I've spent several years trying to explain to anyone who would listen why OPS is the best stat to use to evaluate baseball players.
Batting average is still the standard but it's terrible. Here's why: walks count. And doubles count more than singles, but less than triples, and even less than home runs.
Three examples from the early part of this season:
Player A: .250 BA (30-120), 5 homers, 16 RBI, 18 walks
Player B: .342 BA (25-73), 0 homers, 8 RBI, 3 walks
Player C: .189 BA (17-90), 6 homers, 17 RBI, 22 walks
Judging by just batting average you would say the guy hitting .342 is the best. But in truth he has no power and never walks. I would actually take Player C because he has the best power and the most walks.
But the point is all three of these players are essentially equal according to OPS:
David Wright 778 OPS
Erick Aybar 789 OPS
Jonny Gomes 786 OPS
So new statistical analysis doesn't just help you determine who is better, it helps you figure out who is equal but looks much better (or worse).
Friday, May 06, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Yes it's a great stat and should be used more often in coming years. I think part of the reason it hasn't caught on with the masses is that fans are used to old performance measuring sticks (i.e. batting average) and it takes some effort to view past seasons through a different lens.
Kind of like the 2400 point SAT scale, which confuses everyone. It's pretty easy to ballpark that 2100=1400, 1800=1200, etc. People are just intellectually lazy.
Overall it is a great stat, but its overemphasis in recent years has led to hideous moments like the one I just witnessed -- Josh Thole taking all the way to work out a walk with 1st and 2nd, 2 out and the pitcher on-deck. Sometimes a walk is NOT as good as a hit, and OPS doesn't account for the fact that Thole made a dumb move taking a 3-1 fastball down the middle. Keith was beside himself -- "gotta swing when there's rib-eye steaks on the grill!"
So glad you guys are on board. Maybe I can move on to VORP and WAR, though I have major problems with those stats.
Reissberg, a walk is not as good as a hit for OPS. A walk counts once, a single counts twice. I agree that we see a lot of passivity at inopportune times (when a far weaker hitter is up next) but I think that is due to fear of failure, not an effort to boost one's on base percentage.
Damino, I agree people are intellectually lazy. But writers, broadcasters, producers who purport to inform and educate should shove this stat down our throats. Unlike the aforementioned VORP and WAR, it is intuitive, you can understand it and figure it out and it gives a much better understanding of the game.
Can you really equate SAT scores that easily? Is 2100 really viewed the way 1400 was back in our day our did they rejigger so more students could get higher scores and feel better about themselves?
Paul, yes the scores are exactly the same in that each section goes from 200 to 800 points, and 500 remains the rough national median. They basically took the SAT II Writing and made that the third section of the regular SAT.
If you wanted to be even more precise, add your Math & Verbal SAT score to your SAT II Writing score and that'd be your score out of 2400.
I like it and wish this was around when we were in school. Skews the SATs in favor of people who can write.
Post a Comment