OPS

[Thruthefog]

The way Bill James explained it back in the day, is that baseball's clock is measured by outs. Instead of one hour, you get 27 outs. A player that doesn't use up his teams' offensive time is more valuable than one that does.

One more thing. I'm not sure why they use OPS. OBP x SLP is the correct way to use the combination of the two. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm full of it. But I thought I'd throw that out there for those of you who didn't have the chance to read Bill James when he was putting out his abstract, and who don't already know everything.

 

[steveringo]

The way Bill James explained it back in the day, is that baseball's clock is measured by outs. Instead of one hour, you get 27 outs. A player that doesn't use up his teams' offensive time is more valuable than one that does.

One more thing. I'm not sure why they use OPS. OBP x SLP is the correct way to use the combination of the two. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm full of it. But I thought I'd throw that out there for those of you who didn't have the chance to read Bill James when he was putting out his abstract, and who don't already know everything.

Sometimes the outcome drives the formula... .976 is much cooler than .231....

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The way Bill James explained it back in the day, is that baseball's clock is measured by outs. Instead of one hour, you get 27 outs. A player that doesn't use up his teams' offensive time is more valuable than one that does.

One more thing. I'm not sure why they use OPS. OBP x SLP is the correct way to use the combination of the two. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm full of it. But I thought I'd throw that out there for those of you who didn't have the chance to read Bill James when he was putting out his abstract, and who don't already know everything.

Mathematically you are right it should be multiplication not adding since adding means OR while Multiplying means AND... We are not saying OBP or Slugging!!! but i like that we add and not multiply, only because i think all stats should be easily calculated by anyone doing it. Thats what i dont like about wOBA even though i like what it is doing...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I understand what you are saying. In a Mathematical sense, its illogical. Same like K/BB rate.. the Math behind it, is illogical, but the Results look fairly accurate...

But Walks Do have Value and OBP Illustrates a certain type of Value. The Value of creating Opportunities. Which is why its better than BA.

If 2 guys have the same Slugging, the guy Committing Outs at a higher rate is worse. That simple. If you have 2 guys with the same Slugging and BA.. But one has a higher Walk Rate. The Guy with the Higher BB rate is better not only because he is creating more Opportunities...He is committing outs at a lower rate.

The Guy who went 3-3 with 3 singles created 3 Opportunities. The Guy who went 1-3 with a triple created only 1 opportunity and Costed 2 outs.

Value in Baseball SHOULD be by plate appearances.

Personally. I like the the Concept behind wOBA. But I don't like the exact.
formula it uses...

Scalious, thanks for actually understanding the thread before posting... it is hard arguing with people who dont understand what the thread is about... But i do see a problem with your post, the whole expectation for OPS to be all encompassing... why does it need to be, it is just one stat that is an summation of 2 stats... To me it makes more sense logically to be "BAPS" not just because of the math, but doesnt it make more sense to have one stat BA be how often you get a hit and then slugging be how affective you have been with those hits??

 

[steveringo]

Scalious, thanks for actually understanding the thread before posting... it is hard arguing with people who dont understand what the thread is about... But i do see a problem with your post, the whole expectation for OPS to be all encompassing... why does it need to be, it is just one stat that is an summation of 2 stats... To me it makes more sense logically to be "BAPS" not just because of the math, but doesnt it make more sense to have one stat BA be how often you get a hit and then slugging be how affective you have been with those hits??

The only question remaining - what value is gained by adding BA & SLG?

SLG is already an extension of BA.

 

[steveringo]

Scalious, thanks for actually understanding the thread before posting... it is hard arguing with people who dont understand what the thread is about... But i do see a problem with your post, the whole expectation for OPS to be all encompassing... why does it need to be, it is just one stat that is an summation of 2 stats... To me it makes more sense logically to be "BAPS" not just because of the math, but doesnt it make more sense to have one stat BA be how often you get a hit and then slugging be how affective you have been with those hits??

And, if anyone thinks OPS is an all encompassing statistic, they need to burn their pink hats and go back to watching the NBA.

OPS is simply the sum of OBP & SLG - with the assumption that both individual stats show value and the combination of the two brings additional worthwhile information.

The sum of BA & SLG does not bring additional vaule. It simply dilutes SLG.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The only question remaining - what value is gained by adding BA & SLG?

SLG is already an extension of BA.

What is gained compared to the OPS we know, just a more accurate stat...

 

[JDM]

What is gained compared to the OPS we know, just a more accurate stat...

No, because the benefit OPS brings is that it gives a way to compare power hitters to people who get on base. Is it perfect, no, but slugging percentage is literally a weighted batting average, so adding BA means nothing. OBP provides a way to add in getting on base without a hit. That is the only part added to OPS not measured in slugging percentage. Using batting average just decreases the weight of extra base hits.

BAPS, or whatever you want to call it, would just be:
1B*2 +2B*3+3B*4+HR*5
________________________
AB

 

[steveringo]

What is gained compared to the OPS we know, just a more accurate stat...

No, because the benefit OPS brings is that it gives a way to compare power hitters to people who get on base. Is it perfect, no, but slugging percentage is literally a weighted batting average, so adding BA means nothing. OBP provides a way to add in getting on base without a hit. That is the only part added to OPS not measured in slugging percentage. Using batting average just decreases the weight of extra base hits.

BAPS, or whatever you want to call it, would just be:
1B*2 +2B*3+3B*4+HR*5
________________________
AB

Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

The sicilian died, so does that mean you are coming to my side??

 

[MilkSpiller22]

No, because the benefit OPS brings is that it gives a way to compare power hitters to people who get on base. Is it perfect, no, but slugging percentage is literally a weighted batting average, so adding BA means nothing. OBP provides a way to add in getting on base without a hit. That is the only part added to OPS not measured in slugging percentage. Using batting average just decreases the weight of extra base hits.

BAPS, or whatever you want to call it, would just be:
1B*2 +2B*3+3B*4+HR*5
________________________
AB

so because it is an easier formula that is a bad thing?? my whole point is that the easier the formula is a good thing!!! Once again "BAPS" would be how often you get a hit plus how affective you are per AB...

As i said before i have no problem with OBP if walks and Hit batter was included to slugging percentage(even if the name of stat changes).

 

[JDM]

It's not valuable because it's a slightly differently weighted slugging percentage. OPS attempts to measure more.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

It's not valuable because it's a slightly differently weighted slugging percentage. OPS attempts to measure more.

Just wondering, is it the way you look at OPS that attempts to measure more or did you read the book and saw what the stats true intention is... Just asking because maybe i just dont understand the intention of the stat...

 

[JDM]

It's just looking at the formula. They're all arbitrary. This one attempts to measure a batters total production, counting both his ability to get on base and his ability to hit for power.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

It's just looking at the formula. They're all arbitrary. This one attempts to measure a batters total production, counting both his ability to get on base and his ability to hit for power.

JDM, just because you like the end result of a stat does not mean it is a logical stat or well calculated stat... I agree that the results look pretty and is a good indicator to who is better... but just because it is good looking does not mean it is accurate...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I understand i am fighting the fight that nobody cares about... but that does not mean i am wrong... have not heard any valid reason to prove me wrong, and i have only added validity to prove me correct...

 

[JDM]

Accurate in what way? It is a way to compare different types of batters; it does a fairly good job at doing so. Your stat doesn't do anything slugging percentage doesn't do.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

"BAPS"-You take how often you get a HIT per AB add it to how affective you are per AB...

OPS- How often you get on base per PA + how affective you are per AB...

What makes more sense?? look at the durations here... how affective are you for PA-AB?? Walks and HBP does not need to be relevant in this stat to make it a good stat...

 

[JDM]

How often you get a hit is already measured. You are very slightly changing weights in the equation. There is less than no value to two equations varying only by slight differences in weighting.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

How often you get a hit is already measured. You are very slightly changing weights in the equation. There is less than no value to two equations varying only by slight differences in weighting.

I am not calling for the stat to change, but will you at least admit that the construction of the statistic is a little arbitrary???