Phight On! wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

Phight On! wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:I would think getting on 40 extra times would be pretty helpful esp with a team with suspect pitching.

Sure it would be. But just how useful considering he will likely bat 7th? 5 runs? 10 runs? 1 run?

Can you honestly say you would notice if he got on base (walk or hit) 1 more time every 4 games?

The Phillies offense would. This is why "watching the game" means nothing. It is at least 1 extra AB in those games for another (better player) and maybe more depending on their OBP. It also puts more runners on base to be driven in. 40 extra times is extremely beneficial without even having to run it through the old run producer.

That's a good point that I thought of after I made that post. Wasn't it in Moneyball where they mention something like by watching the games over the course of a season you would never be able to tell the difference between a .250 hitter or a .275 hitter (or something like that)?

I think my point still stands. Do you think we often look past a player's strengths because of a bad OBP?

I don't think so. OB% is still undervalued by the average fan. It's the same when people rattle off a player's OPS. OPS undervalues OB%. 1 point of OB% is worth something like 3-4 points of Slugging%. It really is the single most important offensive statistic and it's value can't be overlooked

Phight On! wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

Phight On! wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:I would think getting on 40 extra times would be pretty helpful esp with a team with suspect pitching.

Sure it would be. But just how useful considering he will likely bat 7th? 5 runs? 10 runs? 1 run?

Can you honestly say you would notice if he got on base (walk or hit) 1 more time every 4 games?

The Phillies offense would. This is why "watching the game" means nothing. It is at least 1 extra AB in those games for another (better player) and maybe more depending on their OBP. It also puts more runners on base to be driven in. 40 extra times is extremely beneficial without even having to run it through the old run producer.

That's a good point that I thought of after I made that post. Wasn't it in Moneyball where they mention something like by watching the games over the course of a season you would never be able to tell the difference between a .250 hitter or a .275 hitter (or something like that)?

I think my point still stands. Do you think we often look past a player's strengths because of a bad OBP?

I think that if we never saw any numbers, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a .315 and a .250 hitter. The power you'd remember, but probably not the hits.

Feliz does have strengths. He is a good defended with decent power for a guy who doesn't get on base much. The problem is that they can reduce those all to a common denominator and figure out his relative value. Is it 100% accurate? No, and nobody is claiming it to be. I think we often see that readers have more faith in the numbers than the guys who put them out actually do. But stuff isn't being overlooked. It is being put on the same plane and added up. Low OBP kills a significant part of a player's value. You need to have some pretty darn good other abilities to make up for it.

The guy just really don't hit too good except for the occassional oops i got all of that one type swing

Grotewold wrote:

Phight On! wrote:I wonder if we focus too much on OBP and look past a players strengths (in this specific example defense and above average pop... especially now that he is playing half his games at CBP) because of a bad OBP.

Particularly for a team with an otherwise excellent OBP and a glaring hole at 3B

His pop of course is found in his slg, which is declining. He's not as good a hitter as Chris Coste.

Good points. Just thought I would throw it out there because it didn't seem that big of a difference but I understand how it affects the rest of the lineup.

Paul- Chris Coste (.311 OBP last year) probably isn't much better of a hitter than Feliz and defensively it's not even close. I wouldn't be all that surprised to see Pete LaForest beat Coste out for the job during spring training.

Phight On! wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:I would think getting on 40 extra times would be pretty helpful esp with a team with suspect pitching.

Sure it would be. But just how useful considering he will likely bat 7th? 5 runs? 10 runs? 1 run?

Can you honestly say you would notice if he got on base (walk or hit) 1 more time every 4 games?

40 times more on base also gives us an extra 1.5 games worth of outs. 40 baserunners is likely about 15 runs, and the extra game and a half of PA is likely about 8 more.

So, about 23 runs. Or, toward the high end of estimated defensive value.

phuturephillies wrote:I don't think so. OB% is still undervalued by the average fan. It's the same when people rattle off a player's OPS. OPS undervalues OB%. 1 point of OB% is worth something like 3-4 points of Slugging%. It really is the single most important offensive statistic and it's value can't be overlooked

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but what do you base this on? I've read studies where SLG correlates to run scoring better than OBP.

bleh wrote:

phuturephillies wrote:I don't think so. OB% is still undervalued by the average fan. It's the same when people rattle off a player's OPS. OPS undervalues OB%. 1 point of OB% is worth something like 3-4 points of Slugging%. It really is the single most important offensive statistic and it's value can't be overlooked

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but what do you base this on? I've read studies where SLG correlates to run scoring better than OBP.

Then you must have read factually incorrect articles.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1556199.html

Before I make a crude attempt at addressing these issues, here's the passage in question ...

... OPS was the simple addition of on-base and slugging percentages. Crude as it was, it was a much better indicator than any other offensive statistic of the number of runs a team would score. Simply adding the two statistics together, however, implied that they were of equal importance. If the goal was to raise a team's OPS, an extra percentage point of on-base was as good as an extra percentage point of slugging.

Before his thought experiment Paul (DePodesta) had felt uneasy with this crude assumption; now he saw that the assumption was absurd. An extra point of on-base percentage was clearly more valuable than an extra point of slugging percentage -- but by how much? He proceeded to tinker with his own version of Bill James's "Runs Created" formula. When he was finished, he had a model for predicting run production that was more accurate than any he knew of. In his model an extra point of on-base percentage was worth three times an extra point of slugging percentage.

It's easy to misinterpret these figures. Nobody is saying that a .200 on-base percentage is just as good as a .600 slugging percentage. It's about extra points ... and it's really not so surprising, especially if you've been following this discussion for a while. Because a few years ago, and with the help of many readers, I came to the conclusion that while OPS ain't bad, a better measure would be the sum of slugging percentage and OBP*1.4 (or thereabouts). Now, I think DePodesta would argue that the multiple should be even higher than 1.4, but the point is that OBP has to be weighted significantly higher than slugging percentage, if those are the two stats we're going to work with.

Phight On! wrote:I think my point still stands. Do you think we often look past a player's strengths because of a bad OBP?

That depends on whether we just look at OBP (or OPS, or any other single indicator) and ignore whatever other evidence is available to us.

There are a lot of guys here that see OBP or OPS as a very useful measure, but not the whole answer. Guys who look for whatever data they can find, and evaluate what they find, overall.

But there are fans who have latched onto OPS much the way they used to latch on to BA-HR-RBI. They treat OPS (or OBP) as if it and it alone can tell them everything they need to know about a player. And while OPS is a better indicator than Triple Crown stats, if you treat it that way you get a very limited, and often not very useful, understanding of what a player can actually do. Just looking at OPS isn't a good substitute for looking at all the evidence and actually thinking about it.

So yeah, there's gonna be times when people who just look at OBP, or OPS miss the big picture. I'm not sure that's the case with Feliz, but maybe it is, to some extent. Depends on how much you value defense, and to some extent how much you're willing to sacrifice a part of James' offensive equation (team OBP x team SLG is roughly proportional to team runs) in a given player, in order to get the balance of OBP and SLG you need on a team basis to be productive.

phuturephillies wrote:I don't think so. OB% is still undervalued by the average fan. It's the same when people rattle off a player's OPS. OPS undervalues OB%. 1 point of OB% is worth something like 3-4 points of Slugging%. It really is the single most important offensive statistic and it's value can't be overlooked

This is only partially true. I looked into the relationship to obp and slg a few years ago and posted some numbers on pp.com that nobody really debated, so, I am not sure if they were right or wrong. Basically, the value of obp to slg is completely dependent on the team average. The high the team average is in OBP, the less valuable SLG is, and the lower the league avergae in OBP the more valuable SLG is. I think I figured out that at around team average .210 OBP is where 1 point in OBP = 1 point in SLG.

Conceptually, this makes sense. Take the extremes. Let's say your team has an average OBP of .900. So, 9 out of every 10 hitters reach base. How valuable is a homerun or a double in that offensive climate? Not very since it is likely the next 3 guys will reach base anyway. Conversely, let's say your team has an OBP of .100. The value of slugging is much greater than in today's climate since you aren't likely to score many runs and a homerun assures you of a run. I think I lost the spreadsheet and I am not sure if my numbers were 100% accurate, but it makes sense.

logos wrote:But there are fans who have latched onto OPS much the way they used to latch on to BA-HR-RBI. They treat OPS (or OBP) as if it and it alone can tell them everything they need to know about a player. And while OPS is a better indicator than Triple Crown stats, if you treat it that way you get a very limited, and often not very useful, understanding of what a player can actually do. Just looking at OPS isn't a good substitute for looking at all the evidence and actually thinking about it.

Please show me any sort of evidence of this. This sounds like what people used to say to counter Newton and he'd roll his eyes because they gave nothing but subjective references and no real legitimate analysis. I am not saying OPS is the king, since there are better stats. But your issue appears with the concept of stats rather than the specific one.

Disco Stu wrote:

logos wrote:But there are fans who have latched onto OPS much the way they used to latch on to BA-HR-RBI. They treat OPS (or OBP) as if it and it alone can tell them everything they need to know about a player. And while OPS is a better indicator than Triple Crown stats, if you treat it that way you get a very limited, and often not very useful, understanding of what a player can actually do. Just looking at OPS isn't a good substitute for looking at all the evidence and actually thinking about it.

Please show me any sort of evidence of this. This sounds like what people used to say to counter Newton and he'd roll his eyes because they gave nothing but subjective references and no real legitimate analysis. I am not saying OPS is the king, since there are better stats. But your issue appears with the concept of stats rather than the specific one.

No. My issue is with the concept that a single stat - any single stat - is good enough all by itself. My issue is with fans who have no idea what OPS really is, who don't begin to understand why somebody might argue that OPS "undervalues OBP" (which it does), and why that might matter. And my issue, yes, is with fans who think that just looking at offensive stats and ignoring other things (defensive statistics, age, durability, context (e.g., platoon splits), etc.) is adequate.

It would be a fallacious leap on your part to assume, because I suggested OPS isn't good enough on its own, that I had reference to "grit" as the missing component. There are other possibilities?

From doing some quick research on the relation, the nearest formula I found (backed by a sabr.org-related research project) was that the most accurate way of looking at OPS is OBP + SLG + (OBP - .340). The .340 number comes from what goes for roughly the league average in recent years. (Note: The study was done in 2004.)

But the other factor found in the study is that the relative importance of OBP compared to SLG changes depending on the player's spot in the lineup. So there's the team concept playing a factor. Common sense says that a high OBP is more valuable if it comes in front of a good slugger.

Barry Jive wrote:Common sense says that a high OBP is more valuable if it comes in front of a good slugger.

EATON.

logos wrote:No. My issue is with the concept that a single stat - any single stat - is good enough all by itself.

Give me a degree of accuracy here. Seriously. What if I told you that VORP (and I am not saying it is, but what if I just told you) gave you 93% of what you need to know about a player's abilities on the field. Thus, 7% of his abililites may not be in his VORP value. Is that enough for you to make a good decision on him based on his numbers? Seriously, I want to know if you think that would be an ok situation.

Disco Stu wrote:

logos wrote:No. My issue is with the concept that a single stat - any single stat - is good enough all by itself.

Give me a degree of accuracy here. Seriously. What if I told you that VORP (and I am not saying it is, but what if I just told you) gave you 93% of what you need to know about a player's abilities on the field. Thus, 7% of his abililites may not be in his VORP value. Is that enough for you to make a good decision on him based on his numbers? Seriously, I want to know if you think that would be an ok situation.

You've completely missed, or chosen to ignore, the point, as usual.

The point was that you don't throw out additional information because you have the "magic" statistic. More information is better than less, etc.

There are people who look at OPS and think they're done, even if there's other information staring them in the face. There are people who believe that OPS is "good" information, and various other things are "bad" - not less useful, "bad."

But, to humor you... If a given measure discounts 5% of the available information about a player, should I make decisions based on the 95% that measure provides? Even if the other 5% of information is available to me? I would be stupid to ignore that five percent; if I have two players who are approximately equal according to the "magic 95" measure, that five percent suddenly becomes rather interesting, dontcha think?

And yeah, since I'm sure you're trying to figure out how to get me to say it, I do think that there are people on this board who get lazy, and just look at a random player's OPS, and don't bother to look at the other information that's out there, that could add subtlety to their analysis. That's a damn sight better than the people in some other places, who really do seem to believe that BA-HR-RBI tell you all you need to know, but it is what it is. It's easy to get caught up in a nice catchall stat like OPS (or VORP or WAR, etc.), which is very useful much of the time, and forget that it's not the be-all, end-all, and that some of the time, you really do need to get down into the weeds.

Is this relevant to Pedro Feliz? I don't know that it is. But consider, if you have to choose between a seven-hole hitter with Feliz' profile (.290/.430/.720) and, say, Greg Dobbs after the All-Star break in 2007 (.340/.365/.705), which is better? Yeah, it would be nice to have the .350/.500/.850 guy hitting seventh, but what if he's, like, not available? Fixating on OBP or OPS isn't going to answer this question for you.

logos wrote:You've completely missed, or chosen to ignore, the point, as usual.

Which one is usual? Missing or ignoring?

The point was that you don't throw out additional information because you have the "magic" statistic. More information is better than less, etc.

You could know what a player's favorite color is, does it matter? I told you that you could have 93% of all the information you need to determine how good a player is. More information is going to fill in that last 7%. I think you missed what I am saying simply because you can't comprehend it. Nobody is saying more information isn't good. It is how useful that information is.

There are people who look at OPS and think they're done, even if there's other information staring them in the face. There are people who believe that OPS is "good" information, and various other things are "bad" - not less useful, "bad."

I don't care what "people" think. I care about the truth. OPS is a good statistic but it it isn't the best. It is an offense only stat that doesn't include baserunning. There are other statistics that incorporate that. More encompassing > less encompassing.

But, to humor you... If a given measure discounts 5% of the available information about a player, should I make decisions based on the 95% that measure provides? Even if the other 5% of information is available to me? I would be stupid to ignore that five percent; if I have two players who are approximately equal according to the "magic 95" measure, that five percent suddenly becomes rather interesting, dontcha think?

If you can figure out what that 5% is, then sure. But it is almost indeterminable. Basically, it is saying that a statistic is 100% all encompassing, but has a 7% rate of error. If that other 7 (or 5) percent could be determined, it would be incorporated into the statistic.

And yeah, since I'm sure you're trying to figure out how to get me to say it, I do think that there are people on this board who get lazy, and just look at a random player's OPS, and don't bother to look at the other information that's out there, that could add subtlety to their analysis.

I am not trying to get you to say anything other than the truth. You obviously wanted to say that and you took your shot and I am sure it made you happy. You harp on OPS and nobody here who has a clue about statistics claims OPS to be more than what it is, a rough, but good estimate. It correlates very well to runs scored and while not perfect, it is a very good measure. You could add subtlety, but do you understand how little that really means. It's like a ref spotting the football and then a player showing that a spec of dirt hit one centimeter lower on his elbow thus, the spotting is 1 cm short. The spot is a good but rough estimate and the other information adds very little if anything to it.

That's a damn sight better than the people in some other places, who really do seem to believe that BA-HR-RBI tell you all you need to know, but it is what it is. It's easy to get caught up in a nice catchall stat like OPS (or VORP or WAR, etc.), which is very useful much of the time, and forget that it's not the be-all, end-all, and that some of the time, you really do need to get down into the weeds.

I think you mean WARP, but please explain to me what weeds exist that you need to get down into. What other information will help you project a player that isn't involved? I want to know something that you know that all these "statheads" are missing. Please, enlighten me.

Is this relevant to Pedro Feliz? I don't know that it is. But consider, if you have to choose between a seven-hole hitter with Feliz' profile (.290/.430/.720) and, say, Greg Dobbs after the All-Star break in 2007 (.340/.365/.705), which is better? Yeah, it would be nice to have the .350/.500/.850 guy hitting seventh, but what if he's, like, not available? Fixating on OBP or OPS isn't going to answer this question for you.

You are missing the entire premise here. It is projecting what they are likely to do. The goal is to take the past and use it to figure out what numbers they will likely put up next year. How else are you to do it if you don't focus on the numbers. You have to figure out the opportunity cost. You had Greg Dobbs already here and paid for, and you are basically bringing in the offensive equivalent or less for 5+ mil a year. I am not saying that Feliz isn't an upgrade. I think he may have a better WARP than Dobbs/Helms next year (even slightly). But at what cost? The marginal gain is likely to be pretty small for a high cost.

logos wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

logos wrote:No. My issue is with the concept that a single stat - any single stat - is good enough all by itself.

Give me a degree of accuracy here. Seriously. What if I told you that VORP (and I am not saying it is, but what if I just told you) gave you 93% of what you need to know about a player's abilities on the field. Thus, 7% of his abililites may not be in his VORP value. Is that enough for you to make a good decision on him based on his numbers? Seriously, I want to know if you think that would be an ok situation.

You've completely missed, or chosen to ignore, the point, as usual.

The point was that you don't throw out additional information because you have the "magic" statistic. More information is better than less, etc.

That's not true. Information overload makes analysis impossible. Statistics are about summarizing data so it can be used. You want to eliminate as much "noise" as you can.