PDA

View Full Version : Most Overrated Statistic?


Gavin
07-28-2006, 06:08 PM
I would have to say Wins. They indicate nothing about the pitcher.

Tragg
07-28-2006, 06:44 PM
I'd say ERA for a reliever.

Gavin
07-28-2006, 06:54 PM
I'd say ERA for a reliever.

Agreed. It tells you when they are awful, but only IR/IRS is truely useful.

buehrle4cy05
07-28-2006, 06:59 PM
Any stat that the FOBB's put emphasis on.

Mr. White Sox
07-28-2006, 07:12 PM
Wins, especially Wins as a reliever.

I'm not a fan of Saves either.

And Holds are pointless.

Gavin
07-28-2006, 07:12 PM
And Holds are pointless.

Holds might as well be "Non-losses".

fquaye149
07-28-2006, 07:28 PM
Any stat that the FOBB's put emphasis on.

eh obp is not worthless at all. in fact it is one of the most valuable offensive stats

ops is not worthless either, though it sometimes is misapplied.

Gavin
07-28-2006, 07:31 PM
eh obp is not worthless at all. in fact it is one of the most valuable offensive stats

ops is not worthless either, though it sometimes is misapplied.

Yeah like Thome's July OPS :mad:

RKMeibalane
07-28-2006, 07:31 PM
eh obp is not worthless at all. in fact it is one of the most valuable offensive stats

ops is not worthless either, though it sometimes is misapplied.

I actually think OPS might be the most important statistic, at least in terms of offensive performance. A player who has an OPS of at least .900 represents someone who has an excellent chance of reaching base, and also advancing to other bases, increasing his team's chances of scoring runs.

fquaye149
07-28-2006, 08:21 PM
I actually think OPS might be the most important statistic, at least in terms of offensive performance. A player who has an OPS of at least .900 represents someone who has an excellent chance of reaching base, and also advancing to other bases, increasing his team's chances of scoring runs.

It's certainly important, and tells a lot, but it doesn't tell the whole story that it claims to the way obp does. OBP claims to say how often a player gets on base and it tells exactly that. OPS is flawed, imo, because it doesn't take into account stolen bases. A minor quibble, but a quibble nonetheless--it makes it less valuable to evaluate leadoff hitters. For instance FireJoeMorgan was ripping Scotty for having a ****ty OPS. Fair, but his SB's should be considered. IF you were going to rip him for something it should not be for a low OPS, but a rather low OBP and a poor CS%

FedEx227
07-28-2006, 08:22 PM
In fact the stats FOBB emphasis are actually the most prolific and important of the stats. Even some of the SABR stats are important, while the good majority are just absolutely confusing and worthless, a few like EqA, VORP and ERA+ are important.

As for overrated stats:

Batting average first and foremost, no rewards for walking.

Wins for a pitcher, great you have a good team.

RBI, I like RBIs but they have to be looked at in context of the team around the particular player.

It's certainly important, and tells a lot, but it doesn't tell the whole story that it claims to the way obp does. OBP claims to say how often a player gets on base and it tells exactly that. OPS is flawed, imo, because it doesn't take into account stolen bases. A minor quibble, but a quibble nonetheless--it makes it less valuable to evaluate leadoff hitters. For instance FireJoeMorgan was ripping Scotty for having a ****ty OPS. Fair, but his SB's should be considered. IF you were going to rip him for something it should not be for a low OPS, but a rather low OBP and a poor CS%

Very much so. My friend and I actually worked up a stat that was essentially OPS but took into account stolen bases and which base was being stolen. If I can find it somewhere on my computer I'll post it for ya, but it was a very good stat that still rewarded the best hitters in the game, but at least gave some credit to people stealing bases.

Craig Grebeck
07-28-2006, 08:29 PM
Runs Created in it's original and and adjusted forms (which take speed and other factors into account) are very important.

Most overrated stat, B.A. for a hitter and ERA for a pitcher.

FedEx227
07-28-2006, 08:37 PM
Okay, cool heres what we came up with:

.33*(BB+HBP)+ .49*(1B) + .76*(2B) +.27*(Times 2B Stolen)+ 1.10*(3B) + .34*(Times 3B Stolen) + 1.14*(HR) - .10*(Outs)

The part not in bold is a previously made Runs Generated equation, we just decided to add that particular part of the stat. We didn't go much further into it though, some guy did link us to a site that gave the increase in runs generated for every single part of baseball:

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902event.html

JB98
07-28-2006, 08:37 PM
Whip

RKMeibalane
07-28-2006, 08:50 PM
It's certainly important, and tells a lot, but it doesn't tell the whole story that it claims to the way obp does. OBP claims to say how often a player gets on base and it tells exactly that. OPS is flawed, imo, because it doesn't take into account stolen bases. A minor quibble, but a quibble nonetheless--it makes it less valuable to evaluate leadoff hitters. For instance FireJoeMorgan was ripping Scotty for having a ****ty OPS. Fair, but his SB's should be considered. IF you were going to rip him for something it should not be for a low OPS, but a rather low OBP and a poor CS%

I suppose someone could always come up with an adjusted OPS that accounts for stolen bases, or better yet, anyone who steals a base could have the stolen base added his number of total bases (but keep it separate from slugging percentage), which would raise his OPS.

Mr. White Sox
07-28-2006, 09:07 PM
I suppose someone could always come up with an adjusted OPS that accounts for stolen bases, or better yet, anyone who steals a base could have the stolen base added his number of total bases (but keep it separate from slugging percentage), which would raise his OPS.

In addition, a caught stealing should subtract a total base from the OPS statistic.

Ol' No. 2
07-28-2006, 09:33 PM
Any stat that the FOBB's put emphasis on.You're not a fan of isoFOOZIX?

1951Campbell
07-28-2006, 09:34 PM
Holds.

voodoochile
07-28-2006, 09:36 PM
In fact the stats FOBB emphasis are actually the most prolific and important of the stats. Even some of the SABR stats are important, while the good majority are just absolutely confusing and worthless, a few like EqA, VORP and ERA+ are important.

As for overrated stats:

Batting average first and foremost, no rewards for walking.

Wins for a pitcher, great you have a good team.

RBI, I like RBIs but they have to be looked at in context of the team around the particular player.



Very much so. My friend and I actually worked up a stat that was essentially OPS but took into account stolen bases and which base was being stolen. If I can find it somewhere on my computer I'll post it for ya, but it was a very good stat that still rewarded the best hitters in the game, but at least gave some credit to people stealing bases.

VORP is bull****, IMO. It might be a solid stat if it was used right, but people take it WAY too far. If a team actually fielded its AAA team one season, it would be lucky to win 40 games. So, talking about how much better a player is than the rookie minimum wage guy you can replace him with is simply ludicrous.

voodoochile
07-28-2006, 09:38 PM
In addition, a caught stealing should subtract a total base from the OPS statistic.

I wouldn't think in today's age it would be that difficult to actually track bases generated by any given player.

For example: a single/walk with the bases empty is worth one base generated.

A single or walk with a man on first would be worth 2 (or three if the runner took third) bases generated.

The extreme is what Gload did tonight when he generated 10 bases with one AB.

You want to show offensive excellence it would cover all categories because clutch hitters would be actually favored by the stat, so it would even take that into account.

StillMissOzzie
07-28-2006, 09:44 PM
I'm not a big fan of saves, primarily because they give no indication of how effective the pitcher was in earning that save. Pitcher A may come into the 9th inning of a game with a 3 run lead, give up two runs, leave the bases loaded and then get the 3rd out, and he gets a save. Pitcher B may come into the 9th inning of a game with a 1-run lead and the tying run on 3rd, strand that runner by striking out the side, and he too gets...a save.

In a related matter, I DO look at saves made related to saves attempted, as IMHO, a decent closer should get the save between 80% - 90% of the time.

SMO
:gulp:

FedEx227
07-28-2006, 09:47 PM
VORP is bull****, IMO. It might be a solid stat if it was used right, but people take it WAY too far. If a team actually fielded its AAA team one season, it would be lucky to win 40 games. So, talking about how much better a player is than the rookie minimum wage guy you can replace him with is simply ludicrous.

Oh no doubt, the basis of the stat is a complete joke. But the gage of player comparison is where the stat shows great strides in.

Oblong
07-28-2006, 09:58 PM
I think saves are the most overrated stat. It's the only stat I can think of that determines how a coach/manager utilizes his personnell.

Average pitchers rack up millions in contracts for getting 3 outs in a single game and hardly ever pitch in losing situations. I miss the old days when guys like Gossage were true firemen and came out with the game on the line. Not this 2 run lead in the 9th to get one more tick. I blame La Russa for that.

Ol' No. 2
07-28-2006, 10:02 PM
Oh no doubt, the basis of the stat is a complete joke. But the gage of player comparison is where the stat shows great strides in.Actually, VORP is not much more than OPS with a fake mustache and glasses to disguise it.

voodoochile
07-28-2006, 10:04 PM
Actually, VORP is not much more than OPS with a fake mustache and glasses to disguise it.

OPS is another stat that is deceptive. By itself it won't tell you much about how a given player will perform in a given situation, but when you look at it from a big picture perspective it makes more sense. Players with OPS above .900 are regularly AS or even HOF players. So it makes sense to say a guy with an OPS in that range for his career is a great player.

RKMeibalane
07-28-2006, 10:17 PM
OPS is another stat that is deceptive. By itself it won't tell you much about how a given player will perform in a given situation, but when you look at it from a big picture perspective it makes more sense. Players with OPS above .900 are regularly AS or even HOF players. So it makes sense to say a guy with an OPS in that range for his career is a great player.

:hurt

"Yes, like me."

Ol' No. 2
07-28-2006, 10:36 PM
OPS is another stat that is deceptive. By itself it won't tell you much about how a given player will perform in a given situation, but when you look at it from a big picture perspective it makes more sense. Players with OPS above .900 are regularly AS or even HOF players. So it makes sense to say a guy with an OPS in that range for his career is a great player.Trouble is, it's skewed toward the SLG part because those are bigger numbers. So it overvalues sluggers and undervalues top of the order hitters. That's the reason the propellerheads consistently dismissed Podsednik last year. Remember the "he has ZERO home runs" criticism?

It also ignores the need for balance in a lineup. The last thing you'd want is an entire lineup of high OPS hitters. (We tried that once, remember?)

batmanZoSo
07-28-2006, 10:40 PM
Yeah, winning is overrated. :?:

I'll say the defunct game-winning RBI for all time.

Currently, range factor. Just the concept of it I don't buy. Why not a "clutch factor"?

Tragg
07-28-2006, 10:54 PM
Agreed. It tells you when they are awful, but only IR/IRS is truely useful.

It doesn't even do that..if you have one long horrible inning, your ERA is screwed.
You could also come in with the bases loaded, give up 2 hits, allow 3 runs to score and get 1 out and your ERA is 0.00 despite a horrible outing.

Or, you could come in get two Ks and an infield hit, get yanked, and your replacement gives up a dinger, zooming your ERA to 9.00.

Ol' No. 2
07-28-2006, 11:13 PM
It doesn't even do that..if you have one long horrible inning, your ERA is screwed.
You could also come in with the bases loaded, give up 2 hits, allow 3 runs to score and get 1 out and your ERA is 0.00 despite a horrible outing.

Or, you could come in get two Ks and an infield hit, get yanked, and your replacement gives up a dinger, zooming your ERA to 9.00.As much as I hate most of BP's stuff, their Fair Runs Allowed makes a lot of sense. They give fractional runs for runners bequethed/inherited. For example, if a pitcher leaves a game with a runner on first, he's charged with a fraction of a run based on his liklihood of scoring (e.g. 0.1 run if it's 10%). If the reliever allows him to score, he's charged with the remaining fraction of a run. If he's stranded, the reliever gets a NEGATIVE fractional run. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Craig Grebeck
07-28-2006, 11:17 PM
Trouble is, it's skewed toward the SLG part because those are bigger numbers. So it overvalues sluggers and undervalues top of the order hitters. That's the reason the propellerheads consistently dismissed Podsednik last year. Remember the "he has ZERO home runs" criticism?

It also ignores the need for balance in a lineup. The last thing you'd want is an entire lineup of high OPS hitters. (We tried that once, remember?)
2004?

-using the player who got the majority of starts at each position-
C Ben Davis OPS: .676
1B Paul Konerko .894
2B Willie Harris .666
3B Joe Crede .717
SS Jose Valentin .764
LF Carlos Lee .891
CF Aaron Rowand .905
RF Joe Borachard .587
DH Frank Thomas .996
Utility- Juan Uribe .833

The OPS was very unbalanced. Plugging in higher OPS guys in the weak spots would have made that team a division winner. Once again, we did not win last year because we had low OPS guys, grinders, etc. We won because 4/5 of our rotation and MOST of our bullpen performed WELL above career standards.

Also, how big of a fluke was Rowands .900+ OPS?

Another good stat is OPS+. It takes park effects and other factors into consideration.

Ol' No. 2
07-28-2006, 11:27 PM
2004?

-using the player who got the majority of starts at each position-
C Ben Davis OPS: .676
1B Paul Konerko .894
2B Willie Harris .666
3B Joe Crede .717
SS Jose Valentin .764
LF Carlos Lee .891
CF Aaron Rowand .905
RF Joe Borachard .587
DH Frank Thomas .996
Utility- Juan Uribe .833

The OPS was very unbalanced. Plugging in higher OPS guys in the weak spots would have made that team a division winner. Once again, we did not win last year because we had low OPS guys, grinders, etc. We won because 4/5 of our rotation and MOST of our bullpen performed WELL above career standards.

Also, how big of a fluke was Rowands .900+ OPS?

Another good stat is OPS+. It takes park effects and other factors into consideration.The guy on that list who we still have and has the highest OPS is Paul Konerko. So you're suggesting an entire lineup of Paul Konerkos would be a good lineup. I see your point.

Craig Grebeck
07-28-2006, 11:34 PM
An entire lineup of PK's would have hit 360 HR last season and using Runs Created (OBP x TB) would have scored 1036 runs. I think we would have been alright.

Ol' No. 2
07-28-2006, 11:35 PM
An entire lineup of PK's would have hit 360 HR last season and using Runs Created (OBP x TB) would have scored 1036 runs. I think we would have been alright.I think they would have scored 360 runs and finished in last place.

Craig Grebeck
07-28-2006, 11:41 PM
Seriously, Seriously? I'll take 40 HR's and a .375 OBP from my 1-9 against anything.

Ol' No. 2
07-28-2006, 11:43 PM
Seriously, Seriously? I'll take 40 HR's and a .375 OBP from my 1-9 against anything.If you say so.

Craig Grebeck
07-28-2006, 11:47 PM
Obviously hypothetical, but would you rather have 9 Podsedniks or 9 Konerko's? Curious, not sarcastic or scathing.

Ol' No. 2
07-28-2006, 11:49 PM
Obviously hypothetical, but would you rather have 9 Podsedniks or 9 Konerko's? Curious, not sarcastic or scathing.Both are losers. You need balance.

mjmcend
07-28-2006, 11:50 PM
[quote=Ol' No. 2}
It also ignores the need for balance in a lineup. The last thing you'd want is an entire lineup of high OPS hitters. (We tried that once, remember?)[/quote]

It wasn't the hitters that was the problem prior to 2005. It was the pitchers that couldn't stop the other team from racking up ridiculous OPS numbers as well.

Ol' No. 2
07-28-2006, 11:52 PM
It wasn't the hitters that was the problem prior to 2005. It was the pitchers that couldn't stop the other team from racking up ridiculous OPS numbers as well.The offense was feast or famine. The Sox 2004 offense was the most inconsistent in all of MLB. It doesn't do much good to average 6 runs per game if you get 18 in one game and get shut out the next two.

Daver
07-28-2006, 11:59 PM
Wouldn't it be easier to list stats that actually mean something?

BA
RBI
ERA

The rest is mostly garbarge.

Ol' No. 2
07-29-2006, 12:10 AM
Wouldn't it be easier to list stats that actually mean something?

BA
RBI
ERA

The rest is mostly garbarge.IMO, the value of a baseball statistic is in inverse proportion to the number of mathematical operations it takes to create it. Things like BA, OBP, WHIP, ERA, etc. are all valuable. Each tells you something useful, although none give the whole picture.

When you get into Runs Created or VORP, they're mostly just BS.

SABRSox
07-29-2006, 12:18 AM
Win Shares.

buehrle4cy05
07-29-2006, 12:23 AM
eh obp is not worthless at all. in fact it is one of the most valuable offensive stats

ops is not worthless either, though it sometimes is misapplied.

I was talking about something like PECOTA or VORP or any of that stupid crap.

Mohoney
07-29-2006, 01:51 AM
I would say that using the traditional pitching stats (W-L record and ERA) for a reliever are overrated.

For relievers, I really think that only 2 stats matter a whole lot; scoreless appearances and inherited runners scored.

Craig Grebeck
07-29-2006, 08:14 AM
IMO, the value of a baseball statistic is in inverse proportion to the number of mathematical operations it takes to create it. Things like BA, OBP, WHIP, ERA, etc. are all valuable. Each tells you something useful, although none give the whole picture.

When you get into Runs Created or VORP, they're mostly just BS.
BA is the worst of all. Batting Average on Balls in Play is a really good stat to determine whether or not a high or low batting average is a fluke.

Tragg
07-29-2006, 08:49 AM
As much as I hate most of BP's stuff, their Fair Runs Allowed makes a lot of sense. They give fractional runs for runners bequethed/inherited. For example, if a pitcher leaves a game with a runner on first, he's charged with a fraction of a run based on his liklihood of scoring (e.g. 0.1 run if it's 10%). If the reliever allows him to score, he's charged with the remaining fraction of a run. If he's stranded, the reliever gets a NEGATIVE fractional run. It makes a lot of sense to me.
That makes some sense.
A lot more than judging quality of team by margin of victory.
According to their calculations, the Indians are 10 games ABOVE .500 right now.

Tragg
07-29-2006, 08:52 AM
Wouldn't it be easier to list stats that actually mean something?

BA
RBI
ERA

The rest is mostly garbarge. Overall, OBP is a better stat than BA, imo, because it counts walks, which is just as good as a hit for players with no power. I'd lean to the second wave of stas, OBP and Slugging, but no deeper than that.

VenturaSoxFan23
07-29-2006, 09:54 AM
http://www.cardsquad.com/media/2006/03/kent-brockman-XX.jpg

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of all people know that."

jabrch
07-29-2006, 10:23 AM
If it isn't VORP, then it could be any of the DIPS stats. However, if I had to pick one set of least valuable stats, I'd go with a defensive stat. I'd probably go with OF assists. Errors are crappy as well. UZR, ZR, etc. are terrible. Fielding % is awful. RF sucks. I can't pick which of those is the worst. But if you make me pick one bad stat, it would be a defensive statistic.

Tragg
07-29-2006, 10:42 AM
BA is the worst of all. Batting Average on Balls in Play is a really good stat to determine whether or not a high or low batting average is a fluke.I could see that, if you could narrow it down to ground balls. And even then, truly great hitters (carew, gwynn) are adept at placing their grounders. But for most slap hitters, it sounds like a good stat.

viagracat
07-29-2006, 10:48 AM
Wouldn't it be easier to list stats that actually mean something?

BA
RBI
ERA

The rest is mostly garbarge.

Exactly.

Craig Grebeck
07-29-2006, 10:50 AM
I could see that, if you could narrow it down to ground balls. And even then, truly great hitters (carew, gwynn) are adept at placing their grounders. But for most slap hitters, it sounds like a good stat.
There are definitely exceptions to any rule, i.e. Ichiro, Gwynn, Carew. Some guys have good enough line drive percentages.

Ol' No. 2
07-29-2006, 12:04 PM
Overall, OBP is a better stat than BA, imo, because it counts walks, which is just as good as a hit for players with no power. I'd lean to the second wave of stas, OBP and Slugging, but no deeper than that.It all depends on a player's role in the batting order. For leadoff hitters, OBP is much more important than BA or SLG. If you're talking about middle-of-the-order hitters, you want those guys driving in runs, so BA and SLG become more important. Bottom of the order hitters have different roles. These are often the guys you platoon so if a guy is particularly good against righties or lefties, he's valuable beyond his overall average. Bottom of the order hitters are also often there for defense, so that's proportionately more important. Baseball is a complex game.

batmanZoSo
07-29-2006, 12:11 PM
It all depends on a player's role in the batting order. For leadoff hitters, OBP is much more important than BA or SLG. If you're talking about middle-of-the-order hitters, you want those guys driving in runs, so BA and SLG become more important. Bottom of the order hitters have different roles. These are often the guys you platoon so if a guy is particularly good against righties or lefties, he's valuable beyond his overall average. Bottom of the order hitters are also often there for defense, so that's proportionately more important. Baseball is a complex game.

When it comes to leadoff or number 2 hitters, SLG is pretty much useless, but even OBP is overrated. Now of course it would be a dream to have a .400 OBP guy leading off, but that's pretty rare, think Raines or Henderson in their primes. Pods and Iguchi don't particularly excel in either category, but they're a fantastic 1-2 when they're both on. There really are no stats to truly measure the effectiveness of those guys. Pitches seen per at bat, bunting, bunting for hits, hitting it on the ground, hitting it to the right part of the field, etc..

Ol' No. 2
07-29-2006, 12:22 PM
When it comes to leadoff or number 2 hitters, SLG is pretty much useless, but even OBP is overrated. Now of course it would be a dream to have a .400 OBP guy leading off, but that's pretty rare, think Raines or Henderson in their primes. Pods and Iguchi don't particularly excel in either category, but they're a fantastic 1-2 when they're both on. There really are no stats to truly measure the effectiveness of those guys. Pitches seen per at bat, bunting, bunting for hits, hitting it on the ground, hitting it to the right part of the field, etc..I think the hardest position to fill is the #2 hitter. He has to be able to do it all. He needs to be able to get on base when the leadoff hitter doesn't. He needs to have the bat control to bunt, hit&run or just hit behind the runner. He needs to have the concentration to stay with the pitch and not get distracted by the runner stealing. And you want him to have some pop to get those extra base hits. It's a rare player who can combine all those quantities. We are very lucky to have Tadahito Iguchi.

Craig Grebeck
07-29-2006, 12:26 PM
When it comes to leadoff or number 2 hitters, SLG is pretty much useless, but even OBP is overrated. Now of course it would be a dream to have a .400 OBP guy leading off, but that's pretty rare, think Raines or Henderson in their primes. Pods and Iguchi don't particularly excel in either category, but they're a fantastic 1-2 when they're both on. There really are no stats to truly measure the effectiveness of those guys. Pitches seen per at bat, bunting, bunting for hits, hitting it on the ground, hitting it to the right part of the field, etc..
Another really good stat, P/PA-Pitches per Plate Appearance.

Pods, Thome, and Jermaine are all in the top 15 in the AL.

Craig Grebeck
07-29-2006, 12:29 PM
It all depends on a player's role in the batting order. For leadoff hitters, OBP is much more important than BA or SLG. If you're talking about middle-of-the-order hitters, you want those guys driving in runs, so BA and SLG become more important. Bottom of the order hitters have different roles. These are often the guys you platoon so if a guy is particularly good against righties or lefties, he's valuable beyond his overall average. Bottom of the order hitters are also often there for defense, so that's proportionately more important. Baseball is a complex game.
IMO, OBP is important from top to bottom. How much better would this team be if the bottom of our order was more patient and got on base at a decent rate.

Ol' No. 2
07-29-2006, 12:35 PM
IMO, OBP is important from top to bottom. How much better would this team be if the bottom of our order was more patient and got on base at a decent rate.All those things are important for everybody. But relatively speaking, OBP is more important for top of the order hitters than SLG, while it's the other way around for middle-of-the-order hitters.

Craig Grebeck
07-29-2006, 12:39 PM
Yes, but guys with high SLG and low OBP (Soriano, Jacque Jones, even Jose Valentin circa 2004) should not be worth as much as guys with middling SLG and high OBP. The thing that bothers me about OPS is that it can be inflated by a high SLG (Sosa). OPS driven by a high OBP is much better than one driven by a high SLG.

I don't understand the need for the 1-2 guys to excel at anything other than get on base. They only lead off once (most likely) and they can create RBI opportunities for the 3-4-5 by getting on.

Tragg
07-29-2006, 01:02 PM
Yes, but guys with high SLG and low OBP (Soriano, Jacque Jones, even Jose Valentin circa 2004) should not be worth as much as guys with middling SLG and high OBP. The thing that bothers me about OPS is that it can be inflated by a high SLG (Sosa). OPS driven by a high OBP is much better than one driven by a high SLG.

I don't understand the need for the 1-2 guys to excel at anything other than get on base. They only lead off once (most likely) and they can create RBI opportunities for the 3-4-5 by getting on. It depends...I certainly agree with your last paragraph, although a touch of power is a nice plus. For the 1-2 guys, OBP is more important. For the 3-5 guys, maybe not...although, they should have a decent OBP just by hitting there and getting the intentional walks or being pitched to "Carefully" a situation in which a patient hitter can get a walk.
Ultimately, you need someone who can drive in runs...you aren't going to score with nothing but high walk-singles hitters in the lineup, as per the As and to some extent before this year, the blue jays. And similarly, the homers in the middle of the lineup don't help much if they're solo shots, because the top of the order is flailing away at everything, swinging for the fences, and not getting on base.

dickallen15
07-29-2006, 01:12 PM
Quality starts is a stupid stat. You don't even have to pitch very well to collect a quality start.

Ol' No. 2
07-29-2006, 01:13 PM
It depends...I certainly agree with your last paragraph, although a touch of power is a nice plus. For the 1-2 guys, OBP is more important. For the 3-5 guys, maybe not...although, they should have a decent OBP just by hitting there and getting the intentional walks or being pitched to "Carefully" a situation in which a patient hitter can get a walk.
Ultimately, you need someone who can drive in runs...you aren't going to score with nothing but high walk-singles hitters in the lineup, as per the As and to some extent before this year, the blue jays. And similarly, the homers in the middle of the lineup don't help much if they're solo shots, because the top of the order is flailing away at everything, swinging for the fences, and not getting on base.Exactly. Except I would add that we've also seen the effect of having speed at the top of the order. This can disrupt the opponent's defense and actually makes the following hitters better. It also gets more runners into scoring position, because even for high SLG hitters, most of their hits are still singles.

batmanZoSo
07-29-2006, 01:16 PM
All those things are important for everybody. But relatively speaking, OBP is more important for top of the order hitters than SLG, while it's the other way around for middle-of-the-order hitters.
And the measuring stick for OBP is different for both. For a premier slugger, the mark of greatness is .400-.420 (guys like Frank, Thome, Ramirez, etc) and you want at least .375-.380 from your regular 3-4-5 types (Dye, Konerko, Maggs). For a little speedy guy like Pods or Pierre, singles hitters leading off, .360 is very good. The little guys don't get all those "fear walks" that the big boppers do and for the most part they're getting on base with singles and bunts only, whereas sluggers have singles, doubles, and home runs in addition to fear walks that contribute to on-base.

TaylorStSox
07-29-2006, 01:19 PM
K/ip

Ol' No. 2
07-29-2006, 01:30 PM
And the measuring stick for OBP is different for both. For a premier slugger, the mark of greatness is .400-.420 (guys like Frank, Thome, Ramirez, etc) and you want at least .375-.380 from your regular 3-4-5 types (Dye, Konerko, Maggs). For a little speedy guy like Pods or Pierre, singles hitters leading off, .360 is very good. The little guys don't get all those "fear walks" that the big boppers do and for the most part they're getting on base with singles and bunts only, whereas sluggers have singles, doubles, and home runs in addition to fear walks that contribute to on-base.Good point. And there's another layer of that. You have to look at what fits for YOUR TEAM. A high strikeout power hitter is not a problem because neither Konerko nor Dye are high strikeout hitters. But two Thomes in a row could be disastrous. You have to look at the players you have and try to fit them into something that works. Someone like Soriano might not be bad to leadoff on a team where you can follow him with high average hitters who don't strike out much, but maybe don't have big power numbers. He would be a lousy fit on the Sox. When putting a team together you're dealing with real players with real attributes. They're never perfect, and it's as much about covering their imperfections as it is about maximizing their strengths.

batmanZoSo
07-29-2006, 01:38 PM
Good point. And there's another layer of that. You have to look at what fits for YOUR TEAM. A high strikeout power hitter is not a problem because neither Konerko nor Dye are high strikeout hitters. But two Thomes in a row could be disastrous. You have to look at the players you have and try to fit them into something that works. Someone like Soriano might not be bad to leadoff on a team where you can follow him with high average hitters who don't strike out much, but maybe don't have big power numbers. He would be a lousy fit on the Sox. When putting a team together you're dealing with real players with real attributes. They're never perfect, and it's as much about covering their imperfections as it is about maximizing their strengths.
A few people (not many) had issues with Thome's tendency to strike out a lot when we acquired him, but forget that no one else on the team--as powerful as this lineup is--strikes out a ton. And it's really been that way since the Manuel era. It's also irrelevant how much a guy strikes out when he gets on base at a .410 clip. The difference between Thome and Thomas, traditionally, is you merely trade off strikeouts for groundouts. If you have someone like Thome and Valentin going, or maybe a guy like Geoff Jenkins then you might run into some problems.

Oblong
07-29-2006, 02:47 PM
RBI for an individual is a garbage stat. RBI is a team statistic.

Wins for pitchers is a garbage stat because there's very little a pitcher can do, and nothing an AL pitcher can do, to help his team win a game. At most they can help his team tie in a scoreless game. Why is it the pitcher that gets a W or L against his name? Why not the shortstop? Why not the catcher?

I offer you up the 2001 versions of Mussina, Mike and Clemens, Roger as evidence.

ma-gaga
07-29-2006, 02:52 PM
If it isn't VORP, then it could be any of the DIPS stats. However, if I had to pick one set of least valuable stats, I'd go with a defensive stat. I'd probably go with OF assists. Errors are crappy as well. UZR, ZR, etc. are terrible. Fielding % is awful. RF sucks. I can't pick which of those is the worst. But if you make me pick one bad stat, it would be a defensive statistic.

I agree with Jabrch; Errors and Fielding percentage are the most worthless stat of them all. What is an error? 30 different opinions.

Advanced stats: There should to be a way to compare stats from the 1960's to the 2000's, or from different leagues/environments. Colorado is a unique park, and should be treated as such. That's what I like VORP, or ERA+ for. It's an attempt at equalizing out the field.

However, I think you could make an argument that NOBODY correctly knows how to "use" VORP. :cool: it's a bit confusing... and hides more than it shows.