Yet another OPS replacement possibility

[Warpticon]

Okay, so OPS has its flaws, and is very rough, but it tells us something, at least, and is easy to calculate. Lots of more complicated metrics exist, but it seems to me something simpler that just works around the limitations of OPS could be pretty effective.

 

By adding OBP and SLG, you're essentially giving singles double credit, since they're included in both. So, my thought was...why not add either IsoP and OBP, or IsoD and SLG? The results of either would be the same, but it would essentially eliminate the duplicacy of the value of singles.

 

I have no idea if this would actually be more accurate in judging a player's offensive value, if it has any higher correlation with runs scored, or any of that, but I'd love it if somebody with the means to figure that out could satisfy my curiosity.

[treebird]

if we're trying to keep it simple, i dont see that big a deal with just looking at avg/obp/slg.

 

if we want one number to decide things, i think we'll just have to use something more complicated. vorp is nice.

[Uber]

if we're trying to keep it simple, i dont see that big a deal with just looking at avg/obp/slg.

 

if we want one number to decide things, i think we'll just have to use something more complicated. vorp is nice.

 

everyone knows HR's are all that matter.

[treebird]

if we're trying to keep it simple, i dont see that big a deal with just looking at avg/obp/slg.

 

if we want one number to decide things, i think we'll just have to use something more complicated. vorp is nice.

 

everyone knows HR's are all that matter.

 

sometimes i like to look at runs created too

 

(runs+rbi)

[cubbieinexile]

OPS correlates better to run scoring then ISO+OBP. AVG correlates better to run scoring then does ISO.

 

The best in terms of correlation and "simple" metrics is in order from lowest to greatest:

 

OPS

Runs Created

SLOB

AVG+SEC(1/2)

OBP(1.8)+SLG

[Transmogrified Tiger]

OPS correlates better to run scoring then ISO+OBP. AVG correlates better to run scoring then does ISO.

 

The best in terms of correlation and "simple" metrics is in order from lowest to greatest:

 

OPS

Runs Created

SLOB

AVG+SEC(1/2)

OBP(1.8)+SLG

 

What's SLOB?

[cubbieinexile]

Slugging times OBP

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Slugging times OBP

 

Ah.

 

What formula for Runs Created were you using?

[cubbieinexile]

The only one you can use for data stretching back 50 years. The most basic one.

[indianbadger]

Hardballtimes.com already uses a (1.8*obp+slg)/4 as a better evaluator than AVG, but it retains it in the AVG range that we are used to. As OPS is too crude and 1.8*OBA+SLG is a btter indicator than just OPS; diving by four puts the number in context of AVG to make things easier.

Anything below .225 is bad and anything above .300 is really good. And .275 is average.

 

The guys there call it GPA (Gross production average)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Hardballtimes.com already uses a (1.8*obp+slg)/4 as a better evaluator than AVG, but it retains it in the AVG range that we are used to. As OPS is too crude and 1.8*OBA+SLG is a btter indicator than just OPS; diving by four puts the number in context of AVG to make things easier.

Anything below .225 is bad and anything above .300 is really good. And .275 is average.

 

The guys there call it GPA (Gross production average)

 

They also normalize it for park factors.

[cbbryan]

OPS correlates better to run scoring then ISO+OBP. AVG correlates better to run scoring then does ISO.

 

The best in terms of correlation and "simple" metrics is in order from lowest to greatest:

 

OPS

Runs Created

SLOB

AVG+SEC(1/2)

OBP(1.8)+SLG

 

What's SLOB?

 

Jon Kruk

[UK1679666180]

Hardballtimes.com already uses a (1.8*obp+slg)/4 as a better evaluator than AVG, but it retains it in the AVG range that we are used to. As OPS is too crude and 1.8*OBA+SLG is a btter indicator than just OPS; diving by four puts the number in context of AVG to make things easier.

Anything below .225 is bad and anything above .300 is really good. And .275 is average.

 

The guys there call it GPA (Gross production average)

 

I came with that formula long before Aaron did, he just adjusted the figures and added park factors to it.

 

But, I have a thread at Fanball (I believe that's where it's at) and I spoke of the formula and not too long later, Gleeman shines it up and it becomes a useful stat. I think I gave it to Bukie on the ESPN boards as a easy way to figure something close to EqA w/out the park factors.

[treebird]

Hardballtimes.com already uses a (1.8*obp+slg)/4 as a better evaluator than AVG, but it retains it in the AVG range that we are used to. As OPS is too crude and 1.8*OBA+SLG is a btter indicator than just OPS; diving by four puts the number in context of AVG to make things easier.

Anything below .225 is bad and anything above .300 is really good. And .275 is average.

 

The guys there call it GPA (Gross production average)

 

I came with that formula long before Aaron did, he just adjusted the figures and added park factors to it.

 

But, I have a thread at Fanball (I believe that's where it's at) and I spoke of the formula and not too long later, Gleeman shines it up and it becomes a useful stat. I think I gave it to Bukie on the ESPN boards as a easy way to figure something close to EqA w/out the park factors.

 

you might also remember that he originally called it "gleeman production average."

 

im not sayin, im just sayin.

[UK1679666180]

It was at scout.com not fanball, when I first mentioned it where he would've likely seen it, but came up with awhile back on the ESPN boards.

 

He definitely tweaked what I had created, but I respect what he does. I do know, that either he was working on it prior to me or the likely scenario, he modified it and advanced it.

 

But, there's no doubt in my mind what I created was based only from what I thought could come from it. When I first came up with it on the ESPN board late in '02 or early '03, nothing even close to it was around.