2008 AL OPS+ with Runners In Scoring Position in no particular order (100=league average with RISP)

TOR 72
NYY 90
BOS 102
TBR 99
BAL 109

CHW 120
KCR 90
MIN 122
CLE 114
DET 96

LAA 99
OAK 110
TEX 111
SEA 77

Having men on base doesn't mean a whole lot if you don't hit when you have runners in scoring position.

TOR 72

For reference, this is roughly the same as having a lineup consisting of 9 of the fast Brian Hunter, without the steals.

Having men on base doesn't mean a whole lot if you don't hit when you have runners in scoring position.

The most interesting comparison is the Jays vs. the Twins (not including games from June 19):

Jays Overall: .258/.337/.376 OPS+: 94 R/G: 3.97
Jays RISP: .229/.325/.321 OPS+: 72

Twins Overall: .269/.324/.390 OPS+: 96 R/G: 4.69
Twins RISP: .311/.384/.456 OPS+: 122

Very similar overall numbers, but a big difference in the number of runs scored. The Jays have been inexplicably bad with runners in scoring position this year, and right now they're on pace to break the single-season record for hitting into double plays. Toronto has an OPS+ of 100 with the bases empty -- just posting that number with RISP would make a significant difference in the team's record this year.

If you are going to rail against "stats," you can at least try to make sense. I have no idea what this guy's point is about "stats."

Yeah, the Jays have an Okay OBP, but they hit into a billion double plays (on pace to destroy the record,) and don't hit for power, so don't score many runs. What this has to do with "stats" is beyond me.

Anyway, insert idiot-with-a-blog comment here.

Dear Stats Fiends,
You, your OBP and Bill James can kiss my ass.

This game has always and will always be about getting runs on the board and clearly. despite their terrific on-base percentage ...

My favorite "OK, explain this one" example (not that I pretend to be able to explain it myself):

1987 Cardinals
1st in OPB
7th in hits
1st in walks
3rd in BA
9th in SLG
12th in HR (in a 12-team league)
OPS+ 94
2nd in the league in runs scored

(Yeah, they stole a few bases, too. But the league averaged 150 SB/team, so they weren't that far out there at 248-72.)

Bill James looked at that one, if I remember correctly.

(*gets out old Abstract*)

Well, not exactly. He says that he believes that the 1987 Cardinals (unlike the 1986 or 1985 Cardinals) derived some of the hidden benefits of the stolen base, but by this he's not really talking about their finishing second in the league in runs scored, nor does the rest of the article talk much about their offense being particularly successful. Rather, he seems to be arguing that it was an efficient offense (they played a lot of close games, they weren't shut out a lot, etc.), but he does not address the phenomenon of their scoring a fairly high number of runs.

The 1987 Cardinals actually scored 798 runs. What the hey, let's break out James's runs created formula(s) and see if anything particularly enlightening happens...



That leaves roughly 60 runs unaccounted for by the above number crunching. The Cardinals did hit better with runners on than with the bases empty, but most teams do -- in fact, relative to the rest of the league (if I'm reading bb-ref correctly), they actually hit worse than the average team (by OPS+) with runners in scoring position. True, the Cardinals (as speedy as they were) would benefit more from any base hits with runners on (a single is more likely to score a guy on second, etc.), but is that enough to make up for 60 runs? Maybe, I dunno.

Or maybe the Cardinals' opponents made LOTS of errors -- they'd count as AB in runs created and OBP and SLG, but would be beneficial to the Cardinals' offense. Enough to make up 60 runs? I dunno.

Lots (and I mean LOTS) of fielders' indifference?

Jays

13th in SLG
11th in OPS+
10th (tie) in OPS

Yes, hard to imagine how they could be 12th in runs. Idiot statheads.

Yes, hard to imagine how they could be 12th in runs. Idiot statheads.

Get your head out of the spreadsheet and read the blog!

I thought it was pretty clear that he was taking aim at the idea that OBP uber alles and the sort of A's like pseudo-softball team that moneyball produced. Not that that isn't clearly a strawman, but it isn't a terrible approximation of the stathead philosophy. OBP isn't the only factor in scoring but we'd all take it first, probably, if we had to choose one fundamental (i.e. one that is calculated using only plays on the field) stat in projecting Runs Scored. That doesn't mean we'd always be right. This years Jays team is one we'd miss.

Twins Overall: .269/.324/.390 OPS+: 96 R/G: 4.69
Twins RISP: .311/.384/.456 OPS+: 122

What you're not understanding is that the Twins are clutch. CLUTCH!

It's not a perfect curve, but generally, the teams with the best OBA are scoring the most runs and the reams with the lowest oba's are at the bottom, same as always. The Jays and Twins are outliers right now. So, I'll still take my oba, thank you very much.

It's not a perfect curve, but generally, the teams with the best OBA are scoring the most runs and the reams with the lowest oba's are at the bottom, same as always. The Jays and Twins are outliers right now. So, I'll still take my oba, thank you very much.

Yeah. Apparently Kyte has never realized that the phrase "exception that proves the rule" is disingenuous.

Rule #1: don't write when drunk.

I thought it was pretty clear that he was taking aim at the idea that OBP uber alles and the sort of A's like pseudo-softball team that moneyball produced.

Well, except the second part of the "softball" approach is home runs.

5th in the league is not exactly dominant. 13th in SLG is awful. When that adds up to 10th in OPS (OK, now 9th), 10th in EQA ...

Any stathead who doesn't understand that it's OBP and power (and a PF or two) is an idiot. :-)

The whole part of the "softball" approach is slow guys and homeruns. Walks should have nothing to do with softball. Only jerks walk in softball.

I think that OBP has been emphasized so much that it is now misunderstood by some. Clearly this guy has been led to believe that OBP=Runs. While it's certainly important, he hasn't been educated that power is highly important as well (as Walt points out).

I have a boss who played low level college baseball, has followed the Brewers for a few decades and he didn't know what slugging percentage was until I mentioned it in a conversation last year. He's a smart guy, but he doesn't pursue baseball knowledge beyond what he grew up with and what he reads in the local paper.

Another example are some of the posters at brewerfan.net. The community regards itself as stat-friendly and loves OBP but rarely mentions slugging percentage. Some of the more frequent members have even said that Braun won't be a great player until he has a .380 OBP, as if his power isn't important at all.

There was a blog posted here recently that said from 2005-2007 that slugging correlated higher to runs than OBP. I don't know if that's common knowledge among people who like sabermetrics but don't make a point of reading everything that's out there.

There was a blog posted here recently that said from 2005-2007 that slugging correlated higher to runs than OBP. I don't know if that's common knowledge among people who like sabermetrics but don't make a point of reading everything that's out there.

On the team level, that wouldn't be surprising - team OBP tends to be clustered together a little more than team SLG. Karl Pearson wasn't a demi-god - r isn't the sole determinant of utility.

On the team level, that wouldn't be surprising - team OBP tends to be clustered together a little more than team SLG. Karl Pearson wasn't a demi-god - r isn't the sole determinant of utility.

Well, there you go. I'm one of those guys that likes sabermetrics but doesn't pursue it beyond what I see here from time to time. I hear slugging correlates higher than OBP to runs and I think I've learned something.