In the never ending wonder about how the quality of play in MLB has changed over time, different people come up with different hypotheses. In the context of the Hall of Fame, I very strongly opine that the Hall should look for the best players from each era, eliminating the universal ignorance of the quality of play and taking statistical fluctuations into account. That said, OPS+ seems like the answer. However, the answers to these kinds of questions never come that easily. For example, Babe Ruth had a record 206 career OPS+, a supposedly huge number. However, remember that when Ruth played pitchers used to bat for themselves, making the league as a whole much less of a threat to compete with Ruth's mark. If another slugger of Ruth's calibre comes along in a few years, when pitchers never bat for themselves thanks to the universal DH, his OPS+ would be far lower than Ruth's.
The second objection is the relevance of OPS as a statistic in the first place. ON BASE PERCENTAGE AND SLUGGING PERCENTAGE HAVE NO RELATION, AND DO NOT BELONG TOGETHER! I cannot emphasize this point enough. A bases empty single helps a player's OPS way more than a bases loaded walk: (one time on base + one total base / one at bat) vs. (one time on base / one plate appearance). All in all, OPS is a very overrated statistic, and OPS+ was a very impractical idea to begin with.
I will likely include this post in my book as a disclaimer as to why I will not be using these statistics when everybody else does.
Three points.
ReplyDeleteFirst: The stats used for the league average for OPS+ do not include pitchers batting. That's why you'll see the average OPS+ as for old leagues as 94 or something.
Second: OBP and SLG belong together because they are both good indicators of offensive quality, and if you put them together you get an even better idea.
Third: What's the problem with a single helping a player's OPS+ more than a walk? A single gets you on base and advances the runner - a walk only advances the runner if the bases are loaded, which is not common and can be ignored. Not very unfair.
I will agree that OPS+ is not perfect, because it treats SLG and OBP as equal when OBP is more valuable, but that's a very small point.
Sorry if I was too harsh - only trying to disagree.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you were not too harsh.
DeleteIt's good to know that OPS+ does not include pitchers batting. To my knowledge, OPS+ only included 100* (obp/lg obp + slg/lg slg-1) adjusted to park factors.
I do disagree with you on your second point, though. I cannot reconcile OPS or OPS+ with other, simpler statistics (OPS does not win games; the components of OPS do). While OBP and slugging percentage are both important statistics, and I use slash lines very often, they do not belong together in one end-all statistic.
I do admit that I exaggerated on the third point - I was just trying to point out that OPS has two formulas added together, not one formula (such as H/AB), and that these formulas have different divisors (plate appearances vs. at bats).
That's fair, except I still disagree on the second point. If the components of OPS win games, isn't a statistic including both of them handy? Also I really like how it compares it to league average so you have a clearer picture of the player's quality.
Delete