|
OPS
Feb 5, 2014 16:15:58 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 5, 2014 16:15:58 GMT -5
I keep seeing this statistic, but I have yet to find any explaination of it that:
a-I can understand
b-shows me any reason to feel it's a valid number to be concerned about.
I would be most appreciative if anyone can help me understand it better.
Thanks!
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
OPS
Feb 5, 2014 19:30:36 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Feb 5, 2014 19:30:36 GMT -5
well it's pretty easy to understand what it is...it's the OBP and the SLG combined into one stat. The idea is to combine in measure the ability to reach base with the ability to hit for power to get an overall hitting value quotient.
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 5, 2014 23:21:32 GMT -5
Post by donk33 on Feb 5, 2014 23:21:32 GMT -5
it's a useless stat if you don't know all the pieces that make up the whole.....--On base percent doesn't mean too much unless you go back to see the number of hits and walks make up the stat...I prefer my hitter to hit more than walk....slugging percent can be high for a 200 K, .220 hitter who hits a ton of homers...or a .350 hitter who has few homers, but lots of doubles and triples thrown in....I just don't like high K guys because the K usually comes at the wrong time...
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
OPS
Feb 5, 2014 23:29:54 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Feb 5, 2014 23:29:54 GMT -5
The reason DK dislikes the OBP and the SLG stats is exactly the reason the OPS stat exists. If you hate the slugger that Ks a lot, the OPS evens that out. If you dislike the punching judy that gets on a lot without swinging, the OPS counters that as well.
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 6, 2014 9:51:49 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 6, 2014 9:51:49 GMT -5
Randy:
I appreciate your letting me know 'how' it's calculated, but I'm hoping that someone can tell me why it's a valid number to be concerned about.
Also, "what" is considered a good OPS, and what would be the other end; a bad OPS?
boly
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 6, 2014 11:54:46 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by islandboagie on Feb 6, 2014 11:54:46 GMT -5
It's just another stat, Boly, but it's a good stat for judging a hitter's production value.
However, it's not without flaws. Rog will consistantly support players with a high OPS even though that player doesn't contribute as much as the stat would indicate. In recent years Adam Dunn and Brandon Belt have been topics of Rog's where he's continuously stated their OPS. Their ability to draw a walk which positively effects their OPS. What is not included in OPS is their inability to put the ball in play. Too many strikeouts negatively effects the lineup, which is not included in OPS. Thus making the stat focus too much on ONLY the positives for players like Dunn and Belt.
That's why the stat is good, but not perfect.
As far as what's a good and bad OPS. I kind of consider .700 as being the line of decent and poor. Under .700 is not good. Over .700 is decent. Over .800 is good and over .900 is very good.
For instance Posey's OPS in his MVP year was .957, but last year it was only .821. Still good but not an MVP level like .957.
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 6, 2014 13:19:19 GMT -5
Post by donk33 on Feb 6, 2014 13:19:19 GMT -5
The reason DK dislikes the OBP and the SLG stats is exactly the reason the OPS stat exists. If you hate the slugger that Ks a lot, the OPS evens that out. If you dislike the punching judy that gets on a lot without swinging, the OPS counters that as well. dk...the reason I don't like the OPS is because you really can't tell if the batter is a slugger or a punch and judy hitter, if you don't know anything but his OPS.. OPS is designed to try to put the two on equal footing and this means little without the details...
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 6, 2014 15:56:40 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 6, 2014 15:56:40 GMT -5
Boagie-As far as what's a good and bad OPS. I kind of consider .700 as being the line of decent and poor. Under .700 is not good. Over .700 is decent. Over .800 is good and over .900 is very good.
---boly says---
Thanks, Boagie. That's what I needed.
Now when I read about someone talking OPS, I have a better way to understand. Over 700, good. Under, yuk.
boly
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 6, 2014 18:23:10 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by islandboagie on Feb 6, 2014 18:23:10 GMT -5
It all depends on the player.
We've been talking about Crawford on another thread and his OPS is below .700. To me Crawford is more valuable than his OPS would indicate. Obviously he's got a good glove, but he also hits a fair number of doubles and drives in a decent amount of RBIs.
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 7, 2014 2:34:09 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Feb 7, 2014 2:34:09 GMT -5
A few comments:
A good OPS varies depending on which position a player plays. Here are the major league averages by position: (By the way, .700 isn't very good except maybe for shortstop.)
P -- .317 C -- .699 1B - .776 2B - .710 SS - .680 3B - .736 LF - .736 CF - .730 RF - .760
I think Boagie makes a nice point about OPS evening out the player who gets on base with the power hitter (although most power hitters also get on base and thus are usually the most valuable hitters). Research has shown that a point of OBP is worth more than a point of SLG, but then SLG's are usually higher than OBP's.
Don makes a good point that a walk is often better than a single. What he may not be mentioning though is that a walk increases OBP but leaves SLG untouched, while a single raised BOTH OBP and SLG. Thus OPS DOES give more credit for single than for a walk.
The comment that too often a power hitter strikes out in big situations hasn't been demonstrated to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps someone can cite a study that indicates such to be the case.
This is a wild thought that just came to my mind. I wonder if a stat that divided SLG by the sum of 2.5 x (1 - OBP) would have meaning. A .300 hitter is usually pretty good. If a guy has an OBP of .400 and a SLG of .500, he's usually an excellent hitter. The .400/.500 guy would have a .333 rating using the system I proposed.
A guy with a .350 OBP and a .450 SLG is usually a very good hitter. That guy would have a .277 factor.
A .300/350 hitter usually isn't very good. In my system, he would have a .200 factor.
The off-the-top-of-the-head system needs work (probably too much difference between hitter #1 and hitter #3), but I think it's a decent start toward looking at bases compared to outs made. My favorite is bases earned divided by outs made, but the formula I mentioned above is designed more toward comparing with a batting average. The .333 is a little high, and the .200 is far too low.
It needs work, but it's a thought.
Here's a related question: Would you rather have a high OBP, so-so SLG guy (say .375/.400) or a so-so OBP, high SLG guy (say .340/.450)? The first guy has a .775 OPS, while the second has a .790 OPS. I realize this depends in part on what spot in the order we are talking about, overall which guy would we prefer? Looked at another way, would we prefer one hitter at #2 in the order and the other at #7?
How much impact would a guy's times grounded into double plays have on our evaluation? How about runners advanced with out? How about bases runners advance on hits? How much credence do we give to "clutch hitting," how do we measure it, and how does that effect or evaluation of a player's batting?
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Feb 7, 2014 9:35:10 GMT -5
OPS is a great stat because it's a good way to combine everything important into one number. It takes batting average, ability to get on base and power and puts them together. It can explain why a .270 hitter is better than a .300 hitter or why a player with 20 HR's might be better than a player with 30 HR's. But that's not important. You know what is? I heard DK and Mordy met in California last week. How did that go, Don?
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 7, 2014 10:22:29 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Feb 7, 2014 10:22:29 GMT -5
Mark -- It can explain why a .270 hitter is better than a .300 hitter or why a player with 20 HR's might be better than a player with 30 HR's. Rog -- The funny thing is that unless the guy with 30 home runs doesn't hit nearly as high an average as the 20 homer guy, the 30 homer guy usually walks more because his power is feared. My point is that I believe far more often a .270 hitter is shown by OPS to be as valuable as the .300 hitter than the 20 homer guy is shown to be as valuable as the 30 homer guy. And when the 20 homer guy is shown to be as good as the 30 homer guy, we usually already know because the former's batting average is clearly higher. The guys last season who hit 30 homers and didn't reach a .800 OPS were Pedro Alvarez, Adam Dunn and Alfonso Soriano. Of those players, only Soriano (.255) hit above .234. In other words, we already pretty much knew those guys had hitting weaknesses. On the other side, only two guys -- Dustin Pedroia and Victor Martinez -- hit .300 and had an OPS below .800. Dominic Brown, Edwin Encarnacion, Ryan Zimmerman, Carlos Santana and Ryan Longoria were the guys who hit between .264 and .278 who had OPS above .800, and with the exception of newcomer Brown, we already knew those guys could hit. Santana may be a bit under the radar, as well. As Don has pointed out, there are more than one way to earn a particular OPS, but we usually know that a guy with an OPS of .800 or better is usually a hitter we'd like to have on our team. A hitter below .700 in OPS, not so much. The two .300 hitters above who finished below .800 in OPS are good hitters, but both were having down years. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2183/ops#ixzz2seE2a4Nf
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 7, 2014 10:50:41 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Feb 7, 2014 10:50:41 GMT -5
Rog -- I would simply go after talent wherever I could find it. The price of talent is going up quickly. boly says---- Rog, it's not their talent I question. I have a problem with ridiculous posting fees, and making too much out of a player that hasn't done ANYTHING in the major leagues yet. Rog -- With the exception of Daisuke Matsuzaka, who succumbed to serious arm problems, I can't think of any highly-priced international free agents of late who haven't performed pretty well. I'm sure there are a few others, but Daisuke is the only one who comes to mind. On the other hand, I know of at least four international pitchers who had pretty good seasons in 2013. Three of them -- Isashi Iwakuma, Hyun-jin Rya and Yu Darvish -- had ERA's of 3.00 or lower. Hideki Kuroda's ERA was below 3.00 for most of the season. If you take another look at this opportunity, I think you will see that despite the unproven nature of the international free agents, overall they've proven to be pretty good buys. As I mentioned, the window opening is getting smaller and smaller, as because of the success of guys like the ones I mentioned, their prices are going up. Do you think the Rangers will get more for their money with Yu Darvish, or the Angels with Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton? No question the latter two were way, way, WAY more proven. Pujols might have been the best player in the game, and Hamilton was also a former MVP. Darvish hadn't thrown a pitch in the bigs. Which of the three players would you rather have now? Tiny, tiny, TINY sample, but hopefully you get the point. I think an open mind here -- no negative, pre-conceived notions -- is a good idea. It's been a long time since Osvaldo Hernandez, who succumbed to arm problems but who didn't really cost that much. The Japanese infielder/outfielder Tanaka was a bust for the Giants last season, but he cost almost nothing. You know how much the Giants paid Fernandez on his initial three-year contract -- including bonus? Less than $3 million. Had he not become injured, he likely would have been worth more -- possibly much more. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical#page=2#ixzz2seNUS4yy
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 7, 2014 10:56:56 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Feb 7, 2014 10:56:56 GMT -5
Not sure how the above post got on this topic (clearly operator error), but I have transfered to where it belongs.
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 7, 2014 13:04:00 GMT -5
Post by donk33 on Feb 7, 2014 13:04:00 GMT -5
OPS is a great stat because it's a good way to combine everything important into one number. It takes batting average, ability to get on base and power and puts them together. It can explain why a .270 hitter is better than a .300 hitter or why a player with 20 HR's might be better than a player with 30 HR's. But that's not important. You know what is? I heard DK and Mordy met in California last week. How did that go, Don? dk...I had a great, short visit with Mordy...he was one of the first visitors to my new home in the heart of conservative Repug land..Orange County......Even though we never met before, Mordy has been a good friend...he responded to my request for him to pray for my daughters recovery by sending me a beautiful prayer book...I got a chance to show my 70 year old Giants keepsakes...and as a final thing, Mordy gave me a refresher course on how to put on tafilan....Mordy was staying in Irvine which starts a block away from my house....he left a day later for San Diego..
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 11, 2014 13:04:43 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Feb 11, 2014 13:04:43 GMT -5
Mordy's a great guy. A little volatile, but he has a good heart. I miss him here. Don, I may soon join the SoCal contingent here. Strongly contemplating a move to the SD area, Escondido to be specific.The Bay Area is largely crap now. Time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Feb 15, 2014 17:04:51 GMT -5
Too liberal?
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 15, 2014 18:06:25 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by allenreed on Feb 15, 2014 18:06:25 GMT -5
Actually, that's a big part of the problem.Too mmuch crime, too much dope. SF used to be fun, now I won't set foot in it. You literally have to step over bums sleeping on the sidewalk to walk down the street. Oakland? You're lucky to get out alive. Any time the police try to do their job, the liberals bitch. Then when some drug thug gdts killed, they scream that the police aren't doing their job.
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 15, 2014 19:33:50 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by islandboagie on Feb 15, 2014 19:33:50 GMT -5
San Francisco being too liberal isnt exactly a new development. I love the city itself, but the liberal smugness of the people living there is unbearable.
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 15, 2014 23:17:07 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Feb 15, 2014 23:17:07 GMT -5
I like The City just fine except for the traffic.
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 16, 2014 1:08:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by allenreed on Feb 16, 2014 1:08:39 GMT -5
What's funny is what they're smug about. They took one of the most beautiful cities in the world and just destroyed it. If you want to see the end result of liberalism, look at SF and Detroit.
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 16, 2014 2:21:56 GMT -5
Post by donk33 on Feb 16, 2014 2:21:56 GMT -5
Mark -- It can explain why a .270 hitter is better than a .300 hitter or why a player with 20 HR's might be better than a player with 30 HR's. Rog -- The funny thing is that unless the guy with 30 home runs doesn't hit nearly as high an average as the 20 homer guy, the 30 homer guy usually walks more because his power is feared. My point is that I believe far more often a .270 hitter is shown by OPS to be as valuable as the .300 hitter than the 20 homer guy is shown to be as valuable as the 30 homer guy. And when the 20 homer guy is shown to be as good as the 30 homer guy, we usually already know because the former's batting average is clearly higher. The guys last season who hit 30 homers and didn't reach a .800 OPS were Pedro Alvarez, Adam Dunn and Alfonso Soriano. Of those players, only Soriano (.255) hit above .234. In other words, we already pretty much knew those guys had hitting weaknesses. On the other side, only two guys -- Dustin Pedroia and Victor Martinez -- hit .300 and had an OPS below .800. Dominic Brown, Edwin Encarnacion, Ryan Zimmerman, Carlos Santana and Ryan Longoria were the guys who hit between .264 and .278 who had OPS above .800, and with the exception of newcomer Brown, we already knew those guys could hit. Santana may be a bit under the radar, as well. As Don has pointed out, there are more than one way to earn a particular OPS, but we usually know that a guy with an OPS of .800 or better is usually a hitter we'd like to have on our team. A hitter below .700 in OPS, not so much. The two .300 hitters above who finished below .800 in OPS are good hitters, but both were having down years. dk...as I have said before...I would take a guy with a lower OPS if his OBP is much higher than his slugging if I need a lead off hitter...I would be open to having a guy with a lower OBP if he was a slugger and I need RBI's in the line up...but in either case I would ignore the OPS and look at his W's,H's, HR's and RBI's, etc.
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 16, 2014 13:00:15 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Feb 16, 2014 13:00:15 GMT -5
dk...as I have said before...I would take a guy with a lower OPS if his OBP is much higher than his slugging if I need a lead off hitter...I would be open to having a guy with a lower OBP if he was a slugger and I need RBI's in the line up...but in either case I would ignore the OPS and look at his W's,H's, HR's and RBI's, etc. Rog -- You're on to something here. A point of OBP is worth more than a point of SLG. And that would be even more important in a leadoff hitter than if he were hitting in the middle of the order, where there would likely be more runners on base. But even a cleanup hitter is very likely going to help his team more with a .400 OBP and a .500 SLG than with a .300 OBP and a .600 SLG. Don't get me wrong. I would take EITHER player. But the .400 OBP/.500 SLG guy is very likely to help his team more. Think about it. The .300 OBP guy is making a sixth more outs. What is a 9 inning offensive game for the .300 OBP guy is a 10 1/2 inning game for the .300 guy. Most teams will score more runs on average in 10 1/2 innings than even the best-hitting team in 9 innings. Know how they talk about how damaging it is to give a team four outs in an inning? Over a full game, the .400 OBP team will force more 4-out innings than the .300 OBP team will. Even if the guy is batting cleanup, the .400/.500 guy is likely to help his team more than the .300/.600 guy. The latter guy hits for more power -- but he just makes too many outs. One other thing. We can find several .400/.500 players, but there are almost no .300/.600 players. If a guy has enough power to put up a .600 SLG, he almost certainly will have an OBP well over .300. And if a guy puts up only a .300 OBP, he's very unlikely to put up a .600 SLG. In fact, I'm curious if a batter has EVER put up a .300/.600 season. It may have happened, but it's got to be extremely rare. Mark Trumbo was the first guy who came to my mind, but the closest he's come was .291/.477 in 2012. At the other extreme, we might think of a guy like Adam Dunn, but the closest Adam has come is last seasons's .320/.442 or his .333/.468 in 2012. Dave Kingman put up a .343/.613 in 1979. What other power hitters can we think of who didn't get on base much? Finding a guy who has enough power and walks little enough to go .300/.600 is tough. If we change the qualification to .333/.567 I'm pretty sure we would find some qualifiers. Probably not too many, but some. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2183/ops#ixzz2tVQLM8i4
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 17, 2014 14:21:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by islandboagie on Feb 17, 2014 14:21:12 GMT -5
The .400/.500 hitter is obviously better. Neither stat is poor, whereas a .300 obp is.
However, if you gave me the choice between 2 players (one with a .350/.550 and .400/.500) to bat 7th in the Giants lineup, i'd be more inclined to pick the .350/550 hitter.
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 17, 2014 15:09:26 GMT -5
Post by donk33 on Feb 17, 2014 15:09:26 GMT -5
dk...as I have said before...I would take a guy with a lower OPS if his OBP is much higher than his slugging if I need a lead off hitter...I would be open to having a guy with a lower OBP if he was a slugger and I need RBI's in the line up...but in either case I would ignore the OPS and look at his W's,H's, HR's and RBI's, etc. Rog -- You're on to something here. A point of OBP is worth more than a point of SLG. And that would be even more important in a leadoff hitter than if he were hitting in the middle of the order, where there would likely be more runners on base. But even a cleanup hitter is very likely going to help his team more with a .400 OBP and a .500 SLG than with a .300 OBP and a .600 SLG. Don't get me wrong. I would take EITHER player. But the .400 OBP/.500 SLG guy is very likely to help his team more. Think about it. The .300 OBP guy is making a sixth more outs. What is a 9 inning offensive game for the .300 OBP guy is a 10 1/2 inning game for the .300 guy. Most teams will score more runs on average in 10 1/2 innings than even the best-hitting team in 9 innings. Know how they talk about how damaging it is to give a team four outs in an inning? Over a full game, the .400 OBP team will force more 4-out innings than the .300 OBP team will. Even if the guy is batting cleanup, the .400/.500 guy is likely to help his team more than the .300/.600 guy. The latter guy hits for more power -- but he just makes too many outs. One other thing. We can find several .400/.500 players, but there are almost no .300/.600 players. If a guy has enough power to put up a .600 SLG, he almost certainly will have an OBP well over .300. And if a guy puts up only a .300 OBP, he's very unlikely to put up a .600 SLG. In fact, I'm curious if a batter has EVER put up a .300/.600 season. It may have happened, but it's got to be extremely rare. Mark Trumbo was the first guy who came to my mind, but the closest he's come was .291/.477 in 2012. At the other extreme, we might think of a guy like Adam Dunn, but the closest Adam has come is last seasons's .320/.442 or his .333/.468 in 2012. Dave Kingman put up a .343/.613 in 1979. What other power hitters can we think of who didn't get on base much? Finding a guy who has enough power and walks little enough to go .300/.600 is tough. If we change the qualification to .333/.567 I'm pretty sure we would find some qualifiers. Probably not too many, but som dk 2013...Blake DeWitt... .333/.667....
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 18, 2014 14:13:22 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Feb 18, 2014 14:13:22 GMT -5
dk 2013...Blake DeWitt... .333/.667....
Rog -- How did you do that search? I figured there was a way, but I don't know it.
Blake didn't precisely fit the criteria, which was .300/.600. But he did indeed have the same ratio and was, as they say, close enough for government work. Blake batted three times, so the sample might have been a tiny bit small.
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 18, 2014 14:48:41 GMT -5
Post by donk33 on Feb 18, 2014 14:48:41 GMT -5
dk 2013...Blake DeWitt... .333/.667.... Rog -- How did you do that search? I figured there was a way, but I don't know it. Blake didn't precisely fit the criteria, which was .300/.600. But he did indeed have the same ratio and was, as they say, close enough for government work. Blake batted three times, so the sample might have been a tiny bit small. dk..the one book I actually buy is the Baseball Almanac....The rare commodity in Major League baseball is a .600 Slugging Average....I looked for that on a team by team basis...and quickly came up with DeWitt...very, very small sample, but what the heck....I did find a better one later on, but didn't write it down and I forgot who it was ...another small sample....
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 18, 2014 14:52:49 GMT -5
Post by donk33 on Feb 18, 2014 14:52:49 GMT -5
pushed the memory button and came up with Jeff Kent...also, .333/.600..12 AB's in the minors...3 hits, one a homer....this from the Baseball Register...now out of business
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 18, 2014 15:00:51 GMT -5
Post by donk33 on Feb 18, 2014 15:00:51 GMT -5
oops...10 at bats 3 hits,1 walk..2 singles, 1 homer
|
|
|
OPS
Feb 18, 2014 15:57:22 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Feb 18, 2014 15:57:22 GMT -5
Boagie -- The .400/.500 hitter is obviously better. Neither stat is poor, whereas a .300 obp is. Rog -- A batter with a .000 SLG obviously isn't getting a lot of key hits, but rather than the .300/.600 guy OR the .400/.500 guy, I'd prefer the .900/.000 guy. OBP is usually more important than slugging percentage. Boagie -- However, if you gave me the choice between 2 players (one with a .350/.550 and .400/.500) to bat 7th in the Giants lineup, i'd be more inclined to pick the .350/550 hitter. Rog -- You make a good point here. The better the hitters in front of a hitter, the more important slugging percentage becomes; the better the hitters in BACK of a hitter, the less important slugging percentage becomes. The 7th-place hitter should have much better hitters ahead of him than behind him. That said (and I'm leaving out walks, so that at bats equal plate appearances), the .350/.550 hitter in 20 at bats makes 13 outs while accumulating 11 total bases. The .400/.500 hitter makes 12 outs while accumulating 10 total bases. Is that one extra base worth more than the cost of the 1 extra out? As you point out, it is more likely the case with the 7th-place hitter than the leadoff hitter. One thing not to forget though is that a team of .900/.000 hitters will score a lot of runs. And a team of 1.000/.000 hitters will still be batting. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2183/ops#ixzz2thyVROds
|
|