Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Why is OPS still widely used?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Newark, DE
    Posts
    146

    Why is OPS still widely used?

    I mean, I understand its bearings to broadcasters, young fans, and the uneducated (not to sound patronizing), but why do some users on this website refer to it (well, actually, mainly OPS+, which is admittedly better, but is still reliant on OPS), instead of the far superior stats wOBA and wRC+?

    It's not like these statistics are esoteric or uneasy to understand. wOBA is about on the same scale as OBP, and wRC+ is about on the same scale as OPS+. Obviously, they're not perfectly correlated, but they're close enough to these other statistics that they should be easy to grab.

    Are some people still under the assumption that OBP and SLG are weighted perfectly equally?

  2. #2
    Obp and slg are old school stats that anyone can relate to while linear weights are not really intuitive without math skills. Anyone can understand why a triple counts 3 times in slg but not so much to the linear weights which usually are decimal numbers.
    I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Home of the Twins
    Posts
    2,579
    Quote Originally Posted by dominik View Post
    Obp and slg are old school stats that anyone can relate to while linear weights are not really intuitive without math skills. Anyone can understand why a triple counts 3 times in slg but not so much to the linear weights which usually are decimal numbers.
    True, and not only that, but people have the other numbers memorized for the most part. Familiarity is the key. People relate to old stats.

    I remember when people didn't know much about slug% and ob%, let alone OPS+. But they knew several career and season numbers for HRS, RBI, runs, and AVG. Those numbers were on leader boards quite often. They were mentioned often everywhere.

    Once Money Ball came along, people have started memorizing career OPS+, OB%, and SLUG% numbers.

    However, I have yet to see wOBA numbers. I couldn't tell you a single wOBA number that a player has. But I could quote several numbers off the top of my head for the more traditional stats above.

    If Trout sets a new record for wOBA next year, nobody will mention that record. However, if he set the record for HRS, SLUG%, OPS+, or even WAR, people will walk about that instead.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,912
    Quote Originally Posted by 1phillies fan382 View Post
    Are some people still under the assumption that OBP and SLG are weighted perfectly equally?
    I don't think people ever thought of it in that context. I think it is just a quick thing you can easily calculate that is easy to interpret. Most people here do not have a stats background.

    Think about it this way. In medicine we have many statistical models to calculate things like probability of death. Usually the result of some sort of logistic regression. That model is great and all, but doctors need to be able to calculate it on the fly in an OR so we have to come up with an accurate way to dumb it down so it can be done on the fly. So a long-ish formula becomes add two numbers and look at a chart.

    In this case, it is totally dumbed down, but it still tells us plenty. If I am a GM and want to decide between two players then sure, I will go REALLY specific. But if I am on this site and just trying to give some basic numbers then I may choose OPS.
    "Batting stats and pitching stats do not indicate the quality of play, merely which part of that struggle is dominant at the moment."

    -Bill James

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,323
    Quote Originally Posted by 1phillies fan382 View Post
    I mean, I understand its bearings to broadcasters, young fans, and the uneducated (not to sound patronizing), but why do some users on this website refer to it (well, actually, mainly OPS+, which is admittedly better, but is still reliant on OPS), instead of the far superior stats wOBA and wRC+?

    It's not like these statistics are esoteric or uneasy to understand. wOBA is about on the same scale as OBP, and wRC+ is about on the same scale as OPS+. Obviously, they're not perfectly correlated, but they're close enough to these other statistics that they should be easy to grab.

    Are some people still under the assumption that OBP and SLG are weighted perfectly equally?
    I am sure you know the reasons why...

    It is familiar. Mainstream places like ESPN and MLB.com have it.

    It is a simple addition problem. There is no OB% adjustment needed.

    It has been around awhile. The last thing the people who just latched-on want to do is latch on to something that has already passed it up.

    WRC+ is obviously better. But OPS+ correlates very well with runs too. It is a sabermetric gateway drug that is an easy and familiar way to get people talking analyticaly. There is nothing wrong with it as a very brief snapshot of offensive rate production.
    Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 01-05-2017 at 03:49 PM.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,323
    Double post
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Newark, DE
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    I am sure you know the reasons why...

    It is familiar. Mainstream places like ESPN and MLB.com have it.

    It is a simple addition problem. There is no OB% adjustment needed.

    It has been around awhile. The last thing tje people who just latched-on want o do is latch on to something that has already passed it up.

    WRC+ is obviously better. But OPS+ correlates very well with runs too. It is a sabermetric gateway drug that is an easy and familiar way to get people talking analyticaly. There is nothing wrong with it as a very brief snapshot of offensive rate production.
    Thanks for the perspective.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,670
    It also relates to percentages given on tests in school. An OPS of .900 is pretty good nowadays. So was a ninety percent on your exam.

    So the average person can wrap his head around it. Media types understand this and are using this connection to prior knowledge to help their audience make a connection to this measure of performance.
    Your Second Base Coach
    Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. Thatís equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Second Base Coach View Post
    It also relates to percentages given on tests in school. An OPS of .900 is pretty good nowadays. So was a ninety percent on your exam.

    So the average person can wrap his head around it. Media types understand this and are using this connection to prior knowledge to help their audience make a connection to this measure of performance.
    Well said. I've noticed it helps perspective and comprehension when things are put on a batting average scale. Seems to have the most history and easiest to understand. Heck, my Mom could even tell you a .300 BA is good.
    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 01-06-2017 at 08:12 AM.
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,142
    Quote Originally Posted by Second Base Coach View Post
    It also relates to percentages given on tests in school. An OPS of .900 is pretty good nowadays. So was a ninety percent on your exam.
    Barry Bonds must have taken a few AP classes.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by 1phillies fan382 View Post
    I mean, I understand its bearings to broadcasters, young fans, and the uneducated (not to sound patronizing), but why do some users on this website refer to it (well, actually, mainly OPS+, which is admittedly better, but is still reliant on OPS), instead of the far superior stats wOBA and wRC+?

    It's not like these statistics are esoteric or uneasy to understand. wOBA is about on the same scale as OBP, and wRC+ is about on the same scale as OPS+. Obviously, they're not perfectly correlated, but they're close enough to these other statistics that they should be easy to grab.

    Are some people still under the assumption that OBP and SLG are weighted perfectly equally?
    OPS+ is not reliant on OPS. It is not a player's relative OPS. Just want to make sure you understand that because it was my assumption 10+ years ago that it WAS relative OPS. The answer is simple. OPS+ is easier to say that wOBA or wwRC+. Oddly, regarding the question of the weight of OB% and Slugging, OB% X Slugging was tried at one point because it does not depend at all on the relative weights of the two percentages, and it turned out to correlate much less to run production than OPS+. Also I have seen a thread on this site that explains why OPS+ ends up producing a calculation that is very close to a linear weights estimate of the value of each event.


    Also, people can calculate OPS+ variations is easier to calculate based on data at hand, and variations in OPS+ for a player correlate to variations in wRC+ very well. If a player has a relative OPS+ of 140 at home and 110 on the road, their home and road wRC+ hold a very similar ratio, though if a park favors or disfavors home runs for a given player, it OPS+ splits will be less accurate.
    Last edited by brett; 01-06-2017 at 10:25 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,912
    Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
    OPS+ is not reliant on OPS. It is not a player's relative OPS. Just want to make sure you understand that because it was my assumption 10+ years ago that it WAS relative OPS. The answer is simple. OPS+ is easier to say that wOBA or wwRC+. Oddly, regarding the question of the weight of OB% and Slugging, OB% X Slugging was tried at one point because it does not depend at all on the relative weights of the two percentages, and it turned out to correlate much less to run production than OPS+. Also I have seen a thread on this site that explains why OPS+ ends up producing a calculation that is very close to a linear weights estimate of the value of each event.


    Also, people can calculate OPS+ variations is easier to calculate based on data at hand, and variations in OPS+ for a player correlate to variations in wRC+ very well. If a player has a relative OPS+ of 140 at home and 110 on the road, their home and road wRC+ hold a very similar ratio, though if a park favors or disfavors home runs for a given player, it OPS+ splits will be less accurate.
    Just to piggyback on this, this is how OPS correlates to wOBP

    corr.PNG

    r=0.95670

    So when it comes to a group of guys debating on a message board I would think OPS is a fine place to start.
    "Batting stats and pitching stats do not indicate the quality of play, merely which part of that struggle is dominant at the moment."

    -Bill James

  13. #13
    What would a player's wOBA be if they walked every time?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,912
    in 2015 it would be .69, I believe
    Last edited by sturg1dj; 01-06-2017 at 12:44 PM.
    "Batting stats and pitching stats do not indicate the quality of play, merely which part of that struggle is dominant at the moment."

    -Bill James

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,323
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg1dj View Post
    Just to piggyback on this, this is how OPS correlates to wOBP

    corr.PNG

    r=0.95670

    So when it comes to a group of guys debating on a message board I would think OPS is a fine place to start.
    I agree. wOBA is better...but the difference is negligable in most cases.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    25,740
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ipitch View Post
    Barry Bonds must have taken a few AP classes.
    And pretty much scored in '5' on all those AP classes.


    Bonds stats 1.JPG
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •