Slugging % is the most overrated offensive stat?

[JoeH33]

I was just checking out espn.com and they have a sportsnation poll asking what the most overrated offesive stat is: BA, OBP, HR, RBI, or SLG. I chose BA, but assumed RBI would be chosen by a overwhelming amount. But when I saw the results about 44% chose SLG%. Is America insane?

[splitterpfj]

America is, I'll bet a lot of those same people would vote OPS the most important stat, without realizing the contradiction.

[brettac1]

RBI have got to be #1, followed by BA.

[dadofandrew]

If the BBTN guys don't get it, it's tough to expect the casual fan to.

 

As I say every time I see it, ESPN needs a FOX News like competitor to shake things up. ESPN is just like CNN used to be, full of themselves and rather than reporting the news, go around making it up (50 States in 50 Days!).

[huntsvillefan]

I don't know about America, but it says a lot about people who do the espn poll.

The guys on PTI (which I like) both think that RBI is the most important stat, so maybe it also says a lot about how sports journalists present things.

[MadScientist]

If OPS is the most significant offensive stat, BA should be considered very important as it is a factor in both OBP and SLG. RBI has to be the most overrated as it is only one of those stats listed that is a team stat rather than an individual stat.

[rluzinski]

Remember, the question isn't what's the least important stat, but the most overrated. Since most people don't even know what SLG is, they picked it. My order of most overated from their list:

 

1. RBI

2. BA

3. HR

 

America is, I'll bet a lot of those same people would vote OPS the most important stat, without realizing the contradiction.

 

Most people don't know what OPS is either. It would have been #1 if it had been on the list.

[brettac1]

BA should be considered very important as it is a factor in both OBP and SLG.

 

But what does it tell you that the others don't? Both OBP and SLG are more telling/important than AVG, since they expound on it - even if they aren't added to make OPS.

[nsimps]

Quote:

---

But what does it tell you that the others don't? Both OBP and SLG are more telling/important than AVG, since they expound on it - even if they aren't added to make OPS

---

 

Average is important because it tells you how often the OBP is a result of a hit. I think SLG would be better understood if it was called something like bases per plate appearance or something that sheds a little more light on what it is.

[brettac1]

Average is important because it tells you how often the OBP is a result of a hit.

 

It still only tells you how often a player reached first base with a hit, which really is irrelevant. All that matters is that he got there and didn't make an out.

[nsimps]

Quote:

---

It still only tells you how often a player reached first base with a hit, which really is irrelevant. All that matters is that he got there and didn't make an out.

---

 

Unless there's a runner/runners on base. If someone comes to the plate with runners on base, I'd like to know the percentage of time he has hit safely (along with the SLG to know how likely they are to hit a XBH)

[jackalope02ca]

I just laugh when I see guys saying RBI's are a team stat. I see where you get the idea as it's up to teammates to get on base but it is a very individual stat.

 

RBI and BA are both very important stats but sometime's you just need to throw stats out the window. Regardless of who's on base when you come up to bat some guys have the ability to hit with runners in scoring positon and some can't. A lot of it is mental.

 

Also one of the most important stats which has become forgotten for the most part is the ability to bunt or sacrifice a guy over.

[shaqkobefan]

I would have to disagree with all of you and go with the guys on PTI. There is a huge psychological part of the game and if a player can come up big in key situations, OPS doesn't measure any of that. Since the object of baseball is to score more runs than the other team, the players who get runs should be considered among the best. If you're measuring the overall talent of a player, then OPS is great. But if you want to see who is clutch, RBI is the best stat to measure that. Is Derek Jeter known for having a great OPS in his career? I'm sure it's good, but he's known for coming up big in key situations and that is why he is among the best in the game in the last decade. Going to basketball, there are many players who score 20 points a game, but they aren't reliable in teh 4th quarter. Who do you want? I'll take the 4th quarter clutch player in Kobe Bryant over the Allen Iverson who scores 30 a game but has hit less than 5 buzzer beaters for a win in his career. The overall point is that there are intangible parts to the game that are more important, and RBI's is a great indicator of this and should be considered the most important stat.

[brewers19]

I don't really have anything to say, except that I'll just mention that I pretty much disagree with everything you said.

[rluzinski]

Regardless of who's on base when you come up to bat some guys have the ability to hit with runners in scoring positon and some can't.

 

Could you please point out the guys you think have the ability and don't?

 

Also, a walk is worth about 2/3rds of a base hit using linear weights. Sounds about right to me. You don't make an out and get on base, but you don't move any runners over.

[thumperden]

I'm just glad we're not talking about the pros and cons of the strikeout again...sheesh!!! That thread was a prime candidate for a stop the insanity moment!

 

Or, did I just open pandora's box again...if I did, I apologize in advance.

 

Isn't it interesting rluzinski, that a walk and a stolen base nearly add up to the equivalent value of a single, using linear weights? Even though the guy is in scoring position, it still has near the same value...I'm baffled to a point.

[NlGHTWlNG]

Here's my stance on this: ESPN, FOX Sports, etc. all have the ability to make their own news, and report what they think is important. The American public only knows as much as they want to know. Let's say you are an average fan who goes to games and follows the majors through TV, because you only have limited access to the internets. You see ESPN and Fox show the prototypical BA/HR/RBI spread before every AB, and judge players based on those stats. For years you wouldn't know the least bit about OPS and would only have limited access to OBP and SLG through the paper and the occasional TV graphic.

 

It takes a long time to change the way people think, and an even longer time to change, when common media outlets don't push the envelope, and change their own thinking. I do give Daron some "props" for atleast trying to get OPS out their. He and Gammons are the only people that I ever hear saying anything about it.

[bjamesw22]

Isn't it interesting rluzinski, that a walk and a stolen base nearly add up to the equivalent value of a single, using linear weights? Even though the guy is in scoring position, it still has near the same value...I'm baffled to a point.

 

Just goes to show you that numbers don't tell you everything. There isn't one single hitting stat out there in baseball that tells you everything.

[brettac1]

Of course there isn't, but there are some (OBP, SLG, OPS) that tell you more than others (AVG).

[jackalope02ca]

Stats are just a tool.

 

They don't make or break a player. Stats should be used as a guideline only. They are just a small part of an overall player. An important part but just a part. The guy's mental makeup is another very important part.

 

That's why stats aside I would be very disappointed if the Brewers got AJ Burnett. Not my idea of a mentally stable guy. Carlos Lee on the otherhand is a stud.

 

I kind of wonder about Jenkins mental makeup. Maybe that's why he can never put it all together and become a star. He has the tools but is lacking something.

[brettac1]

But, how do you prove these things? You are trying to psychoanalyze from a very far distance, and no real understanding of the situation. Burnett seems like a pretty stable guy to me - solid K rate, great stuff, groundball pitcher, etc. Give me things that actually win baseball games, and are proven to do so, over something that could possibly be completely untrue, like your perception of a player's "makeup".

[rluzinski]

What is "makeup" anyway? The first step in converting the masses would be actually defining what it is and what it gives you.

[rluzinski]

Isn't it interesting rluzinski, that a walk and a stolen base nearly add up to the equivalent value of a single, using linear weights? Even though the guy is in scoring position, it still has near the same value...I'm baffled to a point.

 

It makes complete sense. While a walk and a stolen base get's a guy to 2B, a single has the added benefit of moving runners along. A walk can only do that if a runner is at 1b when the walk occurs. Again, every event in baseball can be given an "average" value, with the values broken up as:

 

1. The value of NOT making an out

2. The value of getting on base.

3. The value of moving runners (and hopefully scoring them).

 

Just goes to show you that numbers don't tell you everything. There isn't one single hitting stat out there in baseball that tells you everything.

 

First, I can't see how thumperden not seeing a benefit of a single over a walk "goes to show" anything. Second, no one ever said linear weights tells you everything. Mathematical models are limited by nature. Last, do you actually know ANYTHING about linear weights? I bet I know the answer.

[bjamesw22]

But, how do you prove these things? You are trying to psychoanalyze from a very far distance, and no real understanding of the situation. Burnett seems like a pretty stable guy to me - solid K rate, great stuff, groundball pitcher, etc. Give me things that actually win baseball games, and are proven to do so, over something that could possibly be completely untrue, like your perception of a player's "makeup".

 

Stats are a guideline. It is hard if not impossible to measure a players mental toughness, his intangibles like leadership, etc. But just because you can't measure them doesn't mean that they aren't important or don't have any effect on the game.

[rluzinski]

Stats are a guideline

 

If by guideline you mean "describes about 95% of the game" than I agree http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

OBP and SLG doesn't take into acount a million other variables like, steals, grittiness, leadership, but still gets darn close in predicting runs scored. Pretty compelling to me.

 

Everyone wants to romanticize sports, it makes it alot more interesting afterall. baseball isn't an emotional sport , however. Trying harder doesn't make a pitcher throw more acurately nor does it allow a batter to hit a fast ball easier. It's not a sport, like football, where a player needs to constently battle exhaustion either.

 

Pretty much throw the ball, catch the ball, hit the ball.