OPS is a pretty lame stat. It definately favors power hitters because SLG % are generally way higher than OB %.

TSwift, while I agree with you to some degree I have to point out a flaw in your logic. You say three teams have Sabermetrics GM's and none of them have won the World Series. True enough. However, that doesn't show that they're not actually better at evaluating talent than the other teams. There are 30 big league teams, so there is, in theory, a 1/10 chance every year that a team run by a Sabermetric GM will win the World Series. So, the fact that they haven't won doesn't prove anything at all. It could have happened just by chance.

 

OPS is a pretty lame stat. It definately favors power hitters because SLG % are generally way higher than OB %.

 

 

OPS is a good stat for the big boppers like the Miggys, Mannys, and Pujols of the world. OBP is more important for the Louies and JPs of the world. It's all about using the particular statistic intelligently.

Bill James does work for the Red Sox.

TSwift, while I agree with you to some degree I have to point out a flaw in your logic. You say three teams have Sabermetrics GM's and none of them have won the World Series. True enough. However, that doesn't show that they're not actually better at evaluating talent than the other teams. There are 30 big league teams, so there is, in theory, a 1/10 chance every year that a team run by a Sabermetric GM will win the World Series. So, the fact that they haven't won doesn't prove anything at all. It could have happened just by chance.

 

 

I'm surprised you didn't attack a bigger flaw in my logic, that rarely does 19 games in October determine who is a better team than the course of a 162 game schedule. That would embody the counter argument of a true stat head.

 

Just to be fair, since I realized it after you posted.

 

However, still, Beane has been the only one to be successful and even then he's yet to win a division series, accumulate the best record in baseball or win with the team that he's put together for himself after winning because most will say that Zito, Giambi, Tejada and Mulder were no-brainers.

 

Bill James does work for the Red Sox.

 

 

And John Henry has more money than God, so excuse me if I think that the latter is more likely the cause for their recent success.

I saw that flaw as well, but I didn't think it was really that important. Getting to the playoffs is more relevant to this question precisely because the outcome of the playoffs are so random and the season is much less random. It's easier to separate the elite teams (playoff teams) from the rest of the league than it is the best team in baseball (WS champion) from the elite teams. Statistically speaking, the teams that make the playoffs are more similar to each other in terms of talent and performance. That explains the random playoff outcomes we often see.

Back to OPS for a second.........Rich Aurilia had a higher OPS than Luis Castillo in 2005.....so who's the better hitter? I think Castillo is, but the numbers say Aurilia is because he has more power.

 

That's why I think OPS is lame.

Back to OPS for a second.........Rich Aurilia had a higher OPS than Luis Castillo in 2005.....so who's the better hitter? I think Castillo is, but the numbers say Aurilia is because he has more power.

 

That's why I think OPS is lame.

 

 

YOU'VE SEEN THE LIGHT!!!!!

TSwift, while I agree with you to some degree I have to point out a flaw in your logic. You say three teams have Sabermetrics GM's and none of them have won the World Series. True enough. However, that doesn't show that they're not actually better at evaluating talent than the other teams. There are 30 big league teams, so there is, in theory, a 1/10 chance every year that a team run by a Sabermetric GM will win the World Series. So, the fact that they haven't won doesn't prove anything at all. It could have happened just by chance.

 

 

OPS is a pretty lame stat. It definately favors power hitters because SLG % are generally way higher than OB %.

 

 

OPS is a good stat for the big boppers like the Miggys, Mannys, and Pujols of the world. OBP is more important for the Louies and JPs of the world. It's all about using the particular statistic intelligently.

Can't have it both ways.....either it's a good way to evaluate all hitters or it isn't.

That's an absurd thing to say.

 

What do you want out of big poppers? Homeruns, doubles, and a high average. OPS is a great measurement for that. Of course, you also want to look at other numbers, such as average with RISP, etc.

 

What do you want out of a top of the order guy? A high OBP and good baserunning. OPS doesn't measure that so well.

TSwift, while I agree with you to some degree I have to point out a flaw in your logic. You say three teams have Sabermetrics GM's and none of them have won the World Series. True enough. However, that doesn't show that they're not actually better at evaluating talent than the other teams. There are 30 big league teams, so there is, in theory, a 1/10 chance every year that a team run by a Sabermetric GM will win the World Series. So, the fact that they haven't won doesn't prove anything at all. It could have happened just by chance.

 

 

OPS is a pretty lame stat. It definately favors power hitters because SLG % are generally way higher than OB %.

 

 

OPS is a good stat for the big boppers like the Miggys, Mannys, and Pujols of the world. OBP is more important for the Louies and JPs of the world. It's all about using the particular statistic intelligently.

Can't have it both ways.....either it's a good way to evaluate all hitters or it isn't.

 

Now that's closed minded.

 

There's no one amazing way to evaluate anything. You can't compare a sports-car to a truck, a commercial airliner to a leer jet, an offensive lineman to a quarter-back, etc.

 

OPS is fantastic for evaluating a middle of the lineup hitter.

 

OBP is fantastic for evaluating a top of the lineup hitter.

 

That crazy "runs created" stat or whatever it's called is pretty fun for evaluating the top half of your lineup.

 

There is, at least not to my knowledge, one end-all-be-all statistical evaluation of a player, be it in baseball or any sport. The lack of a tangible "measuring stick" in any sport is what makes the games fun and debates like this possible. If you could tangibly define value, the game wouldn't even need to be played.

The right use of statistical tools will allow the evaluator to have a more nuanced view of a hitter's true production. You have to understand what a player's role is.

 

Exactly, TSwift.

Back to OPS for a second.........Rich Aurilia had a higher OPS than Luis Castillo in 2005.....so who's the better hitter? I think Castillo is, but the numbers say Aurilia is because he has more power.

 

That's why I think OPS is lame.

 

 

Meh, that's largely because straight OPS doesn't adjust for things like park effects, and Aurilia played in a bandbox which inflated his slugging %. Looking at simple and/or non-adjusted stats usually does give you misleading results, like saying 2005 Scott Podsednik was more valuable at the plate than 2005 Andruw Jones because Podsednik hit .290 while Jones hit .263.

 

If you look at the right stats (which are usually, among other things, adjusted for opponent, park effects, etc) they're extremely valuable tools to predict future performance.

TSwift, while I agree with you to some degree I have to point out a flaw in your logic. You say three teams have Sabermetrics GM's and none of them have won the World Series. True enough. However, that doesn't show that they're not actually better at evaluating talent than the other teams. There are 30 big league teams, so there is, in theory, a 1/10 chance every year that a team run by a Sabermetric GM will win the World Series. So, the fact that they haven't won doesn't prove anything at all. It could have happened just by chance.

 

 

I'm surprised you didn't attack a bigger flaw in my logic, that rarely does 19 games in October determine who is a better team than the course of a 162 game schedule. That would embody the counter argument of a true stat head.

 

Just to be fair, since I realized it after you posted.

 

However, still, Beane has been the only one to be successful and even then he's yet to win a division series, accumulate the best record in baseball or win with the team that he's put together for himself after winning because most will say that Zito, Giambi, Tejada and Mulder were no-brainers.

 

Bill James does work for the Red Sox.

 

 

And John Henry has more money than God, so excuse me if I think that the latter is more likely the cause for their recent success.

 

werent most if not all of them there before beane took over?

TSwift, while I agree with you to some degree I have to point out a flaw in your logic. You say three teams have Sabermetrics GM's and none of them have won the World Series. True enough. However, that doesn't show that they're not actually better at evaluating talent than the other teams. There are 30 big league teams, so there is, in theory, a 1/10 chance every year that a team run by a Sabermetric GM will win the World Series. So, the fact that they haven't won doesn't prove anything at all. It could have happened just by chance.

 

 

I'm surprised you didn't attack a bigger flaw in my logic, that rarely does 19 games in October determine who is a better team than the course of a 162 game schedule. That would embody the counter argument of a true stat head.

 

Just to be fair, since I realized it after you posted.

 

However, still, Beane has been the only one to be successful and even then he's yet to win a division series, accumulate the best record in baseball or win with the team that he's put together for himself after winning because most will say that Zito, Giambi, Tejada and Mulder were no-brainers.

 

Bill James does work for the Red Sox.

 

 

And John Henry has more money than God, so excuse me if I think that the latter is more likely the cause for their recent success.

 

werent most if not all of them there before beane took over?

 

Either way, doesn't really undermine what I was trying to prove, if anything, it just strengthens my original post.

 

I'm pretty sure Giambi was there, and Tejada likely was there, but I'm almost positive Zito was a Beane pick (taking him over Sheets) same with Mulder. Hudson was a Beane pick in a late round.

Does anybody know the progress of the players from the famous "Moneyball" draft? Save for Nick Swisher, of course, which both scouts and sabrs agreed was the truth.

Does anybody know the progress of the players from the famous "Moneyball" draft? Save for Nick Swisher, of course, which both scouts and sabrs agreed was the truth.

 

 

And I quote from BA's prospect hand-book (page 321):

 

2002: The famed "Moneyball" draft featured seven first round picks: two successes (OF Nick Swisher, RHP Joe Blanton) a marginal big leaguer (3B Mark Teahen, traded to the Royals) a fringe prospect (C Jeremy Brown) and three failures (3B/SS John McCurdy, RHP's Ben Fritz and Steve Obenchain).

Does anybody know the progress of the players from the famous "Moneyball" draft? Save for Nick Swisher, of course, which both scouts and sabrs agreed was the truth.

 

 

Joe Blanton is tearing up, Jeff Francis is showing his potential, Russ Adams and Khalil Greene are two of the better young SS in baseball, Mark Teahen has struggled but has potential in KC, John Baker will be good when he cracks the bigs, Swisher is going to be really good. I guess right now, it seems 7 of the "big 20" from that one draft have panned out pretty good. Take that for whatever you think it's worth.

 

You're putting way too much weight into OPS.

 

Maybe I'm a dense old-school baseball guy, but delving into sabermetrics to the extent that it is the only measure of a player just makes me shake my head.

 

OPS is an interesting evaluation method, and sabermetrics can be fun, but when's the last time you saw a team that was a saber champ celebrating in October? Last I checked, the three disciples of Bill James (Beane, DePodesta, Riccardi) have exactly 0 division series wins between them, one's out of a job, and only Beane has won a division title (and he really hasn't had the same kind of success since his true "moneyball" took over and Giambi, Tejada, Zito and Mulder were shown the door).

 

I'm pretty sure that the Marlins in 2003, White Sox in 2005, Angels in 2002 and D'Back in 2001 weren't a sabertrician's (or whatever the hell they're called) dream. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the '04 Red Sox and the Yankees teams but they paid through the teeth for their offensive production, and more times than not high end offense is going to give you high end OPS production, so they were hardly a world beater assembled on a budget, as was the original intent of mathematicizing the game.

 

I know I'm not alone (right Marlins2003 ) in saying that I think this saber stuff is getting way out of hand, especially when I feel (note: OPINION) that the results of this stats explosion are luke-warm at best.

 

 

beane is the best GM in baseball, Paul built the dodgers into arguably the best farm system in baseball and was unrightly fired because of massive injuries to Gagne, Drew, Bradley, and O. Perez, riccardi fixed the dire financial crisis toronto was in, and built a great team able to add huge free agents this off season. I WISH the marlins had management like any of those teams. Likewise, the Dbacks are saber now and about to get amazing.

 

If you believe so much in Uggla, bet me he has more then a .700 OPS next year. Whatever you want. Name your price. OPS may be a "crude" stat, but it's the best offensive stat there is for non base stealers who gain TB with swips, and lose OBP with CS. That's the only criticism avaliable with OPS, it does not account for excellent SB threats. This is why Reyes is not as terrible offensively as he is perceived (even if he is still a pitiful # 1 hitter and OBP threat).

Does anybody know the progress of the players from the famous "Moneyball" draft? Save for Nick Swisher, of course, which both scouts and sabrs agreed was the truth.

 

 

Joe Blanton is tearing up, Jeff Francis is showing his potential, Russ Adams and Khalil Greene are two of the better young SS in baseball, Mark Teahen has struggled but has potential in KC, John Baker will be good when he cracks the bigs, Swisher is going to be really good. I guess right now, it seems 7 of the "big 20" from that one draft have panned out pretty good. Take that for whatever you think it's worth.

 

You're putting way too much weight into OPS.

 

Maybe I'm a dense old-school baseball guy, but delving into sabermetrics to the extent that it is the only measure of a player just makes me shake my head.

 

OPS is an interesting evaluation method, and sabermetrics can be fun, but when's the last time you saw a team that was a saber champ celebrating in October? Last I checked, the three disciples of Bill James (Beane, DePodesta, Riccardi) have exactly 0 division series wins between them, one's out of a job, and only Beane has won a division title (and he really hasn't had the same kind of success since his true "moneyball" took over and Giambi, Tejada, Zito and Mulder were shown the door).

 

I'm pretty sure that the Marlins in 2003, White Sox in 2005, Angels in 2002 and D'Back in 2001 weren't a sabertrician's (or whatever the hell they're called) dream. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the '04 Red Sox and the Yankees teams but they paid through the teeth for their offensive production, and more times than not high end offense is going to give you high end OPS production, so they were hardly a world beater assembled on a budget, as was the original intent of mathematicizing the game.

 

I know I'm not alone (right Marlins2003 ) in saying that I think this saber stuff is getting way out of hand, especially when I feel (note: OPINION) that the results of this stats explosion are luke-warm at best.

 

 

beane is the best GM in baseball, Paul built the dodgers into arguably the best farm system in baseball and was unrightly fired because of massive injuries to Gagne, Drew, Bradley, and O. Perez, riccardi fixed the dire financial crisis toronto was in, and built a great team able to add huge free agents this off season. I WISH the marlins had management like any of those teams. Likewise, the Dbacks are saber now and about to get amazing.

 

If you believe so much in Uggla, bet me he has more then a .700 OPS next year. Whatever you want. Name your price. OPS may be a "crude" stat, but it's the best offensive stat there is for non base stealers who gain TB with swips, and lose OBP with CS. That's the only criticism avaliable with OPS, it does not account for excellent SB threats. This is why Reyes is not as terrible offensively as he is perceived (even if he is still a pitiful # 1 hitter and OBP threat).

 

I'm not betting crap over OPS, it's a garbage stat that should only be used as a measuring stick amongst 3-5 hole hitters...Uggla doesn't fit that profile this year or in his immediate future.

 

I will bet you this:

 

I think that if Uggla makes the squad out of the spring he will:

 

Hit better than .260

 

Hit double figures for homeruns

 

"create" close to or over 100 runs

 

and have fewer than 20 errors.

 

Sounds like a solid player to me...

 

But seriously, I'm done with this, how about letting him get a week of spring training under his belt before tar and feathering him?

 

And for the record, Beane is hardly the best GM in baseball, as much as I hate to say it, that honor has to fall to John Scheurholz who continually wins with a stacked farm system and economical signings.

I'm not betting crap over OPS, it's a garbage stat that should only be used as a measuring stick amongst 3-5 hole hitters...Uggla doesn't fit that profile this year or in his immediate future.

 

I will bet you this:

 

I think that if Uggla makes the squad out of the spring he will:

 

Hit better than .260

 

Hit double figures for homeruns

 

"create" close to or over 100 runs

 

and have fewer than 20 errors.

 

Sounds like a solid player to me...

 

But seriously, I'm done with this, how about letting him get a week of spring training under his belt before tar and feathering him?

 

And for the record, Beane is hardly the best GM in baseball, as much as I hate to say it, that honor has to fall to John Scheurholz who continually wins with a stacked farm system and economical signings.

 

 

He will make the squad out of spring, that's why they got him in Rule V. No argument about that. But he won't hit better then .260, or have double digit homers, or have a combied 100 R/RBI, and he won't have enough playing time to accumulate 20+ errors, but he would if he got 150+ starts. I'm glad you're done with this, because I think it's amazingly ridiculous anyone would take an ounce of effort to defend such a blatantly low ceiling player.

 

Schuerholz is fantastic, why do you hate to say that? Just because he is a rival doesn't mean he isn't amazing. Definitely in my top 5, if not top 3 (also Shapiro), but Beane is on another planet with his philosophy. It ain't OBP anymore with him, it's defense, and he still won 88 games. Amazing.

I'm not betting crap over OPS, it's a garbage stat that should only be used as a measuring stick amongst 3-5 hole hitters...Uggla doesn't fit that profile this year or in his immediate future.

 

OPS isn't a garbage stat, it is an easy stat to look at that gives an idea of a player's offensive performance. RC/27 or Offensive Winning % or even Total Average are likely "superior" stats, but here's the kicker: OPS accurately relates to runs scored. So any advantages held by any other stats are so marginal as to not be worth calculating the stat. Looking at last year's NL results, the Cubs have the largest disparity between runs and OPS (4th in OPS, 9th in Runs) but they were also adept at running themselves into outs (another "moneyball" no-no).

 

The 2002 draft is still an open question, but to judge the results without comparing the results of the other teams is pointless. If 7 of the "Moneyball top 20" pan out, that may represent double or even triple the success rate of a normal draft.

 

The RedSox are a stathead team, they won the title. Yes, they spent a lot of money, but so did many a non-championship team. Hell, so did many a bad team. There are only 3 SABRmetric-based teams, if all 3 were to make the playoffs in a given year, the odds would still not favor a SABRmetric team winning it all. The only thing one can do to give themselves a short-series advantage would be to have the 4 best starting pitchers possible.

 

I will agree though, that OPS is not the most important stat in judging Uggla. I think is SO/BB ratio is far more important. The man has no concept of the strikezone and he is going to be brutally punished for that failing. If a player knows the strikezone at 20, he's only going to get better as he ages, if he doesn't he may never have a chance to get better.

What I find wrong with stats as the end all and be all of determining player value is that it ignores so many factors.

 

In horseracing for example, the condition of the track is included in stats. The other horses in the race, etc. In baseball, an error on an infielder may be determined on what the scorer sees or wants to see.

 

Where player A may have gotten a hit because the scorer decided the SS couldn't get to a batted ball, the very same play may (or not) be scored an error if an overacheiving SS miraculously reaches that same ball but throws it over the first baseman's head.

 

In short, until stats can take the human element out of scoring, and include factors like field condition (grass or turf, muddy or glassy), situational play, etc., stats will remain what they are, a fun tool for the obsessed and for the Billy Beanes of professional baseball, a useful one. There's too many variable not included for me to take it seriously.

 

But for me, I'm reminded of the old business saying that "98% of the truth will kill you every time". Perhaps one day I'll embrace stats but not until they are more inclusive of factors they so far ignore.

Does anybody know the progress of the players from the famous "Moneyball" draft? Save for Nick Swisher, of course, which both scouts and sabrs agreed was the truth.

Joe Blanton is tearing up, Jeff Francis is showing his potential, Russ Adams and Khalil Greene are two of the better young SS in baseball, Mark Teahen has struggled but has potential in KC, John Baker will be good when he cracks the bigs, Swisher is going to be really good. I guess right now, it seems 7 of the "big 20" from that one draft have panned out pretty good. Take that for whatever you think it's worth.

Huh?

 

Blanton is the only name out of those seven that was a Moneyball pick. I was referring to the players drafted by Oakland. Of the players you mentioned, all but Blanton (weight) and Teahen (I forget right now what his reasoning was) were well received by scouts. Maybe not first round material, but they were all pegged to be high round guys with serious potential. Like TSwift pointed out by the actual statistics, outside of Blanton (and Swisher, who was loved by scouts anyways) the Moneyball draft was a failure.

 

Just throwing some gas in the fire. I've gone at it with Shammy and co. on these issues plenty of times before, I don't think anyone here needs reinforcement on where I stand.

beane is the best GM in baseball, Paul built the dodgers into arguably the best farm system in baseball and was unrightly fired because of massive injuries to Gagne, Drew, Bradley, and O. Perez, riccardi fixed the dire financial crisis toronto was in, and built a great team able to add huge free agents this off season. I WISH the marlins had management like any of those teams. Likewise, the Dbacks are saber now and about to get amazing.

 

 

To add to this post.

 

Shapiro in Cleveland is a SABR/stat head/Moneyball guy.

 

So is Daniels in Texas. Thus far in the short time he's been in charge that team has improved dramaticallty on paper. They are prepared to make a quantum leap in the W/L.

 

DePodesta was only canned because McCourt let the fans and Tommy Lasorda decide.

 

Epstein in Boston has improved that farm system. The Red Sox plan in the long run is too become more economical.

 

I can only imagine what Beane could do with an extra 30-40 million dollars to play with.

 

Running an organization based solely on stats is dumb. On the other hand running an organization based solely on what scouts say isn't so smart either. You have to balance the two. I'm pretty confident in saying that none of these guys run their organizations based solely on stats.

If I were a GM I would apply the Moneyball strategy pretty consistently. Over the long run it will pay off for a team. What I have a problem with is MarlinLou's belief that stats always tell the tale about a specific young player. I agree that if you have a team full of players with promising statistical backgrounds the team will do well. But I do not think it is always an accurate portrayal of what a specific player will do. You have to take stats into account and then individual factors as well when evaluating a player. Stats are a major tool, but we have to realize we're dealing with human beings here, not machines. And games aren't played on paper.

 

Like I said before MarlinsLou, please look at the projected statistics for Miggy Cabrera for both 2004 and 2005 and Dontrelle Willis last season. The projections for both were FAR below their actual performances. These projections didn't take into account how hard of a worker Dontrelle is, how much extra work he put in before the season, how he got into far better shape coming into 2005 than in previous seasons, and how focused he was. The projections for Miggy didn't take into account how much natural talent the man has that had not yet shown itself. These are all things that can't be quantified by statistics.

 

The point is that stats can't take everything that matters into account because so many things are qualitative and not quantitative. There was something about Uggla that intrigued the FO. They saw something that statistics doesn't. If they're right he'll end up being a pretty good player.

The 2002 draft is still an open question, but to judge the results without comparing the results of the other teams is pointless. If 7 of the "Moneyball top 20" pan out, that may represent double or even triple the success rate of a normal draft.

 

 

2002 may go down as one of the greatest draft-classes in the past 20 years. The list of players to come out of there is mind-boggling. Flip through baseball-america's draft review and just about every team received a B+ or an A, with the Cubs receiving the only C (and that's because Hagerty fell apart) and I highly doubt everyone used the moneyball philosophy.

 

I mean, let's look at some of the names from that draft: BJ Upton, Khalil Greene, Jeremy Hermida, Jeff Francoeur, Scott Kazmir, Jeff Francis, Jon Lester, Scott Olsen...and this is just a quick list.

 

Having that kind of talent to draw from, and having 7 first round picks (as the A's did), better give you better than mixed results...