Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 81

Thread: Article: Geeking Out: OPS Minus Batting Average

  1. #1
    Owner MVP Seth Stohs's Avatar
    Posts
    6,436
    Twitter
    @sethtweets
    Like
    64
    Liked 347 Times in 183 Posts
    Blog Entries
    515

    Article: Geeking Out: OPS Minus Batting Average


  2. #2
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,555
    Like
    3
    Liked 309 Times in 193 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Another way to express it, that might make more sense, is OBP plus isolated power (ISO, which is just SLG - BA).

  3. #3
    Senior Member All-Star Badsmerf's Avatar
    Posts
    1,566
    Like
    18
    Liked 59 Times in 34 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    I don't think OPS-BA is a better stat than OPS. BA, while fluctuating based on things like BABIP, LD%, FB/HR%, still is a key stat. Base hits are important. They drive in runs, move runers ect. Subtracting them is basically taking ISO + OBP. This is why power showed to be important in this stat.

    I don't think a single stat deserves to tell an entire story on a player. One can make an argument that oWAR does make a good attempt. The 20 guys listed here will look good no matter how you slice it up, they are having monster seasons. When advanced stats come into play are for guys like Plouffe that contribute greatly yet quietly.

  4. #4
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,013
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,512 Times in 791 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    I think it's the exact opposite. By counting hits twice, OPS is accidentally adding value to singles, which helps offset the fact that OBP is more important than slugging. Not making an out comes first, taking more than one base follows in importance by a pretty healthy margin.

    OPS is a good quick and dirty stat but it should not be used to directly compare players because of the OBP/SLG split and the fact that they shouldn't be judged equally. There are a couple of ways to reach an OPS of .800 but if one of the guys has +/- .100 OBP (say, .425 to .325), that .425 OBP player is going to be much more valuable than the slugging-centric .325 OBP player.

    Looking only at OPS, Dustin Pedroia and Ian Desmond look like virtually the same player (.812 to .809). Except that Pedroia is getting on base nearly 40% of the time while Desmond is getting on base less than 32% of the time. I think that pretty much everybody would take Pedroia's bat over Desmond, and for good reason. It's better.

    Which is not evident by OPS+, where Pedroia trails Desmond 119 to 121 but quite evident in oWAR, where Pedroia leads Desmond 2.6 to 2.2.

  5. #5
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,232
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    I think it's the exact opposite. By counting hits twice, OPS is accidentally adding value to singles, which helps offset the fact that OBP is more important than slugging. Not making an out comes first, taking more than one base follows in importance by a pretty healthy margin.

    OPS is a good quick and dirty stat but it should not be used to directly compare players because of the OBP/SLG split and the fact that they shouldn't be judged equally. There are a couple of ways to reach an OPS of .800 but if one of the guys has +/- .100 OBP (say, .425 to .325), that .425 OBP player is going to be much more valuable than the slugging-centric .325 OBP player.

    Looking only at OPS, Dustin Pedroia and Ian Desmond look like virtually the same player (.812 to .809). Except that Pedroia is getting on base nearly 40% of the time while Desmond is getting on base less than 32% of the time. I think that pretty much everybody would take Pedroia's bat over Desmond, and for good reason. It's better.

    Which is not evident by OPS+, where Pedroia trails Desmond 119 to 121 but quite evident in oWAR, where Pedroia leads Desmond 2.6 to 2.2.
    This post makes a lot of sense.

  6. #6
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,218
    Like
    97
    Liked 95 Times in 69 Posts
    What's the correlation between OBP and scoring compared to SLG and scoring?

  7. #7
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,013
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,512 Times in 791 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwak View Post
    What's the correlation between OBP and scoring compared to SLG and scoring?
    Runs Scored Correlations

  8. #8
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer jay's Avatar
    Posts
    872
    Like
    12
    Liked 49 Times in 30 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwak View Post
    What's the correlation between OBP and scoring compared to SLG and scoring?
    I asked myself the same thing a few minutes ago. Here was the first link: Correlation Between Stats and Runs, etc.

    I'll continue to defend OPS even over something like Seth is proposing here, especially if we're talking for the masses. OPS correlates to runs extremely well, something in the neighborhood of .94-.97 (r) depending on the source and data pool. Even the most advanced stats can't make a big improvement over that. OPS is something that can be easily explained and understood by casual fans. As for GM analysis, well, I'd hope they're into stuff a lot deeper than both of these...

  9. #9
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,013
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,512 Times in 791 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    This is a pretty interesting analysis of correlation that goes into a bit more than "this is the correlation number to runs scored" because the topic is a little more complex than that:

    What?s more important, OBP, Slugging or OPS? | Reading into the Numbers

    "A team that raises its OBP from .300 to .400 is expected to increase it’s runs scoring from 3.7 runs/game to 6.7. The equivalent increase in slugging would be about 131 points, on average. An increase in slugging from .358 to .489 predicts a scoring increase from 3.7 to 5.8 runs/game, an obvious downgrade from the OBP surge. However, if a team increases its OBP purely by walking more, then the 100 point increase in OBP will likely only increase run scoring from 3.7 to less than 5 runs/game. What a GM can take from this is that, while increases in OBP seem to lead to more run scoring than equivalent increases in slugging percentage, this is only the case when these increases come with a mix of walks and hits."

  10. #10
    Senior Member Triple-A Gernzy's Avatar
    Posts
    429
    Twitter
    @Andy_Twitchell
    Like
    1
    Liked 21 Times in 14 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Wow I didn't realize Cuddyer was having such a great year. Good for him!

  11. #11
    Senior Member All-Star Badsmerf's Avatar
    Posts
    1,566
    Like
    18
    Liked 59 Times in 34 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    I think it's the exact opposite. By counting hits twice, OPS is accidentally adding value to singles, which helps offset the fact that OBP is more important than slugging. Not making an out comes first, taking more than one base follows in importance by a pretty healthy margin.

    OPS is a good quick and dirty stat but it should not be used to directly compare players because of the OBP/SLG split and the fact that they shouldn't be judged equally. There are a couple of ways to reach an OPS of .800 but if one of the guys has +/- .100 OBP (say, .425 to .325), that .425 OBP player is going to be much more valuable than the slugging-centric .325 OBP player.

    Looking only at OPS, Dustin Pedroia and Ian Desmond look like virtually the same player (.812 to .809). Except that Pedroia is getting on base nearly 40% of the time while Desmond is getting on base less than 32% of the time. I think that pretty much everybody would take Pedroia's bat over Desmond, and for good reason. It's better.

    Which is not evident by OPS+, where Pedroia trails Desmond 119 to 121 but quite evident in oWAR, where Pedroia leads Desmond 2.6 to 2.2.
    I agree and disagree at the same time. I might favor Pedroia slightly more, but not by as much as you're suggesting. Desmond has 12 HR on the year compared to Pedroia's 4. That is pretty significant. I don't want to turn this into a Pedroia vs. Desmond thread, but this is really Pedroia's on base skills vs. Desmond's power. Fortunately for Pedroia, he is an OBP machine and thus gets a slight edge to Desmond.

    I know you are bias toward OBP, and for good reason. I'm pretty balanced on BA, OBP, and SLUG. Maybe I am just too used to seeing SLUG instead of ISO. I might feel differently about OPS-BA if we just used ISO instead of SLUG. Maybe it is more indicative. In the case of Desmond vs. Pedroia, this would make Desmond sit at .529 and Pedroia sit at .501. So, you would think OPS would then be better since it favors your position more.
    Do or do not. There is no try.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer Oldgoat_MN's Avatar
    Posts
    665
    Like
    189
    Liked 33 Times in 22 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    We can't be sure that something like this isn't being used by one of the MLB teams.
    During the discussion of who should be the AL MVP last year, an Oakland exec said that their stats had Cabrera leading Trout by a tiny margin.
    Pretty sure they were not overly influenced by RBI.

    Fun stuff.

  13. #13
    Senior Member All-Star Badsmerf's Avatar
    Posts
    1,566
    Like
    18
    Liked 59 Times in 34 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Have I ever said I have a B.S. in Mathematics? I love the numbers in baseball and how to interpret them. There is almost no 2 people that place the same emphasis on the same categories. One of the many reasons I absolutely love this game.
    Do or do not. There is no try.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Gernzy View Post
    Wow I didn't realize Cuddyer was having such a great year. Good for him!
    A band box in thin air helps

  15. #15
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,013
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,512 Times in 791 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Badsmerf View Post
    I know you are bias toward OBP, and for good reason. I'm pretty balanced on BA, OBP, and SLUG. Maybe I am just too used to seeing SLUG instead of ISO. I might feel differently about OPS-BA if we just used ISO instead of SLUG. Maybe it is more indicative. In the case of Desmond vs. Pedroia, this would make Desmond sit at .529 and Pedroia sit at .501. So, you would think OPS would then be better since it favors your position more.
    I also believe in balance or those OBP guys won't score (it's a lot easier to drive home runners with a SLG guy than an OBP guy).

    But all things being equal, I think it's harder to find those OBP guys and runs scored correlations tend to favor a .001 increase in OBP more than a .001 increase in SLG.

    In the end, you need both... But if we're drafting, I'm taking the OBP guys first because they're more valuable and they'll be off the board more quickly. If the player is both an OBP and SLG monster, well... All the better.

  16. #16
    Senior Member All-Star Badsmerf's Avatar
    Posts
    1,566
    Like
    18
    Liked 59 Times in 34 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by wabene View Post
    A band box in thin air helps
    Since his HR/FB ratio is about 12.9 % which is below the 15.1% he enjoyed in 2009, so the thin air isn't making much of an impact here. His LD% is also at 22% which is the highest of his career, not really sure of the thin air make him hit more line drives. O yeah, he is also enjoying a .382 BABIP, which I don't think is an effect of Coors Field. In case you were wondering, his highest BABIP ever is .328 in 2006.

    Lets be fair when assessing players.
    Do or do not. There is no try.

  17. #17
    I'm not an expert on advanced metrics, but I'm trying to start a new stat called Total Batting Productivity. It is calculated similar to slugging in that it assigns 1 point for a single, 2 for a double etc., but also subtracts 1 point for a strikeout, 2 for a GiDP, and 3 for those rare GiTP. All of that is divided by total number of at bats.

    A similar more advanced stat would be Total Offensive Productivity which not only includes 1 point for walks and HBP but also 1 for stolen bases. It also subtracts 1 for a caught stealing and is divided by total plate appearances.

  18. #18
    Twins Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    6,495
    Like
    3,512
    Liked 3,012 Times in 1,280 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    This is a pretty interesting analysis of correlation that goes into a bit more than "this is the correlation number to runs scored" because the topic is a little more complex than that:

    What?s more important, OBP, Slugging or OPS? | Reading into the Numbers

    "A team that raises its OBP from .300 to .400 is expected to increase it’s runs scoring from 3.7 runs/game to 6.7. The equivalent increase in slugging would be about 131 points, on average. An increase in slugging from .358 to .489 predicts a scoring increase from 3.7 to 5.8 runs/game, an obvious downgrade from the OBP surge. However, if a team increases its OBP purely by walking more, then the 100 point increase in OBP will likely only increase run scoring from 3.7 to less than 5 runs/game. What a GM can take from this is that, while increases in OBP seem to lead to more run scoring than equivalent increases in slugging percentage, this is only the case when these increases come with a mix of walks and hits."
    What studies like this miss, or might want to consider, is that in the real world increases in OBP consisting of "a mix of walks and hits" also increase SLG.

    As for dropping BA from OPS, IMO we'd all be better off dropping OPS and using the triple slash line instead. All OBP is not created the same. A single is worth more than a walk, for example, and by knowing BA/OBP/SLG you get a pretty clear picture of a hitter...clearer than combining OBP and SLG into one number, IMO.

  19. #19
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,232
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wabene View Post
    A band box in thin air helps
    He's doing very well away from Coors as well. If his OPS away from Coors was his season OPS, he would rank 7th in the NL for OFs, and 2nd in the AL for OFs.

    And most players do better at home anyway. That's not to say that Coors doesn't give him an advantage.
    Last edited by ThePuck; 06-25-2013 at 08:56 AM.

  20. #20
    Senior Member All-Star Badsmerf's Avatar
    Posts
    1,566
    Like
    18
    Liked 59 Times in 34 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    I also believe in balance or those OBP guys won't score (it's a lot easier to drive home runners with a SLG guy than an OBP guy).

    But all things being equal, I think it's harder to find those OBP guys and runs scored correlations tend to favor a .001 increase in OBP more than a .001 increase in SLG.

    In the end, you need both... But if we're drafting, I'm taking the OBP guys first because they're more valuable and they'll be off the board more quickly. If the player is both an OBP and SLG monster, well... All the better.
    OBP skills tend to follow a player much better than SLUG. I agree with valuing OBP in young players because it is so difficult to project power in the MLB.

    I don't know if we are arguing over a point or just having a discussion right now.
    Do or do not. There is no try.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.