You are doubling OBP which shows nothing. Double SLG % and see how that correlates to runs scored.

 

It's not "doubling" OBP... it's doubling the "weight" of OBP... I'm not even going to get into it

 

here... arm yourself with knowledge

 

http://baseballoutlook.blogspot.com/2008/0...-relatives.html

There is no weight. Slugging PCT is based on what it is and OBP is what it is.

There is no weight. Slugging PCT is based on what it is and OBP is what it is.

Right. But their importance should be weighted. Just because it's a bigger number, doesn't mean it is better. You need to remember that SLG is inflated immediately by the fact that it is out of 4.000, as opposed to 1.000 like everything else.

I'll take the low-tech road here.

 

I just think it seems counterproductive to fill a lineup with guys who can all slug but no one gets on base. Do you see the problem there? When our offense struggled last year it looked like the same guy coming to the plate every time, swinging for the fences, and striking out. I mean it was really bad at times. Uggla, Cantu, Jake, Ross, Hammer, there were a few stretches where it seemed like the entire lineup was in all-or-nothing mode. Most people can deal with high strikeout numbers if you're balancing that with walks and average (whether we're talking about one player or the lineup as a whole). Our offense last year didn't have balance, they just slugged and K'd. And played bad defense.

 

So what we need mixed in with these sluggers (Uggla, Hanley, Cantu, Ross, possibly Dallas) are some guys who can do other things, namely get on base. Hanley will get on base of course. Hermida hopefully will be getting on base. Baker looks like he'll get on base. And Gaby could fit that mold too.

 

Short of stacking a lineup with 8 Hanleys, I think aiming for a more balanced attack on offense is the way to go.

I'll take the low-tech road here.

 

I just think it seems counterproductive to fill a lineup with guys who can all slug but no one gets on base. Do you see the problem there? When our offense struggled last year it looked like the same guy coming to the plate every time, swinging for the fences, and striking out. I mean it was really bad at times. Uggla, Cantu, Jake, Ross, Hammer, there were a few stretches where it seemed like the entire lineup was in all-or-nothing mode. Most people can deal with high strikeout numbers if you're balancing that with walks and average (whether we're talking about one player or the lineup as a whole). Our offense last year didn't have balance, they just slugged and K'd. And played bad defense.

 

So what we need mixed in with these sluggers (Uggla, Cantu, Ross, possibly Dallas) are some guys who can do other things, namely get on base. Hanley will get on base. Hermida hopefully will be getting on base. Baker looks like he'll get on base. And Gaby could fit that mold too.

 

Short of stacking a lineup with 9 Hanleys, I think aiming for a more balanced attack on offense is the way to go.

While I agree, I would like to take a stand by saying that Uggla is not an all or nothing guy. He does his fare share of on-base-getting.

No I agree.... should've included that. And I love the fact that his walks have gone up each season.

 

 

 

It's mostly just when he goes into a funk at the plate, then you start seeing the wild swings.

If there's one guy you can, somewhat, accept an "all or nothing" approach from it would be Uggla. He's one of the best offensive 2B in baseball, and is no longer a slouch on the field, either (like Jacobs was).

No I agree.... should've included that. His ability to take walks and even increase his walk totals each season has been a nice surprise.

 

(Except when he gets into a funk at the plate, then he seems to forget it.)

 

He's one of those guys that when he gets into a slump thinks he has to slug his way back out of it

Mumbo Jumbo. Slugging PCT is based on total bases my friend which is way more important than how many times you walk.

Jacobs and Sanchez are two totally different players and comparing their worth really isn't fair.

In what world is OBP worth twice as much as slugging %? Not the real world.

 

Wanna bet?

 

 

 

When the weight of OBP is doubled - and used in OPS, it correlates to runs scored more than any stat

 

Thanks for playing though

 

Did you, at any point, account for extra runs that the person who slugged more would drive in? It's hard to argue that a guy has a lesser chance of driving in a run with a double or, even better, a home run, than he would with a walk.

 

Also, taking slugging into account for runs produced negates that driving in runs may be its primary value. Again, I understand that is dependent on guys being on base, which is where .obp can be important, but the .obp guys can't score runs by themselves.

It's pretty humorous that people are actually worried about the, at most probably, 50 points of lost slugging compared to the 50 point gain in OBP...

 

Yeah... .500+ SLG is cool, but .350/.450 is a lot cooler than .300/.500

There is some serious stupidity here. You guys can buy Moneyball for less than $5.00.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/039...;condition=used

 

And I'm not saying Moneyball is the end all be all of statistic analysis. I'm saying a person with a 3rd grade reading level can read it and understand the basic message of player valuation. This should be easy. A team of 1.000 OBP scores an infinite amount of runs. A team of 1.000 SLUG eventually gets 3 outs. Why is this hard? Especially with advanced statistical research that clearly shows, over decades of sample size, that over 2 points of OBP outweigh a point of SLUG for basic run production. This debate is idiotic. There is clearly a true and a false.

 

We are not going to miss Mike Jacobs one bit. In his peak year, he scored 67 runs. Really? Willy Taveras can score that many with an OPS barely over .600. And Jacobs knocked himself in almost a third of the time with HR. What a jerk. Take a walk, get some hits. Good riddance.

There is some serious stupidity here. You guys can buy Moneyball for less than $5.00.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/039...;condition=used

 

And I'm not saying Moneyball is the end all be all of statistic analysis. I'm saying a person with a 3rd grade reading level can read it and understand the basic message of player valuation. This should be easy. A team of 1.000 OBP scores an infinite amount of runs. A team of 1.000 SLUG eventually gets 3 outs. Why is this hard? Especially with advanced statistical research that clearly shows, over decades of sample size, that over 2 points of OBP outweigh a point of SLUG for basic run production. This debate is idiotic. There is clearly a true and a false.

 

We are not going to miss Mike Jacobs one bit. In his peak year, he scored 67 runs. Really? Willy Taveras can score that many with an OPS barely over .600. And Jacobs knocked himself in almost a third of the time with HR. What a jerk. Take a walk, get some hits. Good riddance.

 

The problem with your logic is that it exists in a perfect world. Guys don't ever have an .OBP of 1.000 or even half of that.

 

I'm not gonna completely dispute your argument though. I wonder though, if the slugging versus OBP is true, than isn't OPS an inferior statistic? I guess its benefit is that it is easier to calculate, but if we could assign a given value to OBP- say 1.5 or even 2, as you say- than maybe we should calculate a better OPS as following- OBP x 2 + SLG. That would provide a more fair comparison between players like Jacobs and players like Sanchez.

The problem with your logic is that it exists in a perfect world. Guys don't ever have an .OBP of 1.000 or even half of that.

 

I'm not gonna completely dispute your argument though. I wonder though, if the slugging versus OBP is true, than isn't OPS an inferior statistic? I guess its benefit is that it is easier to calculate, but if we could assign a given value to OBP- say 1.5 or even 2, as you say- than maybe we should calculate a better OPS as following- OBP x 2 + SLG. That would provide a more fair comparison between players like Jacobs and players like Sanchez.

 

It's not inferior... it's just flawed.

 

But yes, the 2.094 or simply 2OBP+SLG is a "truer" form that does more fairly equate the contributions of a given player. I did this with Cantu vs Jacobs... and unsurprisingly, Cantu's was just a tad bit higher. And I don't think anyone would argue that Cantu didn't contribute more than Jacobs...

 

Thanks for the assist Lou :thumbup

GPA is just that

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main...DESC&page=1

Ah, I was thinking that... I remember reading about GPA before, but I wasn't sure

There is some serious stupidity here. You guys can buy Moneyball for less than $5.00.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/039...;condition=used

 

And I'm not saying Moneyball is the end all be all of statistic analysis. I'm saying a person with a 3rd grade reading level can read it and understand the basic message of player valuation. This should be easy. A team of 1.000 OBP scores an infinite amount of runs. A team of 1.000 SLUG eventually gets 3 outs. Why is this hard? Especially with advanced statistical research that clearly shows, over decades of sample size, that over 2 points of OBP outweigh a point of SLUG for basic run production. This debate is idiotic. There is clearly a true and a false.

 

We are not going to miss Mike Jacobs one bit. In his peak year, he scored 67 runs. Really? Willy Taveras can score that many with an OPS barely over .600. And Jacobs knocked himself in almost a third of the time with HR. What a jerk. Take a walk, get some hits. Good riddance.

 

I have read that book and I'm still waiting for the great Billy Beane to show that his way can win a World Championship. Until then, I'm not buying his theories on baseball.

I have read that book and I'm still waiting for the great Billy Beane to show that his way can win a World Championship. Until then, I'm not buying his theories on baseball.

 

You're just all kinds of terrific.... if you'd actually read that book... you'd know that actually winning the WS requires a great deal of luck... but that fact that "The Great Billy Beane" with the fewest resources in his division and among the lowest in baseball... making the playoffs is quite the feat...

 

And... these aren't just HIS theories... but those of many VERY intelligent people.

I have read that book and I'm still waiting for the great Billy Beane to show that his way can win a World Championship. Until then, I'm not buying his theories on baseball.

 

You're just all kinds of terrific.... if you'd actually read that book... you'd know that actually winning the WS requires a great deal of luck... but that fact that "The Great Billy Beane" with the fewest resources in his division and among the lowest in baseball... making the playoffs is quite the feat...

 

And... these aren't just HIS theories... but those of many VERY intelligent people.

 

I can let you statistics guys get away with about anything, but attributing World Series wins to luck is sure not one of them. There is a reason teams like Boston, the New York Yankees of 5 years ago, and other great teams win the world series. It's because their roster has the caliber of players that is capable of joining together to do what it takes and win a baseball game.

 

I'm sorry, but the only one who would have to get lucky in order to win a world series is Billy Beane himself. Every single time he gets a good player, he trades the for 4-5 prospects. The result is that, while he always has good prospects, he never has anyone to build his team around and they lack an identity. He doesn't have the guys who can step it up when the game is on the line. He's instead got a bunch of rookies that are going through their growing pains and thus the team suffers.

 

With the talent that Beane has had over the years in Oakland, he could have put together a championship caliber team. Maybe thats a testament to Beane, but the reality is that he hasn't actually managed that talent properly. What happens instead? A team like Cleveland, New York, Boston, or LAA comes up and knocks him our every year. And why? Because his teams are just good enough to make it to the playoffs but not good enough to win there.

 

There are those that live in the statistical world, where everything can be averaged out and attributed to luck, and there are those that see the reasons behind results and live in the real world.

I have read that book and I'm still waiting for the great Billy Beane to show that his way can win a World Championship. Until then, I'm not buying his theories on baseball.

 

You're just all kinds of terrific.... if you'd actually read that book... you'd know that actually winning the WS requires a great deal of luck... but that fact that "The Great Billy Beane" with the fewest resources in his division and among the lowest in baseball... making the playoffs is quite the feat...

 

And... these aren't just HIS theories... but those of many VERY intelligent people.

 

 

Good. All those intelligent people can talk about their theories while they are watching better teams win in the playoffs.

In what world is OBP worth twice as much as slugging %? Not the real world.

 

Wanna bet?

 

 

 

 

 

I love and use some complicated stats as much as the next guy, but seeing graphs like that in a baseball debate hurt my head on so many different levels...

 

(I get your point though and you are right, but still....hurts...)

I have read that book and I'm still waiting for the great Billy Beane to show that his way can win a World Championship. Until then, I'm not buying his theories on baseball.

 

You're just all kinds of terrific.... if you'd actually read that book... you'd know that actually winning the WS requires a great deal of luck... but that fact that "The Great Billy Beane" with the fewest resources in his division and among the lowest in baseball... making the playoffs is quite the feat...

 

And... these aren't just HIS theories... but those of many VERY intelligent people.

 

 

Good. All those intelligent people can talk about their theories while they are watching better teams win in the playoffs.

Unless you're the Red Sox. In that case, they talk about it when playing in the playoffs and winning championships.

There are those that live in the statistical world, where everything can be averaged out and attributed to luck, and there are those that see the reasons behind results and live in the real world.

 

You've gotta be kidding?

 

Between 2000 and 2006 the Athletics averaged 95 wins a season... that's an incredible figure. Especially given the circumstances. In that time... he managed to construct an very dominant pitching staff in Zito/Hudson/Mulder (who have subsequently gone their separate, different ways...)

 

In 2001, for example.. the Athletics scored 884 runs and allowed 645 runs. That's incredible, they also won 100 games. In the real world, that's a very good team.

 

The Pennant winning Yankees scored 804 runs and allowed 713 runs. That's worse on both ends by a considerable amount.

 

So... the team that scored fewer runs per game and allowed more beat the team that scored more and gave up less... what part of "luck" doesn't that indicate? Also, during that stretch, the series's would typically stretch out to the last game..

 

2000 Lost to Yankees, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 947 runs, Allowed 813 runs, 91-70

2001 Lost to Yankees, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 884 runs, Allowed 645 runs, 102-60

2002 Lost to Twins, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 800 runs, Allowed 654 runs, 103-59

2003 Lost to Red Sox, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 768 runs, Allowed 643 runs, 96-66

2004 Didn't qualify, won 91 games, finished 1 GB ANA - On the season: Scored 793 runs, Allowed 742 runs, 91-71

2005 Didn't qualify, won 88 games, finished 7 GB LAA - On the season: Scored 772 runs, Allowed 658 runs, 88-74

2006 Won LDS 3-0 over MIN, lost 4-0 over DET - On the season: Scored 771 runs, Allowed 727, 93-69

 

Between 2000 and 2003 every last one of those series could have gone either way. and for the two times not making the playoffs... averaging almost 90 wins and NOT making the playoffs is nothing to be ashamed of. The year in which they had one of their lowest run differentials, they got the deepest in the playoffs. The year in which they were probably at their weakest, they advanced the farthest... do you not see the "luck" factor in that? There can only be ONE WS representative every year... so to say that Beane's method "doesn't work" is flat out ignorant and wrong.

I have read that book and I'm still waiting for the great Billy Beane to show that his way can win a World Championship. Until then, I'm not buying his theories on baseball.

 

You're just all kinds of terrific.... if you'd actually read that book... you'd know that actually winning the WS requires a great deal of luck... but that fact that "The Great Billy Beane" with the fewest resources in his division and among the lowest in baseball... making the playoffs is quite the feat...

 

And... these aren't just HIS theories... but those of many VERY intelligent people.

 

 

Good. All those intelligent people can talk about their theories while they are watching better teams win in the playoffs.

Unless you're the Red Sox. In that case, they talk about it when playing in the playoffs and winning championships.

 

Using the same methodology behind player scouting and such... oh and money... WAY MORE MONEY

There are those that live in the statistical world, where everything can be averaged out and attributed to luck, and there are those that see the reasons behind results and live in the real world.

 

You've gotta be kidding?

 

Between 2000 and 2006 the Athletics averaged 95 wins a season... that's an incredible figure. Especially given the circumstances. In that time... he managed to construct an very dominant pitching staff in Zito/Hudson/Mulder (who have subsequently gone their separate, different ways...)

 

In 2001, for example.. the Athletics scored 884 runs and allowed 645 runs. That's incredible, they also won 100 games. In the real world, that's a very good team.

 

The Pennant winning Yankees scored 804 runs and allowed 713 runs. That's worse on both ends by a considerable amount.

 

So... the team that scored fewer runs per game and allowed more beat the team that scored more and gave up less... what part of "luck" doesn't that indicate? Also, during that stretch, the series's would typically stretch out to the last game..

 

2000 Lost to Yankees, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 947 runs, Allowed 813 runs, 91-70

2001 Lost to Yankees, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 884 runs, Allowed 645 runs, 102-60

2002 Lost to Twins, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 800 runs, Allowed 654 runs, 103-59

2003 Lost to Red Sox, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 768 runs, Allowed 643 runs, 96-66

2004 Didn't qualify, won 91 games, finished 1 GB ANA - On the season: Scored 793 runs, Allowed 742 runs, 91-71

2005 Didn't qualify, won 88 games, finished 7 GB LAA - On the season: Scored 772 runs, Allowed 658 runs, 88-74

2006 Won LDS 3-0 over MIN, lost 4-0 over DET - On the season: Scored 771 runs, Allowed 727, 93-69

 

Between 2000 and 2003 every last one of those series could have gone either way. and for the two times not making the playoffs... averaging almost 90 wins and NOT making the playoffs is nothing to be ashamed of. The year in which they had one of their lowest run differentials, they got the deepest in the playoffs. The year in which they were probably at their weakest, they advanced the farthest... do you not see the "luck" factor in that? There can only be ONE WS representative every year... so to say that Beane's method "doesn't work" is flat out ignorant and wrong.

 

Everything you posted pretty much supports my argument. He put up teams that were good enough in the regular season, not good enough in the playoffs.