## View Poll Results: Are you an OPS geek?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
• Yes- I am proudly a OPS geek

25 50.00%
• NO- I will only quote OPS on my deathbed

10 20.00%
• Sometimes- I will sometimes make a point.

15 30.00%

# Thread: Are you a OPS geek?

1. ## Re: Are you a OPS geek?

Originally Posted by Screwball
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 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.

3. ## Re: Are you a OPS geek?

Originally Posted by Boe
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.

4. ## Re: Are you a OPS geek?

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

5. ## Re: Are you a OPS geek?

Originally Posted by Screwball
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.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•

 Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball

Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25