OPS+ and ERA+

[NoDak]

2 questions. One technical, one more philosophical:

1. Does anyone here know where I can find "ERA+" and/or OPS+ statistics for MINOR leagues?

2. Can anything valuable be derived from this information?

 

I was involved in a discussion on another Message board and some there said it wouldn't be very relevant because "the goal isn't necessarily winning" and who is in the league at any given time is so fluid that it would skew the numbers. For instance, if a young stud pitching prospect is learning a 4th pitch he may artificially struggle for a while as he learns to control it, or if a team is using an inordinate number of major league stars on "rehab" assignments.

 

My gut feeling is that these will be mere exceptions and would come out in the wash similar to a player hitting a "slump" occasionally, but I am interested in hearing what others here are thinking.

[Guest]

1. I'm not aware of any place that has that info, although it wouldn't be impossible for an individual to calculate.

 

2. It would be valuable, as it contextualizes a couple different arguments in a single number. Both on the low end for "holding his own even though he's young for the league" or even "he's above average even though he's young for the league" and on the other side with "he's only a little above average even though he's old for the league".

[Clem Fandango]

Wouldn't the park factors also help temper some excitement of big numbers in hitters leagues/pitchers leagues?

[Guest]

Wouldn't the park factors also help temper some excitement of big numbers in hitters leagues/pitchers leagues?

 

 

Do they do it relative to the league though? Some leagues are littered with hitters parks (PCL, California league)? I think the working on things argument makes a bigger difference in the lower levels where looking at numbers can already be more misleading.

[Clem Fandango]

Ahh yeah that's right. Nevermind

[The-Kris-Bryant]

BP works fine in a pinch

[NoDak]

It sounds like there is concensus this can be valuable. Most OPS+ and ERA+ include "park factor" but I can't find the formula used to calculate that. It is what allows us to compare a player whose home park is Coors Field with someone whose home park is Dodger Stadium. I think some even take into account the pitching staffs. In other words, I think that ATL was seen as a "pitcher's park" because teams tended to have worse offensive performances there. But they also had to face one of the best pitching staffs in baseball so it would have to be corroborated by a dip in ATL offensive production before they would consider it a park factor. I thought googling it would work but they all say: League averaged adjusted for park. My guess is that it is a calculation that is still a work in progress and while there are some formulas that are considered more authoritative than others the fact is that there are differences significant enough that it hasn't been considered settled.

 

My personal opinion would be that it would be valuable and that the "good" players would, over a large sample size, come through and shine and those that just have "pretty swings" or "ball explodes out of his hand" and other such jargon phrases that mean nothing can be sorted through.

 

I am also toying with the idea of including an "age factor." For instance, let's say that I can determine that a "normal" age for a player at AA is 23-24 then if someone is successful at AA at age 21 he would get a "boost" of 10% or something like that to correct for age. Conversely, a 27 year old at AA would probably see a downgrade of his numbers to account for the fact that he is "old for his league." It would take A LOT of work and sorting through data, probably some of it historical, but it seems intuitive that it should work (though the numbers I am throwing out here are purely speculative at this point). I just wanted the opinions of those on this site because I have found that some of the more intelligent

[The-Kris-Bryant]

ERA+ and OPS+ measure performance not ability.

[NoDak]

ERA+ and OPS+ measure performance not ability.

 

That is true and I agree. However I believe the two are strongly correlated. Players with lots of ability but can't perform are not of much interest to me other than aesthetics. Given my choice I would prefer someone with performance over someone with ability. The scouting reports I read focus on players ability. If it doesn't come through in performance I have marginal interest in it. They can have the ugliest/slowest swing or the least graceful delivery they want but if their performance is good I will make that sacrifice.

[Guest]

Ability is an empty word. What you can do at any given time is your ability, the rest is an educated guess at best.

[Guest]

Ability is an empty word. What you can do at any given time is your ability, the rest is an educated guess at best.

So many replies vying for posting...

 

- I know you know better than to only trust measurements in a system with extreme noise in the results

 

- "Any given time"? So if a player goes 0-4 in one day, that represents his true ability level?

 

- This sounds like a poor Yoda attempt - "Try? Do or do not. There is no try."

 

But I think I'll just go with:

 

yeah. ok.