OPS vs. OBP vs. BAS

[BadFundamentals]

OPS vs. OBP vs. BAS

OPS is an over-simpflification. It attempts to give a catch-all appraisal but in so doing can overstate or understate a player's value to his team.

OBP and "BAS" are better. The best TEAMS WIN games when each individual performs his role at a high level inning and after inning for 162 games. In most cases, this means top of the order guys need to get on base somehow/some way, middle of the order guys need to drive them in. Bottom of order guys need to do what situation dictates.

Better to appraise your top of the order type players based on their speed, bat control and JUST OBP. Appraise your "rbi guys" based on their Batting Average and Slugging.

On a basketball team if you have a 7 footer who can clean the boards it is not going to do any good to have him sit outside and launch threes when you have other players who can do that equally well and benefit from the 7 footer's rebounding. Within the context of this team the 7 footer's long range shooting is a relative non-factor. To give him undue credit/value for that ability overstates his team contribution.


For my boy Dunn, appraise him based on his batting average and slugging. Then give the list of how he rates amongst other players in the league. This is closer to his true value.

[Ravenlord]

better yet, use Runs Created and Run Created per Game.

[LvJ]

...

better yet, use Runs Created and Run Created per Game.

better yet, use Runs Created and Run Created per Game.

better yet, use Runs Created and Run Created per Game.

better yet, use Runs Created and Run Created per Game.

better yet, use Runs Created and Run Created per Game.

better yet, use Runs Created and Run Created per Game.

better yet, use Runs Created and Run Created per Game.

[BadFundamentals]

I'm not a big fan of "Runs Created" perhaps only because I think OBP, batting average, Slugging and the other individual stats tell you all you need to know.

But....honestly, I haven't looked at that stat that much in detail.

better yet, use Runs Created and Run Created per Game.

[flyer85]

But....honestly, I haven't looked at that stat that much in detail.

Now that's a shocker.

Batting average is the only damn thing the matters. If you don't hit .300 you suck ... that's what it says in my book.

[Raisor]

I'm not a big fan of "Runs Created" perhaps only because I think OBP, batting average, Slugging and the other individual stats tell you all you need to know.

But....honestly, I haven't looked at that stat that much in detail.

Here's your chance.

In the majors in 2004, Runs Created was 97.3% accurate in predicting Runs Scored (23,376 actual runs scored vs 24,031.2 Runs Created)

The RC formula was slightly even more accurate when it comes to the Reds. 97.4% accurate (750 actual runs vs 770.1 Runs Created).

In other words, we can be over 97% sure that Adam Dunn created nearly 125 runs for the Reds in 2004, or approx 16% of the Reds total offense. He ranked 9th in the NL behind Bonds, Helton, Pujols, Abreu, Berkman, Beltre, Edmonds, and Drew.

That's with all the strikeouts, by the way. If he's going to create 125 runs a year, I don't care if he K's 200 times or hits .250.

[Raisor]

Here's your chance.

In the majors in 2004, Runs Created was 97.3% accurate in predicting Runs Scored (23,376 actual runs scored vs 24,031.2 Runs Created)

The RC formula was slightly even more accurate when it comes to the Reds. 97.4% accurate (750 actual runs vs 770.1 Runs Created).

In other words, we can be over 97% sure that Adam Dunn created nearly 125 runs for the Reds in 2004, or approx 16% of the Reds total offense. He ranked 9th in the NL behind Bonds, Helton, Pujols, Abreu, Berkman, Beltre, Edmonds, and Drew.

That's with all the strikeouts, by the way. If he's going to create 125 runs a year, I don't care if he K's 200 times or hits .250.

I think I can count on my fingers of my left hand (and have four left over) how many times I've quoted myself, but BF is online right now and I'm hoping he might actually take a look at this and perhaps comment.

[BadFundamentals]

OK fair enough. Thanks for the quick and dirty summary.

I guess I still prefer the OBP, SLG, Batting avg. and a given players intangibles etc. etc..taken independently and assigned appropriate weights for a given discussion to something like RC for a simple reason. They don't group all 162 games together and award the pennant to the team that scores the most cumulative runs during the year. Each game is a new day. If you win a game 25-2 it is still just ONE win. There is no Cingular rollover.

I'd prefer versatile players who can do whatever it takes to win each game one at a time.

Here's your chance.

In the majors in 2004, Runs Created was 97.3% accurate in predicting Runs Scored (23,376 actual runs scored vs 24,031.2 Runs Created)

The RC formula was slightly even more accurate when it comes to the Reds. 97.4% accurate (750 actual runs vs 770.1 Runs Created).

In other words, we can be over 97% sure that Adam Dunn created nearly 125 runs for the Reds in 2004, or approx 16% of the Reds total offense. He ranked 9th in the NL behind Bonds, Helton, Pujols, Abreu, Berkman, Beltre, Edmonds, and Drew.

That's with all the strikeouts, by the way. If he's going to create 125 runs a year, I don't care if he K's 200 times or hits .250.

[Raisor]

OK fair enough. Thanks for the quick and dirty summary.

I guess I still prefer the OBP, SLG, Batting avg. and a given players intangibles etc. etc..taken independently and assigned appropriate weights for a given discussion to something like RC for a simple reason. They don't group all 162 games together and award the pennant to the team that scores the most cumulative runs during the year. Each game is a new day. If you win a game 25-2 it is still just ONE win. There is no Cingular rollover.

I'd prefer versatile players who can do whatever it takes to win each game one at a time.

Personally, I like to be able to see, within a very small margin of error (like I said, in 2004 less then a 3% difference) (nearly) exactly how many runs a player creates, especially when you're comparing one player to another.

Adam Dunn creating the 9th most runs in the NL actually means something.

[IslandRed]

I guess I still prefer the OBP, SLG, Batting avg. and a given players intangibles etc. etc..taken independently and assigned appropriate weights for a given discussion to something like RC for a simple reason. They don't group all 162 games together and award the pennant to the team that scores the most cumulative runs during the year.

Except there's been this discovery -- not a particularly new one -- that a team's season run totals (or, more properly, run differential) has a very high correlation to its real-world wins and losses. (It's called the Pythagorean Theorem -- a team's actual record can be predicted, with some accuracy, simply by knowing how many runs it scored and allowed over 162 games.) A player that creates a ton of runs is helping his team win, even if he has some deficiencies that keep him from being even better.

[NC Reds]

Dunn rules. :RedinDC:

[westofyou]

This is closer to his true value.

Truth is the construct of "ones" reality.

Baseball is a game about not making outs and generating on base skills into runs at the expense of the other teams weakness.

Adam Dunn doesn't make outs as much as other players on the Reds.

Therefore he doesn't "suck" he isn't worth "hating" nor is he worth dragging through the mud every day here on Redszone.

Baseball has a place for the Harmon Clayton Killebrew's in the world, they provided a vaulable service and have since Cap Anson and Ned Williamson wowed them.

Inside baseball died with the Kaiser, even 60-70's baseball worshipped at the alter of slugging percentage and on base skills.

The game is always changing, but the Reds went out and got Long John Reilly in 1883 because he was big strong guy with on base skills.

Just like Adam Dunn is 120 years later.

[BadFundamentals]

Your point? or was that just drama?

I have a point. It is that Dunn's value to this team is overstated. And if you care about seeing the Reds WIN then (given their shoestring budget), it would be a mistake to pay big $$$ for him.

And on a larger scale ANY PLAYER on any team of the strikeout, big swing, BB prone, error-prone, bad fundamentals - type would likely be overstated (when OPS appraised) to some degree.

You go ahead and live in your nostalgia if you choose. I'd like to see another Reds pennant race - the sooner the better ! !

Truth is the construct of "ones" reality.

Baseball is a game about not making outs and generating on base skills into runs at the expense of the other teams weakness.

Adam Dunn doesn't make outs as much as other players on the Reds.

Therefore he doesn't "suck" he isn't worth "hating" nor is he worth dragging through the mud every day here on Redszone.

Baseball has a place for the Harmon Clayton Killebrew's in the world, they provided a vaulable service and have since Cap Anson and Ned Williamson wowed them.

Inside baseball died with the Kaiser, even 60-70's baseball worshipped at the alter of slugging percentage and on base skills.

The game is always changing, but the Reds went out and got Long John Reilly in 1883 because he was big strong guy with on base skills.

Just like Adam Dunn is 120 years later.

[wheels]

And getting rid of Adam Dunn will get the Reds into a pennant race more quickly....How?

[BadFundamentals]

No, not in and of itself. If the Reds had the budget I'd be in favor of keeping Dunn.

Even with his problems, Dunn could work for a team when batting 6th or 7th (occasionally 5th). And worst case, he'd be a threat off the bench who could play some LF and 1B.

Problem is that with the Reds budget (and what he likely stands to make) they can't afford the luxury of carrying a player of his type.

And getting rid of Adam Dunn will get the Reds into a pennant race more quickly....How?