How important is slugging %?

[RoseBowlMtg]

I thought I would look at the NL first basemen who have started 100 games to see how their slugging % relates to their production. How important is slugging %?

 

There are 10 NL first basemen who have started at least 100 games:

 

 

slg:

1: Lee .665

2: Pujols: .632

3: Delgado: .573

4: Berkman: .520

5: Tracy: .515

6: Helton: .502

7: Johnson: .476

8: Overbay: .444

9: Casey: .427

10: LaRoach: .416

 

Now let's throw in their HR/RBI numbers:

 

1: Lee .665..41-99

2: Pujols: .632..39-108

3: Delgado: .573..38-104

4: Berkman: .520..19-66

5: Tracy: .515..22-55

6: Helton: .502..17-63

7: Johnson: .476..13-62

8: Overbay: .444..17-67

9: Casey: .427..9-54

10: LaRoach: .416..15-68

 

There are 3 first basemen who have separated themselves from the rest. The other 7 appear to be closer than their slugging % suggests:

 

Now let's look at their ave. with runners on and empty:

 

 

player: slg, HR, RBI, runners on/empty

1: Lee .665..41-99...315/.354

2: Pujols: .632..39-108...320/.354

3: Delgado: .573..38-104...307/.290

4: Berkman: .520..19-66...270/.316

5: Tracy: .515..22-55...240/.328

6: Helton: .502..17-63...283/.319

7: Johnson: .476..13-62...333/.256

8: Overbay: .444..17-67...305/.251

9: Casey: .427..9-54...318/.312

10: LaRoach: .416..15-68...250/.237

 

Of the bottom 7 here is their runners on/empty differential:

 

4: Berkman: -.046

5: Tracy: -.088

6: Helton: -.036

7: Johnson: +.077

8: Overbay: +.054

9: Casey: +.006

10: LaRoach: +.017

 

This explains why Tracy has only 55 ribbies while Johnson and Overbay have outperformed him even though their slugging % is so much inferior. Helton btw has a .333 11-43 at home and .271 6-20 on the road.

 

So after the top 3, the slugging % only shows who hits more solo HR's (Tracy with 13) and doesn't look at how these first basemen produce. We have all seen Overbay struggle this year way too often for many of our hopes but after the top three his production is right there because he has hit better with runners on.

 

Any thoughts:

[rluzinski]

To use RBI's as an offensive measuring stick, you just HAVE to look at them relative to the number of runners that were available to hit in. Even Pujols would have significantly less RBI's in the 9 spot.

 

As for Overbay, he's gotten alot more abuse than his numbers warrent. It's certainly frustrating that he has actually regressed this year but he is NOT the black hole some would make him out to be. A .366 OBP is nothing to sneeze at.

[RoseBowlMtg]

rlu good response as usual:

 

To use RBI's as an offensive measuring stick, you just HAVE to look at them relative to the number of runners that were available to hit in. Even Pujols would have significantly less RBI's in the 9 spot.

 

Stats by themselves does not tell it all so when someone looks at Overbay as weak for a first baseman since his slugging % is .444 and you compare it to Chad Tracy who has hit 13 solo HR's and has a slugging % of .515. If you look at slugging as a barometer for success you haven't looked deeply enough since Tracy's batting ave with runners on drops by 88 points and Overbay's goes up 54. Incidently Overbay has had 187 chances to Tracy's 183.

 

This to me shows who a more productive hitter is. risp is a good stat but getting a double with a runner on first should get more credit imo. There are three dominant first basemen in the NL and Overbay is right there with the rest even on an off year for him. Interesting. Hopefully GM's will recognize than this off season

[BrewCityUnit]

Great post RoseBowl. I agree with you and that is why I think OPS is a little overrated if that is how you measure which player is better. Is Overbay elite? Obviously not, but he is a decent option at first if you don't have one of the big three. I would rather have a player hit with runners on base and in scoring postion than someone who increases their SLG and OPS with doubles and solo shots (i.e. Branyan) but then again, Branyan doesn't even do that anymore, he just swings and misses.

[brettac1]

Branyan doesn't even do that anymore, he just swings and misses.

 

Who'd have guessed that was coming?

[BrewCityUnit]

I'm sorry, I don't want this thread to continue in that pattern, after I posted it I realized that I shouldn't have.

[RoseBowlMtg]

I was curious how people rank stats they look at and how it changes for different types of hitters. Leadoff hitter obp first, Lee OPS?

 

OK is that back on track?

[Brian the Automator]

quickly, here's how I would rank importance of stats by position

 

1) OBP (and to a small extent, SB%)

2) OPS (and to a smaller extent, SB%)

3) OPS

4) SLG

5) OPS

6) OPS

7) OPS

http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/glasses.gif SLG

 

I'd like to have the #4 guy be good at getting as many runners in as possible. I'd like the #8 guy to do the same is it's less useful to have a high OBP guy at #8. While it's nice to get the pitcher up and out of the way to make the 3rd out, i'd prefer having that #8 guy pick up the guys the pitcher won't.

[batboy37]

Overbay is definitely not a 'black hole' type of player because he is selective on pitches and seems to be determined not to spoil runners on base situation. Especially, when the elite type of pitcher is on the mound, he usually hit the ball to the center field(usually singles), or take pitchers carefully, or move the runners because he knows Carlos Lee is behind him. But overall, he simply has not hit the ball hard to make easy double, HR this season.

[BrewCityUnit]

1) OBP

2) OBP

3) AVG. with runners on base

4) OPS

5) OPS

6) OBP

7) OBP

http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/glasses.gif OBP

[gregmag]

IMHO, discussions like this ignore the difference between the predictive value of a stat and the descriptive value of a stat. I think RBM makes a fair point, if what we want to do is figure out who has produced this year. If, on the other hand, we want to make choices about whom to keep or target to pick up, I don't care at all about stats like RISP or BA with runners on, because they don't repeat. In fact, the guys I would target are ones who have great predictive stats -- i.e., OPS -- but have a bad year in terms of "production" stats. If the OPS is there, the production will come.

 

Brian, I like your post -- that's a useful way of thinking about the issue.

 

Greg.

[RoseBowlMtg]

gregmag interesting post as always:

 

I don't care at all about stats like RISP or BA with runners on, because they don't repeat. In fact, the guys I would target are ones who have great predictive stats -- i.e., OPS -- but have a bad year in terms of "production" stats. If the OPS is there, the production will come.

 

 

I was not looking at these stats to see who we should have next year, I like to compare how players are doing for the year. The problem I have with OPS is someone like Chad Tracy who's OPS is 48 points higher than Overbay's is not better.

 

Broken down:

 

..........obp/slug/OPS

Tracy: .343/.515/.858

Overbay: .366/.444/.810

 

Tracy has hit 13 solo HR's and 9 with runners on

Overbay has hit 9 solo HR's and 8 with runners on

 

Tracy is hitting .240 with runners on

Overbay is hitting .305 with runners on

 

Tracy is hitting .328 with no one on

Overbay is hitting .251 with no one on.

 

The slugging % gives too much credit to solo HR's and doesn't take into account someone's struggles with runners on.

 

Here is two guys with 183 and 187 AB's with runners on and the one who hits 65 points higher, knocks in more runs and gets on more often is considered worse when looking at the OPS because the other hits more solo HR's but knocks in 12 fewer runs.

 

To me OPS is not a good barometer btwn these two hitters. It overrates Tracy and underrates Overbay.

[huntsvillefan]

I look at RBM's above post and think what wonderful sense it makes and how very persuasive it is.

Then I look at how closely OPS (or OXS) correalates with actual runs scored and I find it very difficult to look beyond it. Like it or loathe it, it seems to be the key to run production and it comes close enough, often enough, that even a hardened sceptic like me finds it hard not to see it as the single key offensive stat.

For what its worth RBM is in good company when using the 'solo home run' argument, Bill James uses exactly the same argument to show why Craig Biggio is a better player than Ken Griffey Jnr. My gut feeling is that neither Overbay nor Tracy (or probably anyone) is good enough to deliberately save their homeruns until there is someone on base in front of them - but if it could be shown that someone did it reguarily enough over a career, I'd start to believe.

[Ennder]

I don't know, Overbay has batted 3rd and 5th all year behind some decent hitters.

 

Tracy has batted 2nd and 6th or 7th behind some pretty bad hitters.

 

I don't believe in RISP stats at all, I think they are completely meaningless, so I still don't think Overbay is more valuable simply because he happened to hit HR's when guys are on more often.

 

On the other hand, OPS is hardly the defining stat on how good a player is, its a general guideline at best.

[RoseBowlMtg]

ennder states:

 

I don't believe in RISP stats at all, I think they are completely meaningless, so I still don't think Overbay is more valuable simply because he happened to hit HR's when guys are on more often.

 

I think you misinterpretted my point. I think OPS builds up solo HR's too much or more specifically slugging too much while knocking in runs with singles and doubles gets shunned. That being said, is someone with a 515 slg and hits .240 with runners on with only 55 RBI's so much better than a hitter with a .444 slug hitting .305 with runners on and 67 RBI's.

 

And as for batting behind Counsell he up til a month ago was one of the best lead off hitters as far as getting on in MLB. I don't know where Tracy batted every time but I do know with same amt of AB's basically as Overbay with runners on he hit 65 points lower and that is why his RBI total is lower.

[rluzinski]

I don't know, Overbay has batted 3rd and 5th all year behind some decent hitters. Tracy has batted 2nd and 6th or 7th behind some pretty bad hitters.

 

Exactly. Let's compare their RBI numbers and the number of ABs they had in key situations:

 Overbay Tracy RBIs 67 55 RISP 115 97 2B & 3B 7 3 Loaded 11 5 

 

Low and behold, the player with more opportunities has more RBIs. That's why comparing RBI's is meaningless without looking at the environment that each player got them in.

[obobo55]

I have thought about this a lot over the years ib regards to BA, but with the "new" OPS it effect is just about doubled...

 

For BA, the difference between a .250 hitter and one hitting .300 comes out to about 1 hit a week (5 of 20 vs 6 of 20 for a player with 520 ABs in a season). So using OPS, since the BA portion is figured twice for the most part, yields a difference of .100 points or the difference between a .800 (mediocre to below average depending on position) and .900 (star) hitter.

 

ONE stinking hit? It seems rather odd that just one seeing eye grounder or blooper over the head of the infielder per week can make that big a difference. I believe that is why the big swingers are a tad overrated. By just failing to put wood on the ball, they miss out on too many of those "lucky" hits. While you could argue that when that player connects there is a greater chance of it being a extra-base hit, I would prefer to get the guy who doesn't make outs.

 

That being said, I agree with Brian in that I wouldn't mind having that free-swinging, high slugging % guy in the 8 spot. He can clear the bases when he connects and when he doesn't it was less likely that we would score in that inning anyways.

[RoseBowlMtg]

rlu states:

 

Overbay Tracy

RBIs 67 55

RISP 115 97

2B & 3B 7 3

Loaded 11 5

 

 

I was looking at the runners on which was very even: 187 v 183. One problem with risp it doesn't give you credit for knocking in a runner from first on a double but with a solo HR slugging doesn't factor RBI's.

 

If you look at these RBI opportunities as the only ones Overbay knocked in runs at a 58.3% clip vs Tracy's 56.7%. A 515 slug v 444 slug does not show this.

 

Your loaded stat is interesting since Overbay is batting .364 with the bases loaded v .000% for Tracy. Maybe the entire RBI differential is with the bases loaded since we know O has a grand slam which means his other 3 hits brought in a minimum of 7 runs.

 

I just think runners on is a better gauge with these two. 187 v 183. Just by showing that Tracy is close to Overbay makes my point that the 515 v 444 slugging stat doesn't tell an accurate story.

 

Interesting imo.

[Katuluu]

I'm still trying to figure out how a difference of 4 solo homeruns somehow equates to a difference of .071 of SLG. That argument just makes abslutely no sense.

[RoseBowlMtg]

katuluu states:

 

I'm still trying to figure out how a difference of 4 solo home runs somehow equates to a difference of .071 of SLG. That argument just makes absolutely no sense.

 

For ex: A solo HR is 4.000 slugging

 

A single knocking in two runs is a 1.000 slugging.

 

If each player had the same opportunity. 4 AB's, and runners on 2nd and 3rd one time and no runners all other times. The guy who hit the single produced two runs to one run for the solo guy even though the single hitter's slugging was .250 and the solo HR guy 1.000.

 

End of game stats:

 

Tracy OPS of 1.250

Overbay OPS of .500.

 

This just shows the weakness of looking at one stat imo. Overbay's team won the game 2-1 but his OPS was much worse.

[plowjockey]

Quote:

---

I don't believe in RISP stats at all, I think they are completely meaningless

---

Please don't go that far Ender. A player drives in runs when presented the opportunity (whether he bats lead off, 4th or 8th) has some value. Even if the rbis were all on fluke hits, flares and ground outs, the only way to win a game is to score runs. While I agree that this is a stat that is often granted too much credibility, to discount it as meaningless IMO, is too bold of a statement.

[rluzinski]

I just think runners on is a better gauge with these two.

 

So you think how many AB with an unspecified amount of runners on is more descriptive than showing specific situations? So, Overbay's 11 AB with the bases loaded compared to 5 for Tracy is irrelevant?

 

Again, RBIs are a VERY poor stat to use, with regard gauging the relative offensive contribution of two players.

[RoseBowlMtg]

rlu says:

 

So you think how many AB with an unspecified amount of runners on is more descriptive than showing specific situations? So, Overbay's 11 AB with the bases loaded compared to 5 for Tracy is irrelevant?

 

I just don't think a 4-11 stat vs a 0-5 stat shows as much as 187 AB's vs 183 AB's with the guy hitting .305 with 187 AB's and .240 with 183 AB's.

 

.240 for 183 AB's is 44 hits

.305 for 187 AB's is 57 hits

 

Overbay has 13 more hits and 12 more RBI's but his slugging is 65 points lower.

 

A larger sample is always better and this shows a huge differential in production with runners on which isn't factored into slugging. That's all I am saying.

 

"Again, RBIs are a VERY poor stat to use, with regard gauging the relative offensive contribution of two players."

 

batting ave with runners on is a very good stat imo and in this case it shows who has knocked in more runs while the slugging % would suggest otherwise.

[rluzinski]

I used ESPN.com's splits to calculate total baserunners and baserunner's scored. They don't show you sac fly info but Overbay had 4 and Tracy had 5, so hopefully it's not a huge difference:

 

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a345/rluzinski/overbaychadrbi.gif

 

Overbay had 310 total runners, in camparison to Tracy's 231. Overbay had 167 RISP, compared to Tracy's 108.

 

Tracy scored a larger percentage of both overall runners and runners in scoring position.

 

Looking at just AB with runners on is a very poor way to gauge who had better opportunities to knock in runs. Overbay had more actual runners as well as easier opportunities to knock them in (more RISP). Despite a superior BA with RISP, Overbay's lower SLG allowed Tracy to score a higher percentage of his opportunities.

 

Sorry, unless I made a mistake in my spreadsheet (I certainly could have, so please check it over) I think your conclusions are false.

[BillScottCanRake]

batting ave with runners on is a very good stat imo and in this case it shows who has knocked in more runs while the slugging % would suggest otherwise.

 

Is that the exception or the rule? Or someplace in between?

 

Beyond that, why I appreciate simple stats like OBP, SLG and OPS is just that- they are simple. It's not because they are perfect, and not because they are the end-all-be-all, but as a fan who'd like to know a lot about the players without losing my wife or having to take a stats class, OPS does a great job telling me a lot about a player in not a lot of time.

 

I see this stat-line:

 

290/370/550 and in a few seconds I can see:

 

920 OPS, if the sample isn't small, he's a productive hitter.

 

That's all I want. I don't want to have to spend all sorts of time looking at BA with runners on base, or percentage of runners driven in. I don't have to worry about some dude having a low RBI total because his mates only had a .320 OBP. I don't need to spend all sorts of time trying to figure out how many home runs were solo, 2-run, 3-run or grannys, or how those numbers might change with a better lineup. I can guestimate how that dude might perform on a different team, or how he'll do next year, or three years from now.

 

That's all I want to do. And that's why I like OBP, SLG, and adding them together to get OPS. It gets me where I want to go quickly, and it's "accurate enough" for me.