Slugging or On Base Fueled OPS?

[Mephistopheles]

yeah whatever. keep kidding yourselves. maybe if you pray for something god will help you...but probably not.

[Mizzou]

I bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, the vast majority of them would have preferred to have Sosa on their team rather than Olerud that year.

[Derwood]

yeah whatever. keep kidding yourselves. maybe if you pray for something god will help you...but probably not.

 

let's boil run production down to the individuals here. Taking away any team contributions (ie throwing out most RBI's and runs), you have Sosa, who hit 66 HR and Olerud who hit 29. Thus, assuming no help from their teammates (ie no one on base), Sosa produced 66 runs for his team while Olerud produced 29. A HR is the best possible outcome for any at bat as a) it's never an out and b) it's always a run.

 

in a theoretical, forward looking sense, of course you'd want a guy with a higher OBP/OPS+ on your team (ie Olerud), but we have the actual numbers in front of us for 1998, and it's clear that Sosa was more impactful in scoring runs, which, if I remember correctly, is the point of baseball. i don't think there's a formula out there that would show that swapping out Olerud for Sosa would produce more runs for the team, and if you could, a person is not a formula, and, like it or not, it is a team sport and what your teammates do DOES impact every at-bat you have during a season

[Flames24Rulz]

yeah whatever. keep kidding yourselves. maybe if you pray for something god will help you...but probably not.

 

So what, we're not allowed to disagree with you now? Sosa had 66 HR's that season. Of course the individual goal of the game is to get on base, which Olreud nearly did one in two times that season. But Sosa had 66 homers and drove in 158 runs. Let's be honest, there wasn't much else around Sosa that year on the 98 team. Grace had a solid season and Henry Rodriguez was decent, but that was about it.

 

Olerud would have gotten on base, but who was going to drive him in? The point of the game is to score the most runs (wow I feel like an idiot saying that). Like Derwood said, baseball is a TEAM game. Based on the 1998 team, I'd much rather have had Sosa as he had the ability to not only drive others in, but drive himself in on every given AB.

[Guest]

yeah whatever. keep kidding yourselves. maybe if you pray for something god will help you...but probably not.

 

let's boil run production down to the individuals here. Taking away any team contributions (ie throwing out most RBI's and runs), you have Sosa, who hit 66 HR and Olerud who hit 29. Thus, assuming no help from their teammates (ie no one on base), Sosa produced 66 runs for his team while Olerud produced 29. A HR is the best possible outcome for any at bat as a) it's never an out and b) it's always a run.

 

in a theoretical, forward looking sense, of course you'd want a guy with a higher OBP/OPS+ on your team (ie Olerud), but we have the actual numbers in front of us for 1998, and it's clear that Sosa was more impactful in scoring runs, which, if I remember correctly, is the point of baseball. i don't think there's a formula out there that would show that swapping out Olerud for Sosa would produce more runs for the team, and if you could, a person is not a formula, and, like it or not, it is a team sport and what your teammates do DOES impact every at-bat you have during a season

 

actually a home run is better than that because it leaves no runners on base. there are two things a hitter can control - total number of team plate appearances (+1 for not making an out) and team runners left on base (home run leaves zero on base, triple leaves one on base, double leaves up to two on base, single up to three on base, walk up to three on base). part two of that is slugging and is difficult to isolate because factors such as runners speed, where the double or single is hit etc factor in. Thus, slugging captures the skill over the long term but is difficult to quantify.

 

as an aside, using the factor 1.8 is not as simple as you make it seem since slugging is already greater than obp for the vast majority of players.

[rocket]

EqA is about the closest I've seen to a wonder stat, it even includes SB.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2596

 

yeah i like EqA a lot, but the problem is that a lot of people don't understand it.

 

Not hard at all

 

EqA = (((((((((2 * ((TB + H + 1.5 * (BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) / (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB)) / ((Lg_TB + Lg_H + 1.5 * (Lg_BB + Lg_HBP + Lg_SB) + Lg_SH + Lg_SF) / (Lg_AB + Lg_BB + Lg_HBP + Lg_SH + Lg_SF + Lg_CS + Lg_SB))) - 1) * PA * (Lg_R / Lg_PA))^1.8) / ((((((2 * ((TB + H + 1.5 * (BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) / (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB)) / ((Lg_TB + Lg_H + 1.5 * (Lg_BB + Lg_HBP + Lg_SB) + Lg_SH + Lg_SF) / (Lg_AB + Lg_BB + Lg_HBP + Lg_SH + Lg_SF + Lg_CS + Lg_SB))) - 1) * PA * (Lg_R / Lg_PA))^1.8) + (PA * Lg_R / Lg_PA * ParkRF)^1.5)))) / (1 - ((((((2 * ((TB + H + 1.5 * (BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) / (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB)) / ((Lg_TB + Lg_H + 1.5 * (Lg_BB + Lg_HBP + Lg_SB) + Lg_SH + Lg_SF) / (Lg_AB + Lg_BB + Lg_HBP + Lg_SH + Lg_SF + Lg_CS + Lg_SB))) - 1) * PA * (Lg_R / Lg_PA))^1.8) / ((((((2 * ((TB + H + 1.5 * (BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) / (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB)) / ((Lg_TB + Lg_H + 1.5 * (Lg_BB + Lg_HBP + Lg_SB) + Lg_SH + Lg_SF) / (Lg_AB + Lg_BB + Lg_HBP + Lg_SH + Lg_SF + Lg_CS + Lg_SB))) - 1) * PA * (Lg_R / Lg_PA))^1.8) + (PA * Lg_R / Lg_PA * ParkRF)^1.5)))))^.2) * .26

 

i found me a new sig

[TruffleShuffle]

yeah whatever. keep kidding yourselves. maybe if you pray for something god will help you...but probably not.

 

i see we're ridiculing people's religious beliefs now... that seems appropriate.

[Drew Doughty]

I bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, the vast majority of them would have preferred to have Sosa on their team rather than Olerud that year.

 

and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players.

[Derwood]

I bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, the vast majority of them would have preferred to have Sosa on their team rather than Olerud that year.

 

and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players.

 

that's a little unfair

[Electron Blue]

I bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, the vast majority of them would have preferred to have Sosa on their team rather than Olerud that year.

 

and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players.

 

that's a little unfair

 

why? even if it's an exaggeration (and I don't think it is), it makes the point that players are biased, and even ignorant, towards evaluation of players/stats/results.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

oops Edited August 4, 2007 by vance_the_cubs_fan

[Mephistopheles]

let's boil run production down to the individuals here. Taking away any team contributions (ie throwing out most RBI's and runs), you have Sosa, who hit 66 HR and Olerud who hit 29. Thus, assuming no help from their teammates (ie no one on base), Sosa produced 66 runs for his team while Olerud produced 29. A HR is the best possible outcome for any at bat as a) it's never an out and b) it's always a run.

 

The hell? Why in the world would someone decide to ONLY look at home runs. That's insanely wrong. If you do NOT want to look at things in a rate form (such as EqA) and you want to look at runs produced, then you can easily use linear weights. LWS give runs for each specific play based on how much the plays mean to scoring. So a 1B is worth X runs, a 2B is worth Y runs and so on. Olerud's going to come out on top here. No one's saying that the HR is not the best offensive outcome, but let's be honest, no player has ever been the best on the long ball alone which is what you're doing..

 

in a theoretical, forward looking sense, of course you'd want a guy with a higher OBP/OPS+ on your team (ie Olerud), but we have the actual numbers in front of us for 1998, and it's clear that Sosa was more impactful in scoring runs, which, if I remember correctly, is the point of baseball. i don't think there's a formula out there that would show that swapping out Olerud for Sosa would produce more runs for the team, and if you could, a person is not a formula, and, like it or not, it is a team sport and what your teammates do DOES impact every at-bat you have during a season

 

While there ARE little things that these formulas do not include, they don't amount to much and to take Sosa because of RBIs and HRs just because of some mythical energy field that controls his destiny is like hitting on 20 in blackjack.

 

yeah whatever. keep kidding yourselves. maybe if you pray for something god will help you...but probably not.

 

So what, we're not allowed to disagree with you now? Sosa had 66 HR's that season. Of course the individual goal of the game is to get on base, which Olreud nearly did one in two times that season. But Sosa had 66 homers and drove in 158 runs. Let's be honest, there wasn't much else around Sosa that year on the 98 team. Grace had a solid season and Henry Rodriguez was decent, but that was about it.

 

Olerud would have gotten on base, but who was going to drive him in? The point of the game is to score the most runs (wow I feel like an idiot saying that). Like Derwood said, baseball is a TEAM game. Based on the 1998 team, I'd much rather have had Sosa as he had the ability to not only drive others in, but drive himself in on every given AB.

 

Why are we talking about the teams when we are asking about an individual player. Derek Jeter's Yankees didnt win four rings because he gave better "favors" to his teammates. They won because he had good teammates. He didn't cause them to be good. It's the same damn thing here. The Cubs had a LOT better offensive team than the Mets did that year. So you really don't have an argument with Grace, Henry, etc.

 

I bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, the vast majority of them would have preferred to have Sosa on their team rather than Olerud that year.

 

and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players.

 

and Derek Jeter is the best defensive SS in his league --- oh wait they did that at BA and he did win.

[Derwood]

I bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, the vast majority of them would have preferred to have Sosa on their team rather than Olerud that year.

 

and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players.

 

that's a little unfair

 

why? even if it's an exaggeration (and I don't think it is), it makes the point that players are biased, and even ignorant, towards evaluation of players/stats/results.

 

well it wasn't my argument....

 

either way, Sammy drove in 158 runs on a team with a .335 OBP while Olerud drove in 93 on a team with a .328 OBP. In other words, the frequency with which their teammates got on base was negligible, but Sammy made much better of it

[Mephistopheles]

yeah whatever. keep kidding yourselves. maybe if you pray for something god will help you...but probably not.

 

i see we're ridiculing people's religious beliefs now... that seems appropriate.

 

not really. it's more about blind faith. people believe what they can't see in religion and its the same here. i have nothing against anyones religious beliefs. don't get so defensive.

[Electron Blue]

I bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, the vast majority of them would have preferred to have Sosa on their team rather than Olerud that year.

 

and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players.

 

that's a little unfair

 

why? even if it's an exaggeration (and I don't think it is), it makes the point that players are biased, and even ignorant, towards evaluation of players/stats/results.

 

well it wasn't my argument....

 

either way, Sammy drove in 158 runs on a team with a .335 OBP while Olerud drove in 93 on a team with a .328 OBP. In other words, the frequency with which their teammates got on base was negligible, but Sammy made much better of it

 

but "that's a little unfair" was your comment. why was it unfair?

[Derwood]

I bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, the vast majority of them would have preferred to have Sosa on their team rather than Olerud that year.

 

and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players.

 

that's a little unfair

 

why? even if it's an exaggeration (and I don't think it is), it makes the point that players are biased, and even ignorant, towards evaluation of players/stats/results.

 

well it wasn't my argument....

 

either way, Sammy drove in 158 runs on a team with a .335 OBP while Olerud drove in 93 on a team with a .328 OBP. In other words, the frequency with which their teammates got on base was negligible, but Sammy made much better of it

 

but "that's a little unfair" was your comment. why was it unfair?

 

because eckstein and pierre didn't win the MVP that year

[Mephistopheles]

I bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, the vast majority of them would have preferred to have Sosa on their team rather than Olerud that year.

 

and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players.

 

that's a little unfair

 

why? even if it's an exaggeration (and I don't think it is), it makes the point that players are biased, and even ignorant, towards evaluation of players/stats/results.

 

well it wasn't my argument....

 

either way, Sammy drove in 158 runs on a team with a .335 OBP while Olerud drove in 93 on a team with a .328 OBP. In other words, the frequency with which their teammates got on base was negligible, but Sammy made much better of it

 

This is a stupid way to look at it.

 

1. You are actually rewarding Sosa for making outs. Sosa's low walk rate would lead to more outs with runners on. Olerud took walks.

2. You are rewarding Sosa and penalizing Olerud for the parks they played in.

3. Sosa had 13.3% more PAs w/ runners on base.

4. Sosa had over 50 more runners on when he came up.

5. Olerud was JUST as efficient as driving in runners from 2B and 3B as Sosa was. Sosa was obviously more efficient with runners on 1B due to the home runs, but one has to remember the walks.

 

Sosa hit a bunch of HRs. Olerud did EVERYTHING else better.

[Electron Blue]

I bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, the vast majority of them would have preferred to have Sosa on their team rather than Olerud that year.

 

and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players.

 

that's a little unfair

 

why? even if it's an exaggeration (and I don't think it is), it makes the point that players are biased, and even ignorant, towards evaluation of players/stats/results.

 

well it wasn't my argument....

 

either way, Sammy drove in 158 runs on a team with a .335 OBP while Olerud drove in 93 on a team with a .328 OBP. In other words, the frequency with which their teammates got on base was negligible, but Sammy made much better of it

 

but "that's a little unfair" was your comment. why was it unfair?

 

because eckstein and pierre didn't win the MVP that year

 

I guess we just interpreted Mizzou/Anze's exchange differently, maybe.

 

I don't think the other players' opinions enter into the "Which one player would you rather have" debate. And that's what I thought Anze was addressing: the players' collective credibility.

[illiniguy]

I bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, the vast majority of them would have preferred to have Sosa on their team rather than Olerud that year.

 

and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players.

 

that's a little unfair

 

why? even if it's an exaggeration (and I don't think it is), it makes the point that players are biased, and even ignorant, towards evaluation of players/stats/results.

 

well it wasn't my argument....

 

either way, Sammy drove in 158 runs on a team with a .335 OBP while Olerud drove in 93 on a team with a .328 OBP. In other words, the frequency with which their teammates got on base was negligible, but Sammy made much better of it

 

This is a stupid way to look at it.

 

1. You are actually rewarding Sosa for making outs. Sosa's low walk rate would lead to more outs with runners on. Olerud took walks.

2. You are rewarding Sosa and penalizing Olerud for the parks they played in.

3. Sosa had 13.3% more PAs w/ runners on base.

4. Sosa had over 50 more runners on when he came up.

5. Olerud was JUST as efficient as driving in runners from 2B and 3B as Sosa was. Sosa was obviously more efficient with runners on 1B due to the home runs, but one has to remember the walks.

 

Sosa hit a bunch of HRs. Olerud did EVERYTHING else better.

He pitched a lot better, but Sammy didn't need no stinking helmet in the field.

[Derwood]

I bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, the vast majority of them would have preferred to have Sosa on their team rather than Olerud that year.

 

and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players.

 

that's a little unfair

 

why? even if it's an exaggeration (and I don't think it is), it makes the point that players are biased, and even ignorant, towards evaluation of players/stats/results.

 

well it wasn't my argument....

 

either way, Sammy drove in 158 runs on a team with a .335 OBP while Olerud drove in 93 on a team with a .328 OBP. In other words, the frequency with which their teammates got on base was negligible, but Sammy made much better of it

 

This is a stupid way to look at it.

 

1. You are actually rewarding Sosa for making outs. Sosa's low walk rate would lead to more outs with runners on. Olerud took walks.

2. You are rewarding Sosa and penalizing Olerud for the parks they played in.

3. Sosa had 13.3% more PAs w/ runners on base.

4. Sosa had over 50 more runners on when he came up.

5. Olerud was JUST as efficient as driving in runners from 2B and 3B as Sosa was. Sosa was obviously more efficient with runners on 1B due to the home runs, but one has to remember the walks.

 

Sosa hit a bunch of HRs. Olerud did EVERYTHING else better.

 

and you're penalizing Sosa for hitting with 50 more runners on that Olerud.

[Mephistopheles]

No Im not.

[Derwood]

No Im not.

 

Olerud was just as efficient at driving in runs with runners on 2nd or 3rd?

 

Sosa:

 

Man on 2nd: .837 OPS

Man on 3rd: .525 OPS

Man on 2nd & 3rd: 2.269 OPS

 

Olerud:

 

Man on 2nd: .950 OPS

Man on 3rd: .377 OPS

Man on 2nd & 3rd: 1.283 OPS

 

 

are you ill?

[Mephistopheles]

No Im not.

 

Olerud was just as efficient at driving in runs with runners on 2nd or 3rd?

 

Sosa:

 

Man on 2nd: .837 OPS

Man on 3rd: .525 OPS

Man on 2nd & 3rd: 2.269 OPS

 

Olerud:

 

Man on 2nd: .950 OPS

Man on 3rd: .377 OPS

Man on 2nd & 3rd: 1.283 OPS

 

 

are you ill?

 

Sosa had 211 guys on 2nd or 3rd when he came up, he knocked in 56.

Olerud had 202 guys on 2nd or 3rd when he came up, he knocked in 53.

 

26.5% Sosa

26.2% Olerud

 

I am right....again.

[Derwood]

No Im not.

 

Olerud was just as efficient at driving in runs with runners on 2nd or 3rd?

 

Sosa:

 

Man on 2nd: .837 OPS

Man on 3rd: .525 OPS

Man on 2nd & 3rd: 2.269 OPS

 

Olerud:

 

Man on 2nd: .950 OPS

Man on 3rd: .377 OPS

Man on 2nd & 3rd: 1.283 OPS

 

 

are you ill?

 

Sosa had 211 guys on 2nd or 3rd when he came up, he knocked in 56.

Olerud had 202 guys on 2nd or 3rd when he came up, he knocked in 53.

 

26.5% Sosa

26.2% Olerud

 

I am right....again.

 

wait, wait. what was that i heard? "runs batted in?" but, but, that's a team stat! OPS is more important. that's what you told me! WHY ARE YOU LYING TO ME?

[Mephistopheles]

Are you going insane? I'm only discussing your argument. You are saying Sosa rocked at driving guys in. I am pointing out Olerud did just as good of a job.

 

In other words, I pointed out the flaw in your argument statistically rendering it obsolete. You've done nothing. Your only argument against mine is skirting the issue and being a Cubs homer.