More Links

PLite14 · 03-07-2008, 06:01 PM

OPS makes for a good stat, since it combines average, OBP %, and SLG %

JoeRyan33 · 03-07-2008, 07:26 PM

I think the main difference between the Oakland A's and the Boston Red Sox was, and perhaps always will be, money.

The A's built their team on an idea of what they felt was the soundest way to produce the most wins at the smallest cost; the Red Sox didn't have such constraints. I find it hard personally to praise their methods when they tried to dump their key bat (Manny Ramirez) preseason 2004.

I don't necessarily agree with the A's formula, especially not when it came to predicting future performance in young players. Here their hands weren't tied so much, and they had the ability to get players who would contribute in the long run. Before you say they didn't, that they couldn't afford to take risks on big bonuses, I'm referring to the draftees outside the elite tier. These guys are very much signable at good value; the A's over reliance on DePodesta's stat lines, and Beane's stubbornness, cost them dearly.

Side note: When you play pure percentages with steals, you do remove the human element. No statistic can account for everything positive that speed does for a team, the things that don't show up in box scores. Maybe Roberts' in the 2004 ALCS wasn't the best example, but I understand what Bly is saying.

The Beane philosophy, and that espoused in Moneyball, is that speed is the element of baseball that you can most afford to be without. I don't necessarily disagree - in fact, I agree with that idea - but, the strict sabermetric approach does have its massive downfalls. The old scouting methods are in a lot of ways ridiculous, but so too is total adherence to pure statistical analysis in building a baseball team.

BledsoeHoF · 03-07-2008, 07:37 PM

I actually like OBP+S for offensive capability.

I guess I only look at errors for defense.. If you are money in plays you are involved in it really doesnt matter to me if you have the range of Furcal. A large range leads to throwing errors as well.

Just one more thing.. David Wright winning the Gold Glove over Chipper Jones was a travesty. Wright had 20 freaking errors for crying out loud.

dkgojackets · 03-07-2008, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BledsoeHoF


	Just one more thing.. David Wright winning the Gold Glove over Chipper Jones was a travesty. Wright had 20 freaking errors for crying out loud.

There were far worse decisions than that.

And looking strictly at errors is a terrible measure.

dkgojackets · 03-07-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoCubs720


	OPS makes for a good stat, since it combines average, OBP %, and SLG %

OPS is nice and better than junk like average, but fails to account for a point of OBP being worth more than a point of SLG.

Gary Armida · 03-07-2008, 10:37 PM

The great thing about baseball is the fact that you can have these kind of discussions. Any good baseball man will tell you that there is value in stats like OBP, VORP, etc. I like OPS, but that isn't the be all and end all. There is a human element to the game that has its right place too. Take a guy like Adam Dunn. A lot of people don't like him b/c he K's 180 times a year. But, he consistently posts good OBP and SLG. But, if someone values a stat involving strikeouts, then Dunn will not be good to them. They are not cyborgs playing which is why something like the Red Sox bullpen by committee failed and was quickly fixed.

Bottom line is there is no one important stat, just like a guy can't be soley judged on whether he is a good influence. A good baseball man looks at the whole picture. Guys like Beane, James, Epstein get a bit of a bum rap. They do look at more than stats; they just base a lot of their feelings about players on the data. Unfortunately, the zealots who warp the thinking into only having value for stats ruins some great and valid stats.

Sully had the best comment on the thread. Wins is really the only important stat. It doesn't matter how you get there.

dkgojackets · 03-07-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by favre4vr


	Sully had the best comment on the thread. Wins is really the only important stat. It doesn't matter how you get there.

We all know that, but certain paths are more likely to arrive there than others.

catcatch22 · 03-08-2008, 01:09 AM

To go off topic for a bit, not sure where to post it. I love these articles man and the way it pops on the frontpage like that. Great reads and informative as well. Keep them coming.

03-07-2008, 07:26 PM	#26
JoeRyan33 It's RBIs or ribbies OVR: 10 Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Staten Island, NY Posts: 1,005	Re: The Most Important Baseball Stat? I think the main difference between the Oakland A's and the Boston Red Sox was, and perhaps always will be, money. The A's built their team on an idea of what they felt was the soundest way to produce the most wins at the smallest cost; the Red Sox didn't have such constraints. I find it hard personally to praise their methods when they tried to dump their key bat (Manny Ramirez) preseason 2004. I don't necessarily agree with the A's formula, especially not when it came to predicting future performance in young players. Here their hands weren't tied so much, and they had the ability to get players who would contribute in the long run. Before you say they didn't, that they couldn't afford to take risks on big bonuses, I'm referring to the draftees outside the elite tier. These guys are very much signable at good value; the A's over reliance on DePodesta's stat lines, and Beane's stubbornness, cost them dearly. Side note: When you play pure percentages with steals, you do remove the human element. No statistic can account for everything positive that speed does for a team, the things that don't show up in box scores. Maybe Roberts' in the 2004 ALCS wasn't the best example, but I understand what Bly is saying. The Beane philosophy, and that espoused in Moneyball, is that speed is the element of baseball that you can most afford to be without. I don't necessarily disagree - in fact, I agree with that idea - but, the strict sabermetric approach does have its massive downfalls. The old scouting methods are in a lot of ways ridiculous, but so too is total adherence to pure statistical analysis in building a baseball team. __________________ May 6, 1998: 9 IP, 1 H, 0 BB, 20 K Thanks to all that helped with the Baltimore Orioles roster, and to N51_rob for making me an OS premium member. CAPS I'm working on: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25328192@N06/

03-08-2008, 01:09 AM	#32
catcatch22 Or should I OVR: 23 Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Dubai, UAE Posts: 3,378	Re: The Most Important Baseball Stat? To go off topic for a bit, not sure where to post it. I love these articles man and the way it pops on the frontpage like that. Great reads and informative as well. Keep them coming.

	Why Player Ratings Change When Starting Dynasty Mode in College Football 25
	What Is Pro Yakyuu Spirits 2024/Professional Baseball Spirits 2024, and How Do You Get It?
	The House Rules Hub for Recruiting in College Football 25 Dynasty Mode

03-07-2008, 06:01 PM	#25
PLite14 Go Cubs Go OVR: 10 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Saint Louis, MO Posts: 339	OPS makes for a good stat, since it combines average, OBP %, and SLG %

03-07-2008, 07:37 PM	#27
BledsoeHoF Rookie OVR: 3 Join Date: Jan 2008	I actually like OBP+S for offensive capability. I guess I only look at errors for defense.. If you are money in plays you are involved in it really doesnt matter to me if you have the range of Furcal. A large range leads to throwing errors as well. Just one more thing.. David Wright winning the Gold Glove over Chipper Jones was a travesty. Wright had 20 freaking errors for crying out loud.

03-07-2008, 10:37 PM	#30
Gary Armida MVP OVR: 37 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NY Posts: 2,533 Blog Entries: 146	The great thing about baseball is the fact that you can have these kind of discussions. Any good baseball man will tell you that there is value in stats like OBP, VORP, etc. I like OPS, but that isn't the be all and end all. There is a human element to the game that has its right place too. Take a guy like Adam Dunn. A lot of people don't like him b/c he K's 180 times a year. But, he consistently posts good OBP and SLG. But, if someone values a stat involving strikeouts, then Dunn will not be good to them. They are not cyborgs playing which is why something like the Red Sox bullpen by committee failed and was quickly fixed. Bottom line is there is no one important stat, just like a guy can't be soley judged on whether he is a good influence. A good baseball man looks at the whole picture. Guys like Beane, James, Epstein get a bit of a bum rap. They do look at more than stats; they just base a lot of their feelings about players on the data. Unfortunately, the zealots who warp the thinking into only having value for stats ruins some great and valid stats. Sully had the best comment on the thread. Wins is really the only important stat. It doesn't matter how you get there.

More Links

The Most Important Baseball Stat?