I haven't seen Al Kaline mocked this much in a long time.

1. Sasquatch
2. Nessie, the Lochness Monster
3. A compassionate conservative.


Yes, I am just trying to cause trouble! Sorry. Stressful week at work and I'm hoping you knuckleheads will entertain me.

In my opinion. George Brett.

Stressful week at work and I'm hoping you knuckleheads will entertain me.

It's "Loch Ness". Shee!

It's "Loch Ness". Shee!

D'oh. You are right. I am shamed.

Oh, and

4. Barry Bonds, DH

Edit: Not trying to shame you, just trying to tick you off as entertainment.

4. Barry Bonds, DH

Edit: Not trying to shame you, just trying to tick you off as entertainment.

The Bonds thing doesn't really get me fired up.

4. Montreal Expos, baseball team

Or

4. Bud Selig, retiree

Would get me more excited.

The Bonds thing doesn't really get me fired up.

Pointlessly correcting your usually impeccable English doesn't do it? Tough crowd of one.

Pointlessly correcting your usually impeccable English doesn't do it? Tough crowd of one.

Are you kidding me? After two years of teaching Freshman Composition, I'm happy I can form a half-way cogent sentence anymore. Those bastards ruined me.

Wouldn't it have just been easier to look at the High Leverage split on baseball reference? I couldn't figure out how to make a PRI report for leaders in that split. Can it be done?

Jim Rice tOPS+ in high leverage 96

Willie McCovey tOPS+ in high leverage 114

Sometimes I feel like the scourge that is OPS+ needs to be stomped out.

I don't need your new-fangled stats to tell me A-Rod is a choke artist!

Sometimes I feel like the scourge that is OPS+ needs to be stomped out.

Because you hate OPS or because you hate the park adjustment? I think most people here realize the problems and limitations to OPS, but it's still better than batting average, and it's readily available to the masses. What is your chosen rate stat to replace it, and more importantly, how would you go about "marketing" it to make it palatable to the average fan?

It's because I hate that it undervalues on-base percentage fairly significantly and nobody seems to care, that's all. Unless it's adjusted for that, and I didn't know it.

What I mean is, it's a quick-and-dirty shorthand that should by no means be mistaken for a statistic with any kind of 1-to-1 correlation with a hitter's value; and yet people all over these filthy interwebs spend a lot of time burping at each other about who's better, and then pull out the OPS+ and compare without taking into consideration its significant limitations.

As for an alternative, I suppose it really depends on how one views the multiplier on the OBP part of the equasion; EqA comes to mind as a possible good one. As far as "marketing" it to the average fan, I suspect one already goes over his head with OPS+. Is OPS+ better than RBI or simple BA? Of course. Does the average fan know what it means? Oh, probably not, and many of them don't care enough to find out.

The average fan is the average fan. I suspect that the average fan cares enough to understand on base percentage and slugging percentage. Once you start talking about park adjustments, he starts rolling his eyes.

It's because I hate that it undervalues on-base percentage fairly significantly and nobody seems to care, that's all.

You know, except that almost every time when players are compared here based on OPS or OPS+ and one of the players has a significantly higher OBP it gets brought up. So I don't think you can say no one cares.

EqA comes to mind as a possible good one.

EqA is better, but it's not easily available on BB-Ref. I'm not a BPro subscriber, so getting EqA numbers is a hassle(too many clicks, too slow to load, no sorting, no querying).


As far as "marketing" it to the average fan, I suspect one already goes over his head with OPS+. Is OPS+ better than RBI or simple BA? Of course. Does the average fan know what it means? Oh, probably not, and many of them don't care enough to find out. The average fan is the average fan. I suspect that the average fan cares enough to understand on base percentage and slugging percentage. Once you start talking about park adjustments, he starts rolling his eyes.

Then the problem is with the average fan. Stop catering to the lowest common denominator.

As an example, and I'll shut up:

Take a hitter with an OPS+ of 100. Is he an average hitter? Maybe. What he has done in this instance, however, is produce two results of unequal value which have nonetheless been aggregated. Two hitters who play the same position equally well and have the same OPS+ can differ in value significantly. It wipes away the shape of a player's performance. It's a blunt instrument to say the least.

I understand that a great many people around here know of its limitations. But when people are doing studies and using OPS+ as a reasonable approximation of a hitter's quality, they've wandered off-track.

You know, except that almost every time when players are compared here based on OPS or OPS+ and one of the players has a significantly higher OBP it gets brought up.

I'm just not sure that's true. It happens sometimes, but often not. There was a whole discussion the other day of Frank Thomas v. Albert Pujols in which Thomas' OBP advantage was mentioned not a once as far as I can recall.

Anyway, it's a shorthand. But I guess it bugs me because people around here know better. Why not just discuss the two numbers separate entities?

I never said the average fan was really important in this scenario, anyway. Someone asked for an alternative and a marketing strategy. I suggested one, forgetting that it was not freely-available, and said that I didn't think it was really possible to market to the average fan. A statement with which you appear to agree.

Of course, the instant I raised any kind of objection, I was mocked for being a Luddite, but that's just Standard Operating Proceedure around here.

The category that demonstrated the widest performance variance included the lowest number of plate appearances: post-season OPS. The category with the most plate appearances “Within 1 Run” saw little variation: 46 of 50 players scored between 95-105, half falling between 98-102.

So these effects trend towards zero as the sample sizes increase? Interesting.

(H + TB + 1.5*(BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) divided by (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB)

What are the questions and reservations about EqA by the true sabermetricians here ? If it were widely accepted among the "smart" people, wouldn't it be used more and accepted? But it seems like it is seldom used or referenced here.

Also, am I looking at this wrong? It seems like SB are being valued the same as a BB, and that isn't right.

Someone asked for an alternative and a marketing strategy. I suggested one, forgetting that it was not freely-available, and said that I didn't think it was really possible to market to the average fan. A statement with which you appear to agree.

EqA is freely available, it's just a hassle to get the numbers, especially if you are looking up multiple players. Also, I don't totally agree that it is impossible to market to the average fan. It would just take MLB making it or another stat an "official" stat and then average fans would just accept it. Like QB rating.

What are the questions and reservations about EqA by the true sabermetricians here ? If it were widely accepted among the "smart" people, wouldn't it be used more and accepted? But it seems like it is seldom used or referenced here.

Aside from what I mentioned about availability, I believe many don't like the fact that it a rate state. I think most prefer a counting stat that is measured in runs(since that can then be easily converted into a rate stat anyway).

What are the questions and reservations about EqA by the true sabermetricians here ?

I wanted to ask this, too, but I forgot. I'm just a guy who took a stats course in college lo these seven years ago, so really all I'm able to do is spot things with obvious flaws.

Wouldn't it have just been easier to look at the High Leverage split on baseball reference? I couldn't figure out how to make a PRI report for leaders in that split. Can it be done?

Jim Rice tOPS+ in high leverage 96

Willie McCovey tOPS+ in high leverage 114

If I could be permitted to ask a question in this thread as well, does tOPS+ here compare the player in high leverage to his average self or to other players in their high leverage opportunities?

If I could be permitted to ask a question in this thread as well, does tOPS+ here compare the player in high leverage to his average self or to other players in their high leverage opportunities?

That info is easy to find. If you go to any players split page at baseball reference and then click on the blue words, it will take to you to the glossary.

tOPS+ - OPS+ of this split relative to the player or team's overall OPS: 100*((split OBP/total OBP) + (split SLG/total SLG) - 1)

sOPS+ - OPS+ of this split relative to the major league OPS for this split: 100*((split OBP/ML avg. OBP of split) + (split SLG/ML avg. SLG of split) - 1)

Scott Fletcher. End of debate.

That info is easy to find. If you go to any players split page at baseball reference and then click on the blue words, it will take to you to the glossary.

tOPS+ - OPS+ of this split relative to the player or team's overall OPS: 100*((split OBP/total OBP) + (split SLG/total SLG) - 1)

sOPS+ - OPS+ of this split relative to the major league OPS for this split: 100*((split OBP/ML avg. OBP of split) + (split SLG/ML avg. SLG of split) - 1)

Thanks for assuming I'm lazy and dumb. My question was centered around the "or" in the definition. I simply wanted to be sure I was inferring the proper meaning.

Scott Fletcher. End of debate.

Pat Meares should be in the discussion.

What are the questions and reservations about EqA by the true sabermetricians here ?

Also, am I looking at this wrong? It seems like SB are being valued the same as a BB, and that isn't right.


I think this answers both questions.

EqA is freely available, it's just a hassle to get the numbers, especially if you are looking up multiple players. Also, I don't totally agree that it is impossible to market to the average fan. It would just take MLB making it or another stat an "official" stat and then average fans would just accept it. Like QB rating.

The other thing is that you can't get EqA by splits. As imperfect as OPS+ is, nobody else is presenting anything to the general public on a split basis that allows you to get into this much detail and analysis.

Funny, I was looking at Hanley Ramirez and Dan Uggla. Ramirez has a higher OBP and steals bases. Uggla is more slugging dependent and doesn't run. Uggla EqA .327, Ramirez .326 Uggla has a 157 OPS+, Ramirez 153. I just found that kind of interesting.

Jim Rice tOPS+ in high leverage 96

Willie McCovey tOPS+ in high leverage 114

Jim Rice: 9058 PAs, OPS+ 128, bad in the clutch
Rusty Staub: 11229 PAs, OPS+ 124, true clutch god (tOPS+ in high leverage 104).

When jim rice gets elected to the HOF, I'm gonna have to start a campaign on behalf of le Grand Orange

Scott Fletcher. End of debate.

Is this some perverted version of Godwin's Law? I don't get it.

Thanks for the link in number 30. Definitely helped.

Is this some perverted version of Godwin's Law? I don't get it.

shoewizard, Post 58 might clarify things for you.

Hmmmm, I thought that there was a way to directly link to specific posts. Maybe that was a Greymatter thing.

A couple of things from looking at a bunch (~20) of these players:

Many had RISP/2 out as their best "clutch" stat, in almost all cases, it was OBP driven. Two out, runner on second, Barry Bonds walks. Do you think, "Ooh! Clutch!" or "Boo! Pitch to him you (wimp)!"?

Tie Game and One Run are clutch stats? So that's really "Not Late and Close?"

Tie Game and One Run are clutch stats? So that's really "Not Late and Close?"

The definition of a clutch situation is pretty loose. Ehrke considered the postseason to be clutchtime, and rightfully so, but what about a tight pennant race?

The definition of a clutch situation is pretty loose. Ehrke considered the postseason to be clutchtime, and rightfully so, but what about a tight pennant race?

As usual, you bring up Yaz...

Many had RISP/2 out as their best "clutch" stat, in almost all cases, it was OBP driven. Two out, runner on second, Barry Bonds walks. Do you think, "Ooh! Clutch!" or "Boo! Pitch to him you (wimp)!"?


Yep, that is why when I look at these clutch arguments I keep hoping people would try and fix that portion of the argument. A walk there may be a good thing, but the fans do not think of it as clutch, it's why high walk, high strikeout guys like Dunn get such a bad rap. If someone is evaluating clutch they need to remove or dramatically devalue the walk component in this situation (or 2nd and 3rd less than two outs, or even third less than two outs---walking is not clutch there, it's a non-event)

I suspect that the average fan cares enough to understand on base percentage and slugging percentage. Once you start talking about park adjustments, he starts rolling his eyes.

I'm not sure that's true any longer. The existence of Coors Field has gone a long way toward helping people understand how a park can help or hurt a player. Also, I think many fans now understand that the offensive explosion of the late '90s was aided in no small way by new smaller fields.

I'm not saying the average fan can take OBP, slugging and park factors all into account at the same time, but it's a start.

Many had RISP/2 out as their best "clutch" stat, in almost all cases, it was OBP driven.

Good point, Jim Rice for instance drew 670 walks in 9058 PAs, 2 outs RISP he drew 123 walks in 1113 PAs (only 28 intentional...)
His OBP with 2 outs RISP was .358- better than his carer average, but he hit only .270 and slugged .414. Both far worse than his career averages. Late and close he hit only .274 and slugged .453 (career .298 and .502)

Unclutch? I think in Rice's case what's going on is clear. He was never a disciplined hitter, but he was a scary hitter for much of his career- such in high leverage situations pitchers would "pitch around" him- but Rice would more often than not chase bad pitches- helping the pitcher- I think if Pitchers had simply pitched like that in every situation- there would be no Jim Rice for HOF campaign now.

McCovey by contrast saw his OBP soar in high leverage situations- WITHOUT seeing his average and slugging suffer. Obviously he was a much more disciplined hitter- if a pitcher was pitching around him he DIDN'T chase bad pitches, he either forced the pitcher to throw him something hittable- or he took the walk.

For the purpose of this article I’m focusing on the top 75 career RBI leaders in baseball history;

This is where the author goes off the rails. All his other mistakes are meaningless when his premise is ridiculous.