noseeum wrote:Big Pimpin wrote:As far as your below vs. above average, I think that does happen on offense because there isn't one universally accepted measure (hopefully wOBA will be it). One person might value BA, another OBP, another values SLG, another OPS and another OPS+. Just as bigwords said, everyone has an opinion on what's the right measure is so how can there possibly be agreement. As an example, Mike Cameron was widely regarded as a disappointing offensive player during his time in Seattle. I could dig up the Bavasi quote from when he kicked him to the curb, but it doesn't matter. He had a low average and he struck out a lot. The fact is that he played in a park that greatly reduced his offensive effectiveness, and yet his bat was still worth at least a win on it's own merit, notwithstanding the fact that he was the best defensive CF alive during the time.
This is just not true. If someone still holds the opinion that BA is a more important stat than OBP, than that person is misinformed. Yes, there are various "opinions" about offense, but most of those opinions are wrong. Sure, baseball writers can think Jim Rice was great, but the numbers say he wasn't.
OBP is the most important offensive stat. It correllates most highly with runs. That is not an opinion. That's why OPS is a simple yet inaccurate stat. It overweights slugging. These are not opinions. They are facts.
Yes, there is research at the margins arguing what's the best sum total for offensive evaluation, OPS+, Win Shares, WOBA, etc. But those are summaries of statistics that are beyond dispute. This player walked up to bat 650 times last year, he walked 120 times, he stole 10 bases, he hit 40 homers, 36 doubles, 2 triples, struck out 92 times, had a .360 BABIP, 89% contact rate, etc. We don't have root statistics on defense like we do for offense, and that's the problem.
You can argue which sum total statistic is most accurate for offense, but the quality of the root statistics is so vastly superior to defense that all of the respected summary stats have a huge amount of evidence to support them.
For instance, why aren't we recording throwing errors and catching errors as different stats? Why when a ball that hit a player's glove but is ruled a hit are we not recording that he got to it but he couldn't make the play? It's not an error, but he got to it. We should record that somehow. Perhaps he kept it in the infield, but he didn't get the guy out at first. There's still immense value in that if there's a player on base already. Why is a shortstop getting credit for fielding a ball out of the zone when he's standing at second base in a shift when Giambi's up to bat? There's no skill in that. He stood where his manager told him to and the ball got hit right to him.
etc. etc. etc.
Actually wOBA correlates most closely with runs.
I just think it's silly to say that if people disagree on offense, then the ones on one side are misinformed, while simultaneously saying that all defensive metrics are basically wrong. That's simply your opinion. There are a lot of very smart, published people who happen to disagree with you very much.
And even if you agree that OBP is the stat, what does it mean? If you have a higher than average OBP by 15 points, how many runs better than average are you? What if you get on base well but only get singles? How does SLG play into run creation?
I agree that there are improvements to be made, but to just simply blow off all the metrics as you seem so wont to do just seems silly to me. That's all.