Any interest in Brian Giles?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'd trade Izturis and Jones for Giles and then sign Drew. Having two players in the OF with a 380 or better OBP along with Murton in left would greatly improve the offense.

[TheDude]

I'd trade Izturis and Jones for Giles and then sign Drew. Having two players in the OF with a 380 or better OBP along with Murton in left would greatly improve the offense.

 

If san Diego trades Giles, wouldn't it be for salary to address other needs? I am not seeing how that deal helps San Diego.

[goonys evil twin]

I'd trade Izturis and Jones for Giles and then sign Drew. Having two players in the OF with a 380 or better OBP along with Murton in left would greatly improve the offense.

 

If san Diego trades Giles, wouldn't it be for salary to address other needs? I am not seeing how that deal helps San Diego.

 

They would save about a million (and fill 2 spots) in 2007, and 5 million in 2008.

[davearm]

Murton, Drew & Giles would be a heck of an OBP outfield and would likely have enough power given ARam and DLee in the IF.

I'd prefer Murton, Drew, and a Jones/Craig Wilson platoon.

 

Three year averages:

Giles (overall): .282/.390/.451/.841

Jones (vRHP): .276/.339/.487/.826

Wilson (vLHP): .272/.378/.497/.875

 

You sacrifice a bit of OBP for more SLG, but you spend less $$$, don't give up any players in trade, and get a power bat for the bench too.

 

I read someplace today that Wilson's struggles in NY mean he'll probably settle for a modestly-priced 1-year deal.

[Balsa]

Stay away. He's old, and not getting any younger. His power is disappearing rapidly. I'd rather save money and have JJ out there, or save JJ for a better trade.

 

I expect Giles to go into a huge decline this year, ala Burnitz last year.

[kroth1342]

While looking at Giles' stats from the past 2 years in hopes of finding reasons for his decline last year, I noticed some things:

 

G/AB/H/2B/3B/HR/R/RBI/SB/CS/SO/BB/BA/OBA/SLG

 

2005:

158/545/164/38/8/15/92/83/13/5/64/119/.301/.423/.483

 

2006:

158/604/159/37/1/14/87/83/9/4/60/104/.263/.374/.397

 

Similar numbers of G, H, 2B, HR, R, RBI, SO, BB - very consistent. But 60 additional AB and 7 less 3B result in a .04 drop in BA, which cascaded into the declines in OBA and SLG. It seems to me that his decline wasn't that bad, and some bad luck could be involved. I don't have his BABIP stats for the two years, but Brian Giles seems like a serviceable solution for our OF problems - can he play CF?

[Abe Frohman]

Brian Giles is a significant upgrade over Jacque Jones in RF. That is a straight-up trade that I would love to see happen. I don't understand the idea of hitting him leadoff, but he would be a great #2 or #5/6 hitter. His decrease in power doesn't change my opinion of him as a hitter.

 

The numbers do not support this. Jones OPS last year was .062 points higher than Giles, for nearly half the cost.

 

The OPS+ for Giles was only slightly less than Jones, but it was still less. Granted Jones had a career year, but Giles downward trend is consistent and notable. He is no more likely to reverse the trend than Jones is to repeat his 2006 year.

 

So Giles is far from a 'significant upgrade' over Jones, when his production is likely to equal Jones going forward at twice the price no less.

 

Not much I can add that hasn't already been said - but the numbers DO support my statement that Giles would be a significant upgrade over Jones.

 

Jacque Jones is a very solid RFer, but his numbers are not even in Brian Giles league when it comes to runs scored, BB, RBI, OB%, BA, and even HR. Giles is argueably a better Outfielder than Jones, and a far better offensive force.

 

Do I really need to stack up the statistics?

[jjgman21]

Brian Giles is a significant upgrade over Jacque Jones in RF. That is a straight-up trade that I would love to see happen. I don't understand the idea of hitting him leadoff, but he would be a great #2 or #5/6 hitter. His decrease in power doesn't change my opinion of him as a hitter.

 

The numbers do not support this. Jones OPS last year was .062 points higher than Giles, for nearly half the cost.

 

The OPS+ for Giles was only slightly less than Jones, but it was still less. Granted Jones had a career year, but Giles downward trend is consistent and notable. He is no more likely to reverse the trend than Jones is to repeat his 2006 year.

 

So Giles is far from a 'significant upgrade' over Jones, when his production is likely to equal Jones going forward at twice the price no less.

 

But OPS doesn't tell the whole story. OPS favors high slugging players. Giles OBP is going to be at least .030 points higher, probably much more. That's a very big margin. Also, Giles moving to a new team and into a better hitter's park, could possibly return his numbers closer to his '05 numbers. I'd say the increase in OBP and chance of him returning to his numbers before 2006 is worth the extra cost.

 

I really don't have much input on the Jones/Giles debate, but here's the problem I have with this and have always had with this and have never had explained. in a 700 plate appearance season, the 'very big margin' that you are talking about translates into 21 additional times on base throughout the season (.375 v .345 obps)

 

is 21 times where the guy who gets on base and theoretically has a chance to score really better if he has 10 fewer HRs were scoring is not a theory but reality?

 

I agree that obp gets under billing in OPS, but I don't think its so vastly more important as it has been made out to be.

[Elrhino]

Brian Giles is a significant upgrade over Jacque Jones in RF. That is a straight-up trade that I would love to see happen. I don't understand the idea of hitting him leadoff, but he would be a great #2 or #5/6 hitter. His decrease in power doesn't change my opinion of him as a hitter.

 

The numbers do not support this. Jones OPS last year was .062 points higher than Giles, for nearly half the cost.

 

The OPS+ for Giles was only slightly less than Jones, but it was still less. Granted Jones had a career year, but Giles downward trend is consistent and notable. He is no more likely to reverse the trend than Jones is to repeat his 2006 year.

 

So Giles is far from a 'significant upgrade' over Jones, when his production is likely to equal Jones going forward at twice the price no less.

 

But OPS doesn't tell the whole story. OPS favors high slugging players. Giles OBP is going to be at least .030 points higher, probably much more. That's a very big margin. Also, Giles moving to a new team and into a better hitter's park, could possibly return his numbers closer to his '05 numbers. I'd say the increase in OBP and chance of him returning to his numbers before 2006 is worth the extra cost.

 

I really don't have much input on the Jones/Giles debate, but here's the problem I have with this and have always had with this and have never had explained. in a 700 plate appearance season, the 'very big margin' that you are talking about translates into 21 additional times on base throughout the season (.375 v .345 obps)

 

is 21 times where the guy who gets on base and theoretically has a chance to score really better if he has 10 fewer HRs were scoring is not a theory but reality?

 

I agree that obp gets under billing in OPS, but I don't think its so vastly more important as it has been made out to be.

 

I agree. Sorry, the 30 extra points of OBP is not worth the difference in power, age and salary.

[questionmarkgrace]

there is no way I could watch him swing the bat for an entire season. He has some of the ugliest swings I have ever seen. Dude needs to stop leaving his neck at home because he's all arms.

[BigbadB]

I really don't have much input on the Jones/Giles debate, but here's the problem I have with this and have always had with this and have never had explained. in a 700 plate appearance season, the 'very big margin' that you are talking about translates into 21 additional times on base throughout the season (.375 v .345 obps)

 

is 21 times where the guy who gets on base and theoretically has a chance to score really better if he has 10 fewer HRs were scoring is not a theory but reality?

 

Where are you getting the .375 OBP vs. the .345 OBP? Who do these OBP's belong to?

 

Jones last year: .334

Jones career: .328

 

Giles last year: .374

Giles career: .408

 

I wouldn't have an issue discussing the difference in OBP if you were using numbers that closely resemble both players. Jones and the .345 OBP is a number he's never accomplished in a single major league season, let alone for his career. The .375 OBP for Giles is the worst he's ever put up in a major league season.

[jmajew]

If I recall correctly Giles can play a decent CF. If that is the case I wouldn't mind seeing the Cubs trade for him if Drew falls through. Granted he wouldn't be my first choice, Drew, Wells, and Jones are all ahead of him, but I think we could do a lot worse. Giles batting second would definitely be a good thing.

[imb]

I would only replace Jones with Giles if the Padres eat an extensive amount of that contract, otherwise I don't think the cost is justified. I'd look elsewhere to upgrade, because, honestly, if we don't severely upgrade ouor offense elsewhere, it won't matter who is playing RF.

[BigbadB]

As far as how much more productive a guy with a higher OBP can be, it is rather minute in the big picture. A team needs to value OBP throughout the line up. 21 more times on base at one position isn't much. 21 more times on base at every spot in the line up is massively significant.

 

Cubs batting average in 2006: .268

Phils batting average in 2006: .267

 

Cubs times on base via hit or walk: 1891

Phils times on base via hit or walk: 2144

 

Cubs runs scored: 716

Phils runs scored: 865

 

8 position players x 21 extra hits or walks = 168 times on base

 

Add 168 to the Cubs times on base in 2006= 2059

 

That still doesn't equal the amount of times on base for the Phillies in 2006.

 

Brian Giles would not fix the OBP issues the Cubs have. But, adding a Brian Giles or JD Drew and several other replacement players that provide an exceptional OBP above what the Cubs players did in 2006 is how the Cubs can score more runs.

 

Only a small handful of teams had a higher batting average than the Cubs last year. That's it. A small handful. However, EVERY SINGLE team in the NL walked more than the Cubs. The 2nd worst team in the league at drawing walks last year (Pittsburgh) drew 64 more walks than the Cubs. The SECOND WORST team.

 

If you look at the top teams in runs scored each year, you'll see a consistency there. The higher OBP teams tend to score more runs. Couple in a respectable OBP with some timely hitting and you really score a lot of runs. AVG isn't nearly as good as a predictor of runs scored.

[TheDude]

Brian Giles is a significant upgrade over Jacque Jones in RF. That is a straight-up trade that I would love to see happen. I don't understand the idea of hitting him leadoff, but he would be a great #2 or #5/6 hitter. His decrease in power doesn't change my opinion of him as a hitter.

 

The numbers do not support this. Jones OPS last year was .062 points higher than Giles, for nearly half the cost.

 

The OPS+ for Giles was only slightly less than Jones, but it was still less. Granted Jones had a career year, but Giles downward trend is consistent and notable. He is no more likely to reverse the trend than Jones is to repeat his 2006 year.

 

So Giles is far from a 'significant upgrade' over Jones, when his production is likely to equal Jones going forward at twice the price no less.

 

Not much I can add that hasn't already been said - but the numbers DO support my statement that Giles would be a significant upgrade over Jones.

 

Jacque Jones is a very solid RFer, but his numbers are not even in Brian Giles league when it comes to runs scored, BB, RBI, OB%, BA, and even HR. Giles is argueably a better Outfielder than Jones, and a far better offensive force.

 

Do I really need to stack up the statistics?

 

Are you in denial about Giles 2006? Yes, please stack up the statisitics, as several of your claims are outright wrong. How can you claim Jones HR numbers 'are not even in Brian Giles league', when Jones had 27 and Giles had 14? That's 2-to-1!

 

Giles also did not outproduce Jones on BA, there's a .023 Jones advantage. RBI were equal. Of the stats you list (your selective list to make your point, very noticably ommitting the common and important SLG and OPS), Giles only beat Jones in OBP and Runs - but Jones was batting 5th-6th on a last place team and still scored only 10 Runs shy of Giles, who bat in the heart of the order of a playoff team.

 

Jones outslugged Giles by .102 points as well, and had .062 higher OPS in 2005.

 

Brian Giles is not the player he was in Pittsburgh. And at 35, his odds of suddenly recapturing those numbers are extraordinarily slim.

 

I'm not saying he is a bad player. But it's a far stretch to claim Giles is a far superior player to Jones at his current production levels. All Giles has going for him now is staggering OBP that can't even raise to an .800 OPS.

 

Giles production in 2006 was on par with Jamey Carroll, Edgar Renteria, and Ryan Freel, as the only NL players with top 30 OBP and sub-.800 OPS. Giles did not even outproduce Murton in 2006. Look it up.

[BigbadB]

Is an OBP like the one Jacque Jones provides killing this team? No. However, having mediocre to below average OBP at several positions is killing this team. If you can improve OBP at 1 or more positions, you should.

 

I also want to point out that I only picked the Phillies as a comparison because they led the league in scoring runs. I could use just about any other team in MLB to further illustrate my point.

 

OBP is a good thing and it should be welcomed with open arms.

[BigbadB]

Brian Giles is not the player he was in Pittsburgh. And at 35, his odds of suddenly recapturing those numbers are extraordinarily slim.

 

Because Giles is 35, a drop off in production is likely. However, I do believe the parks he plays in plays a huge role. I watch him play nearly everyday. He's a pull hitter that can't reach the seats in Petco Park. A lot of those long fly balls to RF are caught by the RFer. In many other parks, these would be home runs. 20 HR's worth? I'm not sure. But, there aren't many players who can reach the seats in RF consistently in that park.

 

A move to the NL Central, a division I view as one of the most hitter friendly divisions in MLB, IMO, would provide a significant improvement in SLG. But, it's only my opinion. It's possible that age has truly caught up with him more than I'm willing to admit.

 

I said it last year when he signed with San Diego. Going back to that park is going to kill his numbers. I can't tell you how many times he stood their in amazement when a crushed ball that would hit the upper deck in other parks landed in the RFers mitt at the warning track at Petco. The frustration that I saw on the faces of he and Klesko the first year they played in Petco was what convinced me that both couldn't wait to get out of Petco. It's not a favorable park for LH bats at all.

 

If the Cubs signed Drew and maybe Ray Durham, I think the Cubs could get away with a platoon of Jones in RF. I'd rather see Brian Giles out there because of the massive improvement in OBP and in my opinion, an improvement in SLG. But, the Cubs do need to improve OBP somehow, significantly.

[TheDude]

Brian Giles is not the player he was in Pittsburgh. And at 35, his odds of suddenly recapturing those numbers are extraordinarily slim.

Because Giles is 35, a drop off in production is likely. However, I do believe the parks he plays in plays a huge role. I watch him play nearly everyday. He's a pull hitter that can't reach the seats in Petco Park. A lot of those long fly balls to RF are caught by the RFer. In many other parks, these would be home runs. 20 HR's worth? I'm not sure. But, there aren't many players who can reach the seats in RF consistently in that park.

 

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, Giles SLG splits on the road were only .026 points higher, and his road OPS was still under .800, only .018 higher than home.

 

The ballpark argument doesn't hold, at least for 2006.

[BigbadB]

Brian Giles is not the player he was in Pittsburgh. And at 35, his odds of suddenly recapturing those numbers are extraordinarily slim.

Because Giles is 35, a drop off in production is likely. However, I do believe the parks he plays in plays a huge role. I watch him play nearly everyday. He's a pull hitter that can't reach the seats in Petco Park. A lot of those long fly balls to RF are caught by the RFer. In many other parks, these would be home runs. 20 HR's worth? I'm not sure. But, there aren't many players who can reach the seats in RF consistently in that park.

 

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, Giles SLG splits on the road were only .026 points higher, and his road OPS was still under .800, only .018 higher than home.

 

The ballpark argument doesn't hold, at least for 2006.

 

Actually, I think the argument does hold. LA, Arizona when the lid is closed and San Fran are other poor places to hit. Colorado is a very difficult place to hit a home run, though it is a very friendly hitting park. Though, even that park saw a significant decrease in runs scored this past year.

[BigbadB]

Giles lifetime:

 

Wrigley:.312/.483/.670/1.153

GAP: .309/.443/.509/.952

Busch: .337/.464/.705/1.169

Busch 2: .375/.500/.750/1.250

Miller: .283/.430/.517/.947

PNC: .325/.441/.606/1.047

Juicebox: .290/.418/.497/.914

 

Petco: .272/.377/.430/.807

AT&T: .306/.438/.437/.934

Dodger: .258/.335/.429/.764

Coors: .284/.412/.574/.986

BOB: .279/.350/.536/.885

 

Best OPS parks in 2006 in order:

 

1. New Busch Stadium

2. Angel Stadium

3. PNC

4. Turner

5. Ameriquest

6. Minutemaid

7. GAP

8. Chase

9. Wrigley

 

5 of the top 9 are NL Central

 

Best OPS parks in 2005 in order:

 

1. GAP

2. Old Busch

3. Coors

4. Shea

5. Minutemaid

6. AT&T

7. Metrodome

8. Wrigley

9. Turner

 

4 of the top 9 are NL Central

 

I think an argument can still be made that he would likely see a nice SLG increase if he played in the NL Central.

[Abe Frohman]

Brian Giles is a significant upgrade over Jacque Jones in RF. That is a straight-up trade that I would love to see happen. I don't understand the idea of hitting him leadoff, but he would be a great #2 or #5/6 hitter. His decrease in power doesn't change my opinion of him as a hitter.

 

The numbers do not support this. Jones OPS last year was .062 points higher than Giles, for nearly half the cost.

 

The OPS+ for Giles was only slightly less than Jones, but it was still less. Granted Jones had a career year, but Giles downward trend is consistent and notable. He is no more likely to reverse the trend than Jones is to repeat his 2006 year.

 

So Giles is far from a 'significant upgrade' over Jones, when his production is likely to equal Jones going forward at twice the price no less.

 

Not much I can add that hasn't already been said - but the numbers DO support my statement that Giles would be a significant upgrade over Jones.

 

Jacque Jones is a very solid RFer, but his numbers are not even in Brian Giles league when it comes to runs scored, BB, RBI, OB%, BA, and even HR. Giles is argueably a better Outfielder than Jones, and a far better offensive force.

 

Do I really need to stack up the statistics?

 

Are you in denial about Giles 2006? Yes, please stack up the statisitics, as several of your claims are outright wrong. How can you claim Jones HR numbers 'are not even in Brian Giles league', when Jones had 27 and Giles had 14? That's 2-to-1!

 

Giles also did not outproduce Jones on BA, there's a .023 Jones advantage. RBI were equal. Of the stats you list (your selective list to make your point, very noticably ommitting the common and important SLG and OPS), Giles only beat Jones in OBP and Runs - but Jones was batting 5th-6th on a last place team and still scored only 10 Runs shy of Giles, who bat in the heart of the order of a playoff team.

 

Jones outslugged Giles by .102 points as well, and had .062 higher OPS in 2005.

 

Brian Giles is not the player he was in Pittsburgh. And at 35, his odds of suddenly recapturing those numbers are extraordinarily slim.

 

I'm not saying he is a bad player. But it's a far stretch to claim Giles is a far superior player to Jones at his current production levels. All Giles has going for him now is staggering OBP that can't even raise to an .800 OPS.

 

Giles production in 2006 was on par with Jamey Carroll, Edgar Renteria, and Ryan Freel, as the only NL players with top 30 OBP and sub-.800 OPS. Giles did not even outproduce Murton in 2006. Look it up.

 

Am I in denial? Hell no. Jacque Jones had his best year in 2006, and it still wasn't a better season than Brian Giles had (despite 2006 being considered a down year).

 

On average, Jones is not in Giles league offensively. Look at their career runs scored, HR, RBI, BB, Average, and most importantly, OB%. You can't compare them. So what if Giles is not hitting balls out of the park as frequently as he used to, he STILL gets on base and scores runs at a better clip than JJones, and if you don't think that Giles (even at the age of 35) will not be an overall upgrade in RF over Jacque Jones - pass me some of what you're smokin there.

 

Giles/Jones 2006

 

AB-604-533

H-159-152

R-87-73

2B-37-31

HR-14-27

RBI-83-81

BB-104-35

K-60-116

AVG-.263-.285

OB%-.374-.334

 

About the only thing Jones (career year) smokes Giles (career low) in is batting average (.285 to .263). Considering that fact, Giles still scored more runs, drove in more runs, and had more hits. Most IMPORTANTLY, Giles got on base via BB&H 263 times, compared to Jones getting on base 187 times. That is 76 more times on base, which is also a hell of a lot more chances to score a run - WHICH IS THE NAME OF THE GAME.

 

I respect your arguement, but wholly disagree. Jones is solid, but the Cubs can definately improve - and Brian Giles would be an upgrade.

[TheDude]

I respect your arguement, but wholly disagree. Jones is solid, but the Cubs can definately improve - and Brian Giles would be an upgrade.

 

We're not going to see eye-to-eye here. You continue to use Giles career numbers and reputation over his current production. If you're allowed to devalue Jones for a 'career year', then I'm allowed to devalue Giles for a predictable major decline and a 'career worst year'. It goes both ways.

 

I'm looking at Giles 2007 and 2008 projections as similar to, if not worse than 2006, while looking at Jones 2007 and 2008 projections as his 3-year split with slight decline. This is based on the traditional age/production bell-curve in a non-steriods influenced world.

 

Just using historical precident, 35 year old OFs don't have 'down years' and rebound to earlier success. It's not a down year. At that age, the down year sets the trend. Jones at age 31 is close enough to the top of the curve that his production should remain relatively flat.

 

When I consider those parameters for evaluation, removing my personal bias for Giles (I really am a big fan of his career), and add in salary as well, swapping Jones for Giles for 2007/2008 is an overall lateral move that costs the organization 10 million dollars.

[USSoccer]

I respect your arguement, but wholly disagree. Jones is solid, but the Cubs can definately improve - and Brian Giles would be an upgrade.

 

We're not going to see eye-to-eye here. You continue to use Giles career numbers and reputation over his current production. If you're allowed to devalue Jones for a 'career year', then I'm allowed to devalue Giles for a predictable major decline and a 'career worst year'. It goes both ways.

 

I'm looking at Giles 2007 and 2008 projections as similar to, if not worse than 2006, while looking at Jones 2007 and 2008 projections as his 3-year split with slight decline. This is based on the traditional age/production bell-curve in a non-steriods influenced world.

 

Just using historical precident, 35 year old OFs don't have 'down years' and rebound to earlier success. It's not a down year. At that age, the down year sets the trend. Jones at age 31 is close enough to the top of the curve that his production should remain relatively flat.

 

When I consider those parameters for evaluation, removing my personal bias for Giles (I really am a big fan of his career), and add in salary as well, swapping Jones for Giles for 2007/2008 is an overall lateral move that costs the organization 10 million dollars.

 

I'm going to agree with your general point about Giles declining, but his value for the next 2 years is going to depend on his role. Aging sluggers of Giles' type tend to keep their batting eye and plate discipline. If he maintained an OPB above .350, we could hit him leadoff and he'd be an upgrade over Jones in that regard. Also, Giles' salary is $10m, and Jones' is like $6m. It's only a net $4m investment.

[TheDude]

I'm going to agree with your general point about Giles declining, but his value for the next 2 years is going to depend on his role. Aging sluggers of Giles' type tend to keep their batting eye and plate discipline. If he maintained an OPB above .350, we could hit him leadoff and he'd be an upgrade over Jones in that regard. Also, Giles' salary is $10m, and Jones' is like $6m. It's only a net $4m investment.

 

For the salary cost, I was considering 2007 and 2008. I believe 10 million is the total cost difference for both years, though maybe the number is 8-9.

 

I get that OBP is a much needed asset on the team right now, and that the team was dead in the NL in OBP. But they were also 10th in slugging and only Ramirez and Lee project to outslug Jones next season (Barret in limited ABs as well).

 

There is a sharp decline in slugging between Jones and Giles. Even factoring in Jones' career year, his slugging wasn't appreciably higher than his career number (.038 difference).

 

The team needs both OBP and SLG to improve - the team needs better OPS. Swapping one for the other doesn't improve the team goal, it just shuffles the categories around.

 

That is why I like using OPS or OPS+ as the better measurable stat for comparisons, because it accounts for overall producton value. The two players, for the next two seasons, are likely to produce relatively similar OPS or OPS+ values. Giles just cost more.

[jjgman21]

I really don't have much input on the Jones/Giles debate, but here's the problem I have with this and have always had with this and have never had explained. in a 700 plate appearance season, the 'very big margin' that you are talking about translates into 21 additional times on base throughout the season (.375 v .345 obps)

 

is 21 times where the guy who gets on base and theoretically has a chance to score really better if he has 10 fewer HRs were scoring is not a theory but reality?

 

Where are you getting the .375 OBP vs. the .345 OBP? Who do these OBP's belong to?

 

Jones last year: .334

Jones career: .328

 

Giles last year: .374

Giles career: .408

 

I wouldn't have an issue discussing the difference in OBP if you were using numbers that closely resemble both players. Jones and the .345 OBP is a number he's never accomplished in a single major league season, let alone for his career. The .375 OBP for Giles is the worst he's ever put up in a major league season.

 

they were random numbers used to illustrate a point. despite a clear caveat that I am not getting into the Jones/Giles disucssion, you want to steer it back there.

 

to further clarify the point, even though OPS does favor SLG, a 40 point difference in OBP does not make up for a 102 point difference in SLG. the OBP v. SLG components when OPS is close is useful. not so much when there is a 62 point difference in two players OPS.