Originally Posted by SteelSD
Baseball is a game of streaks and I've always considered high IsoD players like Dunn to be far more "slump-proof" than lower IsoD players. When the hits aren't falling, high IsoD players are able to provide more value than low IsoD players because they are better able to avoid Outs. Produce a team with a majority of low IsoD players and you've got a group that's primed to slump badly offensively when the hits aren't falling.
Is this true? I used to think so as well. Now, I am not as positive. Consider the game log data from 2000-2006 (thanks retrosheet
). Here are the standard deviations of this data normalized to their means. (i.e. these are standard deviations about a mean of 1). I am not sure exactly what I make out of this yet, but I thought I would share it.
I think it is true to a point, as noticed by the obp. But at the extremes I am not as sure.
The reason I have been looking at this game log data however, is this weighting on OPS. IIRC Depodesta was mentioned in Moneyball as saying OBP was more important than SLG. I thought this might be interesting, from a variance standpoint. So I looked at a OPS_adjusted=b*OBP+SLG. It seems b=1.5 or so works well. Not that it matters much as it has nothing to do with this thread, but hey, what the heck I figured I would keep going.