Harold Reynolds displays his genius

[Patrick425]

How many professional ball games have Joe Posnanski or Paul White played?

 

I think I'll assume that Harold Reynolds and HOFer Joe Morgan have a little more insight about the game and what actually happens on the field than these guys do.

 

Me driving a car doesn't make me an automotive engineer

Yes, but if you were a professional race car driver, I would take more stock in what you had to say about car racing than someone who mearly writes about it for a living.

[FVBrewerFan]

Ennder wrote:

 

A player who walked every time he came up to the plate would by far be the most valuable player in baseball no matter who else was on his team. You don't swing at pitchers pitches just to avoid taking a walk, that is why a guy like Pujols is so good, he doesn't chase at bad pitches just because he doesn't trust his teammates.

True, but this isn't a binary argument. It's not either you take a walk, or you swing at bad pitches. Look at Fielder for example. He has runners on base with two outs, Cameron to follow. (Back when Cameron hit 5th and ws really struggling.) Prince gets a fastball down the middle with the first pitch. Is it better for him to swing at that, or work the count for a walk with a struggling hitter coming up behind him?

 

So it's not that walks are "bad" or even generally less valuable than a hit. But a walk can't drive in runs (obviously bases loaded is the exception.) A walk is NEVER a BAD thing, but there are many times when a single is MORE valuable. Would you agree with that?

[logan82]

He clearly said pitcher's pitches. Not fastballs down the middle.

[1992casey]

The problem is that the suggestion that having guys on base is a problem not only defies statistics, it defies common sense.

 

Quoting one of the comments, Harold could likely offer a lot of valuable insight into stuff like this:

• How do you hit a curve ball?
• What cut-off man should a RF throw the ball to?
• How best to read a pitcher's move in order to swipe a bag.

I'm sure that he's capable of suggesting strategies that would totally make sense. It's just that he's putting his foot in his mouth when he addresses the OBP issue.

[Baldkin]

The fact that he played ball does not make him an expert. It makes him a former ball player. Just because he writes, doesn't make Posnanski an expert -- there are a lot of BAD writers out there -- its the research and the thought he puts into his articles that gives him credibility in my mind.

 

Harold Reynolds penning an article that seems to say, "I was valuable even though my OPS sucked" is all fine and dandy, I know OPS isn't the greatest stat in the world, but it is a very easy, very quick way to judge a players offensive output.

[SeriesFinale]

Some of the comments on Reynolds' blog are great. This one in particular is tremendous (dare I say Ken Tremendous):

 

I can totally relate Harold. I am a farmer and I can't believe how science has taken over the agriculture business. Like I had an old neighbor who was much like Dick Williams. He said, "If something is going wrong with your crops, then the situation will dictate what to do. Like, if rain is your problem, then sacrifice two goats or one pig. If pests are your problem, then yell at the moon for a forenight and bury three red stones in your field. Problem solved. But I shouldn't have to tell you beforehand, you should know this." Now days they have fancy inventions like irrigation, meteorology, crop rotations, and fertilizers. I am like, "Phooey and bunk!" I am just like you Harold, I don't need their new fangled theories and hocus-pocus in order to understand farming better. I mean a meteorologist has never farmed, what can he tell me or my old neighbor about farming? We reached the pinnacle of understanding with yelling at the moon! The point is that I have nothing left to learn just like you, Harold.

By

mattwithanh@yahoo.com on June 19, 2009 11:13 AM

[RightFieldCoder]

OPS is a good stat to use to evaluate players. It is not the be all end all stat. Some people seem to think that if you follow OPS, you only follow OPS and only like walks. In the 60s and 70s, players were judged on their BA, now it's moved to OPS. I won't say that the guy with a .787 (Counsell) is better than the guy with a .778 (Hart), I'll call it pretty even with the one slightly ahead right now. If the difference was .787 (Counsell) vs .608 (Hall), I will easily say one is better than the other. I take my girl to the park all the time. She only knows about the Brewers, she doesn't know any of the opposing players. But she can look at OPS and tell generally how good the player has been playing.

 

Between a race car driver and a person with a masters in structural engineering, I'll assume the engineer is right when we're talking about what features to have in a car to survive a car crash. I don't care how many more hours the driver has spent in a car, one has specialty knowledge that the other doesn't.

[TheRealMattKain]

Taking a walk every at bat would have been good enough for fourth in OPS last season. I think Chipper Jones, Albert Pujols and Manny Ramirez were more valuable last year than the player you described.

In general, OPS is a decent statistic to use when evaluating a player's offensive contribution. However, when we talk about an outlier or extreme case like a player that walks every plate appearance, OPS fails to have much value. It's already widely known that OPS overvalues slugging and undervalues on-base percentage. An imaginary player that walks every PA is simply the worst case example of OPS failing to successfully measure a player's offensive contribution because it undervalues on-base percentage. I mean, come on, this imaginary player also has a BA of .000. That should be a big flashing indicator that this very extreme, and very imaginary player cannot be evaluated with many easy-to-compute statistics. To really get a sense of how insanely amazing a player that walks every PA would be, try plugging the numbers into a lineup simulator and see what happens. For example, go here:

 

http://www.sportsquant.com/baseballapp.htm

 

Without changing anything, click the "compute weighted event probabilities" and then click the "Compute Runs Per 9 Innings" to see how many runs the default lineup would generate over 1000 simulations. Run it a bunch of times. You'll see that the lineup generates about 3.6 - 4.0 runs per game. Normal, right? Now put a player at the top of the lineup that walks every plate appearance (in the first row, set the "BB/HPB" column to 1 and set all the other columns in the first row to 0). Now run the simulator. The average runs per game will now jump to about 6.5. That's a big difference. For fun, try sticking two guys at the top of the lineup that walk every time. Now we're seeing over 10 runs per game! Now, I'm not sure how detailed this simulator really is, but I'm certain you will find the same thing with any simulator you try. A player that walks every plate appearance would have more offensive value and add more runs to a team than anyone else in baseball.

 

Anyway, if I'm a GM, I would gladly trade you Pujols or Chipper or Manny for Willie Walks-Every-Time. And you, sir, would watch as my team walked all the way to the World Series (well, unless we have the Nationals' pitching rotation).

[phxMILWfan]

If you want to defend Reynolds... okay. He's an engaging speaker, has playing experience and can share that with the viewer. His arguement about OPS I don't agree with but that I can get over. Joe Morgan though? I'm just going to assume you haven't listened to Joe Morgan speak, EVER, if you defend Joe Morgan. You can't tell me that because a guy played in the league that he is more knowledgeable. There are a few players that don't really understand the game. They are in the league because of their physical abilities, not their brain.

[TheRealMattKain]

You can't tell me that because a guy played in the league that he is more knowledgeable. There are a few players that don't really understand the game. They are in the league because of their physical abilities, not their brain.

Maybe the perfect example of this was when Donovan McNabb, a superstar, multi-million dollar professional qurterback did NOT know that a football game could end in a tie. Being able to play a sport at a high level does not automatically qualify one as an expert on strategy, statistical analysis, or even the darn rules. Remember, these are athletes (many of whom do not have college educations) not brain surgeons or rocket scientists.

[Thurston Fluff]

Anyway, if I'm a GM, I would gladly trade you Pujols or Chipper or Manny for Willie Walks-Every-Time. And you, sir, would watch as my team walked all the way to the World Series (well, unless we have the Nationals' pitching rotation).

 

No I wouldn't. You would never finish one game. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif You also would have no fans at all and no income to keep said team together. My point was you can't really say one thing to an extreme is better than the extreme the other way. The person endaround mentioned doesn't exist nor will ever exist so it really doesn't matter.

I like players who take their walks but that does not mean there aren't situations where I would rather the player made an out attempting to hit the ball than take a walk and hope an inferior player can score the run.

I'm not really defending Reynolds as much as I am trying to understand him. I do believe he was off base but I also believe there is a thread of truth to what he says. Not more than a thread but a thread. If walking all the time was more important than being able to actually hit the ball every team would be made up of jockeys and little people. Since it isn't I'd have to assume there is a reason for that. Either nobody thought of it or there is more to scoring runs than walking every time. Personally I think if you can't have a lineup of players who all hit for power and get on base at a high rate you need a well rounded group of players each capable of either getting on base, hitting for average or hitting for power.

[TheRealMattKain]

No I wouldn't. You would never finish one game. You also would have no fans at all and no income to keep said team together.

Dude, I think you misread. I asked for one Willie Walks-Every-Time. That's pretty much all I would need.

My point was you can't really say one thing to an extreme is better than the extreme the other way. The person endaround mentioned doesn't exist nor will ever exist so it really doesn't matter

Sometimes extreme examples are needed to help illuminate the more realistic, everyday scenarios.

 

but that does not mean there aren't situations where I would rather the player made an out

I'm quoting you out of context, but all I can say is YIKES.

 

If walking all the time was more important than being able to actually hit the ball every team would be made up of jockeys and little people. Since it isn't I'd have to assume there is a reason for that. Either nobody thought of it or there is more to scoring runs than walking every time.

Seriously? Surely you've seen this before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel

[cwolf2012]

What would Willie Walks-Every-Time's wOBA be?

[Thurston Fluff]

I'm quoting you out of context, but all I can say is YIKES.

 

Not only out of context but not even the whole quote. I think adding the next part...attempting to hit the ball than take a walk and hope an inferior player can score the run... needs to be added or the YIKES is your blatant misrepresentation of what I really said.

 

If you want to trade me Jones, Manny and Pujols for one player who only walks you may get to the world series but I'd be the one who beats you in the World Series. You'd have a guy on first every ninth person in the order. Granted I'd have a guy on first less often but two left who could actually score him from first. If you don't have people who can drive in the ones on base then you don't have an offense that can score runs. Setting aside hypotheticals in all reality you need both to have an effective offense. I don't know why Reynolds is so set against walks but I also don't understand why some think walks are so much more important than any other aspect of hitting.

 

And yes I did see that before. It was a publicity stunt not a real attempt to win games through walking everyone home.

[Patrick425]

If you want to defend Reynolds... okay. He's an engaging speaker, has playing experience and can share that with the viewer. His arguement about OPS I don't agree with but that I can get over. Joe Morgan though? I'm just going to assume you haven't listened to Joe Morgan speak, EVER, if you defend Joe Morgan. You can't tell me that because a guy played in the league that he is more knowledgeable. There are a few players that don't really understand the game. They are in the league because of their physical abilities, not their brain.

Yes, I'm going to say that Joe Morgan is more knowledgable about baseball than you, I, or anyone else on this board. Does he believe in Sabermetrics and does he know more about baseball stats than most people. Probably not. That's the crux of many arguments against him. A big part of the reason I fell in love with baseball is because of stats. I still love that part of it. However, it has gotten to the point where some people can't seperate the stats from the game that is actually played on the field. They are two different things. There is not a right or wrong answer for every situation that occurs on the field. People who have played the game at a much higher level than most of us, can understand that much better than we can.

 

If you wanted to get advice on what it takes to survive a journey up and down Mt. Everest would you buy a book from someone who has actually gone through the experience and survived, or someone who has studied Mt. Climbing for years but has never climbed any mountain greater than 10,000 feet? Personally, I would want to read the book from the person who has actually had the experience. Just like I would want my son to get baseball lessons from Joe Morgan and not some sports writer who last played the game in 6th grade but could drone on and on about stats.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

What would Willie Walks-Every-Time's wOBA be?

It would be .720. If you could find somebody who hit a single every time, his wOBA would be .900, reflecting the fact that sometimes a single is better than a walk.

[cwolf2012]

A single is pretty much always better than a walk. I don't think anyone would dispute that, unless you had a team that was super aggressive on the basepaths and would get thrown out all the time.

[jjfanec]

Yes, I'm going to say that Joe Morgan is more knowledgable about baseball than you, I, or anyone else on this board. Does he believe in Sabermetrics and does he know more about baseball stats than most people. Probably not. That's the crux of many arguments against him. A big part of the reason I fell in love with baseball is because of stats. I still love that part of it. However, it has gotten to the point where some people can't seperate the stats from the game that is actually played on the field. They are two different things. There is not a right or wrong answer for every situation that occurs on the field. People who have played the game at a much higher level than most of us, can understand that much better than we can.

I think you seriously over estimate the average professional athletes intelligence level. Some are extremely smart but many are not. The reason they are successful is because of their ability and work ethic. My wrestling coach in high school was on of the best coaches and wrestling minds I have ever met and guess what...he never wrestled in his life. Observation, scouting, etc can easily make up for lack of participation.

Saying OPS is overrated is an argument that just does look at the facts. All the top 10 teams in OPS are in the top 11 teams in runs scored. Detroit is the only team in the top 10 (and they are number 10)in runs that are not in the top 10 of OPS (they are 17). And guess what only two teams in the top 10 of OBP are not in the top 10 in runs scored (Mets, Nationals).

Those facts show me that not valuing OPS or OBP is illogical. Former players often say things like I do not care about the stats of player because you can tell they play the game hard or something like that. The reality is though the stats may lie in a few cases and not all situations are equal like a single with a runner on third or a walk with a runner on third the reality is that the stats and results show what the non-professional baseball players in this thread and on many sites are saying.

[topper09er]

Between a race car driver and a person with a masters in structural engineering, I'll assume the engineer is right

Best comment of the day, always defer to the judgement of engineers when dealing with anything...

 

OK, first, I think that like Joe Morgan, Harold is a smart baseball man who knows the game and knows what good teams need to do to win, but is just so horrible at communicating his ideas that it really takes away basically all of his credibility. His blog post really looks like he just dictated it to someone off the top of his head and published it without even reading through it once. The blog itself it terrible and probably would get an F in some high school debate class because it is so poorly written.

 

Im not sure if HR's point is that walks are not as good as hits, I think that is his point but the blog is so bad I cant tell for sure, but Ill assume it is. That and the fact that in certain situations certain players should be up there hacking instead of looking to walk. I will ignore his whole point about sluggers clogging up the bases which seems to indicate he would rather see a strikeout than a walk. I think it is obvious that a hit is better than a walk because a walk can never be better than a hit and they are only equal when no one is on base (which is the majority of the time). How much better is a hit with 2 outs and a runner on 2nd? If Mat Gamel is up with a runner on 2nd with Kendall on deck then a hit is "much, much" better than a walk, but if Hardy is up with 2 outs, runner on 2nd and Braun on deck a walk may only be "much" better than a hit. One thing which seems to get lost is that good pitchers do not walk batters, and playoff teams have good pitchers. I think this is the biggest flaw in the whole money ball strategy and may be one of the reasons that the A's consistentaly made the playoffs (because over the course of the season walks are valuable against the mediocre pitching across the league) but never won the playoffs. Beane just writes this off and says the playoffs are just random luck that anyone can win, but for all of the smart thinking he puts into the rest of his ideas he should realize that if you have to face Roy Halladay 3 times in 7 games you better find other ways to win than walking a few times and hitting 3 run dingers.

 

The overall goal of an offensive player is to produce runs, either by scoring them due to other teammates or driving other teammates in. OPS is a good stat because it tries to combine these 2 aspects of offense into one stat. The main problem I see with OPS is how things are weighted; walks are equal to singles, doubles, triples and homers in OBP, and OBP is equal to SLG% in terms of the fact that they simply added together.

The first part, "getting on base for your teammates to drive you in" or OBP, should measure how good you are at scoring runs, which was previously measured by the stat runs. Most modern experts now write this is off a pretty meaningless stat in terms of measureing this "getting on base" stat and rely on OBP as a better measure, although the idiots who vote for MVP and HOF still like the stat of runs. If you think about it in terms of getting on base a single is equal to a walk, a double is better as you are in scoring position, a triple is even better as you can score in many more ways especially with less than 2 outs, and a HR is the best possible outcome as you do not need to rely on teammates to score. Also, stolen bases should come into play because a single or walk plus SB is as good as a double in terms of putting yourself into position to score for your teammates, but a CS is much worse than not stealing because now you have 0 chance to score. So a much better OBP should be something like (TB + BB + SB)/(AB+BB+CS). This is much closer to SLG% than OBP and SLG% is really a better measure of "getting on base" than OBP except that SLG% ignores walks.

The other half of the equation, "ability to drive in teammates" is actaully measured decently by SLG% because a walk is useless except in the rare bases loaded situation, a single is good, a double is better, a triple is better than a double (not necesarily) and homer is best. SLG% as TB/AB is actually a pretty good measure. The old school version of this stat is RBIs and people still really love this stat although SLG% is really a better measure because RBIs depend on your teammates. It is still difficult to look at one player with 110 RBIs and a .600 SLG% and say he had a better season than a player with 140 RBIs and a .540 SLG%. However, when you think about the difference between a double and triple it really reflects the "getting on base/getting into scoring position" stat more than the "driving runners in" stat because in any situation with runners on (from man on first to bases loaded) a double scores and same number of runs as a triple assuming the same speed on the bases and the difference really lies in the speed of the batter. SLG% should really be something like: hits in front of the outfielders are good, hits that get behind the outfielders are better, and homers are best.

 

So first assuming we will weigh hits based on total bases (saying a single=1...HR=4) then "OPS" or best hitter stat should look something like [(TB+BB+HBP+SB)/(AB+HBP+BB+CS)]+[(TB+SF)/(AB+SF)] instead of [(H+BB+HBP)/(AB+BB+HBP+SF)]+[TB/AB]. As an example lets look at the American League OPS leader last season, Milton bradley. Using the current formula his OPS was: [133H+80BB+9HBP/414AB+80+9+6SF]+233TB/414 = .999. If you take out the walks, his OPS would be basically AVG + SLG% = .321+.563 = .884 so the walks accounted for .115 or .115/.999 = 12% of his OPS. If you use the way I outlined his OPS would be [233+80+9+5SB/414+80+9+3CS]+[233+6/414+6] = .646 + .569 = 1.215. If you remove the walks the number is 1.149 so the walks account for 1.215-1.149/1.215 = 5% of the number. If you agree with any of this it shows that walks may be overvalued in the conventional OPS as they contribute more the the value than they should. It also seems like HRs are undervalued in the conventional OPS because they are the only way to score and drive in runs on your own without teammates, and they must be better than the simple weighed scale used in SLG% and certainly better than a single or walk as calcualted in OBP.

 

Now, with the bases loaded you could say a HR is twice as good as a single because you get 4 runs instead of 2, but with a runner on 1st a HR is infinitely better than a single because you get 2 runs instead of 0. This leads to the problem of how to decide how much better a HR is than a triple or double or single in terms of both getting on base and driving runs in. For getting on base a triple is much better than a double because you can score in many more ways, but they are essentially the same in terms of driving runs in (the differance is more a function of the outfield arms and speed). And obviously a HR is much, much better than anything else for both categories.

 

The weighted on base average (wOBA) at fangraphs does the best job of handling all of this and producing a number for "best hitter" that I have seen. I know this is way too long already, but after all of that if you correlate the wOBA leaders with the OPS leaders they correlate pretty well. For 2009 in the AL: (Rank in OPS - Rank in wOBA)

Bradley (1-1)

Rodriguez (2-3)

Quentin (3-2)

Youkilis (4-4)

Huff (5-7)

Hamilton (6-8)

Markakis (7-6)

Kinsler (8-5)

 

So OPS is easier to calculate and still pretty good for determining the "best offensive player"

[TheRealMattKain]

If you want to trade me Jones, Manny and Pujols for one player who only walks you may get to the world series but I'd be the one who beats you in the World Series.

Who said anything about giving you an entire arsenal of superstars? (Reread, please. Don't complain about misquoting if you're going to do so as well - thank you). As stated in my previous post, given a one for one swap, you would get the raw end of the deal..

 

In other words, if you and I had identical teams filled with "real" players (in other words, no Henry Homers-All-Day or Tony Triples-Too-Much), I would gladly give you any player on my team to have Willie Walks-Every-Time (even a Pujols, Jones, or Manny superstar quality player). In doing so, I would score more runs, and, a majority of the time, I would win and you would lose.

 

Again, go to the link in my previous email and try a few passes at the lineup simulator to see what Willie Walks-Every-Time would add.

[phxMILWfan]

Yes, I'm going to say that Joe Morgan is more knowledgable about baseball than you, I, or anyone else on this board.

First of all we aren't comparing Joe Morgan to me. The discussion is about Joe Morgan/Harold Reynolds vs "stat geeks" or statisticians. My understanding is we are debating about the types of player you would want on your team or would build a team around. More or less batting avg. vs OBP or OPS and what is more useful to determining value in a player. Next we aren't discussing climbing a mountain. If you'd like to use that analogy lets really get serious about it. If you (assuming you aren't a superior athlete) wanted advice as to how to climb a mountain would you turn to...

 

 

A. A former mountain climber who climbed mountains years ago before advances in technology and changes to the environment happened who is going to give you advice based on what the mountain was like when he climbed it? Or maybe this former mountain climber made it up and down the mountain based on their physical condition that you don't possess despite their lack of superior survival skills.

 

B. Some "mountain climbing geek" who has never climbed a mountain but has studied success rates of every mountain climber in modern times and what they did that was successful vs what unsuccessful mountain climbers did and how their strategies and performance differed from the successful mountain climbers. Now that your analogy is a little closer to what we are ACTUALLY discussing, which mountain climber would you choose based on logic?

 

 

 

Back to baseball instead of mountain climbers. The reason the stats that Joe Morgan despises are valuable is because it removes "the eye test". Unless Joe has the profound ability to see every at bat for every player and recall it when necessary he ought to rely on the stats a little more. The difference between a fan or someone who relies on the eye test vs a "stat geek" is that it also removes human emotion as well as helps your memory. Lets say you and Joe Morgan watch 5 out of 6 games that a particular team plays in a week. In that 1 game you missed there is information there that is very important. Or lets say you allow your human emotion to factor in and get all worked up about a player that strikes out a lot. You may then think that a Russell Branyan or Mike Cameron are terrible players because "every time I watch this guy bat he strikes out". I have a co-worker that swears that Solomen Torres was a terrible pitcher last year. Every time he watched, Torres blew a save.

 

 

The reason Harold Reynolds hates walks is because he isn't looking at the stats to see the value in them. No I wouldn't want a player on my team that hit .000 but had an on-base percentage of .380. But lets be realistic here. There are values in walks. Working the count to tire out the pitcher to get to the bullpen, letting your teammates get a longer look at the pitcher, reaching base. Would you rather have a player that always put the first pitch in play, or one that works the count? My point is that there is a reason to evaluate parts of the game with stats that you would just overlook otherwise. I'd listen to Joe Morgan if he wanted to teach me how to turn the double play or hit a curveball. I just don't value his knowledge on assembling a team and what types of players are valuable.

 

 

 

Sorry, I typed this up at work and I tried a few times to break this into paragraphs and it just wouldn't do it.

[Ennder]

OPS underrates OBP so I think that big long post about how SLG is a better measurement than OBP except for the walks is completely off base.

 

Harold Reynolds probably knows a lot about playing the game of baseball and the little things do matter, he still has no idea at all about how important OBP is vs AVG vs SLG.

[1992casey]

phxMILWfan, please remember to break messages into eye-friendly paragraphs.

 

Thanks.

[Thurston Fluff]

Who said anything about giving you an entire arsenal of superstars? (Reread, please. Don't complain about misquoting if you're going to do so as well - thank you). As stated in my previous post, given a one for one swap, you would get the raw end of the deal.

 

You are right I did miss the word "or" in your sentence. I just assumed if you were taking the case to the extreme case you would take it all the way. If one guy who walks every time is so great then it stands to reason every guy getting on base as such would be better. But fine you win I was wrong you only want one such guy. Not sure how you think one person will win you anything since your hypothetical team could be made up of Bill Hall types but I guess you have an answer for how that won't hurt you if you have someone who is on first when he strikes out. I'll await your explanation as to how that helps.

 

That said I don't see how that gives you the right to cut a sentence in half so it appeared to say something completely different. Especially when you admitted it was out of context. I do not appreciate things like that being done intentionally. It certainly does nothing to help the conversation. Mistakes are one thing blatantly misrepresenting what someone else said quite another.

 

Going back to your trading me one guy who will be get to first base, and only first base, 5 times a game for one of those three I think I'll take you up on that. My guy would be able to score on his own your needs help every time. If both our teams are full of Bill Halls but I have Pujols and you have Jonny take your base who do you think will win more games?

 

 

Harold Reynolds probably knows a lot about playing the game of baseball and the little things do matter, he still has no idea at all about how important OBP is vs AVG vs SLG.

 

I think you are absolutely right about this. That does not mean that sometimes walks are viewed as more important by some than other aspects of hitting though. Just because he is off base does not mean he doesn't have a semblance of a point hidden in there somewhere. The trick is to decipher it in all the incoherent rambling.

[brewjihad]

Using the baseball musings lineup analyzer, though it's not a perfect tool, it's pretty easy to see the contrast:

 

1.000 OBP leading off, .200/.350 hitters in the rest of the lineup: 3.736 runs per game

Pujols hitting 3rd, .200/.350 hitters in the rest of the lineup: 2.530 runs per game

 

If you're straight up comparing 2 hitters, just use their wOBA-- it's so easy to find at fangraphs. OPS is a nice quick measure that correlates pretty well to runs, but is it really that "sabermetric"? I wonder what Harold would think if you actually explained wOBA to him.