Slugging or On Base Fueled OPS?

[OleMissCub]

as one can imagine, RBIs are incredibly stupid and you should be embarrassed to use them. Right now I am embarrassed that I post at a place where they are even brought up in legitimate discussion.

 

http://www.gifflix.com/data/media/81/online_fighter.jpg

[imb]

as one can imagine, RBIs are incredibly stupid and you should be embarrassed to use them. Right now I am embarrassed that I post at a place where they are even brought up in legitimate discussion.

 

http://www.gifflix.com/data/media/81/online_fighter.jpg

 

Very well formulated counter-argument.

[OleMissCub]

 

Very well formulated counter-argument.

 

Thanks, I thought you'd like it. It's very much in the mold of a snotty thing you'd do.

[imb]

 

Very well formulated counter-argument.

 

Thanks, I thought you'd like it. It's very much in the mold of a snotty thing you'd do.

 

Actually I would have tried to at least support my claims, but it seems that's a bit too much to ask of you.

[Mephistopheles]

 

Very well formulated counter-argument.

 

Thanks, I thought you'd like it. It's very much in the mold of a snotty thing you'd do.

 

Why dont you actually respond to the rest of the post. If you don't answer it it only looks as if you dont have an answer for it. So if you have one it is in your best interest to spit it out.

[OleMissCub]

 

Why dont you actually respond to the rest of the post. If you don't answer it it only looks as if you dont have an answer for it. So if you have one it is in your best interest to spit it out.

 

In my best interest? Or what? You're gonna get even MORE haughty and arrogant than you already are?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Let's keep things about the topic at hand, and not the people making the arguments. Thanks.

[Mephistopheles]

 

Why dont you actually respond to the rest of the post. If you don't answer it it only looks as if you dont have an answer for it. So if you have one it is in your best interest to spit it out.

 

In my best interest? Or what? You're gonna get even MORE haughty and arrogant than you already are?

 

I am just saying it looks bad when you do things like this and forget the discussion......Sosa and Olerud.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So if Olerud was put in Sosa's place that year, Olerud would have contributed the equivalent of 158 RBI's and 134 runs scored to the Cubs' campaign?

 

More than likely, yes.

 

First, don't double count the home runs.

 

That leaves you with Sosa participating in 226 runs.

 

Olerud, batting in the Mets lineup, participated 162 runs.

 

Now first, Olerud got fewer plate appearances despite playing in more games.

 

The .07 difference in their OBPs, multiplied by the number of times Sosa came up to the plate, means Olerud would have gotten on base 54 more times than Sosa did. Sosa's teammates drove him in 47.8% of the time that he got on base without hitting a home run. Sosa is a little faster than Olerud, but Olerud hit about twice as many non-HR extra-base hits, so that means he would have scored much more often when getting on base without a home run. That means 54 extra times on base means roughly 30 extra runs scored (probably more, but I'm being conservative).

 

Now we're up to 192 runs.

 

Olerud had 38.9% of his plate appearances come with runners on base, and drove in runs at a rate of .253 per plate appearance with runner on base. He participated in runs at a .139 rate in at bats without runners on base, a difference of .114.

 

Sosa had 50.8% of his plate appearances come with runners on base. So that means Olerud gets 86 extra plate appearances with runners on base, and at the different rate of .114, that means he would have driven in an extra 10 runs.

 

That makes 202 runs for Olerud.

 

Remember those extra 54 times on base? That also means 54 fewer outs. That means, effectively, 18 extra innings worth of at-bats for Cubs hitters. Given the rate that Cubs hitters scored runs that season, 18 extra innings means, on average, 10 extra runs.

 

Now we're up to 212 runs for Olerud.

 

The difference is now just 14 runs. And we haven't even discussed park effects, which strongly help Olerud's case, or the number of times Olerud's extra times on base would have advanced a runner who was later driven in by someone else's hit (runner on first, Olerud walks to get him to second, someone else singles, Olerud gets no credit on that run).

[OleMissCub]

I am just saying it looks bad when you do things like this and forget the discussion......Sosa and Olerud.

 

Looks bad on me? I could care less.

[Mephistopheles]

I am just saying it looks bad when you do things like this and forget the discussion......Sosa and Olerud.

 

Looks bad on me? I could care less.

 

If you don't care then why bother posting 9,379 times.

[OleMissCub]

 

More than likely, yes.

 

Thanks for explaining it without mocking me.

 

That did make a good bit of sense the way you laid it out. I appreciate you taking the time to do that.

[OleMissCub]

I am just saying it looks bad when you do things like this and forget the discussion......Sosa and Olerud.

 

Looks bad on me? I could care less.

 

If you don't care then why bother posting 9,379 times.

 

What does post count have to do with caring about reputation? You got a metric up your sleeve to prove that as well?

[Mephistopheles]

really post count has nothing to do with it. im saying if you dont care about what you post why post?

 

 

More than likely, yes.

 

Thanks for explaining it without mocking me.

 

That did make a good bit of sense the way you laid it out. I appreciate you taking the time to do that.

 

you know the things he said have been brought up before. no one went out and ran the numbers. we didnt have to. eqa should have told us enough.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I remember making the same pro-Sosa arguments in 1998 (actual production versus mere "efficiency.")

 

Some poster on alt.sports.pro.baseball.chicago-cubs patiently explained to me why that was flawed thinking, and set me on the proper stathead path.

[Mephistopheles]

everyone does before they learn about things. its not bad being wrong. its bad being wrong and not learning why you were wrong.

[OleMissCub]

really post count has nothing to do with it. im saying if you dont care about what you post why post?

 

I do care about what I post, what I don't care about is wasting my time volleying stats back and forth with you.

[Mephistopheles]

really post count has nothing to do with it. im saying if you dont care about what you post why post?

 

I do care about what I post, what I don't care about is wasting my time volleying stats back and forth with you.

 

well youve done it for awhile now. :lol:

[Flames24Rulz]

everyone does before they learn about things. its not bad being wrong. its bad being wrong and not learning why you were wrong.

 

So you're stating that having an opinion of preferring 98 Sosa over 98 Olerud is wrong?

 

Do you really have to say that everyone else is wrong if they don't agree with you? There's a concept called agreeing to disagree. It's not that bad of a thing when it's clear that one side will prefer one extreme of the argument and the other side will prefer the other.

[Mephistopheles]

everyone does before they learn about things. its not bad being wrong. its bad being wrong and not learning why you were wrong.

 

So you're stating that having an opinion of preferring 98 Sosa over 98 Olerud is wrong?

 

Do you really have to say that everyone else is wrong if they don't agree with you? There's a concept called agreeing to disagree. It's not that bad of a thing when it's clear that one side will prefer one extreme of the argument and the other side will prefer the other.

 

agreeing to disagree is fine when the only answer is an opinion. in something like this there is always a right and a wrong. sosa is wrong and olerud is right.

[soccer10k]

I'd take 98 Sosa over 98 Olerud

 

I sure wouldn't.

 

Because of his slightly higher OPS and higher OBP and other miscellaneous sabermetrics?

 

I'm just a caveman; your flashing lights, zooming cars, and mathematics frighten and disorient me, but I think I'll go with the guy who had over 100 more bases that season.

 

Well you do live in Mississippi, isn't that close enough? :wink:

[cubweiser03]

For Fun:

My Team of 8 Sammy Sosa clones vs your Team of 8 John Olerud clones. We are playing in the NL.

 

8 Sammy Sosa would instantly produce 528 runs just by jacking the ball out the yard solo in 159 games.

8 John Oleruds would instantly produce 192 runs with his homeruns (24HRs to adjust for Sosas PA advantage).

the Sosa's have an advantage of 336 runs just by the solo home run alone.

 

Each Olerud adjusted to account for Sosa's 722 PA would make 429 outs with an OBP of .450. 55 less outs than every Sammy Sosa* 8 players = 440 extra outs. So John Oleruds guys have 440 'extra' outs to make up the 336 Sosa solo home runs advantage. For every out they roughly need to make up 3/4 a run they are losing to Sosa's solo HR advantage.

 

Want to put guys on base and see what happens?

Roughly for every 24 HR Olerud would have a runner on .450=11 2 run HRs.

Roughly for every 66 HR Sosa would have a runner on .370=24 2 run HRs

Sosa would have more 3 run HR and grand slams too.

[Derwood]

for the sake of argument:

 

Assuming Olerud's number in 1998 were above his career norms, wouldn't a statistician say that given the extra plate appearances with runners on, etc., Olerud would be less likely to maintain his above-career numbers and more likely to regress towards the mean of his career numbers?

[Mephistopheles]

for the sake of argument:

 

Assuming Olerud's number in 1998 were above his career norms, wouldn't a statistician say that given the extra plate appearances with runners on, etc., Olerud would be less likely to maintain his above-career numbers and more likely to regress towards the mean of his career numbers?

 

 

so would sosa.

[Derwood]

for the sake of argument:

 

Assuming Olerud's number in 1998 were above his career norms, wouldn't a statistician say that given the extra plate appearances with runners on, etc., Olerud would be less likely to maintain his above-career numbers and more likely to regress towards the mean of his career numbers?

 

 

so would sosa.

 

i'm not talking about sosa. i'm talking about your citing that Sosa had more plate appearances than Olerud with runners in scoring position. Sosa is the control here, and you're adding the variable of Olerud getting extra hypothetical plate appearances to even out their opportunities. my question was do statisticians maintain that Olerud would continue his current season numbers over those additional plate appearances (small sample size) or regress towards his career numbers over those plate appearances (large sample size).