on Jul 13, 2007 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've long said

that if Joe Morgan really understood new school SABR stats, he'd realize that they show him to be even more impressive than he's considered already.

Watching him in the 1975 series DVDs, he's just awesome to watch (despite having an unremarkable series). Makes me almost believe in the "little things." tigrmetrics.

the check when it arrived we went clutch, clutch, clutch, clutch

by Man Mountain on Jul 13, 2007 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Me too - Joe ruled

Joe did the little things, the big things - all things necessary to play the game at its highest level.Sometime small ball works sometimes its a 3 run jack...all the same to Joe Morgan

Ruth was a damn animal. He knew when it was going to rain and things like that. Nature, that was Ruth." - Rube Bressler (1965)

by Madville on Jul 13, 2007 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Careful not to confuse doing thie little things

with LaRuusaJerrySmallBall

Ruth was a damn animal. He knew when it was going to rain and things like that. Nature, that was Ruth." - Rube Bressler (1965)

by Madville on Jul 14, 2007 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One of my favorite quotes

Provided by you previously:

"If Joe Morgan had any idea how great 'Moneyball' made his career look, he'd be signing copies of it at the mall."

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Jul 15, 2007 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you, Thank you

However, there is one thing I don't get.
walk < single. Okay I get that, because there is always a % chance of an error on the play or throw that could give you an extra base, or if someone is on it could score them, move them over. However, Walk=1 and Single=2 is alittle much for me to bear. I don't see how a single is twice as productive as a walk, what about the lead off hitter, who is certain to bat 25% of the time with the bases empty?

I always wanted to know what OPS is, thank you

www.eastwind.org

by ewquinn on Jul 13, 2007 5:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely

That's a damn fine observation. You can actually tweak the OPS formula to gain a slightly better correlation with Runs Scored (0.93 r-squared, if memory serves) by making it (1.8*OBP) + SLG, OBP being the more important of the two components. This would make a walk worth 1.8 and a single worth 2.8, which is a better ratio of their relative worth.

By continuing to refine the formula, we get into more advanced stuff like EqA and VORP. The sabermetric community is far beyond OPS at this point, but it's a good place to start for those who are just delving into the topic because it's easy to find, and easy to understand if you're willing to listen.

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Jul 13, 2007 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

I was meaning to point this out. OPS holds OBP and SLG equal which is a problem (FJM: "It's not perfect. But on the plus side, it's not batting average.") Multiplying OBP by 1.8 helps, although some think OBP is four times as important as slugging.

It's not the negativity. It's the misdirected negativity.

by Red Menace on Jul 13, 2007 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OBP

Someone did the math, and found that multiplying OBP by any number from 1.5 to 2 works about equally well; you end up with about the same correllation to scoring.

But it's real easy to just add OBP and SLG, and you're alot closer to right than with any other quick stat.

just....wow.

by sidnancy on Jul 14, 2007 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs