xeifrank wrote:Arlo wrote:I think 'flawed' is the wrong word to use here. OPS may better represent a player's contribution to his team than, say, batting average or RBI, but as a stat, OPS is considerably more flawed.
Why is OPS more flawed as a stat than batting average and RBIs. I mean batting average is a subset of OPS. Kind of like comparing near beer to samuel adams.
RBIs (for example) are what they are. Every time you drive in a runner, chalk one up.
Do RBIs show how good, or valuable, a hitter is? Not particularly. Are they influenced by teammates, position in the batting order, and so on? Of course. But that's irrelevant. The stat accurately represents what it's supposed to. No more, but no less, either. If there's a flaw with RBI, it's in the the way some choose to interpret and emphasize the stat, not in the stat itself.
OPS, on the other hand, isn't a bad tool for judging a player's value, but by pretending that OBP and slugging are equally important and that you can simply add them together, it misrepresents their true values. RBI may be simple and limited in scope, but at least it doesn't introduce any fallacies.