Offensive Contributions (OC)

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Offensive Contributions (OC)

    On Wednesday I will be introducing a new STAT for you to think about. Called OC, for “Offensive Contributions”. Especially useful for short term samples, this first group will reflect the player's true offensive values. This trial period is for the latest Red Sox road trip which ends on Wednesday. In other words the results will be for the period August 5 thru 13.


    The Orioles were tracked over the same period, and that 8-game summary will be posted after their 8th game of the period. (Game with the Yankees, tonight, has been postponed.


    .

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    Unlike WAR which uses 8 numbers to come to a final digit, OC can be updated after every game, in a matter of a few minutes.And, wait;ll you see the numbers from this 8-game, road trip! Whos contributing, who;s not! Available soon after Wednesday's afternoon game.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    There are not many surprises in this sample, considering how small it is (only 8 games). However, I think it’s best use would be for someone laying a pound or two, here and there, on a game (here and there). Take the numbers for the last 8 or 10 games the teams have played. What it shows is (relatively), who’s HOT and who’s NOT.


    Summary through all 8 games: (25 runs scored)--Record: 5 wins, 3 losses. Heere are the Offensive Contributions made by the Red Sox. A few names who made onl;y one or two plate appearances, do not show. No point in it. Those who had 0 contributions and had more tha few opportunities, are included.

    Pedroia (7)
    Cespedes (7)
    Napoli (6)
    Bogaerts (5)
    Nava (5)
    Holt (5)
    Vazquez (3)
    Ortiz (2)
    Butler (0)
    Bradley (0)
    Johnson (0)
    Middlebrooks (0)

    Here's an example of what counts and what does not.. From the first inning of the 8/13 Cincinnati game:

    Holt, BB; Nava, RBI single; Napoli, Sac Fly. One OC for each. What happened in beteen did not have any effect. These three did the job.

    I did the Orioles for the same 8 game stretch, and you'll be surprised at those numbers.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There are not many surprises in this sample, considering how small it is (only 8 games). However, I think it’s best use would be for someone laying a pound or two, here and there, on a game (here and there). Take the numbers for the last 8 or 10 games the teams have played. What it shows is (relatively), who’s HOT and who’s NOT.


    Summary through all 8 games: (25 runs scored)--Record: 5 wins, 3 losses. Heere are the Offensive Contributions made by the Red Sox. A few names who made onl;y one or two plate appearances, do not show. No point in it. Those who had 0 contributions and had more tha few opportunities, are included.

    Pedroia (7)
    Cespedes (7)
    Napoli (6)
    Bogaerts (5)
    Nava (5)
    Holt (5)
    Vazquez (3)
    Ortiz (2)
    Butler (0)
    Bradley (0)
    Johnson (0)
    Middlebrooks (0)

    Here's an example of what counts and what does not.. From the first inning of the 8/13 Cincinnati game:

    Holt, BB; Nava, RBI single; Napoli, Sac Fly. One OC for each. What happened in beteen did not have any effect. These three did the job.

    I did the Orioles for the same 8 game stretch, and you'll be surprised at those numbers.

    [/QUOTE]

    First, Napoli did not have a sac fly, he hit a grounder to 3rd that scored Nava.

    Second, what happened in between Nava and Napoli did have an effect.  Cespedes' grounder to short moved Nava to 3rd base, from where he scored on Napoli's grounder.  Without the first grounder, the run does not score.

     

    Be interesting to know what the parameters are for measuring this new stat.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There are not many surprises in this sample, considering how small it is (only 8 games). However, I think it’s best use would be for someone laying a pound or two, here and there, on a game (here and there). Take the numbers for the last 8 or 10 games the teams have played. What it shows is (relatively), who’s HOT and who’s NOT.


    Summary through all 8 games: (25 runs scored)--Record: 5 wins, 3 losses. Heere are the Offensive Contributions made by the Red Sox. A few names who made onl;y one or two plate appearances, do not show. No point in it. Those who had 0 contributions and had more tha few opportunities, are included.

    Pedroia (7)
    Cespedes (7)
    Napoli (6)
    Bogaerts (5)
    Nava (5)
    Holt (5)
    Vazquez (3)
    Ortiz (2)
    Butler (0)
    Bradley (0)
    Johnson (0)
    Middlebrooks (0)

    Here's an example of what counts and what does not.. From the first inning of the 8/13 Cincinnati game:

    Holt, BB; Nava, RBI single; Napoli, Sac Fly. One OC for each. What happened in beteen did not have any effect. These three did the job.

    I did the Orioles for the same 8 game stretch, and you'll be surprised at those numbers.

    [/QUOTE]

    First, Napoli did not have a sac fly, he hit a grounder to 3rd that scored Nava.

    Second, what happened in between Nava and Napoli did have an effect.  Cespedes' grounder to short moved Nava to 3rd base, from where he scored on Napoli's grounder.  Without the first grounder, the run does not score.

     

    Be interesting to know what the parameters are for measuring this new stat.

    [/QUOTE]


    MLB.com, and I did mess up on the Napoli ground ball. He should not have gotten a point. Cespedes ground ball would not count, in my book, as a point. That would be too liberal an AB for me. A fly ball to RF would have been more of a contribution. Here's another "judgement" call.

    5th Inning on Aug 4":
    Cespedes, single, Nava, single; Bogaerts Sac bunt, run scores on mis-play. 7th inning

    I gave Bogaerts the point because he intended to lay down the bunt; Cespedes did not intend to hit a routine ground ball to 3rd base. Minor detail? Anyway, the entire 8 games had only a few where judgement played a part. Appreciate the comments.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There are not many surprises in this sample, considering how small it is (only 8 games). However, I think it’s best use would be for someone laying a pound or two, here and there, on a game (here and there). Take the numbers for the last 8 or 10 games the teams have played. What it shows is (relatively), who’s HOT and who’s NOT.


    Summary through all 8 games: (25 runs scored)--Record: 5 wins, 3 losses. Heere are the Offensive Contributions made by the Red Sox. A few names who made onl;y one or two plate appearances, do not show. No point in it. Those who had 0 contributions and had more tha few opportunities, are included.

    Pedroia (7)
    Cespedes (7)
    Napoli (6)
    Bogaerts (5)
    Nava (5)
    Holt (5)
    Vazquez (3)
    Ortiz (2)
    Butler (0)
    Bradley (0)
    Johnson (0)
    Middlebrooks (0)

    Here's an example of what counts and what does not.. From the first inning of the 8/13 Cincinnati game:

    Holt, BB; Nava, RBI single; Napoli, Sac Fly. One OC for each. What happened in beteen did not have any effect. These three did the job.

    I did the Orioles for the same 8 game stretch, and you'll be surprised at those numbers.

    [/QUOTE]

    First, Napoli did not have a sac fly, he hit a grounder to 3rd that scored Nava.

    Second, what happened in between Nava and Napoli did have an effect.  Cespedes' grounder to short moved Nava to 3rd base, from where he scored on Napoli's grounder.  Without the first grounder, the run does not score.

     

    Be interesting to know what the parameters are for measuring this new stat.

    [/QUOTE]


    I watched each game, missine only an inning, here and there. Most other stuff I had to do was done while the Sox were in the field. Iused MLB.com (Game Day) for checking purposes. So, I think I simply messed up on the Napoli ground ball. I didn't re-check, but I'm sure you're right, The Baltimore games were almost always plucked off of the MLB site.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    It's hard to know what you're talking about without any details.  What are you awarding points for?  How are the point values determined?  Can players get negative points, for example, for a caught stealing?  

    And what does the final score mean?  Pedroia has a score of 7.   What does the seven mean?   What does that number translate to?   Is 7 a good score or a bad score?

    Anyway, there are plenty of good stats already available to measure a player's offensive contribution.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    Wow....just wow....

    It's threads like this that makes me feel good about myself......

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    Way too subjective for my taste.  Fly ball to right that advances a runner is good but a ground ball behind the runner is not?  How about a fly to left that does the same thing?  As far as I can tell, 3 straight singles (batters did their job, your words) followed by 3 straight K's result in 0 points for anyone.  On the other hand, a BB followed by 3 straight passed balls nets 1 OC even though the batter-runner did virtually nothing?

    Stats mean nothing without verifiable objective criteria. You haven't defined what the criteria are.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    You could do this objectively.  Award a point if the hitter either reaches base or advances another runner or more by way of a productive out.  No point if the advancement resulted from an error.  So you're basically measuring PA's that accomplished something, without help from the defence.

    It's a primitive stat.  Mainly for amusement purposes, as far as I can see.  But what the heck, stats are being made up all the time in baseball. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's hard to know what you're talking about without any details.  What are you awarding points for?  How are the point values determined?  Can players get negative points, for example, for a caught stealing?  

    And what does the final score mean?  Pedroia has a score of 7.   What does the seven mean?   What does that number translate to?   Is 7 a good score or a bad score?

    Anyway, there are plenty of good stats already available to measure a player's offensive contribution.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    1. Points given to anything that contributes to a run by design, not by accident. Holt reaches on error, Pedroia singles, Cespedes homers. Pedroia and Cespedes each gt a point. Holt does not.

    2. No negative points

    3. Pedroia score of 7 means that he made seven contributions during the 8 games used for the example.

    4. Points only allowed if they participated in a sequence that ended with a run. However, the other day when Pedroia stole second, then went to third and scored on Ortiz' sac fly, here is my worksheet on that play:

    Pedroia, single, steal second, steal third; Ortiz SF, (RBI)

    Pedroia madee 2 plays and gets 2 point; Ortiz made one play, and gets 1 point. The system rewards Pedroia for doing more than just stealing a base.

    I came up with this in order to satisfy myself as to the true worth of some players (like Napoli, Nava, Holt) where statistics do not tell the whole story. I think 8 games is enough to quickly tell a manager who's hot on the next opponent; also to tell Gary the Gambler if he should bet the farm against Houston this week.

    Anybody can go to MLB.com, pull up teams, scores, play-by-play, and go back as far as he wants. I've done that for Houston but have not finished counting up who gets what! They've had some high scoring games (as has Baltimore) these past days. Thanks for the comments; much appreciated.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    So you could go 4 for 4, but if no runs result from your hits, you get no points.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So you could go 4 for 4, but if no runs result from your hits, you get no points.

    [/QUOTE]


    Right. We've already got batting averages for that, right? BA shows who can hit; RBI's are determined by your ability to hit also, but where you hit, in the batting order, and how many of your team mates got on base and gave you the opportunites. I have always thought WAR, or stats of that type, still did not show a player's true relative value. A guy walks, reaches 2nd on a ground ball, steals 3rd and comes home on a fly ball. Sure, his stats show a stolen base and a run. But in my book he has contributed equally as the guy who hits a solo home run. For lack of a better term, I simply call them Offensive Contributions.

    By the way, a little later, I'm going to show the Houston Astro results (same 8 game stretch). I'd like to watch the games, knowing which guys have done well lately. Thanks for the comments.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    When I was a kid, I remember some sort of stat called Runs Created (might be off on the name).  Basically, it was runs scored + RBIs - Home Runs (the theory being that driving yourself in is still only 1 run).  This sounds a lot like that with a few tweaks.


    Applying runs created to Ortiz, it would be 44 + 84 - 26 = 102 RC.  For Pedroia, it's 61 + 43 - 5 = 99.


     


    One tweak you really should make is taking away the OC for a Sac Fly.  A Sac Fly is no more a deliberate act than a grounder to short that scores a run.  Both players were trying for a base hit, one happened to hit it in the air, one didn't, but the result is the same, a run driven in via an out; the contribution is equal  The official scoring rules bear this out: when a player is on a consecutive games hitting streak, 3 walks plus a sac bunt does not end the streak.  3 walks and a sac fly does.


     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BillyKlaus. Show BillyKlaus's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    This is just my opinion, of course, but I think this might be trying a little too hard to make baseball into a pure science(as are a lot of the other newer stats, imo).  My view of baseball is that it is part science(statistics) and part art which will always be subjective and unmeasurable. For example, it looks like a player could rack up large numbers under your system in a 12-0 victory but fail repeatedly in a close game without being penalized. In that case, the failures would be more critical than the successes. Some moments in a game are simply more important than others and therefore probably should be weighted more heavily if one was to attempt to capture the art aspect of the game. I'm not sure that every aspect of baseball can be accurately measured. Please don't take this as a criticism of your attempt though. I think it is interesting.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    In response to BillyKlaus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is just my opinion, of course, but I think this might be trying a little too hard to make baseball into a pure science(as are a lot of the other newer stats, imo).  My view of baseball is that it is part science(statistics) and part art which will always be subjective and unmeasurable. For example, it looks like a player could rack up large numbers under your system in a 12-0 victory but fail repeatedly in a close game without being penalized. In that case, the failures would be more critical than the successes. Some moments in a game are simply more important than others and therefore probably should be weighted more heavily if one was to attempt to capture the art aspect of the game. I'm not sure that every aspect of baseball can be accurately measured. Please don't take this as a criticism of your attempt though. I think it is interesting.

    [/QUOTE]


    Just the opposite. It's trying to personalize the player who does multiple things to help his to win; and offensively that means participating in scoring runs.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    Here are the Offensive Contributions earned by Astro players during their 8 game stretch, (from Aug 6 thru Aug 13). The Won 3 and Lost 5; and scored a total of 33 runs

    Carter (11)
    Alttve (6)
    Grossman (6)
    Castro (5)
    Marisnek (4)
    Singleton (4)
    Dominique (4)
    Krauss (3)
    Gonzalez (3)
    Petit (2)
    Dozier (1)
    Santana (1)

    I guess Carter the one to watch out for, even with his .233 BA



     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    I don't think the specifics are as important as the 8 game sample, especially on the road and in two NL cities.  Entirely credible that Cespedes and pedroia contributed the most.  Two big flaws, however.  Ortiz usually doesn't contribute much in NL cities, so his 2 is a false low.  And Cepedes RBIs were bigger than any thing Pedroia did.  Cespedes so far has been huge, and your formula has him just a tad better than Bogaerts.  Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    One tweak you really should make is taking away the OC for a Sac Fly.  A Sac Fly is no more a deliberate act than a grounder to short that scores a run.  Both players were trying for a base hit, one happened to hit it in the air, one didn't, but the result is the same, a run driven in via an out; the contribution is equal. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Based on my limited understanding of what the OP is doing, both of those should count.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:


    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    One tweak you really should make is taking away the OC for a Sac Fly.  A Sac Fly is no more a deliberate act than a grounder to short that scores a run.  Both players were trying for a base hit, one happened to hit it in the air, one didn't, but the result is the same, a run driven in via an out; the contribution is equal. 




    Based on my limited understanding of what the OP is doing, both of those should count.


     


    [/QUOTE]


    I agree, but that's not what the OP said (see the 5th post from the top).


    In yesterday's game, the OP  originally gave Napoli a point for a Sac Fly on the 2nd Red Sox run.  When I pointed out that the run had scored on a grounder, the OP replied:


    "MLB.com, and I did mess up on the Napoli ground ball. He should not have gotten a point. Cespedes ground ball would not count, in my book, as a point. That would be too liberal an AB for me. A fly ball to RF would have been more of a contribution. Here's another "judgement" call."


    So if I'm reading this correctly, Napoli gets nothing for scoring the runner form 3rd, but the Red's Todd Frazier does because he happened to get his runner on 3rd home with a fly ball.  Essentially, they both did the same thing, drove in a run with a productive out.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    One tweak you really should make is taking away the OC for a Sac Fly.  A Sac Fly is no more a deliberate act than a grounder to short that scores a run.  Both players were trying for a base hit, one happened to hit it in the air, one didn't, but the result is the same, a run driven in via an out; the contribution is equal. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Based on my limited understanding of what the OP is doing, both of those should count.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree, but that's not what the OP said (see the 5th post from the top).

     

    In yesterday's game, the OP  originally gave Napoli a point for a Sac Fly on the 2nd Red Sox run.  When I pointed out that the run had scored on a grounder, the OP replied:

     

    "MLB.com, and I did mess up on the Napoli ground ball. He should not have gotten a point. Cespedes ground ball would not count, in my book, as a point. That would be too liberal an AB for me. A fly ball to RF would have been more of a contribution. Here's another "judgement" call."

     

    So if I'm reading this correctly, Napoli gets nothing for scoring the runner form 3rd, but the Red's Todd Frazier does because he happened to get his runner on 3rd home with a fly ball.  Essentially, they both did the same thing, drove in a run with a productive out.

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right then.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You could do this objectively.  Award a point if the hitter either reaches base or advances another runner or more by way of a productive out.  No point if the advancement resulted from an error.  So you're basically measuring PA's that accomplished something, without help from the defence.

    It's a primitive stat.  Mainly for amusement purposes, as far as I can see.  But what the heck, stats are being made up all the time in baseball. 

    [/QUOTE]


    That's just about the guist of it. Guy walsk, next singles nect guy tripls, single, whatever' as long as a run is produced they all participate and get a point.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    One tweak you really should make is taking away the OC for a Sac Fly.  A Sac Fly is no more a deliberate act than a grounder to short that scores a run.  Both players were trying for a base hit, one happened to hit it in the air, one didn't, but the result is the same, a run driven in via an out; the contribution is equal. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Based on my limited understanding of what the OP is doing, both of those should count.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree, but that's not what the OP said (see the 5th post from the top).

     

    In yesterday's game, the OP  originally gave Napoli a point for a Sac Fly on the 2nd Red Sox run.  When I pointed out that the run had scored on a grounder, the OP replied:

     

    "MLB.com, and I did mess up on the Napoli ground ball. He should not have gotten a point. Cespedes ground ball would not count, in my book, as a point. That would be too liberal an AB for me. A fly ball to RF would have been more of a contribution. Here's another "judgement" call."

     

    So if I'm reading this correctly, Napoli gets nothing for scoring the runner form 3rd, but the Red's Todd Frazier does because he happened to get his runner on 3rd home with a fly ball.  Essentially, they both did the same thing, drove in a run with a productive out.

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right then.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I maintain that the guy who hit the sac fly had a better AB than the guy who hit the ground ball. If the ground ball was hit hard (like over second base) and the fielder made a great play and got a force out, I would say that should get a point. Subjective, yes, but bottom line is he did a good job. One of the few cases where subjectivity has to come in to play.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    To me an error by other team is good. Batter put the ball in play, you bring the human factor into it. K's on the other hand, should be deducted. The most unproductive out in baseball, 2 Players involved, Pitcher and Catcher, and batter did not make contact.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Offensive Contributions (OC)

    In response to crazy-world-of-troybrown's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To me an error by other team is good. Batter put the ball in play, you bring the human factor into it. K's on the other hand, should be deducted. The most unproductive out in baseball, 2 Players involved, Pitcher and Catcher, and batter did not make contact.

    [/QUOTE]

    Runners at first at second, no out.  Wouldn't a triple play be worse than a K?

     

     

Share