The 2013 Sox and OPS

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the time-tested stats for player evaluation. Putouts , assists and fielding percentage for defense. Batting average,  Home Runs, RBIs , runs scored, on base pct. , slugging pct. and strikeouts for offense. Won / loss record , ERA and strikeouts / walks for pitchers. People get too carried away with the newer metrics. How many even know how WAR is computed ?   OPS is nothing more than the addition of slugging and on base percentages. And , it gives exactly equal weight to each, which is questionable.  I guess it is fun for the wannabe Bill James to play around with all these numbers, but it is not really necessary for player evaluation. The best method still is to watch the games and form your opinions.

     




     

    Fielding % has to be the worst stat to judge a player ever invented. Even if the scoring was consistent and objective, it would tell just a small fraction of what is need to evaluate who is a great fielder or not.

    Put outs and assists are near useless as well, unless you relate them to innings played. RF9 is better, but even that stat is flawed.

    Yes, OPS is flawed because it counts SLG% as equal to OBP. However, it is way better than using just BA HR and RBIs (old school).

    A better stat would be to maybe weigh OBP 2:1 to SLG%.

     




    Of course putouts and assists have to be related to innings played. 

     



    Different pitchers have different GB/FB ratios, and different parks might allow for more balls in play.  Fenway probably doesn't have a lot of LF putouts.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    Batting average,  Home Runs, RBIs , runs scored, on base pct. , slugging pct. and strikeouts for offense. 

    Those stats are too easy to manipulate.  Beltre had a .759 OPS with Seattle.  He's had a .912 since.  That's all ballpark

    Beltre had 396 RBIs in 5 seasons with Seattle, and 309 in only 3 seasons with the RS and TX.  That's all the lineup.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the time-tested stats for player evaluation. Putouts , assists and fielding percentage for defense. Batting average,  Home Runs, RBIs , runs scored, on base pct. , slugging pct. and strikeouts for offense. Won / loss record , ERA and strikeouts / walks for pitchers. People get too carried away with the newer metrics. How many even know how WAR is computed ?   OPS is nothing more than the addition of slugging and on base percentages. And , it gives exactly equal weight to each, which is questionable.  I guess it is fun for the wannabe Bill James to play around with all these numbers, but it is not really necessary for player evaluation. The best method still is to watch the games and form your opinions.

     




     

    Fielding % has to be the worst stat to judge a player ever invented. Even if the scoring was consistent and objective, it would tell just a small fraction of what is need to evaluate who is a great fielder or not.

    Put outs and assists are near useless as well, unless you relate them to innings played. RF9 is better, but even that stat is flawed.

    Yes, OPS is flawed because it counts SLG% as equal to OBP. However, it is way better than using just BA HR and RBIs (old school).

    A better stat would be to maybe weigh OBP 2:1 to SLG%.

     




    Of course putouts and assists have to be related to innings played. 

     

     



    Different pitchers have different GB/FB ratios, and different parks might allow for more balls in play.  Fenway probably doesn't have a lot of LF putouts.

     




    There are a lot of variables , no matter how you try to compute it. Defense is hard to quantify.  There are variables in the UZR stats as well. I would put more faith in putouts and assists than I would in UZR.  It is hard to evaluate a player's defense without seeing him play many games. Errors are harmful and should not be ignored. They can be offset , if the guy is also making some great plays. You really have to watch the games.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    Batting average,  Home Runs, RBIs , runs scored, on base pct. , slugging pct. and strikeouts for offense. 

    Those stats are too easy to manipulate.  Beltre had a .759 OPS with Seattle.  He's had a .912 since.  That's all ballpark

    Beltre had 396 RBIs in 5 seasons with Seattle, and 309 in only 3 seasons with the RS and TX.  That's all the lineup.



    OPS+ might be better. There are valid arguements against any single statistic. Which ones you use is largely a matter of preference since there is no PROOF that any group of them are better than another.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the time-tested stats for player evaluation. Putouts , assists and fielding percentage for defense. Batting average,  Home Runs, RBIs , runs scored, on base pct. , slugging pct. and strikeouts for offense. Won / loss record , ERA and strikeouts / walks for pitchers. People get too carried away with the newer metrics. How many even know how WAR is computed ?   OPS is nothing more than the addition of slugging and on base percentages. And , it gives exactly equal weight to each, which is questionable.  I guess it is fun for the wannabe Bill James to play around with all these numbers, but it is not really necessary for player evaluation. The best method still is to watch the games and form your opinions.

     




     

    Fielding % has to be the worst stat to judge a player ever invented. Even if the scoring was consistent and objective, it would tell just a small fraction of what is need to evaluate who is a great fielder or not.

    Put outs and assists are near useless as well, unless you relate them to innings played. RF9 is better, but even that stat is flawed.

    Yes, OPS is flawed because it counts SLG% as equal to OBP. However, it is way better than using just BA HR and RBIs (old school).

    A better stat would be to maybe weigh OBP 2:1 to SLG%.

     




    Of course putouts and assists have to be related to innings played. 

     

     



    Different pitchers have different GB/FB ratios, and different parks might allow for more balls in play.  Fenway probably doesn't have a lot of LF putouts.

     

     




    There are a lot of variables , no matter how you try to compute it. Defense is hard to quantify.  There are variables in the UZR stats as well. I would put more faith in putouts and assists than I would in UZR.  It is hard to evaluate a player's defense without seeing him play many games. Errors are harmful and should not be ignored. They can be offset , if the guy is also making some great plays. You really have to watch the games.

     



    Nobody said ignore errors, but give me a SS who makes 35 errors but makes 50-100 more plays over a seasonthan the "sure-handed" SS with 10-15 errors any day of the week.

    UZR has serious flaws and is not supposed to be used to judge a player over small sample sizes, which can, in some cases be 1-2 seasons. If you look at 3 year UZR rankings by positions and compare the top 10 players vs the top 10 Fldg% players, or put out players, or assist players, it will be clear to anyone who knows anything about baseball that the UZR list is more accurate. Many people do not like having to wait 3 years to evaluate a player's defense, but it is a more accurate, though flawed tool. I have never used UZR as the sole metric/stat for judgement. I also like RF/9 and other metrics. The Fielding Bible is also a better judge of defensive ability than the GG vote or any single stat like Flg%, PO, or A. 

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the time-tested stats for player evaluation. Putouts , assists and fielding percentage for defense. Batting average,  Home Runs, RBIs , runs scored, on base pct. , slugging pct. and strikeouts for offense. Won / loss record , ERA and strikeouts / walks for pitchers. People get too carried away with the newer metrics. How many even know how WAR is computed ?   OPS is nothing more than the addition of slugging and on base percentages. And , it gives exactly equal weight to each, which is questionable.  I guess it is fun for the wannabe Bill James to play around with all these numbers, but it is not really necessary for player evaluation. The best method still is to watch the games and form your opinions.

     




     

    Fielding % has to be the worst stat to judge a player ever invented. Even if the scoring was consistent and objective, it would tell just a small fraction of what is need to evaluate who is a great fielder or not.

    Put outs and assists are near useless as well, unless you relate them to innings played. RF9 is better, but even that stat is flawed.

    Yes, OPS is flawed because it counts SLG% as equal to OBP. However, it is way better than using just BA HR and RBIs (old school).

    A better stat would be to maybe weigh OBP 2:1 to SLG%.

     




    Of course putouts and assists have to be related to innings played. 

     

     



    Different pitchers have different GB/FB ratios, and different parks might allow for more balls in play.  Fenway probably doesn't have a lot of LF putouts.

     

     




    There are a lot of variables , no matter how you try to compute it. Defense is hard to quantify.  There are variables in the UZR stats as well. I would put more faith in putouts and assists than I would in UZR.  It is hard to evaluate a player's defense without seeing him play many games. Errors are harmful and should not be ignored. They can be offset , if the guy is also making some great plays. You really have to watch the games.

     

     



    Nobody said ignore errors, but give me a SS who makes 35 errors but makes 50-100 more plays over a seasonthan the "sure-handed" SS with 10-15 errors any day of the week.

     

    UZR has serious flaws and is not supposed to be used to judge a player over small sample sizes, which can, in some cases be 1-2 seasons. If you look at 3 year UZR rankings by positions and compare the top 10 players vs the top 10 Fldg% players, or put out players, or assist players, it will be clear to anyone who knows anything about baseball that the UZR list is more accurate. Many people do not like having to wait 3 years to evaluate a player's defense, but it is a more accurate, though flawed tool. I have never used UZR as the sole metric/stat for judgement. I also like RF/9 and other metrics. The Fielding Bible is also a better judge of defensive ability than the GG vote or any single stat like Flg%, PO, or A. 




    UZR sometimes has wide variations in a given player's rating , even though the player's range does not vary very much.  I have no faith in it.  Range Factor is a Bill James stat that relies mostly on putouts and assists. It is hard to put a number on how many errors are acceptable as compared to outstanding plays.  I watch a lot of games , and I prefer to use my own opinion as to a player's defense.  If you know the game , you know a great defender when you see one. ( e.g. Iglesias )  You also know a butcher when you see one. Frankly , I don't even try to figure out how they compute UZR and WAR.  Sometimes we can get too convoluted with all these numbers. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the time-tested stats for player evaluation. Putouts , assists and fielding percentage for defense. Batting average,  Home Runs, RBIs , runs scored, on base pct. , slugging pct. and strikeouts for offense. Won / loss record , ERA and strikeouts / walks for pitchers. People get too carried away with the newer metrics. How many even know how WAR is computed ?   OPS is nothing more than the addition of slugging and on base percentages. And , it gives exactly equal weight to each, which is questionable.  I guess it is fun for the wannabe Bill James to play around with all these numbers, but it is not really necessary for player evaluation. The best method still is to watch the games and form your opinions.

     




     

    Fielding % has to be the worst stat to judge a player ever invented. Even if the scoring was consistent and objective, it would tell just a small fraction of what is need to evaluate who is a great fielder or not.

    Put outs and assists are near useless as well, unless you relate them to innings played. RF9 is better, but even that stat is flawed.

    Yes, OPS is flawed because it counts SLG% as equal to OBP. However, it is way better than using just BA HR and RBIs (old school).

    A better stat would be to maybe weigh OBP 2:1 to SLG%.

     




    Of course putouts and assists have to be related to innings played. 

     

     



    Different pitchers have different GB/FB ratios, and different parks might allow for more balls in play.  Fenway probably doesn't have a lot of LF putouts.

     

     




    There are a lot of variables , no matter how you try to compute it. Defense is hard to quantify.  There are variables in the UZR stats as well. I would put more faith in putouts and assists than I would in UZR.  It is hard to evaluate a player's defense without seeing him play many games. Errors are harmful and should not be ignored. They can be offset , if the guy is also making some great plays. You really have to watch the games.

     

     



    Nobody said ignore errors, but give me a SS who makes 35 errors but makes 50-100 more plays over a seasonthan the "sure-handed" SS with 10-15 errors any day of the week.

     

    UZR has serious flaws and is not supposed to be used to judge a player over small sample sizes, which can, in some cases be 1-2 seasons. If you look at 3 year UZR rankings by positions and compare the top 10 players vs the top 10 Fldg% players, or put out players, or assist players, it will be clear to anyone who knows anything about baseball that the UZR list is more accurate. Many people do not like having to wait 3 years to evaluate a player's defense, but it is a more accurate, though flawed tool. I have never used UZR as the sole metric/stat for judgement. I also like RF/9 and other metrics. The Fielding Bible is also a better judge of defensive ability than the GG vote or any single stat like Flg%, PO, or A. 



    An example: SS with 1500 innings + (from 2010-2012):

    Leaders:

    UZR/150

    1) Barnes

    2) B Ryan

    3) Hardy

    4) Peralta

    5) Crawford

    6) A Ramirez

    7) Janish

    8) Izturis

    9) Tulo

    10) Rollins

     

    Fldg%

    1) Peralta

    2) hardy

    3) Isturis

    4) Tulo

    5) Rollins

    6) Jeter (one of the worst SSs over the last decade)

    7) Janish

    8) S Drew (are you kidding me?)

    9) A Ramirtez

    10) B Ryan

     

    It's obvious, isn't it?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    UZR sometimes has wide variations in a given player's rating , even though the player's range does not vary very much.  I have no faith in it.  Range Factor is a Bill James stat that relies mostly on putouts and assists.

    RF/9 is basically what you said we should do: count POs and As and figure in the innings played. It is PO+A divided by innings x 9, so you get a number of how many plays they make per 9 innings. Of course, players who play on teams with pitchers who strike out a lot of players will get less chances, high GB pitching teams will hurt OF'er numbers, and high Fly Ball pitching sstaffs will hurt IF numbers, but RF/9 is clearly better than just looking at POs, Assts and innings and trying to compare 3 stats at once in your head. It does it for you.

    It is hard to put a number on how many errors are acceptable as compared to outstanding plays. 

    It's easy for me. I play made that other players don't normally make is about equal to an error taken away from his total, unless it's an error that allows a runner to advance to 2B or take an extra base. Clearly, A SS who makes 50 more plays than another SS, but makes 25 more errors is the better SS. There's no way 25 more errors is not more than made up for by creating 50 more outs than the other guy. There are SSs in MLb who routinely, year-after-year, make 50-100 more plays in the field than specific other poor ranged SSs. That's a huge differential that is not measured by Flg%. RF/9 might cover some of it, but fo rthose who look at flg% first, it is often lost.

    I watch a lot of games , and I prefer to use my own opinion as to a player's defense. If you know the game , you know a great defender when you see one. ( e.g. Iglesias )  You also know a butcher when you see one.

    I do too. I watch every single play of every Sox game at least once. I also watch a lot of other baseball. I have done this for years. I played the game and always loved defense. I'm not saying I am a better evaluater than you or anyone else (except softy), but I have always concentrated on SS defense more than any other area of the game. I am certain that a great ranged SS can save over 100 hits a season over a below average SS. That is huge! 

    Let's take one example: Julio Lugo. I was highly critical of this guy as our SS and about his not meeting offensive expectations either, however, when he was healthy, he had very good to excellent range. True, he botched some easy plays, and in his later years with Boston, due to injuries, his range declined sharply to the point that he was one of the worst SSs we have had playing FT.

    In 2003 he had a RF/9 of 4.75

    2004 4.73

    2005 4.93

    2006 4.56

    Begins career with Boston....

    2007 4.21 (still decent)

    2008 3.70

    2009 4.04 (some in STL)

    Most remember his last year and half here in Boston, but IMO, we don't win a ring in 2007, if Lugo had a 3.70 RF/9 at SS (his 2008 number).

    Frankly , I don't even try to figure out how they compute UZR and WAR.  Sometimes we can get too convoluted with all these numbers. 

    UZR is formulated by people who watch every play of the game. They judge balls that are put in play as makeable or not. It is not a perfect science, but do any of us watch every game and play of every player? It's impossible. Yes, we watch the opposing team's SS and wish ours was as good as theirs more often than not, but that is not really a true comparative analysis. Although there are flaws in the UZR system, especially over shorter sample sizes, these guys are probably better experts than I am, and try to be objective, unlike the "official" Yankee scorer who lets Jeter off the hook so many times a year, it's not funny. (All home scorers due to some degree.)

    UZR is part of WAR. WAR is not perfect either, but again, look at the top 10 players by WAR over the last 3 years and comapre them to the top 10 OPS or BA, or HR or OBP, or whatever stat you choose, and as a single number, the WAR number ranks the best players better than OPS (the common offensive stat of choice these days) alone, since it factors in defense.

    Top 10 by WAR from 2010-2012:

    1) Miggy

    2) Votto

    3) Cano

    4) Braun

    5) Beltre

    6) Bautista

    7) mcCutchen

    8) Hamilton

    9) Holliday

    10) Pujols

     

    by OPS:

    1) Miggy

    2) Votto

    3) bautista

    4) Hamilton

    5) Ortiz

    6) Braun

    7) Fielder

    8) Pujols

    9) Tulo

    10) C Gon


    BA: Miggy, Votto, Braun, posey, VMart, Mauer, Beltre, Hamilt, CGon, AGon

    OBP;  Votto, Miggy, Prince, Baut, Mauer, Papi, Berkman, C Ruiz, Holliday, Braun.

    SLG: Miggy, Baut, Hamilton, Votto, Braun, beltre, Papi, Stanton, Pujols, CGon

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?  I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality. A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range. When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    Good analysis Moon and Sonics...I agree that the pitching will be the difference with this team though.

    Naps should be at least as good as Gonzo's .807OPS last year. Not sure who they are getting to platoon with him. Any ideas. Could we look to trade with the Pirates again?

     




    Platoon with Napi?  Why?  His career OPS vs. RHP (as a catcher) is .845.  

     




    Theyneed a LH platoon. Not an even split. I dont trust that hip.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    Napoli has problems showing up for work. He's also a terrible defender at first. The Crawford incompetence cost AGon. Let's not pretend that dumpster profile Napoli is an improvement over AGon, he most certainly isn't.




    Twist peoples words much?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?  I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality. A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range. When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 




    the old metrics don't tell you everything. Sabermetrics give you a narrower (and more accurate) picture of a players skill. When used in conjunction of other stats you get a better view of just how good a players skill really is. (os opposed to just using BA, RBI, HR for batters and ERA, W/L K/W ratios for pitchers)

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the time-tested stats for player evaluation. Putouts , assists and fielding percentage for defense. Batting average,  Home Runs, RBIs , runs scored, on base pct. , slugging pct. and strikeouts for offense. Won / loss record , ERA and strikeouts / walks for pitchers. People get too carried away with the newer metrics. How many even know how WAR is computed ?   OPS is nothing more than the addition of slugging and on base percentages. And , it gives exactly equal weight to each, which is questionable.  I guess it is fun for the wannabe Bill James to play around with all these numbers, but it is not really necessary for player evaluation. The best method still is to watch the games and form your opinions.

     



    There is nothing wrong with SOME of those stats e.g. HR, OBP, SLG, K/W.  There is a LOT wrong with some of them e.g. RBI, R, BA.

     

     




    OPS I think is the best offensive statistic. The higher the better regardless of how you get there.

     



    OPSA(gainst) is an underused pitching stat

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    Just like anything else. A proper balance of both will give you everything you need to know. I tend to rely on the old-school way a little more, but without question use some of the newer metrics to evaluate players. I dont rely on one or the other.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    Well done Moon. Out of that list you have both guys trending up and guys who are trending down.

    Out of this list players who should improve

    1. Ellsbury [good one year hurt the next= this should be good year]

    2. Drew [finally healthy after terrible ankle injury; should bounce back closer to 10 #'s]

    3. Middlebrooks [hopefully no sophmore jinx]

    Players who are trending down

    1. Naps [was last yr a fluke or 11 more likely?]

    2. Ortiz [can't possibly put #'s up like last yr again?]

    3. D.Ross [catchers usually don't age well]

    Players who should stay about the same

    1.Pedroia [needs to stay healthy to have that really big yr]

    J.Gomes [as long as used properly=mostly vs LH's]

    Victorino [know what last 2 yrs trend is, just feel he will bounce back this yr just a hunch]

    Player to watch out for R.Kalish [another hunch] just have this feeling he will be the player he was prior to injuries, finally had a healthy off season [no surgeries] and think he will be the biggest surprise for RS this year.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    Top 10 by WAR from 2010-2012:

    1) Miggy

    2) Votto

    3) Cano

    4) Braun

    5) Beltre

    6) Bautista

    7) mcCutchen

     

    by OPS:

    1) Miggy

    2) Votto

    3) bautista

    4) Hamilton

    5) Ortiz

    6) Braun

    7) Fielder

     

    Who is the better overall player?

    Cano or Bautista?

    Beltre or Papi?

    McCutchen or Fielder?

     

    WAR is clearly better than any single stat like BA, OPS, or OBP.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Top 10 by WAR from 2010-2012:

    1) Miggy

    2) Votto

    3) Cano

    4) Braun

    5) Beltre

    6) Bautista

    7) mcCutchen

     

    by OPS:

    1) Miggy

    2) Votto

    3) bautista

    4) Hamilton

    5) Ortiz

    6) Braun

    7) Fielder

     

    Who is the better overall player?

    Cano or Bautista?

    Beltre or Papi?

    McCutchen or Fielder?

     

    WAR is clearly better than any single stat like BA, OPS, or OBP.



    Bastista over Cano. Fielder vs McCutchen is interesting. Fielder is a better hitter but plays First Base.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     



    So, you know all of the scorekeepers that determine feilding %?

    Cool!!

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     



    So, you knowall of the scorekeepers that determine feilding %?

     

    Cool!!




    I think you missed the point. Most errors are obvious and out in the open. The scorer is open to criticism on tough calls.   UZR is not.  Instead of debating the point , you make an asinine comment asking if I know all of the official scorers.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     



    So, you knowall of the scorekeepers that determine feilding %?

     

    Cool!!

     




    I think you missed the point. Most errors are obvious and out in the open. The scorer is open to criticism on tough calls.   UZR is not.  Instead of debating the point , you make an asinine comment asking if I know all of the official scorers.

     



    The scorer is not open to criticism. Fielding percantage is about as subjective as it gets. As AA matter of a fact they are extremely bias because until last year they were paid employees of the home team. Watch a no hitter, there is tons of pressure on the scorer to make any close play an error because they don't want to be the reason a no hitter is gone.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious.

    No. Many are subjective.

    Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated. 

    My point is that if you are a true expert on baseball, you still can't watch every play of every game by every player, so your "list of top 10 players" would not be based on your personal observations, but rather on numbers you choose to value and others you choose not to value as much, if at all. If you do base it 100% on observations, then some players are getting valued on extremely small sample sizes.

    I do not doubt that you know a great fielder when you see one, but my guess is that if you do know every SS in MLB pretty well, and I asked you to rate the top 10 fielders at SS, your list would be closer to the top 3 year UZR list than the top 10 Fld% list. That's my point.

     

    I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion.

    Your opinion is also just "some guys opinion" as well.

    As i saud before, many errors are called errors by "some guy's opinion" and there is little consistency in error calling, except for maybe that most home field scorers are generous to their team's fielders and harsh on the opps.

    I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

    Yes, but it is hard to list 3-5 stats for every player in comparison. It's easier to try and pick the one stat that matters most, but by no means have I or others here ever said only one stat of metric should be used to value anyone. I use OPS a lot, because I think it is better than OBP or SLG% alone. OPS+ is better, but not many fans understand it's meaning or how to use it. CERA is a prime example of a misunderstood and misused stat.

    Personallly, I'd like to see a stat like this: OBP x 2 + Slg% divided by 3. OBP is weighted twice as much as Slg%. This would not be perfect either, but better than OPS.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    Let's see how my formula would change the top OPS players.

    (OBP x 2 + SLG%/3)

    2010-2012:

                  OBP/SLG/OPS       2OBP + 1SLG/3

    Miggy .420/.604/1.025     .481

    Votto .434/.564/.998        .477

    Baut  .400/.593/.992        .464

    Ham  .370/.583/.952        .441

    Ortiz  .391/.558/.950        .447

    Braun .384/.563/.947       .444

    Field  .409/.521/.930        .446

    Pujols .375/.550/.926      .433

    Tulo    .374/.545/.918       .431

    CGon  .371/.547/.918       .430

     

    Papi and Fielder move up a bit due to a higher OBP, but the list does not change much. 

     

    Looking at OPS+, here were the leaders in 2012 (baseball ref)

    1) Posey 172

    2) Trout  171

    3) Miggy 165

    4) McCutch 164

    5) Braun 159

    6) Fielder 152

    7) Encarnacion 152

    8) Cano 149

    9) Willingham 144

    10) Headley 144

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    Looking at OPS+, here were the leaders in 2012 (baseball ref)

    1) Posey 172

    2) Trout  171

    3) Miggy 165

    4) McCutch 164

    5) Braun 159

    6) Fielder 152

    7) Encarnacion 152

    8) Cano 149

    9) Willingham 144

    10) Headley 144

     


    This list really shows some up and comers.

    Those who wanted Willingham last winter appear to have been on the right track.

     

Share