Of the simple correlations of the 21st century, OPS and wOBA have been considered among the best and most accurate correlations to runs and wins.

However, so many people have discussed that both OBA and SLG count the hits in both parts of the calculation. There have been others that posited that on base plus isolated power should be a better calculation. I always thought that the calculation of total bases plus walks plus hit by pitch divided by at bats plus walks plus hit by pitch plus sacrifice flies would be an even better stat, and then others have considered adding stolen bases in the numerator and caught stealing with a constant in the denominator would be even more accurate.

My question to those that are far more expert with this stuff is: Has a correlation for any of the alternates ever been run to see if they are any more or less accurate in predicting runs than regular OPS or wOBA?

I am not convinced that stolen bases and caught stealing get enough worth in calculations. The eye test to me has me believing that players like Maury Wills, Lou Brock, and others would not have scored runs like they did without stealing tons of bases. Wills never would have come close to 130 runs if he had chosen not to attempt a steal in 1962 or 100+ in 1961. I believe those steals were worth a lot of runs and the 89% success rate in 1962 meant a lot more than just the stolen bases themselves. It forced pitchers to throw more fastballs to players hitting behind Wills. It forced pitchers to divert some attention to batters. Numerous times, pitchers lost their effectiveness when Wills got on base and stole second and sometimes third.

Jim Gilliam and Tommy Davis both commented in interviews that they never saw as many fastballs in their career as they did when Wills was on base. It's no coincidence that Davis, who was at the tops in connecting against fastballs had his career year when Wills had his career year. Gilliam's 1962 and 1963 seasons were major Phoenix rising from the ashes seasons for him after coming close to being replaced after 1960 and 1961.

However, so many people have discussed that both OBA and SLG count the hits in both parts of the calculation. There have been others that posited that on base plus isolated power should be a better calculation. I always thought that the calculation of total bases plus walks plus hit by pitch divided by at bats plus walks plus hit by pitch plus sacrifice flies would be an even better stat, and then others have considered adding stolen bases in the numerator and caught stealing with a constant in the denominator would be even more accurate.

My question to those that are far more expert with this stuff is: Has a correlation for any of the alternates ever been run to see if they are any more or less accurate in predicting runs than regular OPS or wOBA?

I am not convinced that stolen bases and caught stealing get enough worth in calculations. The eye test to me has me believing that players like Maury Wills, Lou Brock, and others would not have scored runs like they did without stealing tons of bases. Wills never would have come close to 130 runs if he had chosen not to attempt a steal in 1962 or 100+ in 1961. I believe those steals were worth a lot of runs and the 89% success rate in 1962 meant a lot more than just the stolen bases themselves. It forced pitchers to throw more fastballs to players hitting behind Wills. It forced pitchers to divert some attention to batters. Numerous times, pitchers lost their effectiveness when Wills got on base and stole second and sometimes third.

Jim Gilliam and Tommy Davis both commented in interviews that they never saw as many fastballs in their career as they did when Wills was on base. It's no coincidence that Davis, who was at the tops in connecting against fastballs had his career year when Wills had his career year. Gilliam's 1962 and 1963 seasons were major Phoenix rising from the ashes seasons for him after coming close to being replaced after 1960 and 1961.

## Comment