OPS vs. Batting Average

[cweber39]

On 1510 today Homer was arguing that .OPS is more important than batting average, and that BA should be elminated. What is eveyone else's opinion, I take his opionions like a grain of salt.

[brettac1]

Wow.

 

I need to start listening to Homer.

 

That's not something you'd expect a sports talk show host to say (unless it was Will Carroll on BP Radio). I wouldn't say that AVG needs to be eliminated, because it does have value, but I agree with him basically. I'm more of a fan of using all three slash stats (BA/AVG/SLG) together, it paints a pretty complete picture of the kind of hitter a guy is.

[Brian the Automator]

[ On 1510 today Homer was arguing that .OPS is more important than batting average, and that BA should be elminated. What is eveyone else's opinion, I take his opionions like a grain of salt. ]

 

OPS is a better overall measure of a player's offensive prowess, as it takes OBP into account... something AVG overlooks, which is way unfortunate.

 

With that said, BA is still a useful stat. There's no single measure that defines a player, offensively.

[patrickgpe]

While there averages are about the same; Prince Fielder and Ryan Garko OPS's that differ by about 200 pints. If you walk more you have a better chance to score and obviously you have a better chance helping your team if you are hitting homers and doubles rather than just singles.

[billyhallfan2]

actually Homer has a lot of the same viewpoints as a lot of people on here, over on 1250 they rip Sheets, but Homer says that you can't jusge wins you have to look at other stats, if he didn't talk so much PAckers I would like him more, but he still has the best sports show in Milwaukee, except the d-list is better...

[rluzinski]

With that said, BA is still a useful stat. There's no single measure that defines a player, offensively.

 

Agreed.

[patrickgpe]

I actually will listen to Homer on baseball stuff over anyone else in this market.

 

and he has been doing more all brewers all the time sportstalk.

[TheCouga23]

This is true. Batting average can be very deceiving. Alex Sanchez batting .320 is not the same as Albert Pujols batting .320. Sanchez has no power, and never walks.

 

OBP is the least understood and most underappreciated stat in baseball. Slugging average and OBP are the two most predictive stats as far as scoring runs are concerned for a team. OPS is simply the addition of the two.

 

To fully understand the importance of OBP, think of it as inverse out percentage. If you have an OBP of .400, the batter has a 60% chance of getting out when he steps to the plate. Say this batter is only a .250 hitter batting average-wise (think Rickey Henderson in his last years). He still will only get out 60% of the time. Now take someone like Sanchez, who would hit .300 regularly, but he would never get on base any other way aside from hitting singles. So his OBP would be close to his batting average, which is .300. This makes Sanchez' out percentage 70%, or a full 10% higher than the .250 hitter.

 

The fastest way to kill a rally or end an inning is by making outs. If you have people that get on base and don't produce an out, your other hitters have one more chance to get a big hit and drive in a run. Plus there is someone on base when they do it.

 

Take a typical first inning for a team. Let's say they have Juan Pierre batting .300 leading off. A speedy guy that rarely walks or gets extra base hits. And they have the typical "grinder" 2 hole hitter, like David Eckstein. He bats about .290, but doesn't hit many extra base hits, and doesn't walk all that much because he never hits any home runs, so there is no reason for opposing pitchers to pitch around him. While Pierre may be the "typical" leadoff man with speed, a decent batting average, and the ability to tear up the basepaths, he really isn't all that good at getting on base in the first place (especially if you consider the last 2.5 years). In other words, he is pretty good at turning at bats into outs, and allowing the next batter to come up with less chances to produce runs. As soon as there is one out, a double play ends an inning, and as soon as there are two outs, a sacrifice will not score a run.

 

He then turns the inning over to David Eckstein with one out. Eckstein is farily good at getting to first base, but not so good at getting beyond that by himself. He lacks the ability to get an extra base hit. So maybe he singles. Now the third hitter is up with one out already and a runner on first. Even a single won't score the run, a double play will end the inning, and nothing is going to happen with a sacrifice. Basically, you need an extra base hit to score the run.

 

The "traditional" baseball lineup is oftentimes constructed like this. The speedy leadoff guy gets on base, maybe steals second, the "grinder" 2-hole hitter moves him over with a groundout to second, and the best hitter drives him in. But this is an ideal situation, one that happens far less often than not. This is really an imaginary situation. Even the best leadoff hitters make outs more than they get on base. Leadoff hitters like Juan Pierre make outs more frequently than even the average major leaguer. And players like Eckstein may take a walk or get a single, but a single means you need an extra base hit or two more singles to score, therefore decreasing your team's chances of scoring period.

 

Lineups that score the most runs don't necessarily have speedy guys batting leadoff, they have guys that don't get out. OBP measures how often you don't get out. SLG measures how often you allow yourself to be driven in by only one subesquent base hit rather than two, and your ability to drive guys in from first base, the most frequently occupied base in the game. Rickey Henderson wasn't the best leadoff man in the history of baseball because of his speed, he was the best leadoff guy because he rarely got out. His career OBP is a whopping .401. He stole so many bases because he gave himself so many opportunities by getting on base. Pierre will never get as many stolen bases as Rickey because he simply lacks the ability to get on base in the first place.

 

Now take a lineup constructed for maximum run production. Instead of getting out, your leadoff hitter with a .420 OBP actually gets on base. You have a guy who can actually hit doubles and home runs batting second, so you can drive the leadoff guy in from first with one hit. Stringing together multiple hits is a hard thing in baseball, especially when even the very best hitters get out more often than they get a hit. But even if this guy only walks, your third hitter gets up with no out and two guys on base, instead of one out and a guy only on first.

 

No, these scenarios won't happen like this all the time. But the higher your OBP, the less chance your hitters have of producing a rally-killing out. So over the course of the season, your team will make outs at a slower rate, and thereby extending innings. And instead of having three or four batters up per inning, you will have 4 or 5. It's like buying an extra lottery ticket every time your team comes to bat. Because the more at bats you get, the more chances someone has per inning of driving in runs. And of course, the more you wear the opposing starting pitcher out and get to the usually weaker bullpen. And the higher your SLG, the higher chances you have that that an average of one hit per inning will drive in runs.

 

Therefore, knowing a team's and a player's OPS tells you a hell of a lot more about how many runs their offense will score as opposed to using their batting average. Computer simulations back this up. Regression analyses of past data back this up. OPS isn't perfect, because from a pure correlational standpoint, I think that OBP is more correlated with scoring runs than SLG, but it's good to have high numbers of both. Batting average only tells you a fraction of the picture. I'll take a team full of Russel Branyans any day over a team full of Alex Sanchez. The All Sanchez team will bat over .300, the All Branyan team will bat .230, but the Branyan team will score a ton more runs. And that's not even considering the fielding errors and the baserunning blunders on the former team http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[pogokat]

welcome aboard thecouga23...

 

you're going to like it here...

[dadofandrew]

OXS and OPS comes pretty close to a all you need to know stat.

 

BA is worthless. A .250 hitter can be really good or useless...that's the definition of a stat that means nothing.

[tomwopat]

TTO% is the only statistic I need to judge the value of a player...

[sbrylski]

I think that OBP is more correlated with scoring runs than SLG...

 

About 1.8 times as important. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

Welcome aboard, you'll fit in. Our board is different in the fact that "stat-heads" are the most vocal group!

[PKBadger]

Best inaugural post in BF.net history....hands down.

[BillScottCanRake]

TheCouga23, welcome aboard!

[igor67]

Now the real challenge is to figure out which professional sight theCoug writes for and his secret identity.

[Ennder]

I wouldn't say BA is worthless but its certainly not one of the first stats I'd look at when judging a player, especially over a smaller sample size.

 

For pitching I feel the same way about ERA, its just not that useful of a stat for judging how good a pitcher is, especially over a small sample.

[endaround]

Batting average is a decent stat when used properly. The problem is that people use it incorrectly (ERA falls into the same category). Batting average is important when deciding who to use as a pinch hitter for example. Using the Brewers bench, with men in scoring position and two outs, neither Counsell nor Graffanino are really decent options because both are low average hitters even though their OBPs are decent.

 

ERA is similar. ERA gives you a very good record of how the games a pitcher pitched went on average. But it isn't very good for projections and doesn't really tell you how the pitcher really pitched in those games.

[billyhallfan2]

wow that was impressive, welcome!

[NeedMoreFans]

He was arguing OBP, not OPS...

[AJ Love]

OBP is why I think Counsell is under-rated by many here. Granted he doesn't have much of a BA or SLG % but the guy gets on base (.345 lifetime OBP)

[iluvlamp]

Sorry but it was OBP not OPS.

 

edit: Guess I should have read the thread first...Needs winshttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[jwill535]

i listened to that and i was getting pissed at the morons calling. They couldnt get it through they're heads that OBP takes your BA into account. Some moronic quotes being

 

"well walks dont win games"

 

"its not like they are going to walk the basesloaded and the walk in a run, you want a guy up there that is going to hit"

[Fike85]

Quote:

---

"well walks dont win games"

 

"its not like they are going to walk the basesloaded and the walk in a run, you want a guy up there that is going to hit"

---

 

Those are arguments that I hear often and have no idea how to address because they are representative of an entirely perspective on baseball.

 

Now, the arguments are not entirely without merit, For instance if the game is tied in the bottom of the 9th and there is a runner on third, it is true that a walk does not do all that much to help. However, what a lot of people fail to recognize is that if a batter in that situation draws a walk he did so because he did not see any pitches that would probably result in an out.

 

All that said: OPS >>> BA and BA/OBP/SLG >>> BA/HR/RBI

[brettac1]

However, what a lot of people fail to recognize is that if a batter in that situation draws a walk he did so because he did not see any pitches that would probably result in an out.

 

Exactly. A smart hitter is much better than an over-aggressive one. There's all kinds of "hidden benefits" from the walk, like forcing the pitcher to throw more pitches, which causes him to possibly tire, as well as show his repertoire to the on deck hitter. Any plate appearance that results in a non-out is a good thing. The more baserunners you have, the more likely you are to score runs, and thus win games. So yeah, walks do win games.

[TheCouga23]

Thanks for the welcomes, everyone!

 

I'm glad I found this forum. It looks like a great place for informed discussion about baseball, free from the flame wars and typical reactionaryism of the typical internet forum.

 

The Brewers are my second favorite team. I have to admit, I am first and foremost a Tigers fan. But I grew up in Milwaukee, and ever since Selig sold the team I have been very interested in how things have been run. I've been telling my friends for years that the Tigers and Brewers were both going to be awesome soon, and that the Brewers were about one year behind the Tigers. It looks like I was right so far. I put money on the Brewers winning the NL Central this year.

 

I think Melvin has done a tremendous job in consolidating talent at every position of the field that is at that perfect stage of their career where they are just getting good, but don't cost a fortune. The entire infield including catcher falls into this category once Braun is called up. In fact Hall and Hart in the outfield fall into this category as well. Bush, Capuano, and Gallardo form a great trio of bargain starters. This is basically the ideal situation for a small market team. It's the only way for them to win. Not only do you have to draft and develop talent well, you have to get a bunch of it at the same age so that it arrives in the major leagues like a tidal wave that costs nearly nothing to keep, yet it pushes the talent level of your team up into the stratosphere for three or so years.

 

As this is something I experienced last year with the Tigers, the advice I can give now is not to worry too much about losing to really good teams on the road. All you need to do is beat up on the bad teams to be good, especially in the NL Central. No team, no matter how good, slaughters other good teams on the road. It didn't matter last year when the Tigers went into Fenway and lost 3 of 4 games. Beating up on the bad teams and sweeping them makes up for it. I'm glad the Brewers got at least one in Shea, and I will be satisfied if they only get one in Philly. Although two would be nice. If they finish this road trip losing more than they won, I wouldn't really be that upset. The fact is that the Brewers are a very talented team, and also a very deep team, so there is no reason why they shouldn't continue winning throughout the season.

 

As for the manager, Leyland makes all kinds of kooky, frustrating moves that make no sense to me. If the Tigers #3 hitter sits out for a game, Leyland will bat his backup #3. This is a foolish decision strategy wise, but he wants everyone else on the team to come to each game with the same role. The fact is that Yost has these guys focused, motivated, happy, and ready to play. Happy and motivated are probably byproducts of the team being good, but it also means that the Brewers clubhouse is going to be an attractive spot for talent (either regarding trades, retaining talent, or free agency). There was a time when the Tigers had to vastly overpay players to get them to come there (see: Ordonez, M.) and sometimes - thank you sweet Jesus - even offering to overpay didn't work (see: Gonzalez, J.). This offseason, however, the Tigers resigned 5 players to extensions for below market value (Bonderman, Inge, Casey, Sheffield, Guillen). These players all wanted to play there. Why? Because the Tigers are good, and will be for years to come. And because Leyland is a great guy to play for. It was the main reason Sheffield is happy there.

 

This same thing will hopefully happen with the Brewers. They have a lot of talent that will be looking for extensions in a few years. And so far, it looks like Yost is fostering an agressive, winning attitude. It's the kind of atmosphere star players like, and are willing to take a little less money to play under. I hope the Brewers never promote players like Capellan. Dombrowski has a no BS attitude with the Tigers. Urbina was getting into drunk fights on the plane, and a week later, he was traded for Polanco. Farnsworth was getting into fights on the field, and a week later, he was traded for two decent prospects. Jeff Weaver was smoking pot on the team plane. Soon after, Weaver was traded in a three way trade for Bonderman. No BS. I think Milwaukee looks the same way this year. The players on the field are there to win, not to collect a paycheck and live the high life. Those kinds of players stick together in the long run.

 

In short, this is going to be a good season.