***OFFICIAL*** FFA MLB Draft (2 Viewers)

[10993]

So do I.

32-2, with 12 KOs.

But those were two really bad losses.

To be fair, I'm 5'0" and 120 lbs, and both of those broads hit me from behind... so it's not that embarrassing.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

If you want a baseball related post, here's one.My top 3 teams so far (in no particular order):Lastrot - Ruth-McGwire...wow.

I predict that even if he drafted nothing but players from the 1962 Mets the rest of the way this team will do well in the voting based on these two players alone. Personally I think Big Mac is overrated and a really bad fit with Ruth but whatevah.

 

[10993]

If you want a baseball related post, here's one.

My top 3 teams so far (in no particular order):

Lastrot - Ruth-McGwire...wow.

I predict that even if he drafted nothing but players from the 1962 Mets the rest of the way this team will do well in the voting based on these two players alone. Personally I think Big Mac is overrated and a really bad fit with Ruth but whatevah.

As far as the vote goes, whoever has the most current superstars will win. The NBA draft proves this. Regardless, Big Mac-Ruth is some nice power in the middle of any line-up. I think the simulated season will prove this. (that will be the interesting part. Are those results going to be posted?)

Just a note on this...Mac is overrated. Lots of HRs but he doesn't get on base enough.

 

[Koya]

If you want a baseball related post, here's one.

My top 3 teams so far (in no particular order):

Lastrot  -  Ruth-McGwire...wow.

I predict that even if he drafted nothing but players from the 1962 Mets the rest of the way this team will do well in the voting based on these two players alone. Personally I think Big Mac is overrated and a really bad fit with Ruth but whatevah.

As far as the vote goes, whoever has the most current superstars will win. The NBA draft proves this. Regardless, Big Mac-Ruth is some nice power in the middle of any line-up. I think the simulated season will prove this. (that will be the interesting part. Are those results going to be posted?)

Just a note on this...Mac is overrated. Lots of HRs but he doesn't get on base enough.

Mac's numbers - awesome as they are - are tempered just as the other stars of the 90's were - Griff, Arod, Bonds and a bunch not picked.Even so, the sheer shock value of Ruth/Big Mac is worth it in my opinion. Although I do believe the elite pitchers might be able to shut down Mac. Not Ruth though (and not Bonds).

 

[larry_boy_44]

If you want a baseball related post, here's one.

My top 3 teams so far (in no particular order):

Lastrot  -  Ruth-McGwire...wow.

I predict that even if he drafted nothing but players from the 1962 Mets the rest of the way this team will do well in the voting based on these two players alone. Personally I think Big Mac is overrated and a really bad fit with Ruth but whatevah.

As far as the vote goes, whoever has the most current superstars will win. The NBA draft proves this. Regardless, Big Mac-Ruth is some nice power in the middle of any line-up. I think the simulated season will prove this. (that will be the interesting part. Are those results going to be posted?)

there is a difference between baseball and basketball, though...Basketball has evolved so much that you have to make up "super-advancement juice" or something to make a 1950's player = to current players... I mean, a 6'7" CENTER?!?! No way when teams are starting Shaq and Duncan...

Heck, if you go plain out skills/talent Shawn Marion would wipe the floor with Mikan and it wouldn't even be close...

But Babe Ruth could hit homers off Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, Roger Clements, etc... and those pitchers would strike him out, too...

Barry Bonds could hit off of old pitchers... and those pitchers could still strike him out...

Baseball has not changed as much as basketball... yes, the balls are juiced and the guys are on steroids... BUT, an all star team from 1950 could AT LEAST play with an all star team from 2004, in not beat them...

there is no way an all star basketball team from 1950 could get within 100 points of an all star basketball team from 2004 in a full game... It would be a worse blowout than any of the games the original dream team played...

 

[Captain Quinoa]

If you want a baseball related post, here's one.

My top 3 teams so far (in no particular order):

Lastrot  -  Ruth-McGwire...wow.

I predict that even if he drafted nothing but players from the 1962 Mets the rest of the way this team will do well in the voting based on these two players alone. Personally I think Big Mac is overrated and a really bad fit with Ruth but whatevah.

As far as the vote goes, whoever has the most current superstars will win. The NBA draft proves this. Regardless, Big Mac-Ruth is some nice power in the middle of any line-up. I think the simulated season will prove this. (that will be the interesting part. Are those results going to be posted?)

Just a note on this...Mac is overrated. Lots of HRs but he doesn't get on base enough.

He's certainly no Sisler.

 

[larry_boy_44]

If you want a baseball related post, here's one.

My top 3 teams so far (in no particular order):

Lastrot  -  Ruth-McGwire...wow.

I predict that even if he drafted nothing but players from the 1962 Mets the rest of the way this team will do well in the voting based on these two players alone. Personally I think Big Mac is overrated and a really bad fit with Ruth but whatevah.

As far as the vote goes, whoever has the most current superstars will win. The NBA draft proves this. Regardless, Big Mac-Ruth is some nice power in the middle of any line-up. I think the simulated season will prove this. (that will be the interesting part. Are those results going to be posted?)

Just a note on this...Mac is overrated. Lots of HRs but he doesn't get on base enough.

Mac's numbers - awesome as they are - are tempered just as the other stars of the 90's were - Griff, Arod, Bonds and a bunch not picked.Even so, the sheer shock value of Ruth/Big Mac is worth it in my opinion. Although I do believe the elite pitchers might be able to shut down Mac. Not Ruth though (and not Bonds).

it wouldn't surprise me if Mac batted .225 in the sim with 50 home runs...BUT, the question is... what was he put on the team for? To hit home runs, quite frankly...

put him behind Ruth and you surely can't ever walk around Ruth... You have guys on 2nd & 3rd and Ruth is at the plate... do you walk him and load the bases??

The thing is... Mac is good for voting, and his top years are like this:

1998 34 STL NL 155 509 130 152 21 0 70 147 1 0 162 155 .299 .470 .752 383 0 4 28 6 8

1999 35 STL NL 153 521 118 145 21 1 65 147 0 0 133 141 .278 .424 .697 363 0 5 21 2 12

1987 23 OAK AL 151 557 97 161 28 4 49 118 1 1 71 131 .289 .370 .618 344 0 8 8 5 6

1996 32 OAK AL 130 423 104 132 21 0 52 113 0 0 116 112 .312 .467 .730 309 0 1 16 8 14

there is NO WAY that one of those years aren't his 3rd highest salary season on WIS and in all of them he's batting above .270, in 2 of them over .300...

I'd say there is a good chance his rookie year (1987) is his 3rd highest WIS salary season... and he hit .289 that year... it's possible 1996 is, too, which means he'll hit .312 and get on base .467...

I don't think his hitting issues will affect the Sim at all...

although what we really should be discussing in regards to McGwire is the fact that Albert Pujols has almost as many good seasons as Big Mac does...

 

[Koya]

I think we are actually seeing (and this is expected in baseball) a slight bias against modern superstars. I think for the other active guys not chosen, the bias might even be stronger. Could this with the low league numbers until the 90's, and the big stats of the old ball player hold a certain reverence.It is hard to see a star we watched while we grow up, and put that player on par with the LEGENDS of Mays and Mantle. I think the players that have become stars after we were already 15 years old have an even harder time meeting those "standards" - made by the players we heard our parents and grandparents talk about.In basketball, other than Wilt, anyone pre Bird and Magic has a huge disadvantage in the minds of the voters. I dont think that exists with names like Mays, Ruth, Williams. Our sensibilities almost dont like to challange their greatness (I at least sense this in myself, and have gathered this in a lot of baseball talk).As we get later in the draft, I think you are right. There might be a decent batting position player that is a great defender from today or recently that we remember. I could not as easily tell you who the very good but not great players were from say 1949. Even if they were a little better than a comparable player today.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think we are actually seeing (and this is expected in baseball) a slight bias against modern superstars. I think for the other active guys not chosen, the bias might even be stronger. Could this with the low league numbers until the 90's, and the big stats of the old ball player hold a certain reverence.It is hard to see a star we watched while we grow up, and put that player on par with the LEGENDS of Mays and Mantle. I think the players that have become stars after we were already 15 years old have an even harder time meeting those "standards" - made by the players we heard our parents and grandparents talk about.In basketball, other than Wilt, anyone pre Bird and Magic has a huge disadvantage in the minds of the voters. I dont think that exists with names like Mays, Ruth, Williams. Our sensibilities almost dont like to challange their greatness (I at least sense this in myself, and have gathered this in a lot of baseball talk).As we get later in the draft, I think you are right. There might be a decent batting position player that is a great defender from today or recently that we remember. I could not as easily tell you who the very good but not great players were from say 1949. Even if they were a little better than a comparable player today.

seriously, someone say something...*bump*This is getting close to the second page...

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I've been working on some interesting metrics for hitting in my "spare" time. I think I've found one that I particularly like.. I'm not aware of it's use elsewhere. (Maybe I should write a 700 page book about it like Bill James.) I think I'll withhold it for now, but to me it's far more telling than something kinda arbitrary like OPS.Speaking of which, does anyone understand why OBP and SLG should be added together to give OPS? They aren't exactly similar quantities (one varies from 0 to 1, the other from 0 to 4), so why should one add them? I've never really followed that logic, other than they tend to vary over somewhat similar ranges of absolute value (i.e. most players' OBP is between .280 and .520, whereas most SLG is between .320 and 600), but it does seem to give a number that correlates well with offensive production.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Anyone around who could take a list from me?I won't be on until about 1 PM eastern tomorrow.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I've been working on some interesting metrics for hitting in my "spare" time. I think I've found one that I particularly like.. I'm not aware of it's use elsewhere. (Maybe I should write a 700 page book about it like Bill James.) I think I'll withhold it for now, but to me it's far more telling than something kinda arbitrary like OPS.Speaking of which, does anyone understand why OBP and SLG should be added together to give OPS? They aren't exactly similar quantities (one varies from 0 to 1, the other from 0 to 4), so why should one add them? I've never really followed that logic, other than they tend to vary over somewhat similar ranges of absolute value (i.e. most players' OBP is between .280 and .520, whereas most SLG is between .320 and 600), but it does seem to give a number that correlates well with offensive production.

I think it is in part because they are similar, in part because they give basically the same info, and in part because they show the same thing from a different angle...who's the better hitter, someone with a .400 OB% and a .475 Slugging % or something with a .360 OB% and a .500 Slugging %???OPS says that the first batter is better 'cuz he has a .875 OPS compared to .860...But, if the second batter had a .340 OB% but a .600 Slugging %, then would you say he is more valuable a hitter? I think I would say .340 OB with .600 slugging is more valuable than .400 and .475...the .475 slugging guy hit almost ALL singles..the .360 guy hit TONS of extra base hits...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Anyone around who could take a list from me?I won't be on until about 1 PM eastern tomorrow.

I'm around, but, unfortunately, I can't take your list since I am picking in between your picks...I would just arbitrarilly PM it to Capella, that is the safest bet... unless someone shows up who can take it...

 

[Koya]

Spartans, you can send it to me, if I am not before you - which I dont think I am. You can always PM cappy too, unless he is also going before you.

 

[Kraft...]

Been at the Pats Game sorry for the delay, 3 points allowed to the freakin Colts! Yeah Baby!

With Pick #13(12 really -bogart) in round 5 The Curse Reversing Idiots Select:

SP Jim Palmer

Write up tomorrow after I get some sleep.

Go PATS!

 

[bentley]

I've been working on some interesting metrics for hitting in my "spare" time. I think I've found one that I particularly like.. I'm not aware of it's use elsewhere. (Maybe I should write a 700 page book about it like Bill James.) I think I'll withhold it for now, but to me it's far more telling than something kinda arbitrary like OPS.Speaking of which, does anyone understand why OBP and SLG should be added together to give OPS? They aren't exactly similar quantities (one varies from 0 to 1, the other from 0 to 4), so why should one add them? I've never really followed that logic, other than they tend to vary over somewhat similar ranges of absolute value (i.e. most players' OBP is between .280 and .520, whereas most SLG is between .320 and 600), but it does seem to give a number that correlates well with offensive production.

Rob Neyer agrees with you.

Because a few years ago, and with the help of many readers, I came to the conclusion that while OPS ain't bad, a better measure would be the sum of slugging percentage and OBP*1.4 (or thereabouts). Now, I think DePodesta would argue that the multiple should be even higher than 1.4, but the point is that OBP has to be weighted significantly higher than slugging percentage, if those are the two stats we're going to work with.That's why the A's were so interested in signing Scott Hatteberg, and that's why Hatteberg was actually quite a good fit at first base, despite a slugging percentage that looked mighty unimpressive for a first baseman. Or so DePodesta and Lewis would argue.And I think they're right. So yes, OPS is a crude tool, a blunt object that shouldn't be used when precision is critical.

 

[Pumpnick]

did the time limit start at 1:34 am?

 

[Koya]

Been at the Pats Game sorry for the delay, 3 points allowed to the freakin Colts! Yeah Baby!

With Pick #13(12 really -bogart) in round 5 The Curse Reversing Idiots Select:

SP Jim Palmer

Write up tomorrow after I get some sleep.

Go PATS!

Damn you, but thank you. I really didnt need to go pitching again, but Palmer was not only the last top 20 guy on the board, and not only are the others on the board somewhat bunched in my mind below Palmer - he was my first "favorite player" down to my little league 22.Had he come around, I would had to have taken him.

Great value there for a three time CY winner and something like 8 straight 20 win seasons.

Now, if that pick had only been made hours ago...

jk.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Been at the Pats Game sorry for the delay, 3 points allowed to the freakin Colts! Yeah Baby!

With Pick #13(12 really -bogart) in round 5 The Curse Reversing Idiots Select:

SP Jim Palmer

Write up tomorrow after I get some sleep.

Go PATS!

#1 on my list, which now needs to be redone.

 

[Koya]

I dont see UCONN on. If you two want to send your pick to me (or to cap) Im sure either would be fine. Then we will get through this swing and get rolling again. Maybe 2.5 rounds tomorrow?

 

[Koya]

Been at the Pats Game sorry for the delay, 3 points allowed to the freakin Colts! Yeah Baby!

With Pick #13(12 really -bogart) in round 5 The Curse Reversing Idiots Select:

SP Jim Palmer

Write up tomorrow after I get some sleep.

Go PATS!

#1 on my list, which now needs to be redone.

if it's a list, shouldnt you have a 2, 3, and 4 afterward without needing to redo it?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Rob Neyer agrees with you.

Because a few years ago, and with the help of many readers, I came to the conclusion that while OPS ain't bad, a better measure would be the sum of slugging percentage and OBP*1.4 (or thereabouts). Now, I think DePodesta would argue that the multiple should be even higher than 1.4, but the point is that OBP has to be weighted significantly higher than slugging percentage, if those are the two stats we're going to work with.That's why the A's were so interested in signing Scott Hatteberg, and that's why Hatteberg was actually quite a good fit at first base, despite a slugging percentage that looked mighty unimpressive for a first baseman. Or so DePodesta and Lewis would argue.And I think they're right. So yes, OPS is a crude tool, a blunt object that shouldn't be used when precision is critical.

Interesting..Yes, I think this makes more sense. OBP is inherently underweighted because it can only reach a max value of 1.000 whereas SLG can theoretically be 4.000. I'm not sure there is a proper weighting factor that would correct this problem so that OPS would be better calculated, but I do think OPS as it stands is somewhat goofy.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Been at the Pats Game sorry for the delay, 3 points allowed to the freakin Colts! Yeah Baby!

With Pick #13(12 really -bogart) in round 5 The Curse Reversing Idiots Select:

SP Jim Palmer

Write up tomorrow after I get some sleep.

Go PATS!

Excellent pick. I was considering Palmer at my last selection, but decided to take the best lefty instead in Whitey Ford.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Been at the Pats Game sorry for the delay, 3 points allowed to the freakin Colts! Yeah Baby!

With Pick #13(12 really -bogart) in round 5 The Curse Reversing Idiots Select:

SP Jim Palmer

Write up tomorrow after I get some sleep.

Go PATS!

#1 on my list, which now needs to be redone.

if it's a list, shouldnt you have a 2, 3, and 4 afterward without needing to redo it?

Well, the Palmer pick changed my draft strategy slightly with regards to positions. I got two picks to make lists for.

 

[Koya]

Been at the Pats Game sorry for the delay, 3 points allowed to the freakin Colts! Yeah Baby!

With Pick #13(12 really -bogart) in round 5 The Curse Reversing Idiots Select:

SP Jim Palmer

Write up tomorrow after I get some sleep.

Go PATS!

#1 on my list, which now needs to be redone.

if it's a list, shouldnt you have a 2, 3, and 4 afterward without needing to redo it?

Well, the Palmer pick changed my draft strategy slightly with regards to positions. I got two picks to make lists for.

true. double picks are tough when the second depends upon the first

 

[Kraft...]

Been at the Pats Game sorry for the delay, 3 points allowed to the freakin Colts! Yeah Baby!

With Pick #13(12 really -bogart) in round 5 The Curse Reversing Idiots Select:

SP Jim Palmer

Write up tomorrow after I get some sleep.

Go PATS!

Excellent pick. I was considering Palmer at my last selection, but decided to take the best lefty instead in Whitey Ford.

My Pitching short list consisted of Whitey and Palmer in that order. Wanted Whitey since he was a lefty and I already had Gibson but hey you beat me to him.

 

[Koya]

someone go wake up uconn.

 

[Kraft...]

I would think UCONN PM'd someone, unlike myself he has some consideration for you lot.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I would think UCONN PM'd someone, unlike myself he has some consideration for you lot.

nah, you thought we had stalled 'til Monday morning, no big deal...now if you don't plan on being on 'til like 1 PM tommorow, you should pro'lly PM someone some kind of list, even if just 1 or 2 guys just in case it gets to you...although if you don't I understand since you seem to be overjoyed by the Pats win that you went to... lol

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Really great of bogart to check in here this weekend..

 

[Spartans Rule]

I've been working on some interesting metrics for hitting in my "spare" time. I think I've found one that I particularly like.. I'm not aware of it's use elsewhere. (Maybe I should write a 700 page book about it like Bill James.) I think I'll withhold it for now, but to me it's far more telling than something kinda arbitrary like OPS.Speaking of which, does anyone understand why OBP and SLG should be added together to give OPS? They aren't exactly similar quantities (one varies from 0 to 1, the other from 0 to 4), so why should one add them? I've never really followed that logic, other than they tend to vary over somewhat similar ranges of absolute value (i.e. most players' OBP is between .280 and .520, whereas most SLG is between .320 and 600), but it does seem to give a number that correlates well with offensive production.

What doesn't make sense to me is that the two use different denominators, thus it doesn't make sense to add them.A player who walked every at-bat would only have an OPS of 1.000.The way to do it would be to assign some sort of value to a walk relative to the different hits, add them up and divide by plate apperances.

 

[Capella]

Really great of bogart to check in here this weekend..

:rotflmao:

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think the reason OB% + Slugging % = OPS is simply 'cuz OB% is a part of slugging, but its a part that you can't tell automatically... its just another useless stat...BUT, it puts players on an even playing field since a guy who gets on base .400 will automatically have a slugging % of over .400... and that's assuming he got no extra base hits...a guy who gets 40 home runs in 160 at bats and that is it has a slugging of 1.000 but a OB% of .250... is he more valuable than the guy who has an OB% of .475 and a slugging % of .575?? I would say yes, since the first guys OPS is 1.250 and the second guys is 1.050... The home run every 4 at bats is MUCH more valuable than what ends up being a single every other at bat (with a double or triple or homer every long, long while...)

 

[Spartans Rule]

BUT, it puts players on an even playing field since a guy who gets on base .400 will automatically have a slugging % of over .400... and that's assuming he got no extra base hits...

Not true. Walks are not a component of slugging.If you did nothing but walk, you could have an OBP of 1.000 and SLG of 0.

 

[Koya]

Good point about walks not being a part of Slugging. The fact is, the Walk is a VERY important part of the overall picture. I would rather have a guy that hits for a lower average but a significantly higher OBP than the other way around... most of the time at least. If you have a guy that is at least somewhat fast, getting on base changes the nature of the game. If you then have a good batter on deck, you have a run scoring opportunity. Better than a few more singles and a lot less walks... meaning a lot less chances to change the flow of the game and create scoring opps.

 

[Capella]

Good point about walks not being a part of Slugging. The fact is, the Walk is a VERY important part of the overall picture. I would rather have a guy that hits for a lower average but a significantly higher OBP than the other way around... most of the time at least. If you have a guy that is at least somewhat fast, getting on base changes the nature of the game. If you then have a good batter on deck, you have a run scoring opportunity. Better than a few more singles and a lot less walks... meaning a lot less chances to change the flow of the game and create scoring opps.

I'd rather have the guy who consistently puts the ball in play, personally.I've always thought walks were overrated.

 

[Capella]

I've been working on some interesting metrics for hitting in my "spare" time. I think I've found one that I particularly like.. I'm not aware of it's use elsewhere. (Maybe I should write a 700 page book about it like Bill James.) I think I'll withhold it for now, but to me it's far more telling than something kinda arbitrary like OPS.

spill it..btw, how you liking the Abstract?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I think the reason OB% + Slugging % = OPS is simply 'cuz OB% is a part of slugging, but its a part that you can't tell automatically... its just another useless stat...BUT, it puts players on an even playing field since a guy who gets on base .400 will automatically have a slugging % of over .400... and that's assuming he got no extra base hits...a guy who gets 40 home runs in 160 at bats and that is it has a slugging of 1.000 but a OB% of .250... is he more valuable than the guy who has an OB% of .475 and a slugging % of .575?? I would say yes, since the first guys OPS is 1.250 and the second guys is 1.050... The home run every 4 at bats is MUCH more valuable than what ends up being a single every other at bat (with a double or triple or homer every long, long while...)

Honestly, the reason OPS = OBP + SLG is due to laziness. James has shown in short order that even the most rudimentary statistical analysis can reveal some interesting things. Of course he takes it to an extreme, IMO, reducing things to win shares which is only one number, but that's another matter. The problem with OPS is that it merges two dissimilar stats that have no business being merged. The 1.4 correction noted above comes about since SLG is an inherently larger value than OBP. I looked at the distribution of SLG for 2003 (don't ask why not 2004.. long story) for all players and found that most guys have values between .200 and .600, arbitrarily. As for OBP, the range is more like .200 and .400. The average SLG value for all players was about .375 (unweighted for ABs) whereas the average OBP was about .300. Using a simple ratio, we might use a 1.25 correction factor to bring the two stats into accordance with each other, but looking at the top end numbers as a guide, we might consider a value more like 1.5, close to what Neyer suggests.Either way, OPS as it's currently used doesn't really distiguish hitters unless they have very large OPS numbers. For example, Bonds' OPS in '04 was an astounding 1.422, the highest value in baseball history. His OPS number was 0.344 higher than #2 on the list which was Todd Helton. That's telling. Comparing guys with OPS numbers in the .800 range isn't going to tell you much about their productivity whatsoever.Like I said, I have another metric I'm using, and it seems to be a little more logical than OPS, even though I'm sort of a fan of players with big OPS numbers. The point is that OPS correlates well with productivity even if it's a flawed stat.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I've been working on some interesting metrics for hitting in my "spare" time. I think I've found one that I particularly like.. I'm not aware of it's use elsewhere. (Maybe I should write a 700 page book about it like Bill James.) I think I'll withhold it for now, but to me it's far more telling than something kinda arbitrary like OPS.

spill it..btw, how you liking the Abstract?

It's quite a body of work. I'm enjoying it. James is a weird guy, though. I think that's just part of his shtick.. try to stir up a little controversy.

 

[Koya]

Good point about walks not being a part of Slugging. The fact is, the Walk is a VERY important part of the overall picture. I would rather have a guy that hits for a lower average but a significantly higher OBP than the other way around... most of the time at least. If you have a guy that is at least somewhat fast, getting on base changes the nature of the game. If you then have a good batter on deck, you have a run scoring opportunity. Better than a few more singles and a lot less walks... meaning a lot less chances to change the flow of the game and create scoring opps.

I'd rather have the guy who consistently puts the ball in play, personally.I've always thought walks were overrated.

We all have our preference. If the guy has some wheels, then getting a lot of walks will compensate a good amount for the lost singles. Especially when we talk about power hitters. If a guy gets a lot of HRs and Doubles, then some more Ks and a lower average is easily made up by more walks.I will agree that without the power side, then walks are far more shallow, unless you can steal up a storm, or change the game from the basebaths. Again, it is all about context and looking at all the stats, the entire picture... and what it tells.

 

[Capella]

I've been working on some interesting metrics for hitting in my "spare" time.  I think I've found one that I particularly like.. I'm not aware of it's use elsewhere.  (Maybe I should write a 700 page book about it like Bill James.)  I think I'll withhold it for now, but to me it's far more telling than something kinda arbitrary like OPS.

spill it..btw, how you liking the Abstract?

It's quite a body of work. I'm enjoying it. James is a weird guy, though. I think that's just part of his shtick.. try to stir up a little controversy.

I think it's awesome..spent a good deal of the day re-reading it. Only thing I don't like is how I'll go to read about a player, then he'll have some short little story on him and no facts.Then, he'll drone on 8 pages endlessly on some player who doesn't deserve it.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I think it's awesome..spent a good deal of the day re-reading it. Only thing I don't like is how I'll go to read about a player, then he'll have some short little story on him and no facts.Then, he'll drone on 8 pages endlessly on some player who doesn't deserve it.

Yeah, that drove me nuts too. It's like I'd be all interested to hear what he has to say about a guy, and then you'd get nothing but a list of who that guy was more similar to for each decade. Yippie.I think it has to do partially with burnout or not wanting to be redundant. Pretty sure James is trying his best to provide something new and not just re-tread old info/analysis constantly. For the players where he does write a good bit, it's very entertaining and edifying. It does piss me off a bit when he just cops out and omits a player.. like Bagwell. Odd, that one.

 

[Capella]

Good point about walks not being a part of Slugging.  The fact is, the Walk is a VERY important part of the overall picture.  I would rather have a guy that hits for a lower average but a significantly higher OBP than the other way around... most of the time at least. If you have a guy that is at least somewhat fast, getting on base changes the nature of the game. If you then have a good batter on deck, you have a run scoring opportunity.  Better than a few more singles and a lot less walks... meaning a lot less chances to change the flow of the game and create scoring opps.

I'd rather have the guy who consistently puts the ball in play, personally.I've always thought walks were overrated.

We all have our preference. If the guy has some wheels, then getting a lot of walks will compensate a good amount for the lost singles. Especially when we talk about power hitters. If a guy gets a lot of HRs and Doubles, then some more Ks and a lower average is easily made up by more walks.I will agree that without the power side, then walks are far more shallow, unless you can steal up a storm, or change the game from the basebaths. Again, it is all about context and looking at all the stats, the entire picture... and what it tells.

obviously there is a time for walks, but I'd want my players putting the ball in play..moves runners over, mistakes can happen, etc. Funny things take place when the ball is in play. one of the reasons I liked Tony Gwynn. He just got up there and raked. He don't need no stinkin' walks.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

one of the reasons I liked Tony Gwynn. He just got up there and raked. He don't need no stinkin' walks.

I'd say Ichiro is the extreme of this hitting style.

 

[Koya]

Good point about walks not being a part of Slugging.  The fact is, the Walk is a VERY important part of the overall picture.  I would rather have a guy that hits for a lower average but a significantly higher OBP than the other way around... most of the time at least. If you have a guy that is at least somewhat fast, getting on base changes the nature of the game. If you then have a good batter on deck, you have a run scoring opportunity.  Better than a few more singles and a lot less walks... meaning a lot less chances to change the flow of the game and create scoring opps.

I'd rather have the guy who consistently puts the ball in play, personally.I've always thought walks were overrated.

We all have our preference. If the guy has some wheels, then getting a lot of walks will compensate a good amount for the lost singles. Especially when we talk about power hitters. If a guy gets a lot of HRs and Doubles, then some more Ks and a lower average is easily made up by more walks.I will agree that without the power side, then walks are far more shallow, unless you can steal up a storm, or change the game from the basebaths. Again, it is all about context and looking at all the stats, the entire picture... and what it tells.

obviously there is a time for walks, but I'd want my players putting the ball in play..moves runners over, mistakes can happen, etc. Funny things take place when the ball is in play. one of the reasons I liked Tony Gwynn. He just got up there and raked. He don't need no stinkin' walks.

I guess to me, a walk is as good as a single if you are talking the type of single that isnt moving a runner along.Whatever that means. Yogi, anyone?

 

[Capella]

I think it's awesome..spent a good deal of the day re-reading it. Only thing I don't like is how I'll go to read about a player, then he'll have some short little story on him and no facts.Then, he'll drone on 8 pages endlessly on some player who doesn't deserve it.

Yeah, that drove me nuts too. It's like I'd be all interested to hear what he has to say about a guy, and then you'd get nothing but a list of who that guy was more similar to for each decade. Yippie.I think it has to do partially with burnout or not wanting to be redundant. Pretty sure James is trying his best to provide something new and not just re-tread old info/analysis constantly. For the players where he does write a good bit, it's very entertaining and edifying. It does piss me off a bit when he just cops out and omits a player.. like Bagwell. Odd, that one.

his comments on Gwynn drove me nuts.."The Tony Gwynn All-Star Team"What the hell is that?And Cobb..he took pictures a certain way.Outstanding. One undrafted player..the "All-Tall" team..and then that's it for his writeup.still, so much good stuff you can just brush that off.

 

[Capella]

I think the reason OB% + Slugging % = OPS is simply 'cuz OB% is a part of slugging, but its a part that you can't tell automatically... its just another useless stat...BUT, it puts players on an even playing field since a guy who gets on base .400 will automatically have a slugging % of over .400... and that's assuming he got no extra base hits...a guy who gets 40 home runs in 160 at bats and that is it has a slugging of 1.000 but a OB% of .250... is he more valuable than the guy who has an OB% of .475 and a slugging % of .575?? I would say yes, since the first guys OPS is 1.250 and the second guys is 1.050... The home run every 4 at bats is MUCH more valuable than what ends up being a single every other at bat (with a double or triple or homer every long, long while...)

Honestly, the reason OPS = OBP + SLG is due to laziness. James has shown in short order that even the most rudimentary statistical analysis can reveal some interesting things. Of course he takes it to an extreme, IMO, reducing things to win shares which is only one number, but that's another matter. The problem with OPS is that it merges two dissimilar stats that have no business being merged. The 1.4 correction noted above comes about since SLG is an inherently larger value than OBP. I looked at the distribution of SLG for 2003 (don't ask why not 2004.. long story) for all players and found that most guys have values between .200 and .600, arbitrarily. As for OBP, the range is more like .200 and .400. The average SLG value for all players was about .375 (unweighted for ABs) whereas the average OBP was about .300. Using a simple ratio, we might use a 1.25 correction factor to bring the two stats into accordance with each other, but looking at the top end numbers as a guide, we might consider a value more like 1.5, close to what Neyer suggests.Either way, OPS as it's currently used doesn't really distiguish hitters unless they have very large OPS numbers. For example, Bonds' OPS in '04 was an astounding 1.422, the highest value in baseball history. His OPS number was 0.344 higher than #2 on the list which was Todd Helton. That's telling. Comparing guys with OPS numbers in the .800 range isn't going to tell you much about their productivity whatsoever.Like I said, I have another metric I'm using, and it seems to be a little more logical than OPS, even though I'm sort of a fan of players with big OPS numbers. The point is that OPS correlates well with productivity even if it's a flawed stat.

no offense to larry, but I'm pretty sure you're going to lose him here. curious about this..

.  Comparing guys with OPS numbers in the .800 range isn't going to tell you much about their productivity whatsoever.

I guess what you're saying is you just think that so many are bracketed in there that you can't distinguish them? how would any other metric be different to weigh that bracket of players? what could be added or taken away? there's always going to be players outside of the top-tier that are going to closely resemble each other.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I think the reason OB% + Slugging % = OPS is simply 'cuz OB% is a part of slugging, but its a part that you can't tell automatically... its just another useless stat...

BUT, it puts players on an even playing field since a guy who gets on base .400 will automatically have a slugging % of over .400... and that's assuming he got no extra base hits...

a guy who gets 40 home runs in 160 at bats and that is it has a slugging of 1.000 but a OB% of .250... is he more valuable than the guy who has an OB% of .475 and a slugging % of .575?? I would say yes, since the first guys OPS is 1.250 and the second guys is 1.050... The home run every 4 at bats is MUCH more valuable than what ends up being a single every other at bat (with a double or triple or homer every long, long while...)

Honestly, the reason OPS = OBP + SLG is due to laziness. James has shown in short order that even the most rudimentary statistical analysis can reveal some interesting things. Of course he takes it to an extreme, IMO, reducing things to win shares which is only one number, but that's another matter. The problem with OPS is that it merges two dissimilar stats that have no business being merged. The 1.4 correction noted above comes about since SLG is an inherently larger value than OBP. I looked at the distribution of SLG for 2003 (don't ask why not 2004.. long story) for all players and found that most guys have values between .200 and .600, arbitrarily. As for OBP, the range is more like .200 and .400. The average SLG value for all players was about .375 (unweighted for ABs) whereas the average OBP was about .300. Using a simple ratio, we might use a 1.25 correction factor to bring the two stats into accordance with each other, but looking at the top end numbers as a guide, we might consider a value more like 1.5, close to what Neyer suggests.

Either way, OPS as it's currently used doesn't really distiguish hitters unless they have very large OPS numbers. For example, Bonds' OPS in '04 was an astounding 1.422, the highest value in baseball history. His OPS number was 0.344 higher than #2 on the list which was Todd Helton. That's telling. Comparing guys with OPS numbers in the .800 range isn't going to tell you much about their productivity whatsoever.

Like I said, I have another metric I'm using, and it seems to be a little more logical than OPS, even though I'm sort of a fan of players with big OPS numbers. The point is that OPS correlates well with productivity even if it's a flawed stat.

no offense to larry, but I'm pretty sure you're going to lose him here.

curious about this..

. Comparing guys with OPS numbers in the .800 range isn't going to tell you much about their productivity whatsoever.

I guess what you're saying is you just think that so many are bracketed in there that you can't distinguish them? how would any other metric be different to weigh that bracket of players? what could be added or taken away? there's always going to be players outside of the top-tier that are going to closely resemble each other.

Well, what I mean is that any time you combine some stats to give a new stat, in the case of OPS where you simply add OBP and SLG, you always lose some information. This means that you can have exactly the same OPS value through a variety of means and you'll never know how it came about without going back to the original numbers.Let's say two guys have .800 OPS. You have no way of knowing, on the face of these numbers, whether they were more power hitter or slap hitter just by the composite OPS numbers. You'd have to look at the individual OBP and SLG numbers to say anything about what kind of hitter they are.

In the case of big time OPS numbers, the only way to have giant numbers, say over 1.100 or so, is to have power... period. You'll never see a slap hitter have an OPS over 1.100 or so. It's just not possible. The formula rewards power inordinately, so guys like Bonds can really distinguish themselves by having a high OBP and monster SLG numbers. This is what I meant. You can truly see the difference between a Helton and Bonds more so than you could see the difference between, say, a Mark Kotsay and Jack Wilson.

 

[Capella]

I think the reason OB% + Slugging % = OPS is simply 'cuz OB% is a part of slugging, but its a part that you can't tell automatically... its just another useless stat...

BUT, it puts players on an even playing field since a guy who gets on base .400 will automatically have a slugging % of over .400... and that's assuming he got no extra base hits...

a guy who gets 40 home runs in 160 at bats and that is it has a slugging of 1.000 but a OB% of .250... is he more valuable than the guy who has an OB% of .475 and a slugging % of .575?? I would say yes, since the first guys OPS is 1.250 and the second guys is 1.050... The home run every 4 at bats is MUCH more valuable than what ends up being a single every other at bat (with a double or triple or homer every long, long while...)

Honestly, the reason OPS = OBP + SLG is due to laziness. James has shown in short order that even the most rudimentary statistical analysis can reveal some interesting things. Of course he takes it to an extreme, IMO, reducing things to win shares which is only one number, but that's another matter. The problem with OPS is that it merges two dissimilar stats that have no business being merged. The 1.4 correction noted above comes about since SLG is an inherently larger value than OBP. I looked at the distribution of SLG for 2003 (don't ask why not 2004.. long story) for all players and found that most guys have values between .200 and .600, arbitrarily. As for OBP, the range is more like .200 and .400. The average SLG value for all players was about .375 (unweighted for ABs) whereas the average OBP was about .300. Using a simple ratio, we might use a 1.25 correction factor to bring the two stats into accordance with each other, but looking at the top end numbers as a guide, we might consider a value more like 1.5, close to what Neyer suggests.

Either way, OPS as it's currently used doesn't really distiguish hitters unless they have very large OPS numbers. For example, Bonds' OPS in '04 was an astounding 1.422, the highest value in baseball history. His OPS number was 0.344 higher than #2 on the list which was Todd Helton. That's telling. Comparing guys with OPS numbers in the .800 range isn't going to tell you much about their productivity whatsoever.

Like I said, I have another metric I'm using, and it seems to be a little more logical than OPS, even though I'm sort of a fan of players with big OPS numbers. The point is that OPS correlates well with productivity even if it's a flawed stat.

no offense to larry, but I'm pretty sure you're going to lose him here.

curious about this..

.  Comparing guys with OPS numbers in the .800 range isn't going to tell you much about their productivity whatsoever.

I guess what you're saying is you just think that so many are bracketed in there that you can't distinguish them? how would any other metric be different to weigh that bracket of players? what could be added or taken away? there's always going to be players outside of the top-tier that are going to closely resemble each other.

Well, what I mean is that any time you combine some stats to give a new stat, in the case of OPS where you simply add OBP and SLG, you always lose some information. This means that you can have exactly the same OPS value through a variety of means and you'll never know how it came about without going back to the original numbers.Let's say two guys have .800 OPS. You have no way of knowing, on the face of these numbers, whether they were more power hitter or slap hitter just by the composite OPS numbers. You'd have to look at the individual OBP and SLG numbers to say anything about what kind of hitter they are.

In the case of big time OPS numbers, the only way to have giant numbers, say over 1.100 or so, is to have power... period. You'll never see a slap hitter have an OPS over 1.100 or so. It's just not possible. The formula rewards power inordinately, so guys like Bonds can really distinguish themselves by having a high OBP and monster SLG numbers. This is what I meant. You can truly see the difference between a Helton and Bonds more so than you could see the difference between, say, a Mark Kotsay and Jack Wilson.

gotcha.so how do you come up with a formula that combines those numbers and shows what type of hitter they are? I mean, isn't that sort of what OBP and SLG are supposed to do on a singular level? how do you combine all these factors to show what a player did through the year..like you mentioned with James, it almost seems like if you add anymore in, it's going to become too layered.

what would you add? what would you take away?

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]