OPS for our resident sabermetricians

[andyfox]

Just looking at ESPN and I noticed Derek Jeter has walked 3 times and been hit by a pitch in four plate appearances thus far tonight.

So his OPS is 1.000: .000 slugging and 1.000 on-base.

Just wondering: would a player who did this all year be more valuable or less valuable than a player with a slugging percentage of .550 and an on-base percentage of .450? Or slugging .450 and on-base .550? My guess is one would prefer the higher slugging percentage, but might it not depend on the statistics of others on the team? Tonight, for example, Jeter has scored 3 runs and has an RBI, but that is because the rest of the team is smacking the ball.

Thanks.

[kyleb]

A player with a 1.000 iso-OBP is worth a lot more than someone with a .450 OBP / .550 SLG.

Consider this easy allegory to prove why this is the case:

Would you rather have:
a) A lineup of 9 players with 1.000 OBP
b) A lineup of 9 players with .450 OBP .550 SLG

This makes it pretty obvious.

Moneyball states that OBP is worth 3 times as much as SLG, but it's not that extreme (the real value is around 2, slightly less I believe). That said, OBP is definitely worth more than SLG.

EDIT: Andy, also consider that a hitter that bats 0/1.0/0 would be the permanent leadoff hitter for a team. Imagine starting off 162 games with a runner on first and 0 outs, EVERY GAME.

[Jack of Arcades]

A player that walks/hbp 100% of the time would be easily more valuable.

[Propertarian]

A player with a .1000 OBP/.000 slug is far more valuable than the .450/.550 guy for all teams right now. OBP is more valuable, point per point, than slugging.

Similarly, a .430/.430 is much more valuable than a .330/.500.

Think about this: a team who had a 1.000 OBP would score infinite runs-they wouldn't make any outs! (unless it was run by Dusty Baker or a similar moron who would make them try and steal).

Bill James did this great experiment a few years ago...he put Babe Ruth (in one of his best years) in a lineup of all below average players. He then simulated like a 1000 seasons were the opposition pitched to Ruth normally, and a thousand were they walked ruth every time.

The team which had the (approximately) .380/.500/.775 Ruth (1.275 OPS) averaged like 70 runs less per year than the team with the .000/1.000/.000. Guys hitting after the "walked every-time Ruth" would end up with stats like .250 ba with 10 hrs 125 rbis.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
Think about this: a team who had a .1000 OBP would be pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ThaSaltCracka]

pretty simple, 1.000 OBP is better, I guess everyone said that already. But it would be pretty nice to know that every game, your lead off guy will be on base no matter what.

[Propertarian]

No, they'd be great...nobody "clogging up the bases"...LOL.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
No, they'd be great...nobody "clogging up the bases"...LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]

IT'S CALLED HITTING NOT WALKING

YOU DON'T SEE THE TEAM WHO HAS WON THE WORLD SERIES THE PAST FEW YEARS WALKING EH

"Our strategy was to employ a lot of hitters that got on-base a lot, with secondary focus on slugging percentage." -Brian Cashman, on the dynasty Yankees

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
A player that walks/hbp 100% of the time would be easily more valuable.

[/ QUOTE ]

how big of OPS would a player need to overcome that

Would Bond's 01 .515/.863 be better, +378 points higher OPS

[THAY3R]

No.