OPS vs. OBP vs. BAS

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by BadFundamentals

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.

[BadFundamentals]

Well said.

I'm going to maintain though that if you're one of the good teams who have a legitimate chance at winning a pennant the difference between teams at that level will often be "the little things" and "the intangibles". The Reds can only afford to pay a select few "superstar" money and I think they need to be careful which players get it.

Originally Posted by IslandRed

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.

[Crumbley]

Originally Posted by BadFundamentals

I'm not the president of the Jose Guillen club. But I can tell a guy who (mid year 2003) is dialed in and showing no signs of cooling off. And I favor playing guys who produce over those with the "presumed potential".

He hit 46 home runs. That's a lot.

[TRF]

If there are only a select few, why not pay that money to the guy that produced the ninth most runs in baseball last year?

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by TRF

If there are only a select few, why not pay that money to the guy that produced the ninth most runs in baseball last year?

because he strikes out to much. If only he would ground out to SS more often.

[BadFundamentals]

Because......just for kicks, say the Reds contend this year......(play along) .....

It will be the "little things" and the "intangibles" etc... that will ultimately separate a second place team from a first place team and a playoff team from a world series team. If I can only pay a select few big $$$, one of them is not going to be (regardless of his numbers) a one dimensional guy who rates at the very bottom in important intangible areas.

Another example, probably wouldn't pay Manny Ramirez either. I'd love Manny on the team but not if I can only pay 2 or 3 guys like superstars.

I'd keep the Donkey if it were possible to pay him Jiminez/Freel money but I'm sure that is not possible.

Originally Posted by TRF

If there are only a select few, why not pay that money to the guy that produced the ninth most runs in baseball last year?

[westofyou]

I'd keep the Donkey if it were possible to pay him Jiminez/Freel money but I'm sure that is not possible.

Both those guys will be doing fanatasy camps by the time Dunn is hitting his 500 HR, and creating the real intangibles.

More runs then then the other team.

[flyer85]

intangibles - subjective, things that cannot be objectively measured.

Sounds like a great basis for decision making. Let's ignore empirical evidence and focus on things we can't measure.

[BadFundamentals]

Actually, yes.......empirical evidence can only take you so far.

Originally Posted by flyer85

intangibles - subjective, things that cannot be objectively measured.

Sounds like a great basis for decision making. Let's ignore empirical evidence and focus on things we can't measure.

[flyer85]

Theories in practice - 2004 Red Sox were presented with the almost perfect contrast of the defense vs offense. I think it is informative to see the direction they went

2nd base - important defensive position.
The candidates:
Bellhorn - poor defense, high Ks, mediocre BA, high BBs good power
Reese - great defense, low BA, low BBs, no power

The Red Sox chose offense over defense and it is rather obvious they made the right choice.

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by BadFundamentals

Actually, yes.......empirical evidence can only take you so far.

I'll translate - we aren't getting the result we want, we are not wrong, therefore we must not have the right evidence.

[BadFundamentals]

Where in the "numbers" could it have predicted that Griff would be on the shelf for 4 years?

Where in the "numbers" could it have predicted Rickey Williams would quit football?

Where in his college numbers could you have projected Brady to be the quarterback he has become?

Originally Posted by BadFundamentals

Actually, yes.......empirical evidence can only take you so far.

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by BadFundamentals

Where in the "numbers" could it have predicted that Griff would be on the shelf for 4 years?

Where in the "numbers" could it have predicted Rickey Williams would quit football?

Where in his college numbers could you have projected Brady to be the quarterback he has become?

two words - straw man

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by flyer85

two words - straw man

Uh...actually, that would be straw men.

Carry on.

[Raisor]

I believe I'm joining M2. I do hope this thread continues, because there is some very interesting points being made. I will say, that if this thread was a baseball game, my side would be beating BF 15-0, 2-out, no one on, in the bottom of the 9th. We've got Eric Gagne up to close things out and BF has Neifi Perez up with 2 strikes.

In other words, I'm feeling pretty good about things.