Slugging or On Base Fueled OPS?

[Ender]

So I've been reading arguments lately by people who prefer players with an OPS that is driven by slugging, while others say that is a ridiculous statement, and these people desire a larger percentage coming from the hitter getting on base. I have yet to see this argument substantially proven either way, and would like it if someone, whatever position you hold, could explain your stance while statistically backing it up.

 

Thanks.

 

 

1.8*OPB + SLG is a lot more accurate than OBP+SLG, so obviously an OBP driven one is better. There really isn't room for discussion. Anyone who knows anything that uses OPS as a starting point will agree with this assessment. Like I said, carry on. There's no way to argue for SLG.

 

what he said, OBP is worth a lot more than SLG, somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 times as important and the most compelling number I've seen is 1.8.

 

This is a big issue with the Brewers who have a lot of low OBP guys, its why their OPS doesn't agree with their runs scored.

[Derwood]

the stats, obviously, are not mutually exclusive, but you'd prefer the guy who can get on base in ways OTHER than slugging if given the choice. In other words, a guy like Aramis Ramirez is getting on base mostly by slugging (as his .039 IsoD suggests), while someone with a high OBP is getting on base in many more ways

 

that said, I don't know how you could say you would take a 1998 John Olerud over a 1998 Sammy Sosa knowing how their years turned out. You could say "I would prefer a guy with a .447 OBP over one with a .377 OBP in the future", but to say you would want someone whose slightly lower OPS+ resulted in far fewer runs is a little preposterous.

[DiamondMind]

 

 

1.8*OPB + SLG is a lot more accurate than OBP+SLG, so obviously an OBP driven one is better. There really isn't room for discussion. Anyone who knows anything that uses OPS as a starting point will agree with this assessment. Like I said, carry on. There's no way to argue for SLG.

 

Agreed. Seeing as the entire purpose of a baseball AB is to not make an out, I fail to see any argument for SLG > OBP.

[Bull]

So I've been reading arguments lately by people who prefer players with an OPS that is driven by slugging, while others say that is a ridiculous statement, and these people desire a larger percentage coming from the hitter getting on base. I have yet to see this argument substantially proven either way, and would like it if someone, whatever position you hold, could explain your stance while statistically backing it up.

 

Thanks.

 

 

1.8*OPB + SLG is a lot more accurate than OBP+SLG, so obviously an OBP driven one is better. There really isn't room for discussion. Anyone who knows anything that uses OPS as a starting point will agree with this assessment. Like I said, carry on. There's no way to argue for SLG.

 

Whilst I agree with your conclusion, you support it not at all.

[Bull]

 

 

1.8*OPB + SLG is a lot more accurate than OBP+SLG, so obviously an OBP driven one is better. There really isn't room for discussion. Anyone who knows anything that uses OPS as a starting point will agree with this assessment. Like I said, carry on. There's no way to argue for SLG.

 

Agreed. Seeing as the entire purpose of a baseball AB is to not make an out, I fail to see any argument for SLG > OBP.

 

Not true. The entire purpose of an at bat is to make a contribution that leads to the most runs possible.

 

This is usually best done by not making an out. In the bottom of the 10th, tie game, no outs, man on third, I want an out to deep left field.

 

But usually I'd prefer a walk over a fly out. And I usually prefer OBP over SLG, but not for the reasons listed in this thread. If I wasn't a believer, nothing in this thread would convert me.

[Bull]

I'd take 98 Sosa over 98 Olerud

 

I sure wouldn't.

 

I depends on what my team needs.

 

I'll take both. I'll bat olerud 2nd and Sammy 3rd

[TruffleShuffle]

the stats, obviously, are not mutually exclusive, but you'd prefer the guy who can get on base in ways OTHER than slugging if given the choice. In other words, a guy like Aramis Ramirez is getting on base mostly by slugging (as his .039 IsoD suggests), while someone with a high OBP is getting on base in many more ways

 

that said, I don't know how you could say you would take a 1998 John Olerud over a 1998 Sammy Sosa knowing how their years turned out. You could say "I would prefer a guy with a .447 OBP over one with a .377 OBP in the future", but to say you would want someone whose slightly lower OPS+ resulted in far fewer runs is a little preposterous.

 

Olerud had a higher RC/27.

[TruffleShuffle]

So I've been reading arguments lately by people who prefer players with an OPS that is driven by slugging, while others say that is a ridiculous statement, and these people desire a larger percentage coming from the hitter getting on base. I have yet to see this argument substantially proven either way, and would like it if someone, whatever position you hold, could explain your stance while statistically backing it up.

 

Thanks.

 

 

1.8*OBP + SLG is a lot more accurate than OBP+SLG, so obviously an OBP driven one is better. There really isn't room for discussion. Anyone who knows anything that uses OPS as a starting point will agree with this assessment. Like I said, carry on. There's no way to argue for SLG.

 

somebody needs to give this stat a name and normalize it w.r.t. park effects and era. That could be the new convenient wonder-stat that's really better than OPS+.

[JGalt73]

1998 VORPs - close for Olerud and Sosa (sans defense)

 

1. Mark Mcgwire 104.3

2. Albert Belle 95.8

3. Alex Rodriguez 87.0

4. Barry Bonds 83.8

5. Craig Biggio 80.5

6. Nomar Garciaparra 79.5

7. Ken Griffey Jr. 75.8

8. Derek Jeter NYA 71.1

9. Bernie Williams 70.8

10. John Olerud 70.4

11. Mo Vaughn 70.2

12. Moises Alou 69.2

13. Chipper Jones 69.1

14. Sammy Sosa 68.3

[Ender]

So I've been reading arguments lately by people who prefer players with an OPS that is driven by slugging, while others say that is a ridiculous statement, and these people desire a larger percentage coming from the hitter getting on base. I have yet to see this argument substantially proven either way, and would like it if someone, whatever position you hold, could explain your stance while statistically backing it up.

 

Thanks.

 

 

1.8*OBP + SLG is a lot more accurate than OBP+SLG, so obviously an OBP driven one is better. There really isn't room for discussion. Anyone who knows anything that uses OPS as a starting point will agree with this assessment. Like I said, carry on. There's no way to argue for SLG.

 

somebody needs to give this stat a name and normalize it w.r.t. park effects and era. That could be the new convenient wonder-stat that's really better than OPS+.

 

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

 

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

[wolf stansson]

Juan Gonzalez never walked a lot. He might have put up decent OBP a few years, but these were the years he also put up a high average.

I never said having a high slg gave you a more selective batter's eye. I said it raised your obp. If you have a higher average, you'll have a higher obp. It's how it works, but you know that.

[seanimal]

1998 VORPs - close for Olerud and Sosa (sans defense)

 

1. Mark Mcgwire 104.3

2. Albert Belle 95.8

3. Alex Rodriguez 87.0

4. Barry Bonds 83.8

5. Craig Biggio 80.5

6. Nomar Garciaparra 79.5

7. Ken Griffey Jr. 75.8

8. Derek Jeter NYA 71.1

9. Bernie Williams 70.8

10. John Olerud 70.4

11. Mo Vaughn 70.2

12. Moises Alou 69.2

13. Chipper Jones 69.1

14. Sammy Sosa 68.3

 

My favorite player in the '90's, easily. Made it even better for me that everyone hated him.

[Magnetic Curses]

98 wasn't even close to sosa's best year, anyhow.

[CubinNY]

which stat is more closely corelated to wins?

 

There is your ansewer and there can be no debate.

[TruffleShuffle]

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.

[baseball7897]

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.

 

I love that EqA.

[Derwood]

the stats, obviously, are not mutually exclusive, but you'd prefer the guy who can get on base in ways OTHER than slugging if given the choice. In other words, a guy like Aramis Ramirez is getting on base mostly by slugging (as his .039 IsoD suggests), while someone with a high OBP is getting on base in many more ways

 

that said, I don't know how you could say you would take a 1998 John Olerud over a 1998 Sammy Sosa knowing how their years turned out. You could say "I would prefer a guy with a .447 OBP over one with a .377 OBP in the future", but to say you would want someone whose slightly lower OPS+ resulted in far fewer runs is a little preposterous.

 

Olerud had a higher RC/27.

 

formula please

 

are you suggesting that if you replaced Sosa with Olerud on the 98 Cubs that the team would have scored more runs?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

the stats, obviously, are not mutually exclusive, but you'd prefer the guy who can get on base in ways OTHER than slugging if given the choice. In other words, a guy like Aramis Ramirez is getting on base mostly by slugging (as his .039 IsoD suggests), while someone with a high OBP is getting on base in many more ways

 

that said, I don't know how you could say you would take a 1998 John Olerud over a 1998 Sammy Sosa knowing how their years turned out. You could say "I would prefer a guy with a .447 OBP over one with a .377 OBP in the future", but to say you would want someone whose slightly lower OPS+ resulted in far fewer runs is a little preposterous.

 

Olerud had a higher RC/27.

 

formula please

 

are you suggesting that if you replaced Sosa with Olerud on the 98 Cubs that the team would have scored more runs?

 

Link

[Mephistopheles]

So I've been reading arguments lately by people who prefer players with an OPS that is driven by slugging, while others say that is a ridiculous statement, and these people desire a larger percentage coming from the hitter getting on base. I have yet to see this argument substantially proven either way, and would like it if someone, whatever position you hold, could explain your stance while statistically backing it up.

 

Thanks.

 

 

1.8*OPB + SLG is a lot more accurate than OBP+SLG, so obviously an OBP driven one is better. There really isn't room for discussion. Anyone who knows anything that uses OPS as a starting point will agree with this assessment. Like I said, carry on. There's no way to argue for SLG.

 

 

Whilst I agree with your conclusion, you support it not at all.

Just because I didnt post any numbers doesnt mean I didnt support it. I simply said when you weight OBP more in OPS the correlation goes up, saying that OBP driven OPS means more. That's the whole point. I did back up my claim with hard cold facts.

[Mephistopheles]

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

[Omar]

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

 

You forgot to multiply by Pi.

[Derwood]

i'd still take Sosa

 

that said, i'd take 2001 Sosa over 1998 Sosa 7 days a week and twice sunday

[Flames24Rulz]

i'd still take Sosa

 

that said, i'd take 2001 Sosa over 1998 Sosa 7 days a week and twice sunday

 

Agreed on both points.

[Mephistopheles]

i love how people are proven wrong and still say things like "ill still take sosa."

[CubColtPacer]

i love how people are proven wrong and still say things like "ill still take sosa."

 

Because they weren't necessarily "proven" wrong. I don't think any of the formulas would say that they are infallible or that they are able to take all the factors into consideration. For example, the psychological impact on other hitters of Sosa's home runs or the home run chase. It may not have been much, but it was a factor, and it can tip the balance between two great hitters like Sosa and Olerud were that year.