From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Sheffield is NL MVP
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 22:11:13 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <1992Oct6.182056.1015@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.235038.9656@cs.wayne.edu> dfl@math.wayne.edu (David Frohardt-Lane) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.150210.1135@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct2.211553.24079@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>>>>The problem here is, SLG left out a part that OBP does have that *should* have
>>>>*some* slugging value; the walk.  Walks moves some runners, and RC gives walks
>>>>.26 of a single in that component, which sounds about right.
>>>?? This doesn't address the statement at all. And if you're looking at 
>>>"problems", it might be pointed out that OBP gives exactly the same weight
>>>to HR as to walks.
>>This is absurd.  OBP is not attempting to measure a player's overall
>Now, it's no more "absurd" than saying "the problem with SLG is that it doesn't
>include walks", now is it?

Very much so. OBP measures, exactly, the percentage of times a batter
doesn't make an out. Whether he doesn't make that out by walking or by
homering is irrelevant AS FAR AS OBP IS CONCERNED. Claiming that OBP should
differentiate between walks and homers is like complaining that you can't
use a ruler to tell if something is red.

>>value or anything like that.  It's simply the percentage of the time a
>>player doesn't make an out.  Why should homers count more in OBP than
>>walks?  Slugging, OTOH, is measuring how much a player can move runners
>>along (and how far he can get by himself), and walks do move other
>>players along.
>Sometimes.

Almost as much as singles, in fact. (If you're the Red Sox, almost *exactly*
as much.) Therefore, if SLG is a measure of runner (including batter-runner)
advancement, then walks should count almost as much as singles.

>>>>Of course it can.  But if two players have the same OPS but different OBP and
>>>>SLG, you should take the higher OBP, unless it's an extreme case like a taller
>>>>version of Eddie Gaedel.
>>>Nope. Way too many exceptions (even at the team level) to make a statement like
>>>that. I'd take a guy that matched my team's needs the best.

Mike, I've become convinced that you are deliberately being difficult on
this point. In general, OBP is a scarcer skill than SLG. Take a random
sampling of players if you don't believe me. Also, OBP is a skill that
improves your *team* more than SLG, because adding OBP increases the number
of PA's a team will get in a season. There *are* exceptions to the RC model
at the team level, but there are really pretty few of them. Even with the
exceptions, RC fits the team run scoring model better than anything else
anyone's come up with. In the real world, where there are realistically
never players whose OBP is more than, say, .020 higher than their SLG over a
reasonable number of PA's, a player with equivalent OPS and higher OBP is
virtually always going to improve your team more than his lower-OBP
equivalent.

>>That's probably true, but most teams in the majors (if not all) need OBP
>>more than they need SLG, so therefore OBP is more valuable.
>?? It depends on your team. As both contribute to scoring (and BTW, for the
>most part, they are the same thing) it would depend on your team's needs. 
>Another high OBPer behind Thomas isn't going to drive him in any more often.

The same thing? I'm afraid I don't understand this at all.
Let's consider Thomas. Say that he has George Bell hitting behind him. Bell
had a .713 OPS, made up of .417 SLG and .296 OBP. What happens if we
exchange him for, say, Chad Curtis? His OPS was .712, on .374/.338. Now what
happens? Well, Curtis probably drives in Thomas directly a bit less often.
On the other hand, in the same number of PA's that Bell had (637), Curtis
would have made 27 fewer outs. That's another ENTIRE GAME's worth of outs
that are now opportunities for other players to drive in Thomas. But, you
may say, teammates had an opportunity to drive in Thomas after Bell's outs.
Yes, but. Figure that roughly 1/3 of Bell's outs, about 149, ended innings.
Only about 140 of Curtis' would have. There are nine pure extra chances to
score. Another 149 or so of Bell's outs would be the second out in the
inning, which greatly decreases the odds of scoring a runner. The runs
created model tells us that, at least for the range of OBP's and SLG's we
see in real life, that in the great majority of cases these extra
opportunities are worth more than the direct runs we give up.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold in the mind at
the same time two opposed ideas, and still retain the ability to function.
	- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball