PDA

View Full Version : Question about OPS and all the other moneyball stats



Baseball man
07-08-2008, 08:05 PM
I really don't understand why people put so much stock on OPS, OBP, etc. it's not like it's THE all knowing stat. It's just one of the stats, just like RBI, HR, etc. Why do people say a walk is just as good as a hit? No it isn't. I have never seen a a walk score a man from second. I have seen a hit score a man from second.

Just my take, looking forward to hear your guys' opinion.

hizpcstr
07-08-2008, 08:19 PM
How did the runner on first get there? He walked .(just an example)

JAYZFAN9
07-08-2008, 08:20 PM
OPS is a great stat because it combines the two most important aspects of hitting- OBP/SLG. Those two things together can really show how a player contributes to his lineup

Baseball man
07-08-2008, 08:26 PM
OPS is a great stat because it combines the two most important aspects of hitting- OBP/SLG. Those two things together can really show how a player contributes to his lineup

That's true, but why combine them? For example you have somebody like Willy Taveres (SP) he has no slugging what so ever, but his job is to get OB, because he's a leadoff hitter. Now a 3 or a 4 hitter in the lineup, he needs to have a high slugging because the lead off hitter needs to get on so the 3 or 4th man can drive him in. The 3, 4 hitter doesn't need a high OBP he needs a high slugging. So I don't see the point in combinding (SP) the two stats.

Kirel
07-08-2008, 08:30 PM
That's true, but why combine them? For example you have somebody like Willy Taveres (SP) he has no slugging what so ever, but his job is to get OB, because he's a leadoff hitter. Now a 3 or a 4 hitter in the lineup, he needs to have a high slugging because the lead off hitter needs to get on so the 3 or 4th man can drive him in. The 3, 4 hitter doesn't need a high OBP he needs a high slugging. So I don't see the point in combinding (SP) the two stats.
Taveras is crap though.

Even leadoff hitters need to slug. They'll have runners on(not as often as a 3 hitter, but still quite often, especially in the AL), they'll do better hitting doubles.

The reason it matters for everyone is that baseball is not: leadoff man get on, 3 hitter drive him on, wait for leadoff man. It's a cycle of players going in circles, and leadoff men are only special because they have the most PAs.

torontosports10
07-08-2008, 08:32 PM
[QUOTE=Baseball man;5782719]I really don't understand why people put so much stock on OPS, OBP, etc. it's not like it's THE all knowing stat. It's just one of the stats, just like RBI, HR, etc. Why do people say a walk is just as good as a hit? No it isn't. I have never seen a a walk score a man from second. I have seen a hit score a man from second.

No but the best way to judge a players ability to hit the ball and get on base is OPS. It combines your On base % along with your slug %. A walk is good as a single but you get the credit for a dbl,triple,homer usin OPS. Also 3-4-5 hitters will alsways have better RBI then 1-2 hitters but that dont mean they are a better hitter. They usually have more pop but worse average,On base % etc.

Baseball man
07-08-2008, 08:40 PM
Ok so basically OPS is good for everything. Than whats the point of having the other stats and arguments of who's better? So if someone is saying, with out factoring age, potential, etc., they would take Ryan Ludwick over Ryan Braun they would be right, right?

Kirel
07-08-2008, 09:06 PM
Ok so basically OPS is good for everything. Than whats the point of having the other stats and arguments of who's better? So if someone is saying, with out factoring age, potential, etc., they would take Ryan Ludwick over Ryan Braun they would be right, right?
No, certainly not.

Could they say that Ryan Ludwick is having the better offensive season? Yes. But when you're talking about what player you want over several years, there is more to it than strictly OPS.

jetsfan28
07-08-2008, 09:11 PM
That's true, but why combine them? For example you have somebody like Willy Taveres (SP) he has no slugging what so ever, but his job is to get OB, because he's a leadoff hitter. Now a 3 or a 4 hitter in the lineup, he needs to have a high slugging because the lead off hitter needs to get on so the 3 or 4th man can drive him in. The 3, 4 hitter doesn't need a high OBP he needs a high slugging. So I don't see the point in combinding (SP) the two stats.

He's the leadoff hitter once a game, twice tops. He's an average player at best in every AB except the first one, because in all of those AB's he's just like another hitter.

natepro
07-08-2008, 10:27 PM
Here's the thing.

Player A:

AVG: .314
HR: 54
RBI: 156

Player B:

AVG: .359
HR: 49
RBI: 153


Just looking at these "triple crown" stats, the player's are pretty much the same, though you would say that Player A has more power, but both of them had great seasons, almost exactly the same outside of a little difference in power and AVG, right?


Player A is A-Rod in 2007. Player B is Babe Ruth in 1930. Using just those all-important stats, the best comparison you can do shows them basically being the same, with A-Rod producing slightly more runs.

The problem is that the eras are COMPLETELY different. There is no way in "traditional" statistics to compare stats across eras, or to adjust for park factors (whether a park is a hitters' or pitchers' park). That's where "advanced" stats come in.

With OPS+ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPS%2B) (click the link for an explanation) we can look at 2007 A-Rod and 1930 Babe Ruth, and tell you which one had the better season rather quickly.

A-Rod 2007 OPS+: 177

Babe Ruth 1930 OPS+: 211

Both are very, very good, but Ruth clearly had the better season. With the usual HR, AVG, RBI stats, we would have NO way of figuring this out.

bagwell368
07-08-2008, 11:29 PM
Bill James and others started to apply stats to baseball. They assumed a guy like Maury Wills was a great leadoff hitter because he stole bases, and had a decent sound batting average. But he never walked, and had no power, he also got thrown out a decent amount - results he didn't score many runs.

35 years later, you get a Johnny Damon. A far better leadoff guy. You also have much better stats to think about him.

Or Clemente and Norm Cash. Clemente was thought to be a much better hitter at the time (I thought so). But his OBP was less, his OPS+ was less (not a lot less, but less). His advantage over Cash was longevity of career, and fielding.

OPS+ (the + means adjusted for parks) is the single best hitting stat because it not only combines SLG & OPB, and then adjusted so 100 = average hitter in that year.

There are other great stats - VORP, WARP3, etc.

In pitching, it's ERA+, DERA, NERA

Bill James also has "Win Shares".


It's strange that "stat geeks" take so much grief. I assume I am somewhat average. I grew up thinking BA/HR/RBI was how you thought about hitters, and W-L and K's, and ERA was for pitchers. I can tell anyone off the top of my head the top 10 BA of both leagues from 1966-1975, which I learned then.

I played, I coach. Then in the later 80's I ran across James's first baseball abstract (after reading maybe 25 books over the years - like the Halberstam book on the '49 season etc.)

Since then, I believe I know what I am looking at, and thinking about in terms of baseball much better then before. It's not a substitute to watching the game, but when Joe Morgan intones some idiocy about Joe Carter being a great RBI man, I know he's mumbling pablum - because Joe Carter was very mediocre, and I know because I analyzed his stats.

Hawkize31
07-08-2008, 11:48 PM
I really don't understand why people put so much stock on OPS, OBP, etc. it's not like it's THE all knowing stat. It's just one of the stats, just like RBI, HR, etc. Why do people say a walk is just as good as a hit? No it isn't. I have never seen a a walk score a man from second. I have seen a hit score a man from second.

Just my take, looking forward to hear your guys' opinion.

Moneyball explains a little bit about how they turned the game into a science as much as they could. They studied the correlations between RBIs and wins, then SBs and wins, then AVG and wins, then SLG and wins, then OBP and wins. They compared all these stats and how they affected wins. There were teams with a high AVG that won a lot and some with a high AVG that didn't. What they found though, was that SLG and OBP had a much higher chance of being an indication of wins.

Teams with a high OBP tended to be winners, and the same applied to teams with high SLG. None of the other stats had that type of correlation.

Some of it is also common sense though. If you walk 120 times but hit .270, you're better than a guy who hits .300 and walks 10 times. And think about how you get RBIs. Yeah, you hit HRs and doubles, but you have to have guys on base ahead of you to really start to get RBIs. Think about the best RBI hitter you can imagine and think how many he would have if he led off (like Soriano). You get RBIs by being put into RBI situations, and that is almost entirely out of your control.

sniglewhat
07-08-2008, 11:56 PM
Here's the deal. There's not one tell all stat. If there was then baseball would be much less complicated. There are hundreds of stats, and even different ways to come up with certain stats. Everyone has their own opinions and weights different stats differently. I love OPS because i am a big fan of walks, because while it may not ALWAYS be the same as a single, it will for sure be a good at bat and bring the pitchers pitch count up. But to say that OPS can always be used to tell which player is better, you are right, is not true.

Hawkize31
07-08-2008, 11:58 PM
Another thing from Moneyball was the Bill James Abstracts, and they talk about James "Runs Created Formula." James postulated that:

Runs Created = (Hits + Walks) * Total Bases/(At Bats + Walks)

From moneyball: "Crude as it was, the equation could fairly be described as a scientific hypothesis: a model that would predict the number of runs a team would score given its walks, steals, singles, doubles, etc. You could plug actual numbers from past seasons into the right side and see if they gave you the runs the team scored that season...His model came far closer, year in and year out, to describing the run totals of every big league baseball team than anything the teams had come up with."

Thats why OBP and SLG are important, they correlate to runs and wins the most.

sniglewhat
07-09-2008, 12:31 AM
good point hawkize, but you see, even that formula is debated and normally when they break it down and make it more scientific, they weight certain stats differenly. I know Paul DePedsta really likes walks. But remember there are still guys who would rather see a guy play than see his stats.

viktor06
07-09-2008, 04:41 AM
The thing is, OPS is the perfect stat to compare good sluggers. It fails when comparing a slugger to a runner with no power like Ellsbury, Pierre or Taveras, because it puts more importance into slugging (when a player has 1.000OPS he has usually .380OBP and .620SLG).

Other than that, its the best stat to compare offensive contributions IMO.

thefeckcampaign
07-10-2008, 08:35 AM
I really don't understand why people put so much stock on OPS, OBP, etc. it's not like it's THE all knowing stat. It's just one of the stats, just like RBI, HR, etc. Why do people say a walk is just as good as a hit? No it isn't. I have never seen a a walk score a man from second. I have seen a hit score a man from second.

Just my take, looking forward to hear your guys' opinion.let me guess. like me you are over the age of 30. i've been trying to say this since i joined when everyone 25 under believe these new stats to be the be all end all.

bleedsREDforevr
07-10-2008, 09:29 AM
Also keep in mind that the Oakland A's are on a very limited budget and need to take a risk on players like Jack Cust. Cust isn't a bad player, but he will draw +100 walks every year and 130 K's.(maybe bat .265) It is a nice asset to have and they're not dumping alot of salary on him. Keep in mind, if Taveras could walk as much as Cust and steal +60 bases, he would be making 10 million a year.

The A Team
07-10-2008, 09:34 AM
OPS and all the other moneyball stats as you put it are just like every other stat, they don't tell you too much by themselves, but if you combine them with a bunch of other stats you end up with a very useful suite of tools. And that is why we have VORP.

YankeeFan28
07-10-2008, 10:17 AM
OPS and all the other moneyball stats as you put it are just like every other stat, they don't tell you too much by themselves, but if you combine them with a bunch of other stats you end up with a very useful suite of tools. And that is why we have VORP.

:laugh2:

Tell that to your fellow Phillies fans.

Cub_StuckinSTL
07-10-2008, 10:28 AM
.

The A Team
07-10-2008, 10:29 AM
:laugh2:

Tell that to your fellow Phillies fans.

I try but they don't do much listening.

^^O nice post Cub...

thefeckcampaign
07-10-2008, 11:30 AM
:laugh2:

Tell that to your fellow Phillies fans.i don't believe in any "be all end all" for anything. bottom line is you need to watch the games.

YankeeFan28
07-10-2008, 11:31 AM
i don't believe in any "be all end all" for anything. bottom line is you need to watch the games.

So watching one teams games and a handful of others gives you a good idea?

The A Team
07-10-2008, 11:57 AM
So watching one teams games and a handful of others gives you a good idea?

What kind of fan are you? Get the MLB package, TIVO the 9 games you miss (since you can only watch 6 at a time), quit your day job and watch the TIVO'd games then...Sheesh.

But seriously, I don't think anyone could look you in the face and honestly tell you that live scouting isn't more important than stats. At least not without being an idiot.

thefeckcampaign
07-10-2008, 12:04 PM
So watching one teams games and a handful of others gives you a good idea?i'm not sure what you are trying to trap me in here. i'm saying watching someone day in and day out tells more of the story than the statistics that usually follow them.

Cub_StuckinSTL
07-10-2008, 12:07 PM
What kind of fan are you? Get the MLB package, TIVO the 9 games you miss (since you can only watch 6 at a time), quit your day job and watch the TIVO'd games then...Sheesh.

But seriously, I don't think anyone could look you in the face and honestly tell you that live scouting isn't more important than stats. At least not without being an idiot.

Billy Beane 101? I mean lets think of the old days when baseball players were judged because, "they look like a ballplayer". With all this stuff thats out there now you'd be stupid not to try and utilize the resources when judging a player. Hell to the "average" fan Jason Varitek is the greatest catcher in the AL.....but once you put his name aside and look at the stats we all know the outcome.

Seamhead
07-24-2008, 01:02 AM
By the way, these aren't Moneyball statistics. Moneyball (the actual theory -- not the book) has nothing to do with sabermetrics (which is what you're referring to). Moneyball is about exploiting the inefficiencies in a certain market, like baseball, and competing with teams that have more monetary resources. Sabermetrics just happened to be a tool which Beane has used to exploit those inefficiencies. You can be an organization that is built on sabermetrics, but that doesn't mean you're a Moneyball team. Look at the Red Sox.

And there are a lot of statistics that are better than VORP and OPS+. There is no statistic that is perfect, or whatever.

Sorry about bumping an old thread, but that is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to Moneyball. Not many people really know what it is, yet a lot of people claim to have read the book (not anyone in this thread, but try Bill Plaschke and Joe Morgan).

natepro
07-24-2008, 01:22 AM
i'm not sure what you are trying to trap me in here. i'm saying watching someone day in and day out tells more of the story than the statistics that usually follow them.

It's actually the exact opposite of that. Simply watching someone day in and day out means you end up with things like people fawning over Jeter's defense and how clutch he is in October, and ignoring things like how much better A-Rod is in every facet of the game outside of "Being a shortstop named Derek Jeter," which he is a close second in.

The A Team
07-24-2008, 11:49 AM
It's actually the exact opposite of that. Simply watching someone day in and day out means you end up with things like people fawning over Jeter's defense and how clutch he is in October, and ignoring things like how much better A-Rod is in every facet of the game outside of "Being a shortstop named Derek Jeter," which he is a close second in.

Yes, but now you're referring to the untrained eye. A scout should be able to watch and evaluate a guy with clinical dispassion. In the end, live scouting and statistical analysis are the 2 most important of the suite of player analysis tools.

Bill James is said to be reworking several of his formulas because his approach to "clutch" has changed. I'm interested in seeing what that produces.

thefeckcampaign
07-24-2008, 11:57 AM
Sorry about bumping an old thread,don't be. why are people on this site anal about this anyway? if the subject is worth talking about, why not?

YankeeFan28
07-24-2008, 12:03 PM
By the way, these aren't Moneyball statistics. Moneyball (the actual theory -- not the book) has nothing to do with sabermetrics (which is what you're referring to). Moneyball is about exploiting the inefficiencies in a certain market, like baseball, and competing with teams that have more monetary resources. Sabermetrics just happened to be a tool which Beane has used to exploit those inefficiencies. You can be an organization that is built on sabermetrics, but that doesn't mean you're a Moneyball team. Look at the Red Sox.

And there are a lot of statistics that are better than VORP and OPS+. There is no statistic that is perfect, or whatever.

Sorry about bumping an old thread, but that is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to Moneyball. Not many people really know what it is, yet a lot of people claim to have read the book (not anyone in this thread, but try Bill Plaschke and Joe Morgan).

You didn't bump an old thread to say I told you so or be childish, you bumped an old thread to stay organized and further comment on a topic, no need to apologize.

thefeckcampaign
07-24-2008, 12:20 PM
It's actually the exact opposite of that. Simply watching someone day in and day out means you end up with things like people fawning over Jeter's defense and how clutch he is in October, and ignoring things like how much better A-Rod is in every facet of the game outside of "Being a shortstop named Derek Jeter," which he is a close second in.is it now? so when i look that Victorino went 1 for 4 with a double one day and his VORP or OPS+ means he had an average players day.

but wait.....one of those outs was in the bottom of the ninth when he deliberately pulled a difficult outside pitch grounding out to first allowing Rollins to move to 3rd after his lead off double which then allowed Utley to hit the SAC FLY (or single because the outfield was in) which happened to be the game winning run.

if you tell me that some of these new stats say this, then screw watching the games. i'll save myself 3 hours and just read the box scores. i'll know as much as anyone.

Cub_StuckinSTL
07-24-2008, 12:22 PM
is it now? so when i look that Victorino went 1 for 4 with a double one day and his VORP or OPS+ means he had an average players day.

but wait.....one of those outs was in the bottom of the ninth when he deliberately pulled a difficult outside pitch grounding out to first allowing Rollins to move to 3rd after his lead off double which then allowed Utley to hit the SAC FLY (or single because the outfield was in) which happened to be the game winning run.

if you tell me that some of these new stats say this, then screw watching the games. i'll save myself 3 hours and just read the box scores. i'll know as much as anyone.

The fact of the matter is your eyes and memory lie.

bagwell368
07-24-2008, 02:19 PM
I really don't understand why people put so much stock on OPS, OBP, etc. it's not like it's THE all knowing stat. It's just one of the stats, just like RBI, HR, etc. Why do people say a walk is just as good as a hit? No it isn't. I have never seen a a walk score a man from second. I have seen a hit score a man from second.

Just my take, looking forward to hear your guys' opinion.

A Walk is not as good as a hit. But being on base .400 is better then .360. If the .400 and .360 hitters are even or close in SLG especially. If the .360 guy is a .575 SLG and the .400 OPB guy is a .450 SLG that tells a lot more.

RBI's are ultra useless. Go look at the Houston and LA teams of the mid 60's, look at the RBI leaders, you would conclude they all stink!! But nobody was on base, and nobody was hitting.

Even look at Yaz's '67 triple crown year - it seems almost pedestrian by todays numbers. EQ'd to the Boston offense in '03 it would have gone from .326 44 121 to .345 54 158 or so.

The other reason is the big reason. Analyize the game, come up with better stats to describe what is going on. Discard or downrate what is not.

bagwell368
07-24-2008, 02:23 PM
What kind of fan are you? Get the MLB package, TIVO the 9 games you miss (since you can only watch 6 at a time), quit your day job and watch the TIVO'd games then...Sheesh.

But seriously, I don't think anyone could look you in the face and honestly tell you that live scouting isn't more important than stats. At least not without being an idiot.

Actually one of the problems for the Moneyball GM's is that scouts are still buried in the past looking lovingly at the .330 OBP guy that steals 60 and plays a mean CF.

The K/BB ratio of hitters in the minors is very suggestive of how they will play if they get to the majors. 100% predictive? no, but the trends are clear, and obvious.

If you read Moneyball, you would know what I am talking about, in his draft class he went against the scouts in all but one case.

Seamhead
07-24-2008, 02:58 PM
Yes, but now you're referring to the untrained eye. A scout should be able to watch and evaluate a guy with clinical dispassion. In the end, live scouting and statistical analysis are the 2 most important of the suite of player analysis tools.

Bill James is said to be reworking several of his formulas because his approach to "clutch" has changed. I'm interested in seeing what that produces.

I hope he doesn't change it, as on his latest piece on clutch he was dead wrong. There have been countless of articles on whether "clutch" exist or not, and most find absolutely no ability. Tom Tango did find a little bit of ability, but it wasn't something meaningful to me.

Runs Created (both the run estimator and statistic) need to be dumped by Bill. The statistic is so complicated now, yet there are better run estimators and statistics such as BaseRuns and wOBA or EqA.

And as for the whole idea of one out is more valuable than others --- not really. Let's look at this run expectancy chart:

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

Your chances of scoring decrease. You can believe what you want but a lot of people have done research on that and the statistics contradict your opinion.

Cub_StuckinSTL
07-24-2008, 03:03 PM
I hope he doesn't change it, as on his latest piece on clutch he was dead wrong. There have been countless of articles on whether "clutch" exist or not, and most find absolutely no ability. Tom Tango did find a little bit of ability, but it wasn't something meaningful to me.

Runs Created (both the run estimator and statistic) need to be dumped by Bill. The statistic is so complicated now, yet there are better run estimators and statistics such as BaseRuns and wOBA or EqA.

And as for the whole idea of one out is more valuable than others --- not really. Let's look at this run expectancy chart:

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

Your chances of scoring decrease. You can believe what you want but a lot of people have done research on that and the statistics contradict your opinion.

:clap: You're gonna be great around here

Seamhead
07-24-2008, 03:22 PM
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5987236#post5987236

This guy thinks Moneyball and sabermetrics are the same thing when they are clearly not. If you've read the book, please share your thoughts.

thefeckcampaign
07-24-2008, 03:29 PM
The fact of the matter is your eyes and memory lie.they forget just as much of the good as they do the bad.

Cub_StuckinSTL
07-24-2008, 03:34 PM
they forget just as much of the good as they do the bad.

Not true at all

Seamhead
07-24-2008, 03:37 PM
they forget just as much of the good as they do the bad.

Not really. The great plays resonate in your mind -- not the bad ones. You know that one play where Jeter dives into the stands and busts his nose? Yes, I'm sure you do. Do you remember that one play where Jeter reached to his left but didn't get to it since he has no range?

You remember when David Ortiz hit a walkoff HR? What about when he struck out in the 9th with 2 outs and Sox down by one with a runner on 2nd?

thefeckcampaign
07-24-2008, 03:46 PM
Not really. The great plays resonate in your mind -- not the bad ones. You know that one play where Jeter dives into the stands and busts his nose? Yes, I'm sure you do. Do you remember that one play where Jeter reached to his left but didn't get to it since he has no range?

You remember when David Ortiz hit a walkoff HR? What about when he struck out in the 9th with 2 outs and Sox down by one with a runner on 2nd?ask Bill Buckner about that one. :rolleyes: :)

Seamhead
07-24-2008, 03:47 PM
ask Bill Buckner about that one. :rolleyes: :)

Who?


;)

natepro
07-24-2008, 03:47 PM
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5987236#post5987236

This guy thinks Moneyball and sabermetrics are the same thing when they are clearly not. If you've read the book, please share your thoughts.

Done and done. Holy God that article was bad.