Harold Reynolds shows off his stupidity

[Derwood]

 

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.

 

 

Wrong

 

Consider this:

 

INNING A: Batter #1 hits a HR, followed by Batters 2 thru 4 grounding out. In the inning, the team has a SLG of 1.000 and scored 1 run

 

INNING B: Batters 1 thru 4 have walked. The team has an OBP of 1.000 and scored 1 run, but there are still no outs.

 

OBP is more valuable than SLG.

[chuckywang]

Hmm, ok I see your point. I keep on thinking that a guy who bats .250 but hits 40 HR's is way more valuable to his team than a singles spray hitter that bats .300. While that is true, I got too caught up with power in my example to not think of the devastating effect of outs. So yeah, in retrospect, player B would be better. Please excuse my Dusty moment.

 

 

However, I do think there's a distinction between the statements "OBP is undervalued in OPS" and "OBP is more valuable than SLG". I'm not saying the first is true but the second false, I'm saying different arguments are required to justify each since they exist on different scales.

[Vanilla Ice]

The only reason I use OPS (and UZR) is because I can easily access those statistics. If I knew how a website that gave me up-to-date EqA data, I would use it.

[bukie]

The only reason I use OPS (and UZR) is because I can easily access those statistics. If I knew how a website that gave me up-to-date EqA data, I would use it.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/eqa2009.php

[dew1679666265]

The only reason I use OPS (and UZR) is because I can easily access those statistics. If I knew how a website that gave me up-to-date EqA data, I would use it.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/eqa2009.php

 

That's a fantastic site. Thanks.

[Vanilla Ice]

The only reason I use OPS (and UZR) is because I can easily access those statistics. If I knew how a website that gave me up-to-date EqA data, I would use it.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/eqa2009.php

I knew that BP gave the data, but I figured you had to be a subscriber or something, thanks

[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.

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...

 

Actually, no, we don't necessarily agree.

[woodchip2153]

why ops should die

[Derwood]

why ops should die

 

I was told there would be no math

[dew1679666265]

why ops should die

 

Maybe it's my poor grasp of math, but why in this equation

 

Take the first equation and subtract the second equation. So:

1.8*OBP2+SLG2 = 1.12

-(OBP2+SLG2 = .9)

 

Which becomes:

1.8*OBP2+SLG2 = 1.12

-OBP2-SLG2 = -.9

 

Add the two and you have:

.8*OBP = .22

OBP=.275

 

does the 1 go away in the 1.8 after you subtract? He went from 1.8*OBP2 to .8*OBP. Where did the 1 go?

[tangotiger]

You have equations. This one:

1.8*OBP2+SLG2 = 1.12

 

And this one:

-OBP2-SLG2 = -.9

 

Add the first equation to the second equation and you get:

0.8*OBP2 = .22

[tangotiger]

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.

 

You are wrong. Come over to my blog from time to time, and we'll straighten you out.

[dew1679666265]

You have equations. This one:

1.8*OBP2+SLG2 = 1.12

 

And this one:

-OBP2-SLG2 = -.9

 

Add the first equation to the second equation and you get:

0.8*OBP2 = .22

 

I understand that they are equations, but the process doesn't make sense to me.

[UK1679666180]

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.

 

You are wrong. Come over to my blog from time to time, and we'll straighten you out.

 

Are there any major differences in stat. anaylsis with the improvements/easier access to pbp data?

 

I've always felt that is the next frontier of sabermetrics is the progression of pbp data. Btw, I've always respected the work you've done and learned plenty from your online/published work for about the last 10 years or there about.

 

Even though OFP is my stat, I respect the knowledge each side of that table can learn from one another.

[Guest]

You have equations. This one:

1.8*OBP2+SLG2 = 1.12

 

And this one:

-OBP2-SLG2 = -.9

 

Add the first equation to the second equation and you get:

0.8*OBP2 = .22

Somebody pick up the baby in the mud puddle outside. Just because it's not perfect doesn't make it useless. It's just another tool that when used properly works well most of the time.

[MPrior]

You have equations. This one:

1.8*OBP2+SLG2 = 1.12

 

And this one:

-OBP2-SLG2 = -.9

 

Add the first equation to the second equation and you get:

0.8*OBP2 = .22

Somebody pick up the baby in the mud puddle outside. Just because it's not perfect doesn't make it useless. It's just another tool that when used properly works well most of the time.

 

He says in the article that it's still fine to use OPS for quick analysis. He just thinks it should stop being used for any serious, in-depth analysis, which I think is totally reasonable.

[bukie]

You have equations. This one:

1.8*OBP2+SLG2 = 1.12

 

And this one:

-OBP2-SLG2 = -.9

 

Add the first equation to the second equation and you get:

0.8*OBP2 = .22

 

I understand that they are equations, but the process doesn't make sense to me.

 

The author is essentially making a substitution to eliminate a variable in the equation. I'll try to do the same process, except showing each and every step, and then see if it makes sense.

 

We have two equations:

 

Eq 1: 1.8 * OBP2 + SLG2 = 1.12

Eq 2: -OBP2 - SLG2 = -0.9

 

Step 1: The second equation can be rewritten like so:

-OBP2 - SLG2 = -0.9

-OBP2 = SLG2 - 0.9

SLG2 = 0.9 - OBP2

 

Then we can substitute the right half of that equation (0.9 - OBP2) in for SLG2 in the first equation, and we get:

1.8 * OBP2 + (0.9 - OBP2) = 1.12

 

Finally, simplify the equation:

1.8 * OBP2 - OBP2 = 1.12 - 0.9

0.8 * OBP2 = 0.22

[jersey cubs fan]

You have equations. This one:

1.8*OBP2+SLG2 = 1.12

 

And this one:

-OBP2-SLG2 = -.9

 

Add the first equation to the second equation and you get:

0.8*OBP2 = .22

Somebody pick up the baby in the mud puddle outside. Just because it's not perfect doesn't make it useless. It's just another tool that when used properly works well most of the time.

 

He says in the article that it's still fine to use OPS for quick analysis. He just thinks it should stop being used for any serious, in-depth analysis, which I think is totally reasonable.

 

He says that at one point, but he contradicts that sentiment before and after that throwaway line. The notion that there is no defense is kind of silly. The defense that for the most part it can tell us a lot about a guy. It "breaks" on the extremes but it's not at all impossible to see the extremes coming. There's really not a real world situation where all you have is OPS to view, at the minimum you probably know the component parts, which can tell you if you have an extreme or are even approaching it.

[dew1679666265]

You have equations. This one:

1.8*OBP2+SLG2 = 1.12

 

And this one:

-OBP2-SLG2 = -.9

 

Add the first equation to the second equation and you get:

0.8*OBP2 = .22

 

I understand that they are equations, but the process doesn't make sense to me.

 

The author is essentially making a substitution to eliminate a variable in the equation. I'll try to do the same process, except showing each and every step, and then see if it makes sense.

 

We have two equations:

 

Eq 1: 1.8 * OBP2 + SLG2 = 1.12

Eq 2: -OBP2 - SLG2 = -0.9

 

Step 1: The second equation can be rewritten like so:

-OBP2 - SLG2 = -0.9

-OBP2 = SLG2 - 0.9

SLG2 = 0.9 - OBP2

 

Then we can substitute the right half of that equation (0.9 - OBP2) in for SLG2 in the first equation, and we get:

1.8 * OBP2 + (0.9 - OBP2) = 1.12

 

Finally, simplify the equation:

1.8 * OBP2 - OBP2 = 1.12 - 0.9

0.8 * OBP2 = 0.22

 

Ok, so the 1.8 is connected to the OBP2. I was thinking of them as two different numbers not connected at all (except for being in the same equation).

 

I didn't think you could subtract from the 1.8 to get rid of the second OBP2. Thanks, I'm ok using numbers but equations get me a bit.

[Banedon]

another way to write

 

-OBP2-SLG2 = -.9

 

is this:

 

-1 * OBP2-SLG2 = -.9

 

Then when you add the two equations together, how you end up with the .8 is a bit more visible.

[jersey cubs fan]

what are obp2 and slg2?

[woodchip2153]

what are obp2 and slg2?

 

Just a way to differentiate the obp and slg for player 1 and player 2

 

edit: obp1 and slg1 were in the original formula but he assumed they were equal to .400.

[dew1679666265]

another way to write

 

-OBP2-SLG2 = -.9

 

is this:

 

-1 * OBP2-SLG2 = -.9

 

Then when you add the two equations together, how you end up with the .8 is a bit more visible.

 

Yeah, I didn't make the connection with the 1*OBP2 being one long number. I didn't understand (and still don't really) that you could use the OBP2 to subtract from the 1.8.

[hardcorecubfan]

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.

 

I read it and I think "Patrick" on spongebob understands baseball a bit better than Harold