Seeing as this is a FOX blog, I think it's only right to be fair and balanced. As one of the accused (and proudly guilty as charged) stat-geeks on the blogosphere, I must call into question an overused and frankly miscalculated statistic. OPS was the spawn of the "Moneyball stats" used by the Oakland A's before on-base percentage finally became an acceptable everyday stat. When used by the A's, it was new, and admittedly crude.
Taking on-base percentage and simply adding a player's slugging percentage met the A's needs in 2002, when other GMs weren't necessarily on the OBP and SLG trains. OPS has become so matter of factly dropped in conversation by most people involved in baseball, that it has become batting average 2.0. The problem? Batting average is flawed. Not every out made by a player is counted. It has taken a hundred years to get the underutilized EqA (Equivalent average that factors all plate appearances and outs, and translates well to traditional BA) available to the masses - well at least to the masses wishing to visit baseballreference.com, or baseball prospectus.com. Let's not take another one hundred years to get OPS correct.
OPS is calculated by adding OBP and SLG. OBP is simply "times reaching base/plate appearances." Like most baseball stats, it is a percentage expressed in terms of thousandths. Slugging percentage is simply "total bases/at bats." Unlike most baseball stats, SLG is actually measured in terms of four-thousandths. That is to say, the perfect SLG is 4.000 (10 ABs of all HR=40/10=4.0).
So what's the problem? My issue is a bit dorky, and I always thought that someone had been reporting on this. That said, nobody seems to be pointing out the mathematical inaccuracy of the calculation. The implication of the calculation is 300/1000+450/4000 somehow = 750/????. Playing with the variables a little, 350/1000+400/4000 somehow also = 750/???. You can only add fractions with common denominators. When this adjustment is made, it properly provides more weight to OBP.
With this in mind, I will post the top twenty in TrueOPS. Let me know what you think. Do you find OPS useful or overrated?
Chipper .668
Berkman .660
Pujols .641
Ludwick .584
Bradley .575
Burrell .565
Bay .554
Utley .554
Uggla .553
Quentin .549
Aramis .549
Dunn .548
McClouth .546
Rowand .546
Holliday .543
Cust .543
ConorJackson .537
Ad Gonzalez .533
Giambi .532
Soto .532
Here are the rankings using the standard calculation. They range from 1.228 to .940
1. Berkman 2. Chipper 3. Pujols 4. Ludwick 5. Uggla 6. Utley 7. Burrell 8. Bradley 9. McClouth 10. Quentin 11. Bay 12. Dunn 13. Hamilton 14.McCann 15.Rowand 16.Holliday 17. Soto 18. Ad Gonzalez 19. Giambi 20. Aramis
Very interesting stuff, Troup. Is TrueOPS adjusted for park factors, or is it just the raw stats?
I've been looking at OPS as an important stat for a while, but my biggest problem with it is that I'm not sure that OBP and SLG are of equal value. If one is more important than the other simply adding them together doesn't give you a true measure of how valuable a player is.
It's good to see guys like Nate McLouth, Geovany Soto and Carlos Quentin having breakout years and occupying spots in the Top 20.
Funny thing is mikers, you should be lauding me right now for questioning the accuracy and usefulness of a commonly quoted stat. But I get the feeling that as soon as you see a character that isn't a letter or those marks at the ends of sentences, you automatically go into shut down mode.
Barry Bonds had an alright time of it in SF. And oh by the way, dude is considered a statistical demi-god. So the answer to your question is yes, yes they would have those stats.
Pray tell, what do you know? Because I quoted a number, or used something beyond anecdotal "evidence", I know nothing? If you're suggesting that all of this has no place in determining if A>B or vice-versa, then you are off your rocker. You are implying that a)You have seen and can remember every at bat of the season, and therefore have no need to be told a players BA (OBP, SLG, etc) or b)you can remember back to last night, and are willing to let the events of last night dictate your perception about everything you know. Small sample sizes can lead to bad decisions. It gets Dmitri Young $5 million of Ted Lerner's money. Dmitri is a platoon first baseman for a team called the Nationals, which are owned by lerner. Naturally, as I know nothing about the game, I hope I didn't just totally make that up.
And you still have yet to answer my very valid question of why you are so up in arms over this post, when it is titled THE OPS FOLLY. Do you have an answer for that, or are you just a mere troll whose pathetic existence is lived by making cryptic juvenile comments about other people's thoughts?
You come around this place and call people sheep, but I ask, have you once ever posted an original thought? Have you once held your ideas up for scrutiny?
