Why are OPS+ values higher than ERA+ values?

[dominik]

What do you think?

there are about 15 guys with a career OPS+ of 160+ but only one pitcher. and this lone pitcher is a reliever (rivera). the second best is pedro with 154 which would only give him a tied 25th place with OPS+.

It seems like OPS+ values are about 25 points higher at least (a 170 OPS+ about equivalent to a 145 ERA+ or so).

what is the reason for this? over a single season this seems not so extreme there the values of ERA+ are only a little lower. but over a career the best pitchers are a lot lower:

rank ERA+ OPS+
1 205 (but reliever) 206
5 147 175 (+28)
10 143 168 (+25)
15 140 159 (+19)
20 137 156 (+19)

how can this be? aren't both both percentage over the average? shouldn't they be about equal? and why is the difference over a career higher than over a single season?

[BigRon]

What do you think?

there are about 15 guys with a career OPS+ of 160+ but only one pitcher. and this lone pitcher is a reliever (rivera). the second best is pedro with 154 which would only give him a tied 25th place with OPS+.

It seems like OPS+ values are about 25 points higher at least (a 170 OPS+ about equivalent to a 145 ERA+ or so).

what is the reason for this? over a single season this seems not so extreme there the values of ERA+ are only a little lower. but over a career the best pitchers are a lot lower:

rank ERA+ OPS+
1 205 (but reliever) 206
5 147 175 (+28)
10 143 168 (+25)
15 140 159 (+19)
20 137 156 (+19)

how can this be? aren't both both percentage over the average? shouldn't they be about equal? and why is the difference over a career higher than over a single season?

Pitching puts extreme stress on the arm and shoulder. This puts pitchers at much higher risk, overall, than position players. It's possible for excellent pitchers to have several very high ERA+ seasons, but it's very difficult for them to remain as healthy as position players. When they're injured they can't pitch as well.

[dominik]

Pitching puts extreme stress on the arm and shoulder. This puts pitchers at much higher risk, overall, than position players. It's possible for excellent pitchers to have several very high ERA+ seasons, but it's very difficult for them to remain as healthy as position players. When they're injured they can't pitch as well.

that's right but I have not looked at some random guys but the top 20 guys of all time. if they had a lot of injury trouble they wouldn't be there right?

however I agree that it seems to be harder to be really consistent at the top level in pitching than in hitting. more fluctuation there including the luck factor. but the luck factor shouldn't really play a role in career values of course since nobody is lucky or unlucky for 20 years.

[BigRon]

that's right but I have not looked at some random guys but the top 20 guys of all time. if they had a lot of injury trouble they wouldn't be there right?

however I agree that it seems to be harder to be really consistent at the top level in pitching than in hitting. more fluctuation there including the luck factor. but the luck factor shouldn't really play a role in career values of course since nobody is lucky or unlucky for 20 years.

I think that even if you concentrate on the best pitchers and study their careers, you will find that most of them had arm or shoulder problems at some time in their careers, or some other significant injuries which affected their pitching at some time. Injuries happen to all players, but much more to pitchers.

[brett]

Something to consider. If a pitcher pitches at a rate that allows half as many runs as average, his team would win 80% of the time based on pythagorianesque estimators (if he pitched complete games). If a batter hits twice as well as average, his team will only outscore their opponents by a rate of 10 to 9. or 55% of the time.

Also ERA is a combination of pitching and defense. Defense may account for 40% of run prevention. If a pitcher pitches for average defenses at a 200 ERA+, he might have to have been 267% as good for his 60% contribution while his defense was 100% as good for their 40% contribution, though I am not sure how the interaction of pitching and defense works in sabermetrics. It raises some interesting questions.


The real rhetorical question though would be: why should ERA+s be on par with OPS+s?

And I guess the rhetorical answer might be because hitters have to do a lot of other things like field, so you have worse hitting catchers and middle infielders because they have to do things besides pitch, while pitchers are basically ultra specialized just to pitch, so their raw pitching is going to be more closely clustered. If you took a VALUE+ score for position players that weighted defense at a saber-typical contribution level (about 40% as much as offense) then position players would not produce all the 160 scores because most of the best hitters play less important defensive positions, and some players who can't hit well are in the majors because they are great fielders.

And another factor that holds down ERA+ is that teams will benefit from using a pitcher for more innings as long as the added innings are at better than a 100 ERA+ rate (so long as they don't end up injuring the pitcher)

[pheasant]

My gut is that there is simply a much smaller margin of error for the pitchers. I.e, pitchers win about 70% of the battles on average(i.e, opponents' OB% on average might be 30%). I don't think that a pitcher has ever won 80% of his battles for a career. Conversely, the average batter would then win about 30% of his battles against a pitcher. However, plenty of batters have won 40% of their battles against pitchers. Thus, it's easier percentage wise for a batter to increase OB%. Similarly, the Slug% would be easier to improve upon as well.

[Jackaroo Dave]

I think this is related to the ideas posted, but there is also pressure from below. The best a pitcher can do for his era+ is have a scoreless outing. The best a batter can do for his ops+ is homer in each at bat in his outing. Obviously the former is more common No one has a 0.00 era, but pitchers often reach that limit in an outing and can't do any better, no matter how hot they are and how shabby the opposition. For batters there's realistically no such constraint. While there's no actual ceiling effect for pitchers, there's something like one, and this would reduce the variance--especially the number and range of outliers at the top.

[brett]

By the way, I just used WAR to evaluate Ted Williams as a relative hitter and player. He had about 113 offensive wins above average and an average player with his playing time had about 60 so he was 173/60 or 2.88 times better (288 offense+). He also had about 2.11 times more TOTAL wins than an average player or a 211 total value+.

Surprised that WAR has him as 288% as productive as an average hitter. I might run that score for other hitters.

[leewileyfan]

I think it's a matter of comparing apples and oranges and then trying to make the comparisons coincide.

1. A batter, in compiling the hitting results that make up his OPS and OPS+ records has four or five opportunities/challenges in most complete games in which he plays. It's instant reward/punishment and its compounds with each appearance. Moreover, the results are ALL his [the batters's]. He does not have to share them with anyone, because they are independent of teammate performance.

On base percentage is not to any great extent dependent upon others in the batting order, except that on-base and batting order situations MAY boost OB% with walks, intentional or not. Even that is a left-handed boost, in that it an IBB takes the bat out of his hands [maybe depriving him of more OPS+-building batting results.

On the slugging end, a HR can come with none on or the bases loaded. No matter, really - because RBI are not under consideration. The batter need not SHARE his OPS+ assets with anyone.

2. On the other hand, the pitcher is in a co-dependent situation with his position players. Even at that, some critics are ready to blast pitchers for getting credit with a WIN, when their individual performance in the game falls below some anticipated level of acceptability.

My own study into defense suggests that there are limits of runs a defense can save a pitcher. Using my own model for each position as to proximity with scoring dynamics, I get the following EXPECTATION levels of run saving or run prevention [barring any ludicrous extremes of total defensive incompetence at any position]:

Position...............Average Defender...........Respected Defender...........Utility Catcher, So-So

Catcher.......................0................... ...........+12 Runs......................- 8 Runs
1B..............................0................. ..............+ 8 Runs.....................-7 Runs
2B..............................0................. ..............+14 Runs.................... -10 Runs
3B..............................0................. .............+ 8 Runs..................... -7 Runs
SS..............................0................. .............+14 Runs.................... -11 Runs
LF...............................0................ ..............+ 9............................ - 9 Runs
CF..............................0................. ..............+ 14 Runs................... -11 Runs
RF...............................0................ ...............+ 9 Runs................... -9 Runs

Team...........................0.................. ............+88 Runs....................-72 Runs

I do not use REPLACEMENT for these comps, because the realities of defense over 112 seasons [1901-2011] show actual ranges of player contribution both same player aging [for example] or the utility man who seems either indispensable OR easy to find a good trade for in the market.

If one were to take the concept of ONLY Gold Glove [REAL ones] over 112 seasons at each position, that happy combination might average 100-125 runs saved over that time. Since few teams are all so blessed [or cursed with a lineup of uniform also-rans on defense] it's probably realistic to see a team defense range, best to worst of maybe +30 to -30 defense runs, a six game swing in the W-L record.

That's where the pitcher SHARES and has his performance diluted. Even in the modern high strikeout atmosphere, almost 75% of all outs are on batted balls. A pitcher thus shares his reward/punishment level with every batted ball put in play. That 60 run defensive wiggle room is a further diluting factor for the pitcher.

It seems reasonable, looking at it this way, that OPS+ should be considerably rewarding as a stat for hitters, over ERA+ for pitchers.

[Ubiquitous]

ERA+ and OPS+ is apples and oranges. OPS+ is the combination of two percentages while ERA+ is not thus OPS+ will be higher. A hitter who is 15% better than average in OBP and 15% better than average in SLG will have an OPS+ of 130 not 115. Hell, even ERA+ isn't really a % better than league average. If a player has a 3.00 ERA and the league has a 4.00 ERA then that pitcher is said to have a 133 ERA+ but he isn't really 33% better than the league average he is 25% better than the league average. What an ERA+ of 133 is saying mathematically is that the LEAGUE AVERAGE is 33% higher than the individual pitcher's ERA.

[dominik]

ERA+ and OPS+ is apples and oranges. OPS+ is the combination of two percentages while ERA+ is not thus OPS+ will be higher. A hitter who is 15% better than average in OBP and 15% better than average in SLG will have an OPS+ of 130 not 115. Hell, even ERA+ isn't really a % better than league average. If a player has a 3.00 ERA and the league has a 4.00 ERA then that pitcher is said to have a 133 ERA+ but he isn't really 33% better than the league average he is 25% better than the league average. What an ERA+ of 133 is saying mathematically is that the LEAGUE AVERAGE is 33% higher than the individual pitcher's ERA.

thank you. that explains a lot I think. I just thought that since both compare to average they should be about similar.

[brett]

ERA+ and OPS+ is apples and oranges. OPS+ is the combination of two percentages while ERA+ is not thus OPS+ will be higher. A hitter who is 15% better than average in OBP and 15% better than average in SLG will have an OPS+ of 130 not 115. Hell, even ERA+ isn't really a % better than league average. If a player has a 3.00 ERA and the league has a 4.00 ERA then that pitcher is said to have a 133 ERA+ but he isn't really 33% better than the league average he is 25% better than the league average. What an ERA+ of 133 is saying mathematically is that the LEAGUE AVERAGE is 33% higher than the individual pitcher's ERA.

What happens if we look at OPS+ allowed by pitchers though.

[pheasant]

What happens if we look at OPS+ allowed by pitchers though.

You bring up a good point. And I think that once again, the margin of OPS will be greater for the great hitters than for the great pitchers. I.e, if the average OPS is .650, then the it's easier for a hitter to put a a 1.300 OPS(twice as good,see Ruth and Bonds) than it is for a pitcher to allow a .325 OPS(twice as good). Even if we use a .700 OPS, it is again more common for a hitter to beat that by a 50%, it is for a pitcher to beat it by 50%. I.e, achieving a 1.050 OPS is much easier than a pitcher achieving a .467 OPS. Why? Because once again, the hitter wins most of the battles against the hitter. And thus, the margin of error for the pitcher is much smaller.

[leewileyfan]

As Ubiquitous pointed out, the math for OPS+ is a sum of two components, while any form of ERA or ERA+ is more a single unit of comparison. Moreover, elements of OPS+ are additive by their nature, with compounded elements for extra bases, such that the sum of the bases [for position players] will almost surely number the raw number of hits contained in the SLG calculation.

The OPS statistics are like baseball itself: More is better. ERA stats are more like golf: Lower is better. While a comparable rate or comparison stat like ERA+ rewards the higher ratio of superiority, the entire pitcher base is co-dependent on the defensive performance of his team mates.

[Second Base Coach]

based on pythagorianesque estimators (if he pitched complete games).

I now have a new name for one of my fantasy baseball teams.