Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays


Photo

Position-adjusted OPS+


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Drew

Drew

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Twitter:@Drew7
  • LocationUrbana, IL

Posted 20 June 2012 - 12:36 PM

This was a discussion yesterday on the main board, so I figured I would do some research and calculations.

No matter your view regarding OPS, its at the very least a good supplement-statistic when evaluating performance. The problem, as we all know, is that OPS+ is calculated using league-average stats rather than league-average for each position, which is far more important.

I am on the most boring conference call ever, so I had time to calculate the adjusted OPS+ numbers for each Cubs starter:

Soto: 63
LaHair: 145
Barney: 101
Stewart: 74
Castro: 120
Soriano: 108
Campana: 72
Dejesus: 97

I took away a couple things from this:
  • LaHair's numbers are still very impressive
  • Barney doesnt seem to be the only 2B stepping up his game
  • Castro is still a young stud SS
  • There has to be a taker for Soriano

Thoughts?

#2 Crockett

Crockett

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 20 June 2012 - 12:38 PM

Thanks for doing this. No matter what people think, Barney is still bad. Bad, I say.

#3 Drew

Drew

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Twitter:@Drew7
  • LocationUrbana, IL

Posted 20 June 2012 - 12:43 PM

Thanks for doing this. No matter what people think, Barney is still bad. Bad, I say.


I was suprised to see how much the OPS of second basemen had jumped. It makes it even more important for Barney not to regress offensively (or come back to earth; whatever you want to say).

#4 Brett

Brett

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,642 posts
  • Twitter:BleacherNation
  • Facebook:BleacherNation

Posted 20 June 2012 - 01:16 PM

This is great, man. I imagine DeJesus suffers a bit for being a right fielder, rather than a center fielder, but I'm actually impressed at how close to "average" he is.

#5 Drew

Drew

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Twitter:@Drew7
  • LocationUrbana, IL

Posted 20 June 2012 - 02:05 PM

This is great, man. I imagine DeJesus suffers a bit for being a right fielder, rather than a center fielder, but I'm actually impressed at how close to "average" he is.


Yes he does, but not as much as he would be the last couple years - CF'ers are hitting the snot out of the ball compared to the past couple years, and getting on-base better than any other position (raising Campana's level of suck).

#6 T C

T C

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Twitter:@tommyecook
  • LocationThe University of Illinois

Posted 20 June 2012 - 08:54 PM

this is sweet

#7 FFP

FFP

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 406 posts
  • LocationWorcester County, Massachusetts

Posted 21 June 2012 - 08:04 AM


  • There has to be a taker for Soriano


Thanks for this work. The conclusions are pretty solid, too. Especially for Soriano. Buyers are just trying to figure out who they are, and when he'll be the strongest value (at what point will Cubs eat another M/year).

Buyers may be trying to figure out what they'll do with him after this year,too. He eats a roster spot, so the buyer will have to have the right projected roster, not just be a contender needing a PH/DH this year.

#8 DocPeterWimsey

DocPeterWimsey

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 21 June 2012 - 08:18 AM

This is a good way to look at it. The only alteration I would suggest is presenting two scores: one based on (say) all 2nd basemen (as presumably done here), and the other based on starting second basemen. My one problem with the WAR concept is that it is relative to a replacement player. That's irrelevant when you compare 2 guys (a guy with 5 WAR is 2 wins better than a guy with 3 WAR), but when simply summarizing a team, you'll get a better idea if you benchmark expected "0.500."

(Yes, we all know that having a good season or having a bad season often centers around injuries: but I figure that you should plan around the other teams not having injuries.)

The other thing one could do is break down the OPS+ into it's constituent components. That is, singles, doubles, triples, HR, walks, etc. The one reason that might be important is that the BABiP goddess gets lost amidst the slugging and walks; however, Eris has a huge effect on singles rates and that counts twice towards OPS.

Still, this is the best way to look at these scores. Kudos.
Gods don't play dice with the universe, they are the dice of the universe: our job is to figure out how many sides and dice!

#9 Drew

Drew

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Twitter:@Drew7
  • LocationUrbana, IL

Posted 21 June 2012 - 08:51 AM

This is a good way to look at it. The only alteration I would suggest is presenting two scores: one based on (say) all 2nd basemen (as presumably done here), and the other based on starting second basemen. My one problem with the WAR concept is that it is relative to a replacement player. That's irrelevant when you compare 2 guys (a guy with 5 WAR is 2 wins better than a guy with 3 WAR), but when simply summarizing a team, you'll get a better idea if you benchmark expected "0.500."

(Yes, we all know that having a good season or having a bad season often centers around injuries: but I figure that you should plan around the other teams not having injuries.)

The other thing one could do is break down the OPS+ into it's constituent components. That is, singles, doubles, triples, HR, walks, etc. The one reason that might be important is that the BABiP goddess gets lost amidst the slugging and walks; however, Eris has a huge effect on singles rates and that counts twice towards OPS.

Still, this is the best way to look at these scores. Kudos.

I agree that the downfall of OPS and its derivatives is the lack of a weighting system. As I've said previously, I am more partial to wOBA, but kind of feel like that underweights slugging a bit: As a whole, OBP may be more important, but XBH-importance isnt level across all game situations (a double with nobody on & 2 out is much less important than one with a guys on 1st and 2nd and 2 outs ), whereas it would seem OBP's importance is much more level.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).