Value of OBP, Relative to SLG

[rluzinski]

Sure seems to me where a team ranks in SLG compared to other teams will play as big or nearly as big a role as OBP in how high they rank in runs scored.

 

That comment shows that you either didn't read my post or didn't understand it Use the equation. Watch it predict runs scored pretty well. Play with the numbers. 10 OBP points = 16 SLG points. SLG plays a HUGE role in runs scored, but not as big as OBP does.

 

O, I also love how you fail to point out that the 2 teams with the highest OBP rank 1 and 2 in runs scored. You can cherry pick examples that "prove" your point, but that doesn't prove anything. Also, you act like I said SLG wasn't important at all, so you completely ignore it? That doesn't make sense. I said it's about 1.6. I didn't make it up, that's what is HAS BEEN this year.

 

The more I look at your "analysis" the more I see how it only proves my point more.

 OBP SLG RUNS Texas .329 .476 492 Oakland .336 .398 426 Diff. +.007 -.078 -66 

 

Oakland's OBP is a lousy 7 points higher, while they give up 78 points of SLG, and you think that proves that SLG is more important, point by point?

 

Again, 10 OBP points = 16 SLG points. That was my point, that's it. I wouldn't be suprised with if equation blew up at extremes (like .200 OBP and .600 SLG) but that would be expected. The equation assumes linearity, which is wrong. All I was trying to show was:

 OBP SLG OPS Player A .400 .400 .800 Player B .300 .500 .800 

Player A is more valuable. That's a fact, not my "opinion."

 

EDIT: I should not called it a 'fact." I take it back!!!! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[tlpc4]

A fact or a theory?

 

A fact is that you believe the theory that a player with a higher OPS is better than a player with a lower OPS.

 

A fact is that you believe the theory that OBP is more important than SLG.

 

The changing knowledge of baseball stats is the result of refutations or the falsification of a theory.

 

bad sabermetrics attempts to end the discussion by saying that I have studied the issue and this is the answer. -bill james

[Bucky Rules]

Quote:

---

A fact or a theory?

---

A theory supported by facts (yes, I know that is redundant) is often confused with facts on this site. I have read countless times the phrase -- "that's a fact", when in fact it is a theory. A point that is sure to be lost on the fact givers.

[rluzinski]

A fact or a theory?

 

This isn't some long drawn out analysis, which includes assumption after assumption. It takes runs, OBP and SLG and shows 1 point of OBP = 1.6 points of SLG (using a linear model). What part do you take exception of? You never actually said. If I made a fundamental mistake tell me what it is. I certainly can't imagine what it would be.

 

While that Bill james quote is a good one, I just don't see it applying here. I mean what I did was so darn straight forward. Again, tell me what you disagree with?

 

Why do I feel like I'm having a creationism debate?

[rluzinski]

A theory supported by facts (yes, I know that is redundant) is often confused with facts on this site.

 

By that definition nothing is fact. It's all just a person's perception afterall. That would be the philisophical definition of fact. Using the scientific definition of "theory" I am more than happy to call it that. Of course, people ignorant of the scientific method will say, "Ha, see, it's only a theory!" Either way I'm screwed.

 

FYI, the only reason I am confident in my findings is because they AREN'T my findings and they aren't very profound or hard to prove. I just validated it with 2005 stats. If you disagree with my work PLEASE tell me why.

[Bucky Rules]

Quote:

---

FYI, the only reason I am confident in my findings is because they AREN'T my findings and they aren't very profound or hard to prove. I just validated it with 2005 stats. If you disagree with my work PLEASE tell me why.

---

Nobody has to disagree with your work to know that it is not accurate for you to say -- and I quote -- "Player A is more valuable. That's a fact, not my "opinion."" That is your theory, which you have supported with facts.

 

Quote:

---

By that definition nothing is fact. It's all just a person's perception afterall

---

That's not true at all. You used plenty of facts to support your argument. I'm not here to debate the accuracy.

 

If one can't see the difference between an actual fact and a theoretical conclusion, then it's not worth my trying to explain it. I think you can see the distinction.

 

As for the analysis itself, I don't have much of a problem with it. My only concern would be that your point may not be coming across as clearly as it should. Check me if I'm wrong.... I think you're saying that the way we measure OBP and SLG, the OBP is more important - point by point - than the SLG%. Not necessarily that the guy that gets on base is more important than the slugger. I think that's what you're trying to say, but the subtleties of that are a little murky in your explanation. Especially when you say something like "Player A is more valuable. That's a fact, not my "opinion."".

[rluzinski]

I think you're saying that the way we measure OBP and SLG, the OBP is more important - point by point - than the SLG%

 

All I was saying is that 10 OBP = 16 SLG in the context of OPS. I have to concede that the very title of this thread was sensationalized for fun, causing many to assume an overstatement.

 

Like I said, I am more than happy to use the true definition of "theory", unfortunetely some religiously motivated individuals have hijacked it's definition.

[tlpc4]

The main part I disagree with is this:

 

That's a fact, not my "opinion."

 

I think you provide a compelling argument. But it is not fact, and that is my main problem. Your analysis, while it appears to be quite statistically sound, makes many assumptions that I question. This made me a little sensitive to the "this is fact so your opinion doesn't count" vibe I got from your response.

 

I happen to question whether OPS is the way you judge if Player A is more valuable.

 

It ignores defense, it ignores pressuring the defense with speed, it ignores situational hitting, and it ignores being a leader.

 

I believe these things can be very important.

 

Finally, I think there are some compelling statistics that suggest that OPS is a good messure of being productive..especially for middle of the lineup guys. How do you use that? I think you have to look at what makes OPS and determine how to find guys that could develop into high OPS guys.

 

My theory is that getting hits is the easiest way to have a high OPS. If you can maintain a .300 batting average you have a huge advantage over players that have to rely on walks and/or homeruns. A hit raises your OBP and your SLG.

 

So when looking at young players in the minors or in their first couple years...I consider batting average to be very important.

[rluzinski]

I happen to question whether OPS is the way you judge if Player A is more valuable.

 

I only meant that IF you were going to use OPS, PLAYER A is better. That's all. I didn't mean to insinuate that OPS is the best measure of a player's offensive worth. OXS is better even.

 

So when looking at young players in the minors or in their first couple years...I consider batting average to be very important.

 

I guess I see walk rate very important, because it indicates plate disipline; a skill many would say can't be improved upon very easily.

[brettac1]

I guess I see walk rate very important, because it indicates plate disipline; a skill many would say can't be improved upon very easily.

 

It also is very unlikely to fluctuate the way hits do, as well. And plate discipline isn't a learned skill, it's something a hitter either has or doesn't have.

 

I agree with your "theory" rluz, it's pretty cut and dried.

[Bucky Rules]

Quote:

---

I agree with your "theory" rluz, it's pretty cut and dried.

---

The idea that 1 OBP > 1 SLG is fairly cut and dried, and it's also common sense when you think about it. It is easier to increase .001 point in SLG because you're working on a scale of 4.000 vs the OBP scale of 1.000. It only stands to reason that it is easier to raise a SLG%. Of course, BBs counting towards OBP and not SLG mitigates that a little bit.

 

The only problem I had with rluz's post was that the way it was presented seemed to be implying something more than that. That alone doesn't prove that player A is better -- all other things being equal. I mean, the whole idea of OBP + SLG seems rather arbitrary to me. Or even OxS. They are two separate statistics that evaluate a skill set. Saying that one is more difficult to attain -- I'll buy that. Saying that one is more important -- wasn't proven in his post. Unless it's some common knowledge that I'm not aware of. (I'm not trying to be a smart-ass when I say that)

[danzig6767]

O, I also love how you fail to point out that the 2 teams with the highest OBP rank 1 and 2 in runs scored. You can cherry pick examples that "prove" your point, but that doesn't prove anything.

 

I dont think i was cherry picking at all.Texas the last two years had a top 5 offense while carrying a poor OBP and so did the White Sox last year.As for the top two run scoring teams being 1-2 in OBP,they are also ranked 3rd/5th in SLG,not 18th in OBP like Texas this year and 21st last year.

 

For OBP being such a dominant stat over all others,pretty odd Florida is 5th in OBP/21st in runs while Texas is 18th OBP/3rd in runs.

 

Oakland's OBP is a lousy 7 points higher, while they give up 78 points of SLG, and you think that proves that SLG is more important, point by point?

 

Why does point by point play into this?Teams slug at a higher number than their OBP,of course the variance in a few percentage points in OBP will be greater than slugging when it comes to affecting an offense.

 

We probably arent on the same page here.I've just heard how much more important OBP is to SLG more than once and then i look at in general where teams finish in runs scored compared to where they rank in OBP/SLG and i see nothing i those rankings to make me think OBP is that dominant.

 

This year the top 8 teams in SLG% are all in the top 8 in runs except Atlanta who is 9th in runs,is that just fluke?

 

Three of the top 8 OBP teams are Florida/San Diego/Oakland,in runs they rank 12th/13th/21st in runs.Florida is 5th in OBP and 21st in runs,more just fluke?How do these last two things happen if OBP is almost double as important as slugging?

 

In the last three years if you looked at the top 10 teams in runs scored,24 of those 30 teams were also in the top 10 in SLG%.Two of those that missed were 11th in runs.Is that cherry picking?

 

I'm not trying to be an ass or pick a fight.I'll admit i dont care enough to read a ton a baseball sites to number crunch all kind of stats.If you can explain away these rankings,i'll gladly admit i'm wrong.

[crichar3]

I'm not a math guy, but I enjoyed this thread. I think I learned something (including that I should never engage you guys in a debate that makes heavy use of mathematical ideas). I appreciate rluzinski's work that resulted in his theory, and also the formula for GPA which incorporates this theory and boils it down to a number that relates to batting average. (While it is hard to know what an .800 OPS means, since I was a kid I knew that a .300 hitter was special. GPA gives me a way to convert OPS to fit on that traditional scale.)

[rluzinski]

This year the top 8 teams in SLG% are all in the top 8 in runs except Atlanta who is 9th in runs,is that just fluke?

 

Look, the equation uses all the ranks you are talking about, that's why it's not a compelling argument. The numbers are all there; plug in any of those teams OBP and SLG and it will predict their runds scored pretty darn well. That equation tell you to multiply OBP by 1.6 and SLG by 1, ratio wise. I can't understand how you can argue that when you can SEE it's true from the equation and the graph. ALL the stats you are saying were the exact stats I used.

 

Sorry, it's just frustrating that I apparently can't get my point accross. It's like me saying "5 + 4 is 9" and you saying, "no it's not, 5 is larger than 4."

 

For OBP being such a dominant stat over all others

 

What are you talking about?? Who said that? No one. SLG is very important, obviously.

 

Why does point by point play into this?

 

Um, that was the WHOLE point of this thread.

[tlpc4]

As far as plate discipline...what do you define as plate discipline? Is it the ability to draw a walk or the abilty to not chase bad pitches.

 

Where I am going with this is that I think it is pretty common for players to learn to take pitches. Last year, guys like Brady Clark and Keith Ginter were guys that drew 4 pitch walks all the time. They also would take 3 pitch strike outs.

 

They both drew walks but I didn't feel they had good plate discipline. They took pitches and guessed on pitches. They drew walks and struck out.

 

Typically players that don't hit for a high average fit this profile. Their not stupid, they concentrate on drawing walks because they know they need to suppliment their enemic OBP brought on by a low batting average(just my opinion).

 

So what am I saying? I think players can learn to take pitches. In fact, the manager can take the bat out of their hands to force them to take pitches.

 

I think some players have good plate discipline and have a keen eye for which pitches are strikes, which pitches are balls, which pitches they can hit, which pitches they can't hit, which pitches are fastballs, and which pitches are curves, etc. This type of batting skill is not something easily learned.

 

Hitting for average is similar to plate discipline. It is not something you easily learned.

 

Also, it is common to hear that walks are less streaky. I would like to see the statistical theory on that. Just looking at Overbay:

Mar and April 22hits 18walks

May 21hits 17walks

June 21hits 8 walks

 

I think everything about baseball is very streaky.

[rluzinski]

Found a nice article giving a nice overview on the quest to gauge the relative important of OBP and SLG:

 

LINK

 

They all seem to put OBP and SLG's importance, relatively, between 1.7 and 2.0, in favor of OBP.

[bjamesw22]

It also is very unlikely to fluctuate the way hits do, as well. And plate discipline isn't a learned skill, it's something a hitter either has or doesn't have.

 

What do you mean by plate discipline isn't a learned skill?!? I will wholeheartedly disagree with that statement.

 

At UWW during practices we worked on plate discipline and strikezone judgement all the time. I got better at judging what was a strike and what wasn't. If you can make that determination you will become a better hitter.

 

We had one of those huge gym dividers in the fieldhouse and put a masking tape box the size of the strikezone on it. We then divided the box that made up the strikezone into 8 smaller boxes and numbered them. Someone would stand 30 feet or so away and throw tennis balls like he was pitching. The hitter would stand there in their batting stance and tell the person pitching the number of the box it hit. If you were wrong the pitcher would tell you what the right answer was. You got very good at figuring out where the ball was coming in. You could do that with curveballs, etc. It would even be best if you charted how many you got right/wrong so that you can measure if you are improving.

 

So to say that plate discipline isn't a learned skill is just wrong.

 

Now pitch recognition on the other hand, that is a VERY hard skill to learn. But again, with hard work with someone who knows what they are talking about, you can learn that too.

[SoCalBrewfan]

I think it's important to be careful with what you mean here...I wouldn't say that OBP is 1.6 times more important than SLG...rather I'd say:

 

In the current environment, an increase in OBP of one point has the same effect on a team's runs scored as an increase in SLG of 1.6 points.

 

(Maybe 1.6 should be 1.7 or 2.0 or whatever...that is not the point.)

[rluzinski]

think it's important to be careful with what you mean here...I wouldn't say that OBP is 1.6 times more important than SLG...rather I'd say:

 

In the current environment, an increase in OBP of one point has the same effect on a team's runs scored as an increase in SLG of 1.6 points.

 

I clarified that exact point about 10 times in this thread http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[bjamesw22]

My point was all OPS of .800 are not created equal:

 

.300 OBP .500 SLG:

 

Runs = 1444 x .300 + 893 x .500 - 444 = 436 runs

 

.400 OBP .400 SLG:

 

Runs = 1444 x .400 + 893 x .400 - 444 = 491 runs

 

I would even say that two OPS consisting of .400 OBP and .400 SLG aren't the same. How that OBP is derived and how that SLG is derived makes a difference in how productive that player is. This is where RBI stats can be jumbled up. Two players with those exact two OBP and SLG probably wouldn't come out to the same number of RBI's if the same number of runners were on in each at bat. Would they?

[brettac1]

I will wholeheartedly disagree with that statement.

 

And I will wholeheartedly disagree with yours, until you offer proof aside from a "this happened for me, so it's always the case" argument. Show me an example of a player who was an undisciplined hitter when entering MLB, and became a guy who walked. I'll show you an exception to the rule.

[rluzinski]

How that OBP is derived and how that SLG is derived makes a difference in how productive that player is.

 

You are correct, a HR ISN'T twice as good as two doubles, nor is a single twice as good as a walk. OPS doesn't reflect that. Something like linear weights would show you that. If someone is intent on using OBP and SLG to descrive the offensive worth of a player, however, they should weight OBP more.

[bjamesw22]

And I will wholeheartedly disagree with yours, until you offer proof aside from a "this happened for me, so it's always the case" argument. Show me an example of a player who was an undisciplined hitter when entering MLB, and became a guy who walked. I'll show you an exception to the rule.

 

Ummm, you're basically making the argument that practicing doesn't improve your abilities.

[brettac1]

No I'm not, I'm making the argument that plate discipline is a "nature" trait, more than it is a "nurture" one, since there really isn't any evidence to the contrary. Like I said, show me an example of a guy who came to MLB as a undisciplined hacker (a la Bill Hall) and turned into a high-OBP patient hitter.

[GoodGod262]

THe one guy off the top of my head that was a "Billy Hall" hacker as a young player was Sammy Sosa. He eventually turned into a guy that would walk 80-100 times to go with his 150+ strikeouts. I am sure the Majors are littered with guys like that. I would also guess that there are just as many "hackers" that never learned. So go about argueing because you guys love to.