|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 2, 2022 10:28:41 GMT -8
OPS is a misleading and overvalued stat. Tony Gwynn didn't have a great OPS number. Well above average, but there are a lot of players that were/are nowhere near his league who have much better OPS numbers. That's all you need to know to know it's a misleading stat. Batting average, runs, and RBI. Those are the most important stats. If you're not scoring or driving in runs, you're not valuable, offensively. You have to get hits to drive in runs, so batting average is very important. Walks are nice, but hits are much more valuable. It. Is. Not. You were wrong then, you're wrong now, you've been told you're wrong multiple times. Your knowledge in this space is limited, at best...and egregiously incorrect at worst. Cherrypicking one player who didn't hit for power is not an indictment against any stat. It's disingenuous and stupid, to be frank. TG had an OPS+ of 132. For a player who specialized in line drives, that's still very good. It's just outside the top 100 in baseball history, regardless of position. Would you agree that Tony was one of the 10-20 greatest hitters of all time? (I'd say Top 10, but we'll expand it to 20 for you.) If not for his home runs Grisham was less than worthless, offensively. He stranded a TON of runners on base. He SUCKED, offensively, this year. He was terrible. Not just, "Not great," but if you take those aberrant Home Runs out he was one of the worst hitters in the league. With those home runs he still failed to deliver when they needed him to far more often than not. He was a failure, offensively, in the clutch until the playoffs, and then reverted back to, "Mr. Automatic Out," against the Phillies. Grisham is a horrible offensive player. A major liability. He hit as bad as pitchers did. PITCHERS. No amount of defensive ability is worth a hitter THAT bad. I'm just saying we need an outfielder who can actually hit when we need him to. I mean, expecting an outfielder to hit more than his weight isn't asking for much.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 2, 2022 11:14:44 GMT -8
It. Is. Not. You were wrong then, you're wrong now, you've been told you're wrong multiple times. Your knowledge in this space is limited, at best...and egregiously incorrect at worst. Cherrypicking one player who didn't hit for power is not an indictment against any stat. It's disingenuous and stupid, to be frank. TG had an OPS+ of 132. For a player who specialized in line drives, that's still very good. It's just outside the top 100 in baseball history, regardless of position. Would you agree that Tony was one of the 10-20 greatest hitters of all time? (I'd say Top 10, but we'll expand it to 20 for you.) If not for his home runs Grisham was less than worthless, offensively. He stranded a TON of runners on base. He SUCKED, offensively, this year. He was terrible. Not just, "Not great," but if you take those aberrant Home Runs out he was one of the worst hitters in the league. With those home runs he still failed to deliver when they needed him to far more often than not. He was a failure, offensively, in the clutch until the playoffs, and then reverted back to, "Mr. Automatic Out," against the Phillies. Grisham is a horrible offensive player. A major liability. He hit as bad as pitchers did. PITCHERS. No amount of defensive ability is worth a hitter THAT bad. I'm just saying we need an outfielder who can actually hit when we need him to. I mean, expecting an outfielder to hit more than his weight isn't asking for much. Yeah, Grisham needs limit those horrendous strike outs, and got much better with men on base to justify a starting position, regardless of his defensive abilities. Besides, I was told by Ryan that Gold Gloves are merely a popularity contest, even though he brings it up when trying to tout Grisham. So there's that.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2022 11:16:37 GMT -8
It. Is. Not. You were wrong then, you're wrong now, you've been told you're wrong multiple times. Your knowledge in this space is limited, at best...and egregiously incorrect at worst. Cherrypicking one player who didn't hit for power is not an indictment against any stat. It's disingenuous and stupid, to be frank. TG had an OPS+ of 132. For a player who specialized in line drives, that's still very good. It's just outside the top 100 in baseball history, regardless of position. Would you agree that Tony was one of the 10-20 greatest hitters of all time? (I'd say Top 10, but we'll expand it to 20 for you.) If not for his home runs Grisham was less than worthless, offensively. He stranded a TON of runners on base. He SUCKED, offensively, this year. He was terrible. Not just, "Not great," but if you take those aberrant Home Runs out he was one of the worst hitters in the league. With those home runs he still failed to deliver when they needed him to far more often than not. He was a failure, offensively, in the clutch until the playoffs, and then reverted back to, "Mr. Automatic Out," against the Phillies. Grisham is a horrible offensive player. A major liability. He hit as bad as pitchers did. PITCHERS. No amount of defensive ability is worth a hitter THAT bad. I'm just saying we need an outfielder who can actually hit when we need him to. I mean, expecting an outfielder to hit more than his weight isn't asking for much. There's more to being a good hitter than just one trait. There's more to being a good pure hitter than just one element. A top hitter? Sure. A top *power* hitter? Of course not. Nobody would argue that genuinely because it's easily disproven by a cursory glance at his numbers. That doesn't in any way equal what you're saying it does in regards to OPS. You keep using selected and isolated stats that are captured in larger, more effective metrics. As I said previously, Grisham was 17% below league average in terms of weighted run creation. Not good by any means, but not Austin Hedges-lite, either. His track record before that (with proper context) was fine. You'd take a league average bat in center with plus defensive metrics making near league minimum 100 times out of 100. He had a down offensive year. That doesn't mean you just jettison him at a position where there's more than just one basic need.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 2, 2022 11:49:57 GMT -8
Would you agree that Tony was one of the 10-20 greatest hitters of all time? (I'd say Top 10, but we'll expand it to 20 for you.) If not for his home runs Grisham was less than worthless, offensively. He stranded a TON of runners on base. He SUCKED, offensively, this year. He was terrible. Not just, "Not great," but if you take those aberrant Home Runs out he was one of the worst hitters in the league. With those home runs he still failed to deliver when they needed him to far more often than not. He was a failure, offensively, in the clutch until the playoffs, and then reverted back to, "Mr. Automatic Out," against the Phillies. Grisham is a horrible offensive player. A major liability. He hit as bad as pitchers did. PITCHERS. No amount of defensive ability is worth a hitter THAT bad. I'm just saying we need an outfielder who can actually hit when we need him to. I mean, expecting an outfielder to hit more than his weight isn't asking for much. There's more to being a good hitter than just one trait. There's more to being a good pure hitter than just one element. A top hitter? Sure. A top *power* hitter? Of course not. Nobody would argue that genuinely because it's easily disproven by a cursory glance at his numbers. That doesn't in any way equal what you're saying it does in regards to OPS. You keep using selected and isolated stats that are captured in larger, more effective metrics. As I said previously, Grisham was 17% below league average in terms of weighted run creation. Not good by any means, but not Austin Hedges-lite, either. His track record before that (with proper context) was fine. You'd take a league average bat in center with plus defensive metrics making near league minimum 100 times out of 100. He had a down offensive year. That doesn't mean you just jettison him at a position where there's more than just one basic need. If you're really defending Grisham based on modern stats then that shows just how much they fail. Grisham was an unmitigated disaster, offensively, this year. If not for the aberrant home runs he'd be ridiculously below that average. He left more people on base than almost anyone on the team. He struck out a ton. He was worthless most of the time. A popularity contest Gold Glove doesn't make him worth keeping on the roster. And you didn't answer the question - is Tony Gwynn one of the 20 best hitters of all time?
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2022 11:58:13 GMT -8
There's more to being a good hitter than just one trait. There's more to being a good pure hitter than just one element. A top hitter? Sure. A top *power* hitter? Of course not. Nobody would argue that genuinely because it's easily disproven by a cursory glance at his numbers. That doesn't in any way equal what you're saying it does in regards to OPS. You keep using selected and isolated stats that are captured in larger, more effective metrics. As I said previously, Grisham was 17% below league average in terms of weighted run creation. Not good by any means, but not Austin Hedges-lite, either. His track record before that (with proper context) was fine. You'd take a league average bat in center with plus defensive metrics making near league minimum 100 times out of 100. He had a down offensive year. That doesn't mean you just jettison him at a position where there's more than just one basic need. If you're really defending Grisham based on modern stats then that shows just how much they fail. Grisham was an unmitigated disaster, offensively, this year. If not for the aberrant home runs he'd be ridiculously below that average. He left more people on base than almost anyone on the team. He struck out a ton. He was worthless most of the time. A popularity contest Gold Glove doesn't make him worth keeping on the roster. And you didn't answer the question - is Tony Gwynn one of the 20 best hitters of all time? No, your understanding of them and the correlation you're making is the issue, not the numbers themselves or the categories. I'm not saying he was fantastic or even good offensively. He had a down year in comparison to his overall track record, and it's pretty easy to see why he struggled. I did answer the question. One of the top pure hitters? Yes. That's not really relevant here.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 2, 2022 13:09:51 GMT -8
If you're really defending Grisham based on modern stats then that shows just how much they fail. Grisham was an unmitigated disaster, offensively, this year. If not for the aberrant home runs he'd be ridiculously below that average. He left more people on base than almost anyone on the team. He struck out a ton. He was worthless most of the time. A popularity contest Gold Glove doesn't make him worth keeping on the roster. And you didn't answer the question - is Tony Gwynn one of the 20 best hitters of all time? No, your understanding of them and the correlation you're making is the issue, not the numbers themselves or the categories. I'm not saying he was fantastic or even good offensively. He had a down year in comparison to his overall track record, and it's pretty easy to see why he struggled. Why, exactly, did he struggle? Could it be that last year was the aberration, and this is the real Grisham? Pitchers know how to pitch to him now, and he can't do much about it. Well, it goes a long way towards proving that OPS is a flawed stat if one of the Top 10 hitters of all time isn't even in the Top 100 in that stat.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2022 13:37:22 GMT -8
No, your understanding of them and the correlation you're making is the issue, not the numbers themselves or the categories. I'm not saying he was fantastic or even good offensively. He had a down year in comparison to his overall track record, and it's pretty easy to see why he struggled. Why, exactly, did he struggle? Could it be that last year was the aberration, and this is the real Grisham? Pitchers know how to pitch to him now, and he can't do much about it. Well, it goes a long way towards proving that OPS is a flawed stat if one of the Top 10 hitters of all time isn't even in the Top 100 in that stat. Simple - He had a league average BABIP in 2021 (.292) and this year it was .231. That amounts to a sizable drop in your favorite category. And no, again, you're wrong. There's a difference between being a good hitter and a good POWER hitter. You're being disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 2, 2022 14:23:58 GMT -8
Why, exactly, did he struggle? Could it be that last year was the aberration, and this is the real Grisham? Pitchers know how to pitch to him now, and he can't do much about it. Well, it goes a long way towards proving that OPS is a flawed stat if one of the Top 10 hitters of all time isn't even in the Top 100 in that stat. Simple - He had a league average BABIP in 2021 (.292) and this year it was .231. That amounts to a sizable drop in your favorite category. And no, again, you're wrong. There's a difference between being a good hitter and a good POWER hitter. You're being disingenuous. Tony Gwynn was one of the 10 best pure hitters of all time. OPS says he wasn't as valuable as guys who hit 40 points less than him simply because they hit 20 more home runs per season. I don't think that's a valid evaluation of his value to a team.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2022 15:10:56 GMT -8
Simple - He had a league average BABIP in 2021 (.292) and this year it was .231. That amounts to a sizable drop in your favorite category. And no, again, you're wrong. There's a difference between being a good hitter and a good POWER hitter. You're being disingenuous. Tony Gwynn was one of the 10 best pure hitters of all time. OPS says he wasn't as valuable as guys who hit 40 points less than him simply because they hit 20 more home runs per season. I don't think that's a valid evaluation of his value to a team. OPS doesn't measure value. It measures on base percentage plus slugging percentage. Tony Gwynn didn't slug. He was a gap-to-gap hitter with occasional pull side power. Home runs have more value than singles and doubles. Why is this complicated?
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 2, 2022 15:29:29 GMT -8
Tony Gwynn was one of the 10 best pure hitters of all time. OPS says he wasn't as valuable as guys who hit 40 points less than him simply because they hit 20 more home runs per season. I don't think that's a valid evaluation of his value to a team. OPS doesn't measure value. It measures on base percentage plus slugging percentage. Tony Gwynn didn't slug. He was a gap-to-gap hitter with occasional pull side power. Home runs have more value than singles and doubles. Why is this complicated? Because these days a lot of people evaluate the value of a player (offensively, anyway) based solely on OPS.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2022 16:38:51 GMT -8
OPS doesn't measure value. It measures on base percentage plus slugging percentage. Tony Gwynn didn't slug. He was a gap-to-gap hitter with occasional pull side power. Home runs have more value than singles and doubles. Why is this complicated? Because these days a lot of people evaluate the value of a player (offensively, anyway) based solely on OPS. And rightfully so, because it contains both elements of offensive profiles - OBP and slugging. No one metric tells an entire story, but that doesn't devalue its importance. Ballparks are finally showing advanced stats on scoreboards. That's real progress.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 2, 2022 18:37:06 GMT -8
Because these days a lot of people evaluate the value of a player (offensively, anyway) based solely on OPS. And rightfully so, because it contains both elements of offensive profiles - OBP and slugging. No one metric tells an entire story, but that doesn't devalue its importance. Ballparks are finally showing advanced stats on scoreboards. That's real progress. To me, Tony Gwynn is a perfect measuring stick. He wasn't flashy with the big home run numbers, but he had good runs scored and RBI numbers, and he owned the best pitchers in the league. And yet he isn't even Top 100 in OPS? That says there is a fundamental flaw in that stat. There aren't 100+ guys better than Tony Gwynn in the history of baseball. Not even 20 guys better than him.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2022 18:45:33 GMT -8
And rightfully so, because it contains both elements of offensive profiles - OBP and slugging. No one metric tells an entire story, but that doesn't devalue its importance. Ballparks are finally showing advanced stats on scoreboards. That's real progress. To me, Tony Gwynn is a perfect measuring stick. He wasn't flashy with the big home run numbers, but he had good runs scored and RBI numbers, and he owned the best pitchers in the league. And yet he isn't even Top 100 in OPS? That says there is a fundamental flaw in that stat. There aren't 100+ guys better than Tony Gwynn in the history of baseball. Not even 20 guys better than him. Again, your entire premise ignores the fact that OPS includes slugging numbers. That doesn't make the stat flawed, it makes your argument flawed. "He owned the best pitchers" isn't a statistic, it's just the truth. Him not hitting for power was his choice. Ty Cobb was one of the best hitters that ever lived, but I wouldn't devalue his career because he didn't hit home runs.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 2, 2022 20:03:48 GMT -8
And rightfully so, because it contains both elements of offensive profiles - OBP and slugging. No one metric tells an entire story, but that doesn't devalue its importance. Ballparks are finally showing advanced stats on scoreboards. That's real progress. To me, Tony Gwynn is a perfect measuring stick. He wasn't flashy with the big home run numbers, but he had good runs scored and RBI numbers, and he owned the best pitchers in the league. And yet he isn't even Top 100 in OPS? That says there is a fundamental flaw in that stat. There aren't 100+ guys better than Tony Gwynn in the history of baseball. Not even 20 guys better than him. There should be some kind of a stat for hitters and how they perform against the other teams number one pitcher. You can throw in the number two pitcher as well. Tony Gwynn would own that stat. I think it's a valuable stat because when you have a hitter that can come through in a clutch situation like that against the other teams number one, time and time again, it can make the difference in a game of a battle of two number ones where the scoring is most likely to be low. To have an ace in the he like Gwynn in that situation is VERY valuable. Just get a guy on second and he'll come through, no matter who the pitcher is. I've seen him do it time after time, after time. He was incredible.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 2, 2022 20:30:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 2, 2022 20:49:18 GMT -8
Ha!!! Gwynn was absolutely phenomenal. That's an incredible compliment coming from the "paint the corners" doctor, Greg Maddux.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Nov 2, 2022 21:57:59 GMT -8
Well, I mean there is the question of weighting in OPS.
OPS is OBP + SLG. But should on-base percentage be weighted the same as slugging? Arguably slugging is weighted too highly.
wOBA provides different weights to different methods of getting on base: .69 BB, .89 1B, 1.27 2B, 1.62 3B, 2.1 HR
In OPS a HR is worth 1 point in OBP and 4 points in SLG for 5 points total. In OPS a Single is worth 1 point in OBP and 1 point in SLG for 2 points total. Relative value of a HR to a Single is 5/2 = 2.5
In wOBA a HR is worth 2.1 points, and a Single is worth .89 points. Relative value of a HR to a Single is 2.1/.89 = 2.36
wOBA is a better measuring stick of the value of hits then OPS because it's a metric that is based on real-world values of different hits, so...
Yeah OPS does overrate HR's, slightly by giving them 5.4% more value then wOBA does.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Nov 2, 2022 22:14:01 GMT -8
The other component of OBP vs. SLG is the value of having a high team OPS in general:
"When you think about it, the closer to 1.000 a team’s OBP becomes — at least past a certain point — the closer to 1 the value of any on-base event should be. If the bases are always loaded, then even a walk is always going to drive in a run, and you’re always going to be driven in by somebody behind you. Sure, a home run with the bases loaded is going to drive in 4 runs, but then you have to consider that the hitters behind the home run hitter would have driven in the runs anyway. Basically, it’s a communist utopia of hitters, where all varieties of hits, and even walks, have equal worth."
"As a team’s overall OBP goes up, the relative value of SLG goes down, because you don’t need one big hit to drive in a bunch of runs when there’s a decent likelihood of stringing a bunch of smaller hits (or walks) together. And importantly, the inverse is also true; as a team’s OBP goes down, the relative value of SLG goes up, because singles and walks to a bad offensive club are less likely to score runs than a guy hitting a ball over the wall."
Part of the value of a Tony Gwynn is that when he has an OBP of .400, the team gets more at-bats.
A team comprised solely of Tony Gwynn's batters would put up a crapload of runs because the lineup would turn over so many times, and there would be a lot of opportunities with RISP.
That's why (in my mind) there is a world of difference between hitters that are both high OBP + high SLG (ex. Manny, Soto, Tatis) vs. hitters that are low OBP + high SLG (Grisham).
If your lineup is comprised of a mix of Manny/Soto/Tatis guys + Tony Gwynn guys, you can score a crapload of runs as well because nobody is getting out.
-------------------------------------------------------
Another way of thinking about it is if a guy has an OBP of .400, that means that there is a 60% that he will create at least 1 out.
If a guys has an OBP of .300, they have a 70% chance of creating at least 1 out.
Only a 10% difference. But it's a much bigger difference then it looks because those odds compound for each at bat taken.
To get 2 baserunners without an out: .3*.3 = 9% vs. .4*.4 = 16%
To get 3 baserunners without an out: .3*.3*.3 = 2.7% vs. .4*.4*.4 =6.4%
The odds are over double for the .400 OBP team for 3 guys to reach safely in a row vs the team with a .300 OBP
Being able to get 2 or 3 runners on base in a row is the kind of thing that creates 3, 4, 5 run innings.
And an "ideal" team would have everyone with OBP's at 1.000
-----------------------------
TLDR: OBP is underrated and SLG is overrated.
Now, if your team has an awful OBP, then SLG is actually better then it is on a good team. But teams with awful OBP's don't field offenses good enough to win Pennant's or World Series's. So it's kind of irrelevant unless your goal is to field an bad or mediocre team.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Nov 2, 2022 22:28:46 GMT -8
The flip side to the whole "OPS is king" mindset is the idea that great defense lowers opposing teams BABIP.
Lowering the opposing team's OBP reduces the chance that they can string some hits/walks together to score a bunch of runs in an inning.
Grisham provides great defense at a position where you can get a lot of extra outs (or give up a lot of extra hits) with great (bad) defense.
If you combine good pitching with good defense at the positions where defense is most valuable (CF, SS, 2B) then you prevent a lot of opposing rallies, or cap them at 1 run instead of 2 or 3.
Ideally Grisham would provide our team more OBP and less SLG. But his +defense is what we are looking for at the CF position.
There aren't any guys out there (in the FA market) that have +defense and high OBP in CF.
FWIW I would like it if Grisham would work more on his bunting this offseason to increase his average (both by getting on base at a high percentage with bunts, and by drawing defenders in, allowing him to sneak more groundballs though the infield).
-----------
What we would really like is to get another high OBP guy or two at LF/1B/C.
Nimmo is average defense in center, but maybe you can stick him in LF some of the time and CF some of the time. Benintendi has good OPS numbers and is a left fielder.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2022 22:35:19 GMT -8
The flip side to the whole "OPS is king" mindset is the idea that great defense lowers opposing teams BABIP. Lowering the opposing team's OBP reduces the chance that they can string some hits/walks together to score a bunch of runs in an inning. Grisham provides great defense at a position where you can get a lot of extra outs (or give up a lot of extra hits) with great (bad) defense. If you combine good pitching with good defense at the positions where defense is most valuable (CF, SS, 2B) then you prevent a lot of opposing rallies, or cap them at 1 run instead of 2 or 3. Ideally Grisham would provide our team more OBP and less SLG. But his +defense is what we are looking for at the CF position. There aren't any guys out there (in the FA market) that have +defense and high OBP in CF. FWIW I would like it if Grisham would work more on his bunting this offseason to increase his average (both by getting on base at a high percentage with bunts, and by drawing defenders in, allowing him to sneak more groundballs though the infield). ----------- What we would really like is to get another high OBP guy or two at LF/1B/C. Nimmo is average defense in center, but maybe you can stick him in LF some of the time and CF some of the time. Benintendi has good OPS numbers and is a left fielder. Benintendi is a soft contact merchant who would get eaten up at Petco. Padres passed on him multiple times. Nimmo is going to get $100M+ from someone and isn't in their range.
|
|