haven has referred to players' OPS's in several threads? what is that? exactly what stat does that represent? thanks.
...and it's the best "simple stat" because it's far less dependent on team-performance, but rather on what an individual player does. Stuff like runs, RBI's, etc... are highly dependent on the player ahead of him 1. getting on base and 2. not hitting a homer (for RBI) or the guy behind him getting a hit (for runs). OPS, instead, measures the combined ability of the two most important aspects of hitting: how well one gets on base, and power. Most people think that adjusted OPS is actually a better stat, but it's sort of arbitrary. That's OBP * 1.25 + slugging %. The idea behind this is, that it's more important to get on base in the first place than it is to advance an additional base. The difference between getting to first at all is more important than the difference between being on 2nd, as opposed to merely first... ...because if someone hits a homer (or a triple) it doesn't matter which base you're on.
It is a good stat... But I feel it places too large of an emphasis on slugging. That stat will always be too a power hitter's advantage. Unless, some guy can get a .600 OBP or something.
kidrock: That's not true. The key here, is total bases. OBP is a yes/no proposition. Either you did or did not get on base. Slugging, however, incorporates that with how far around the basepaths you actually get. So, any time a player gets a hit, it's calculated into both slugging % and OBP. Thus, a single is actually weighted twice on its own terms: it counts once in OBP, and once in slugging. However, a homer is only evaluated in one statistic upon its own terms. It's worth the same amount as a single in OBP, while it's worth 4 total bases in slugging. Hence, a single is actually at a relative advantage versus a homer in the statistical formula. I do think this is a good thing (since being on base, versus off base, is important in itself for a variety of reasons), but it does eliminate your objection.
But a walk isn't figured into the SLG% part of the equation at all, and we all know by now how important taking walks is to a team's success.
SamCassell: No question slugging % calculates power. But that's what it should do - my argument isn't that OPS is perfect, just that it doesn't unfairly benefit sluggers. And, generally speaking, sluggers aren't less likely than anyone else to maintain a high OBP. So, the flaw doesn't benefit sluggers over anyone else.
Bonds and Sosa are pitched around quite a bit. An un-intentional intentional walk. Also the OPS of a player is helped by his place in the batting order. Example- Bagewell has Berkman hitting behind him, so he gets lots of good pitches to hit.
You're right, haven. OPS doesn't favor sluggers but does slightly favor slugging. I read kidrock's comment being about the overemphasis on slugging in the OPS stat. He's right, according to Bill James/Rob Neyer-type baseball stat-crunchers. Thus the modified OPS rating you mentioned above, multiplying OBP x 1.2.
You can make an argument that OBP is slanted to sluggers who get pitched around more. My beef is that the highest OBP will be roughly around .450 or so, if that high. The highest slugging % will be around .700. If slugging % and OBP were closer to each other, slugging will be higher than OBP 90% of the time. It's almost like if you combined the FT% and FG% of players and use that stat to determine how good of a shooter you are. We all know that FT% will be the dominant factor in that fictitious stat. Personally, I don't like the stat because I don't put too much emphasis on power hitting. Since games in October are won with small-ball.
Richie Sexson had an .889 OPS last year. Ichiro had an .838 OPS. I would still say Ichiro is the better hitter.
Its not slanted to slugging, it shows players who hit hard as being more valuable, because they are - sluggers are generally better hitters than slap single hitters. Players who have the ability to hit for power, and get on base a lot are inherently more valuable than players who can only do one or the other. And Sexson is a better hitter than Ichiro, he's 6'7" with a quick swing that generates a ton of power. And anyone who's SLG% is lower than they're OBP is an atrocious hitter, or is getting walked an absurd amount of time.
Guys like Ray Johnson will have similar OPS to guys like Joe Borchard, but Borchard is much more valuable because he takes many more walks. Personally, I like the RC/27 stat in determining players' worth.
There's something to be said for putting the ball into play... Sexson struck out close to 200 times, and I'm sure he grounded into a lot of double plays. Having a guy like Ichiro allows you to hit and run more, advance runners without getting a base hit, and Ichiro doesn't GIDP.
I agree with Haven on this one...if I had to pick one stat to evaluate a player, it would be OPS...kind of like WHIP for pitchers.
Didn't Ichiro lead the league in hitting with runners in scoring position? I would consider a slap hitter who drives in runners at a better rate than anyone else a much more valuable hitter than a power hitter who leaves men stranded with all of those strikeouts.
Problem with that, is that such people don't replicate their stats from year to year. Nobody hits substantially higher WRISP over the course of a career. Or in late-inning clutch situations.
