Harold Reynolds shows off his stupidity

[woodprior04]

Read this for a good laugh

 

 

Big power hitters swing and miss and strikeout. Or they hit home runs and walk. And at the end of the year their OBP is always going to be higher than most of the other guys on the team because they clog the bases.

 

Looks like Harold and Dusty have been talking. Make sure to read the comments at the bottom as some of them are pretty funny.

[Outshined_One]

It's not just the "clog the bases" comment itself that gets me. It's that he's claiming that, because power hitters clog the bases:

 

1) They have high OBPs

2) Their teammates will inevitably have lower OBPs as a result

 

That seriously hurts my brain.

[bcl412]

Awesome.

[woodprior04]

It's not just the "clog the bases" comment itself that gets me. It's that he's claiming that, because power hitters clog the bases:

 

1) They have high OBPs

2) Their teammates will inevitably have lower OBPs as a result

 

That seriously hurts my brain.

 

Exactly. He's basically saying that power hitters would be better off making outs than taking walks. Completely absurd.

[Gingerballs Lives]

Was that article posted simply to make HR look like a moron? It seems like it should be in the Onion.

[Sosa21MVP]

For some reason I've always liked Harold Reynolds. I don't know why. That article is so painfully sad.

[chuckywang]

Rating: 1.23 out of 5 (426 votes)

[Tracer Bullet]

I like Harold Reynolds, but he shouldn't be an analyst.

[woodchip2153]

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/19/bugging-harold-reynolds/

[jersey cubs fan]

I like Harold Reynolds, but he shouldn't be an analyst.

 

I don't like him and he shouldn't be an analyst. Everybody is great in his mind, but the best are the guys that are like him, not good.

[Tracer Bullet]

I like Harold Reynolds, but he shouldn't be an analyst.

 

I don't like him and he shouldn't be an analyst. Everybody is great in his mind, but the best are the guys that are like him, not good.

 

I guess. He seems like a nice enough guy and a lot of people in the industry seem to think he's nice. I obviously don't know him. But listening to him doesn't make my skin crawl like Morgan, McCarver, and some others. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but that seems to be true of almost all baseball analysts.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

I can totally relate Harold. I am a farmer and I can't believe how science has taken over the agriculture business. Like I had an old neighbor who was much like Dick Williams. He said, "If something is going wrong with your crops, then the situation will dictate what to do. Like, if rain is your problem, then sacrifice two goats or one pig. If pests are your problem, then yell at the moon for a forenight and bury three red stones in your field. Problem solved. But I shouldn't have to tell you beforehand, you should know this." Now days they have fancy inventions like irrigation, meteorology, crop rotations, and fertilizers. I am like, "Phooey and bunk!" I am just like you Harold, I don't need their new fangled theories and hocus-pocus in order to understand farming better. I mean a meteorologist has never farmed, what can he tell me or my old neighbor about farming? We reached the pinnacle of understanding with yelling at the moon! The point is that I have nothing left to learn just like you, Harold.

 

hahaha

[Soul]

Was that article posted simply to make HR look like a moron? It seems like it should be in the Onion.

 

Sadly, it was Harold himself who posted the article. I might actually need to use my brain at work today, only now I'm not sure if I will be able to.

[ConstableRabbit]

A few years ago this stat grabbed my ear when someone said that Ichiro doesn't walk enough. So I said, "What do you mean?" And they said his OBP could be so much higher if he walked more. The guy gets 200 hits a season! And he scores over 100 runs. I think that speaks for itself.

 

Bwahahahahaha

[Cubbie Swagger]

That article lacks so much logic, it's unbelievable. I agree when he says that OPS is not the "be all end all" that many think it is, but everything else he said made no sense whatsoever.

[17 Seconds]

so apparently harold thinks walks don't count if they occur because the hitter is so good that the pitcher doesn't give him much to hit. awesome

[str8carter]

I heard Harold say something the other nite on TV that was so absurd I figured I must have heard it wrong....but after this article I'm starting to wonder.

 

I'm ready to lump him in with Tim and Joe...but he will have to lose about 50 more IQ points to join Kruk!

[Tracer Bullet]

That article lacks so much logic, it's unbelievable. I agree when he says that OPS is not the "be all end all" that many think it is, but everything else he said made no sense whatsoever.

 

Almost no one with any knowledge of baseball statistics thinks OPS is the "be all end all." Many people use it b/c it is pretty useful and it's easy to calculate. Even fans with an average understanding of stats (like me) know it's flawed and that there are much better stats out there.

 

Seems to me that the people who think OPS is the one and only measure are the guys that now, begrudgingly, have accepted that AVG/HR/RBI maybe aren't the best way to evaluate players and espn uses OPS now so this must be as good as it gets.

 

It's really funny to hear the few people who refuse to accept "advanced" stats at all attack "stat-heads" by saying they think OPS is this great tool. No stat-head, not a single one, thinks OPS is the best measure and flawless.

[Cubbie Swagger]

That article lacks so much logic, it's unbelievable. I agree when he says that OPS is not the "be all end all" that many think it is, but everything else he said made no sense whatsoever.

 

Almost no one with any knowledge of baseball statistics thinks OPS is the "be all end all." Many people use it b/c it is pretty useful and it's easy to calculate. Even fans with an average understanding of stats (like me) know it's flawed and that there are much better stats out there.

 

Seems to me that the people who think OPS is the one and only measure are the guys that now, begrudgingly, have accepted that AVG/HR/RBI maybe aren't the best way to evaluate players and espn uses OPS now so this must be as good as it gets.

 

It's really funny to hear the few people who refuse to accept "advanced" stats at all attack "stat-heads" by saying they think OPS is this great tool. No stat-head, not a single one, thinks OPS is the best measure and flawless.

Agreed.

 

I remember in the off-season, I saw a few people saying that we should try to move Theriot because he was worthless due to his low OPS. I thought that was completely ridiculous. Not every single player on your team needs to hit for power, especially a middle infielder who typically hits first or second in your lineup :-)) Guys who hit for average, get on base, score runs and steal bases are still good baseball players...

[Guest]

That article lacks so much logic, it's unbelievable. I agree when he says that OPS is not the "be all end all" that many think it is, but everything else he said made no sense whatsoever.

 

Almost no one with any knowledge of baseball statistics thinks OPS is the "be all end all." Many people use it b/c it is pretty useful and it's easy to calculate. Even fans with an average understanding of stats (like me) know it's flawed and that there are much better stats out there.

 

Seems to me that the people who think OPS is the one and only measure are the guys that now, begrudgingly, have accepted that AVG/HR/RBI maybe aren't the best way to evaluate players and espn uses OPS now so this must be as good as it gets.

 

It's really funny to hear the few people who refuse to accept "advanced" stats at all attack "stat-heads" by saying they think OPS is this great tool. No stat-head, not a single one, thinks OPS is the best measure and flawless.

The reason why people use OPS is because it is highly correlated with wins. It's probably one of the very best ways to measure the value of a player without resorting to inferential statistics like VORP and WAR which are also flawed but new and sparkly.

[dew1679666265]

That article lacks so much logic, it's unbelievable. I agree when he says that OPS is not the "be all end all" that many think it is, but everything else he said made no sense whatsoever.

 

Almost no one with any knowledge of baseball statistics thinks OPS is the "be all end all." Many people use it b/c it is pretty useful and it's easy to calculate. Even fans with an average understanding of stats (like me) know it's flawed and that there are much better stats out there.

 

Seems to me that the people who think OPS is the one and only measure are the guys that now, begrudgingly, have accepted that AVG/HR/RBI maybe aren't the best way to evaluate players and espn uses OPS now so this must be as good as it gets.

 

It's really funny to hear the few people who refuse to accept "advanced" stats at all attack "stat-heads" by saying they think OPS is this great tool. No stat-head, not a single one, thinks OPS is the best measure and flawless.

The reason why people use OPS is because it is highly correlated with wins. It's probably one of the very best ways to measure the value of a player without resorting to inferential statistics like VORP and WAR which are also flawed but new and sparkly.

 

I don't know how to calculate it, but I think EqA is pretty highly thought of - and more accurate (right word?) than OPS.

[Guest]

That article lacks so much logic, it's unbelievable. I agree when he says that OPS is not the "be all end all" that many think it is, but everything else he said made no sense whatsoever.

 

Almost no one with any knowledge of baseball statistics thinks OPS is the "be all end all." Many people use it b/c it is pretty useful and it's easy to calculate. Even fans with an average understanding of stats (like me) know it's flawed and that there are much better stats out there.

 

Seems to me that the people who think OPS is the one and only measure are the guys that now, begrudgingly, have accepted that AVG/HR/RBI maybe aren't the best way to evaluate players and espn uses OPS now so this must be as good as it gets.

 

It's really funny to hear the few people who refuse to accept "advanced" stats at all attack "stat-heads" by saying they think OPS is this great tool. No stat-head, not a single one, thinks OPS is the best measure and flawless.

The reason why people use OPS is because it is highly correlated with wins. It's probably one of the very best ways to measure the value of a player without resorting to inferential statistics like VORP and WAR which are also flawed but new and sparkly.

 

I don't know how to calculate it, but I think EqA is pretty highly thought of - and more accurate (right word?) than OPS.

More accurate at what? I haven't read anything that compares EqA with wins, although something might be out there.

[bukie]

EqA is more accurate as a complete measure of offensive capability.

 

OPS's biggest flaw is that it essentially treats OBP and SLG evenly, even though the scales of each are completely different (highest possible OBP is 1, while highest possible SLG is 4). This causes the statistic to undervalue OBP in relation to SLG. Some pundits are making use of an adjusted OPS, which adds a factor to OBP (I've seen anywhere from 1.4x to 1.8x) to make it more comparable to SLG.

[dew1679666265]

[More accurate at what? I haven't read anything that compares EqA with wins, although something might be out there.

 

More accurate at evaluating a player's production.

[chuckywang]

EqA is more accurate as a complete measure of offensive capability.

 

OPS's biggest flaw is that it essentially treats OBP and SLG evenly, even though the scales of each are completely different (highest possible OBP is 1, while highest possible SLG is 4). This causes the statistic to undervalue OBP in relation to SLG. Some pundits are making use of an adjusted OPS, which adds a factor to OBP (I've seen anywhere from 1.4x to 1.8x) to make it more comparable to SLG.

 

 

Yes, the OPS statistic values SLG more than OBP, but that's ok since it should be. SLG, in essence, is more valuable than OBP. A single is more valuable than a walk, a double is more valuable than 2 walks, a triple is more valuable than 3 walks, and a HR is more valuable than 4 walks.

 

Consider this scenario:

 

Player A has 25 triples and 75 K's in 100 PAs, his OPS would be 1.000 (.250 OBP + .750 SLG)

Player B has 25 singles and 50 walks and 25 K's in 100 PAs, his OPS would also be 1.000 (.750 OBP + .250 SLG)

 

Which player would you want on your team? I would say player A since all those triples will clear the bags leading to more runs. With an adjustment factor of greater than 1 made to OBP, an adjusted OPS would clearly say player B is better. Therefore, if anything, OPS overvalues OBP.