Talk:On-base plus slugging

message: The list of players with a career OPS above 1.000 could in my opinion be improved by marking active players and also noting the cutoff in terms of playing time (500 games? 3000 AB? Something else?) Is there a standard wiki way of denoting active players? basbeball-reference.com has them in bold, which is one suggestion. Imsdal 13:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleared this part up. The math is certainly not "inexecutable." Last time I checked it's possible to add numbers. Regarding whether OPS correlates well with runs--this isn't a POV issue. One can calculate the correlation coefficient, and that is that. Where the POV comes in is if you say that players should be valued for their OPS more than other factors--but the article never says that. From Baseball Prospectus ():
 			Correl	 RMSE
 Batting Average	.828	39.52
 On-base Percentage	.866	34.16
 Slugging Percentage	.890	31.56
 On-base plus slugging	.922	25.54
As you can see, OPS has a very good correlation with runs scored per game. MichaelGensheimer 15:42, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What would help is an example.  Start with a single player's statistics.  Show the OPS derived from simply adding OBP and SLG, then show the OPS derived from the more complicated formula shown.  I don't have time to do this now, but I'll get to it later if nobody else is interested. -- JustSayin 14:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well gee, if you're going to be all "mathematical" about it - why not refer to "1" as Unity, like the rest of us "mathy" people do.  Otherwise, stop trying to explain things you apparently don't understand, including Division By Zero.  73.6.96.168 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Math 

message: None of the terms (BB, H, HBP, SF) seem to be defined anywhere on the page.  Sure a true baseball fan might know them, but a math student would get no credit for this fancy formula! --Mike 19:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added them. And Cardinals don't sin. Just ask Albert. Fan-1967 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure they can.  Just ask the Cubs. Hossrex (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Baseball stat fanatics are a curious mix of sports fan and (very) amature mathematicians.  And that is my nice way of saying they know just enough about both to be dangerous and impress the Average Joe at a bar.  73.6.96.168 (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardinal sin 

message: This might be picky, but is it kosher to call a number in the range [0.000, 1.000] a 'percentage'?  It's common enough usage I'm sure, but just seems sloppy to me. 75.70.42.78 15:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage 

message: I'd like to see references to McGwire and Bonds notated to show that their numbers may have been chemically altered. The best statistical years for both are tainted.
Tapered (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless MLB does it, we shouldn't. Kingturtle (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until or if an official, comprehensive list appears, of everyone who ever used steroids and in which seasons, no asterisks connected with steroids are appropriate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is quite ridiculous. It is the same as saying that until we have an official, comprehensive list of everyone who ever wore their pant legs high or low, and in which season, we have no right to observe that Babe Ruth wore his pant legs high, even though we know he did. Certain players are known beyond a reasonable doubt to have used steroids, sometimes by their own confessions. However, I do agree that it is for Major League Baseball to make that call, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an authority that determines official statistics in anything, let alone professional baseball.Poihths (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the reason for one or two asterisks. Mark McGwire is an admitted user and gets **, Bonds gets * because he still won't admit it. The asterisk is necessary until the MLB allows the use of PEDs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.222.87 (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The truth is that MLB was losing fans and money in the 80's and early '90s, and those guys got paid to "juice".  Pick one.  Canseco, McGwire, Sosa ... NONE of them were true long-ball hitters until the league juice the balls AND the players.  They needed the Home Runs.  All of those years will always be asterisk years to those of us who were fans before, during and after, and who loved the game and watched it being torn apart.  None of those stats from those years should count.  I will never forgive the league or those players for ruining the game - and the stats. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steroid Asterisk 

message: Can somebody provide a source for the claim that Carlos Beltran is the postseason OPS leader?  Baseball Reference disagrees.http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/Playoffs_batting.shtml Mcsnee (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This was true before the 2013 postseason, but is no longer true. I've removed the image. Mindmatrix 16:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlos Beltran? 

message: This is truly one of the most meaningless statistics in baseball.  It was designed for marketing purposes, to offset the claims of "juiced" balls, etc.  It's just an MLB gimmick, and the last thing true fans need to judge a players ability to contribute.  The only stat we need is OBP and batting average.  That is always consistent, and is as meaningful as it ever was. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  OPS and OPS+ meaningless stat 

message: We can do far better than having the article sound like a chat.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wideeyedraven (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  OPS + “It would be better”?