bigh0rt wrote:As a numbers guy, my main beef with OPS from a mathematical perspective is that it benefits those with higher AVGs moreso than those without, and really doesn't compensate for it elsewhere in the equation. It takes batting average twice into the equation, with the extra from SLG and OBP once apiece. I think if we added (OBP -AVG) and (SLG - AVG) to OPS, we'd have a more accurate figure of value. But maybe that's just me.
It benefits those with a higher moreso than those without because players with higher averages tend to be more productive. The only players it really shortchanges are those with high walk totals because SLG% disregards a BBs ability to move runners (which is why OBP should be given a heavier weight).
I don't know for sure, but I think the idea behind it has something to do with the fact that teams with a high OBP will make pitchers throw more pitchers per inning, thus you tire the pitchers out quicker.
One problem people should realize about OPS is that OBP is a rate based on PAs, and SLG% is a rate based on ABs. Compare that to runs created where both are based on PAs, since it takes total bases and multiplies them by times on base, thus putting them both on the same scale, and solving the main problem with OPS.
Anyone know much about XR? I have heard it is the purist way to evaluate.