PDA

View Full Version : Are you a OPS geek?



AmarilloRed
07-26-2007, 01:20 PM
I have to admit I am not. I have never in my life quoted a player's OPS and I probably never will. I am smart enough to know it means on base plus slugging, I am just old and stubborn enough to refuse to use this stat. I was interested if there were any other souls out there like me.

The Snow Chief
07-26-2007, 02:13 PM
I have to admit I am not. I have never in my life quoted a player's OPS and I probably never will. I am smart enough to know it means on base plus slugging, I am just old and stubborn enough to refuse to use this stat. I was interested if there were any other souls out there like me.

I use it. I think it is the best stat out there to measure offensive value - much more so than avg and rbi. It is not perfect, however. It tends to slightly overstate the value of a player like Dunn who strikes out alot.

AtomicDumpling
07-26-2007, 02:23 PM
Yes I am. OPS has been proven beyond all shadow of doubt to be an excellent indicator of offensive production. Teams with the highest OPS score the most runs. It is a much better stat for evaluating hitting ability than batting average (where all hits count the same and walks don't count). A home run is clearly better than a single, but they both count the same for batting average. If you use inferior stats you will get inferior results.

As time has gone by, baseball people have spent a lot of time processing the huge amount of data accrued over the years. It is easy to spot trends regarding what works and what doesn't. High OPS has proven over and over to be the best strategy for building a team. If you don't put high OPS guys on the field then you will not win. It is pretty simple. Those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Muggerd
07-26-2007, 02:31 PM
I look at OPS but I hold it in any higher of regard than any other stat. You still need to look at all of a players stats. Different stats for different players matter more to me.

boognish
07-26-2007, 03:54 PM
I have to admit I am not. I have never in my life quoted a player's OPS and I probably never will. I am smart enough to know it means on base plus slugging, I am just old and stubborn enough to refuse to use this stat. I was interested if there were any other souls out there like me.

Out of curiousity, why would you "refuse" to use a specific tool that can be used to measure performance? Do you prefer other metrics, or is this just bias against "geeks?"

bounty37h
07-26-2007, 04:08 PM
I have to admit I am not. I have never in my life quoted a player's OPS and I probably never will. I am smart enough to know it means on base plus slugging, I am just old and stubborn enough to refuse to use this stat. I was interested if there were any other souls out there like me.

Im with you. Played 19 years of baseball, never once referred to it, never even cared. I think some people rely on stats too much, and dont simply enjoy the game as it is-I like to watch the game, and at the end tell if a player is decent by how he plays, not his stats.

CySeymour
07-26-2007, 04:16 PM
Just to add to the argument, I read an interview with Bill James a couple of years ago, and he said that he does not use OPS.

mound_patrol
07-26-2007, 04:23 PM
I'm definitly a Stat guy. It's guys like Ryan Freel who can deceive the eyes into thinking they are actually good because of their constant hussle and dirty uniforms, but his horrible On Base Percentage show he doesn't really contribute to the Reds. You're eyes also see a big lumbering guy like Dunn and think he is always dogging it because of his appearance.

boognish
07-26-2007, 04:24 PM
Im with you. Played 19 years of baseball, never once referred to it, never even cared. I think some people rely on stats too much, and dont simply enjoy the game as it is-I like to watch the game, and at the end tell if a player is decent by how he plays, not his stats.

Without using statistics at the very least in rudimentary form, there is no possible way, even by "watching the game," that you can tell a 40 double guy from a 30 double guy, a .300 hitter from a .275 hitter, or someone who gets on base 220 times from someone who gets on base 200 times.

Though I played 13 years of baseball, I am now firmly ensconced in the "geek with a computer club." Valuation and estimating future production must have a basis in metrics, otherwise such endeavors are nothing more than guesses.

boognish
07-26-2007, 04:30 PM
I'm definitly a Stat guy. It's guys like Ryan Freel who can deceive the eyes into thinking they are actually good because of their constant hussle and dirty uniforms, but his horrible On Base Percentage show he doesn't really contribute to the Reds. You're eyes also see a big lumbering guy like Dunn and think he is always dogging it because of his appearance.

You can also tell by watching that Freel takes circuitous routes to the baseball, a trait that is not easily quantifiable.

Many metrics help fans understand a player's approximate contribution in a certain facet of the game at a glance; many can be just as deceiving as trusting one's eyes too much.

OPS is a nice quick-and-dirty metric (as it combines OBP and SLG, the two "common" rate statistics which most closely correlate to run production), but it is imperfect unless combined with perspective, such as level of competition, ballpark effects, etc. I won't blindly "refuse" to use it; however, I will quote OPS with its numerous caveats understood.

thorn
07-26-2007, 04:31 PM
[QUOTE= A home run is clearly better than a single, but they both count the same for batting average. If you use inferior stats you will get inferior results.QUOTE]

But, you never get more HR's than singles in a season. Does this mean Ichiro is not as good as Dunn?

EddieMilner
07-26-2007, 04:59 PM
I use it rarely. Usually only when discussing a player with someone that thinks its the be all end all. I feel that OBP is a very important stat. I also feel that SLG is an important stat. I've never really understood why adding the two number together makes it the greatest metric for determining offensive prowess. To me ,it seems that adding up to good independent stats is not the proper way to create a better stat.

Screwball
07-26-2007, 05:39 PM
I feel that OBP is a very important stat. I also feel that SLG is an important stat. I've never really understood why adding the two number together makes it the greatest metric for determining offensive prowess. To me ,it seems that adding up to good independent stats is not the proper way to create a better stat.

The reason the 2 were combined is because OPS actually has a greater correlation (and thus, is a better determination of a player's offensive ability) to runs scored than just OBP or SLG seperately.

For example, a Dodger fan here (http://bluethinktank.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html) computed the correlation of BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS to runs scored for the Dodgers every year since 1962. His results came out to:

BA - .7192 (r^2, a.k.a. correlation)
OBP - .8226
SLG - .8169
OPS - .8868

As you can see, OPS is the best indicator of runs scored, or as the author of the article put it:

In other words, variation in the Dodger's team batting average explains about 72% of the variation in runs scored by the Dodgers, OBP or SLG about 82%, and OPS about 89%.


OBP and SLG are very much more accurate than BA when trying to assess one player offensively. However, to get the most accurate picture using just one stat, OPS is the way to go.

BLEEDS
07-26-2007, 06:13 PM
Yes, and I also am AN Stickler for bad grammar...

PEACE

-BLEEDS

WMR
07-26-2007, 06:35 PM
This is a "researched" post???

:rolleyes:

Bonzo
07-26-2007, 07:00 PM
The reason the 2 were combined is because OPS actually has a greater correlation (and thus, is a better determination of a player's offensive ability) to runs scored than just OBP or SLG seperately.

For example, a Dodger fan here (http://bluethinktank.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html) computed the correlation of BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS to runs scored for the Dodgers every year since 1962. His results came out to:

BA - .7192 (r^2, a.k.a. correlation)
OBP - .8226
SLG - .8169
OPS - .8868

As you can see, OPS is the best indicator of runs scored, or as the author of the article put it:


OBP and SLG are very much more accurate than BA when trying to assess one player offensively. However, to get the most accurate picture using just one stat, OPS is the way to go.

A classmate of mine made a new statistic called GPA (I believe BP came to the same conclusion and perhaps made the name). He concluded that multiplying OBP by 1.6 and adding it to slugging percentage most closely correlates to run production.

His name is Victor Wang and there was an article in the NYT about it. It's called "A New Statistic With a Nod to an Old Standard" but I believe it is now insider only.

Screwball
07-26-2007, 08:04 PM
A classmate of mine made a new statistic called GPA (I believe BP came to the same conclusion and perhaps made the name). He concluded that multiplying OBP by 1.6 and adding it to slugging percentage most closely correlates to run production.

His name is Victor Wang and there was an article in the NYT about it. It's called "A New Statistic With a Nod to an Old Standard" but I believe it is now insider only.

Yeah, later in the article the author shows alternate formulas for OPS that are correlated to runs scored by a percentage of anywhere from 85% in the 1980s (1.0*OBP + SLG) to 99.4% for the 2000's (0.6*OBP + SLG). It's interesting that as the game changes and evolves, a different formula is more accurate when used to assess a player's (or team's) offensive production.

As for multiplying OBP by 1.6 and adding it SLG, it seems to me that would actually be more inaccurate in the slugging heavy climate in which baseball currently finds itself. But then again, I'm willing to bet your classmate Victor Wang has done a helluvalot more research and is probably right in his formula.

AmarilloRed
07-27-2007, 12:40 AM
I do believe OPS is an accurate value of a player's offensive value. On base helps determine how good a hitter a player is, and Slugging helps determine how good a slugger a player is. I am just coming from the past. I grew up with batting average,hr, and rbi to determine how good a player is. I grudgingly accept both on base percentage and slugging percentage as important statistics, I am just not sure if I would combine the two. I fully realize there are a lot of people who full use this stat; I am just unable on my own behalf to accept the stat. I created the poll to see if there was anyone on The Sun Deck who shared my feelings on OPS or who went the other way. I apologize for my use of the word geek, as it may have offended some people. However, there are some things OPS cannot measure such as speed , defense and the intangibles of a player. It is also important to remember these factors when using OPS to analyze a player

Bonzo
07-27-2007, 12:48 AM
Yeah, later in the article the author shows alternate formulas for OPS that are correlated to runs scored by a percentage of anywhere from 85% in the 1980s (1.0*OBP + SLG) to 99.4% for the 2000's (0.6*OBP + SLG). It's interesting that as the game changes and evolves, a different formula is more accurate when used to assess a player's (or team's) offensive production.

As for multiplying OBP by 1.6 and adding it SLG, it seems to me that would actually be more inaccurate in the slugging heavy climate in which baseball currently finds itself. But then again, I'm willing to bet your classmate Victor Wang has done a helluvalot more research and is probably right in his formula.

Yep, he said it all depends on the era. Apparently 1.6 is the best multiplier for today's era, but in previous years it has been different.

And he used every game played from 1960 on in his research.