OPS is nothing but BS

[NHsportsfan]

OPS is a good metric for quickly assessing a player's offensive contributions but it's not perfect. It's certainly better than the traditional Batting Average, HR, RBI.

The problem I have with OBP+ISOP is that it overvalues XBH and undervalues OBP. A HR is not worth 4 times as much as a single.

If you want to improve on OPS in a quick calculation, one option is GPA, which is (OBP*1.8+SLG)/4. This has a little higher correlation with runs scored than OPS.

See the leaderboard at http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/m ... mit=Submit

And see more background at
http://www.aarongleeman.com/2003_11_23_ ... chive.html

If you want something really precise you should probably use Equivalent Average or a Linear Weights calculation.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/stati ... qa2006.php

[buffalobillsrul2002]

Personally, I think we oughta just do (BB + HBP + TB)/PA. THis would give a true version of how many bases a player reaches per appearance, which would seem to tell us how good a batter is (a better batter should, on average, get farther than a worse batter....). To factor in leadoff hitter/speed guys, take (SB- {2*CS}), and add this to the number of TB. This tells you how many bases a player actually earns because of their speed (since 2 SB would negate one CS, as it seems taht in order for a SB to be helpful, they should be successful two-thirds of the time.

[mak1277]

I like batting average.

[j_d_mcnugent]

i think the main problem isnt with OPS, but with how people use it. as time has gone by we've discovered (or attempted, at least) more complete measures. unfortunately many people still treat it as THE stat when it is just one of many. it isnt the best but i respect it as a step in the right direction.

[free]

seems like the consensus here is that OPS is overrated what would you use, then, in place of OPS in a standard 6x6?

[Pogotheostrich]

seems like the consensus here is that OPS is overrated what would you use, then, in place of OPS in a standard 6x6?

If you are already using R, HR, RBI, SB and BA why not include BB?

[free]

seems like the consensus here is that OPS is overrated what would you use, then, in place of OPS in a standard 6x6?

If you are already using R, HR, RBI, SB and BA why not include BB?

thats a good question, but maybe bb's just aren't flashy enough in this "fast-food" society

[HOOTIE]

OPS is a joke. I've never understood how it gained such popularity. I hope the big sabremetrics guys do not endorse it in any fashion. You're adding two numbers with completely different denominators, for God's sake! It's got no conceptual meaning. You can't tell a thing about a player by looking at his isolated OPS other than, perhaps, that he's pretty good, or he sucks. If you've got a great OPS, what are you good at? Getting on base? Piling up the bases? Beats me. And everyone else. You don't know. You're good at something, but we don't know what. It's not true at all that it's like any other stat. It's like NO other stat that I've seen. It tells no story. It's a sham.

OPS isn't perfect. But it tells a better story then AVG, runs, rbis, hrs. Look at teams run scored every year, and look at their ops. There is a correlation with ops and runs scored. The main problem with is ops, is it doesn't account for parks. Ops+ does. OBA should be given more weight. 1.6 oba rate seems to be more accurate.

Avg tells you very little. How hard was it hit? Runs/rbis are team dependent stats with luck a big factor. OPS beats those easily.

[joshheines]

OPS is a joke. I've never understood how it gained such popularity. I hope the big sabremetrics guys do not endorse it in any fashion. You're adding two numbers with completely different denominators, for God's sake! It's got no conceptual meaning. You can't tell a thing about a player by looking at his isolated OPS other than, perhaps, that he's pretty good, or he sucks. If you've got a great OPS, what are you good at? Getting on base? Piling up the bases? Beats me. And everyone else. You don't know. You're good at something, but we don't know what. It's not true at all that it's like any other stat. It's like NO other stat that I've seen. It tells no story. It's a sham.

OPS isn't perfect. But it tells a better story then AVG, runs, rbis, hrs. Look at teams run scored every year, and look at their ops. There is a correlation with ops and runs scored. The main problem with is ops, is it doesn't account for parks. Ops+ does. OBA should be given more weight. 1.6 oba rate seems to be more accurate.

Avg tells you very little. How hard was it hit? Runs/rbis are team dependent stats with luck a big factor. OPS beats those easily.

It's easy to say those numbers mean nothing and not back them up. A quick look at the top run-scoring teams today reveals that there is a strong correlation to batting average. Of the top ten run scoring teams in the MLB only two have team batting averages that fall outside of the top ten in MLB. Those two teams are the Mets and the Braves. Conversely, those same ten run producing teams have only six teams in the top ten of OBP. Along with the Mets and Braves, the Rangers and Toronto fall. Then of the ten run producing teams in the top, nine teams are in the top ten in SLG. The Twins fall out. Same thing goes for OPS, only the Twins fall out.

Maybe OBP isn't as indicative as we thought?

[mamorris]

OPS is a joke. I've never understood how it gained such popularity. I hope the big sabremetrics guys do not endorse it in any fashion. You're adding two numbers with completely different denominators, for God's sake! It's got no conceptual meaning. You can't tell a thing about a player by looking at his isolated OPS other than, perhaps, that he's pretty good, or he sucks. If you've got a great OPS, what are you good at? Getting on base? Piling up the bases? Beats me. And everyone else. You don't know. You're good at something, but we don't know what. It's not true at all that it's like any other stat. It's like NO other stat that I've seen. It tells no story. It's a sham.

OPS isn't perfect. But it tells a better story then AVG, runs, rbis, hrs. Look at teams run scored every year, and look at their ops. There is a correlation with ops and runs scored. The main problem with is ops, is it doesn't account for parks. Ops+ does. OBA should be given more weight. 1.6 oba rate seems to be more accurate.

Avg tells you very little. How hard was it hit? Runs/rbis are team dependent stats with luck a big factor. OPS beats those easily.

It's easy to say those numbers mean nothing and not back them up. A quick look at the top run-scoring teams today reveals that there is a strong correlation to batting average. Of the top ten run scoring teams in the MLB only two have team batting averages that fall outside of the top ten in MLB. Those two teams are the Mets and the Braves. Conversely, those same ten run producing teams have only six teams in the top ten of OBP. Along with the Mets and Braves, the Rangers and Toronto fall. Then of the ten run producing teams in the top, nine teams are in the top ten in SLG. The Twins fall out. Same thing goes for OPS, only the Twins fall out.

Maybe OBP isn't as indicative as we thought?

Go back through history and check every team, instead of just the top ten from one year. Since 1954 (when SFs were recorded), runs correlates to OPS better than your stat, but both are better than OBP and AVG. AVG is the worst by quite a way.