The point of Moneyball isn't that no one used stats before, but that many scouts relied too heavily on "feel" and, as importantly, the wrong stats, like batting average and RBIs.
Because a guy will sacrifice OBP to go for power, that makes OPS a better gauge? No, it just tracks power and makes it equivalent to OBP. As Nick said, a study was done that showed OBP to be 3 times more valuable than SLG..
If there's a tradeoff between OBP and power, then some combination of the two is a better gauge, because, as I read into your statments, a guy with less power needs a higher OBP, and a guy with more power doesn't need as high an OBP. Though apparently I'm wrong about the two components of OPS being equally valuable. Do you know of a stat that combines the two in a meaningful way?
To me it's meaningless to combine the stats at all. Of course, my stance is quite unpopular, but I consider OPS to be a pile of poo-poo. The two stats being combined respresent two very different skills which bring different offensive value to the team. As such, at least to me and my quite unpopular opinion, it is *much* more valuable to look at OBP and SLG separately.
I realize OPS probably isn't so great as it stands, but some combination of the two parts is useful if it can tell you how often a player gets on base (OBP) and what base he tends to get on (slugging). A search for "runs created" on Wikipedia gave me this:
Au contraire, you're left wondering. Even if the two are somehow weighted, the only way to really know how much is OBP and how much is SLG is to look at them separately. I like precision, OPS to me is very sloppy. I also tend to shy away from stats that attempt to make a sweeping generalization of a player's value based on some cure-all summary (like RC). In his day, Bidge was *huge* b/c of OBP. Great value as a leadoff hitter. Ricky Henderson, that a-hole, was even more valuable. Bagwell was *huge* as an RBI guy, and there are others who were even better. For all these players, the RC numbers may look similar, but that evaluation leaves one wanting as far as a description of what really happened. Where's the stat that measures, for example, how good AE is at hitting behind the runner? How many guys scored from 2nd on a single because AE grounded out behind them (on a hit-and-run of course) to get them there? Where's the stat that measures how many runs Derek Bell, Sean Berry, etc. were able to create because the pitcher pissed in his pants while Bags was at the plate? Or how many RBI's Bags got b/c the pitcher was distracted by Bidge? Stats aren't useless at all, but they should be kept in their place. The game is a lot more fun to *watch* than it is to analyze.
Which is why it's always best to speak about players/games/teams you've watched consistently...and then use stats to either back you up, or show you something you didn't realize. But once you look at the stats, it should trigger something and make you go "oh yeah, I guess that's true". Maybe just bring out something hidden. But you're right, watching the game nets so much more. Which is why there are 8 million scouts at so many games
If you're watching a team over a prolonged period of time... then yes, it will be the best measure. But, if you're only watching one game out of many a team will play (like a ton of scouts do), you're going to be influenced pretty poorly. If anybody watched Adam last weekend, you'd be wondering why this guy was sitting in the #8 hole... he looked like a solid hitter that could bat second or leadoff. That's where you can use stats as a more realistic guide. I'm not advocating using only one or another... but over the long haul, the stats don't lie when evaluating players who are being paid to produce (which is the complete spirit of the 'runs created' stat... how many runs does that player contribute to your overall team's total). Now, guys like Adam, Chris Burke, and any other utility/role player need to obviously be evaluated differently. The stats will automatically tell you that Everett will never be a productive middle-of-the-lineup hitter... but you have to watch him play to realize just how vital he is (as a fielder), and how he performs well in his role as the #8 hitter.
The sabremetriheads will tell you that no one can predict what side of the field the ball will go when a player makes contact. So, Adam hitting behind the runner is a random event. But yeah, I don't know that there's any way to quantify baserunning ability without watching every single play of a team's season.
I finally had to open up and read through this thread. My curiousity on how a thread that started out about Adam Everett made it to three pages was overwhelming.
Hopefully not all of them would say something that stupid. Lamentably, one can't predict it with his handy computer or wireless-enabled PDA, but nonetheless give me a bat and put a breaking ball middle of the plate or outside and I'll hit it between 1st and 2nd if need be.
Okay, dumb question coming. Why do you get credit for being on base if you're not on base when your at bat ends?
Technically, the atbat ended at first base. You see, the play was scored a single, which means the out at 2nd base was a function of baserunning beyond the original at-bat. To say it much more simply, if a player is given credit for a hit then he made it on base. He just didn't make it 2nd base.
Okay, gurus: What's the ruling on a play in which a fielder allows a hitter to reach first by failing to make a routine play, but said fielder throws the hitter out at second? What's the ruling on a play in which a fielder allows a hitter to reach first by failing to make a routine play, the man covering second fails to make a routine play to get the hitter out at second, but throws him out at third?
If they're truly routine, then situation 1 leads to an E on fielder 1, and then a putout, runner out advancing. (so 0-1 for the fielder, reached on error, out at 2nd advancing) Same in 2nd situation except 2 1-base errors charged and out at 3rd advancing. Someone correct me if I'm wrong? Obviously it's up to the discretion of the official scorer as to whether they're E's or base hits...but if the plays really are routine in the scorer's eyes, then I think that's how it plays out.
That's what I was thinking but what does "runner out advancing" mean? Specifically, how do you score that on your card?
Not positive, but if it were, say, the LF, I'd write an E7, draw my line from home to first, and then write "7-4" and circle a 1, 2, or 3, depending on which out number was recorded.
