Will the 'ideal stat' please stand up!

[Old Judge]

Hi Everyone

I am about to round out my first week as a member of NetShrine, and I am loving it! You people are like a group of friends in a schoolyard, laughing, jabbing, quizzing and talking baseball. It just doesn't get any better than this (not on-line anyway)!

My question has probably been bounced around plenty here, but since I am a new guy, I will ask you to share your thoughts on the 'ideal stat.' I share the belief that batting average is grossly inadequate as a measure of offensive production.

Many of the stats used in Lee's GREAT Sabermetric Encyclopedia offer deeper and different looks at a batter's effectiveness. I like OPS as a simple measure of batting ability, but it doesn't really address baserunning. TA, RC**, etc. do include base stealing/running to a much greater degree, but how can a stat measure the havoc caused by Jackie Robinson or Rickey Henderson on the basepaths? I'd like to see a 'TA' style stat which includes the opposing pitchers' batting average against while a given runner is on base (as compared to that BAA against the same batters when he is not on base). But I sure don't want the job of compiling it! Lee...? Anyway, until that comes along:

Poll: If you had to draft a lineup of players from Far Fobsobia (whom you had never seen nor heard of) and could only review ONE stat on which to base your choices, which stat would you want to see?

I am intersted in seeing all of your thoughts.
Rick

[Xanadu Dragon]

If I had to take just one - across the board - it would be OPS (or Adjusted Production [AOPS], if possible) - - and then use Opponent's OPS or AOPS for pitchers.

I know about baserunning - - but, many studies claim that the SB is not that big a deal - - and, give me a Lou Gehrig over an Otis Nixon any day. If the OPS is good enough, going from 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home takes care of itself.

Now, as far as picking a player that I never saw play, I would like to add K:BB ratios for both hitters and pitchers to the mix.

Give me a hitter with a good OPS and a favorable BB/K ratio, and, I don't need to see him play - - same as a pitcher with low OOPS and a good K/BB ratio.

I think OPS is a great stat but it's also overrated and can be extremely misleading sometimes. In general I am wary of "magic number" stats. I've read so many people saying that Bobby Grich or Darrell Evans or Glenn Hubbard were better than Pete Rose and Johnny Bench because of Total Baseball's TPR stat I am conscious not to take these ratings too seriously.

I've read some college studies on baserunning and basestealing and I've played around with Estimated Runs Produced (which determines a MUCH lower break-even rate for steals-caughts than any other formula) and have concluded that basestealing is underrated by almost all traditional methods of analysis.

Win Shares looks the best "perfect" stat, but I am not completely familiar with its workings. It seems to do a lot of things, like remove distortions from defensive analysis, far, far better than any other method I've ever seen, but Bill James admits that the system isn't perfect.

[LeGrandOrange]

The stat I've always loved for batters is extrapolated runs, which is a variant of runs created that just seems more accurate to me.
I'm still looking for that ideal pitcher stat. I have yet to figure out what RS is or an equivalent for that matter, and thusly, I can't compute it, and that kinda irks me, naturally.
The thing with XR vs. RC is that some of the numbers look more down to earth. For example, Bonds has 232.38 RC (allegedly...I don't get that when I compute it the way ESPN.com says to), but a more godly 185.37 XR. And that seems a lot more accurate. Bonds accounted for 193 runs himself, 129 runs scored, 64 driven in that aren't from scoring himself on homers, so that's actually a slight underestimation.
(Now if I could figure out extrapolated win %)

[sweaver]

The best "regular" stat is on-base percentage, because that is the single most important thing to do---get on base. Can't score if nobody's on.

The best "calculated" stat is runs created, although ideally it should be ballpark (and in historical considerations, era) adjusted. I, too, am waiting to see all the evidence on Win Shares, which promises much, and may or may not deliver.

[Old Judge]

I frankly have always found on-base percentage lacking. While I agree that getting on base is important (and NOT making an out equally important, as considered in TA), on-base percentage treats a walk the same as a grand slam (or a single, a stolen base, a flustered pitcher, and two-run shot). The true object is to produce runs. That involves everything from hustling for the extra base to stealing bases (or distracting a pitcher who thinks you might, and thus doesn't use his money split-finger) to hitting better with runners on base, etc...

It's funny how when a manager is interviewed about which hitter he wants up in the clutch, he so often mentions someone other than his statistical superstar...

[Xanadu Dragon]

If you subscribe to the Weaver Theory, which I do, that your 27 outs is your most precious commodity on offense, then OBA is pretty darn important - - cause, the "oppose it" of OBA is an out.

[Old Judge]

OBA is certainly important, but are you implying (as OBA does) that a walk is as important as a home run? It is if your down by a bunch in the ninth, but...

Any stat which shows a top 50 all-time including Stanky, Valo, Blue, and Bishop, but no Mays, Aaron, F. Robby or Brett can't be the one and only stat I use to determine my roster.

Weaver's strategy was "pitching, defense and the 3-run homer."
While I agree you need those two little guys on base to get that 3-run dinger, three walks alone = no runs. If you look at it from the team perspective, a single and two walks followed by three pop outs shows a great OBA for that inning of .500 - but no runs!

[Xanadu Dragon]

Well, while they say a walk is as good as a hit, it's probably more like a walk is as good as a .71 of a hit...........so, I agree that you'd like to be able to factor in slugging............so, I'll go back to my orginial post and stick with OPS - as the end all, be all stat. My comment on OBA was just a reply to your post against it.

[Old Judge]

OPS has become my favorite as well, for the reasons you mentioned and for its simplicity when compared to others.

By the way, I don't mean to belittle the table-setters at all. Everybody has his job to do in the lineup, and a great slugger with nobody on base in front of him is somewhat neutered. I just hate to see a high team OBA coupled wuth high LOB totals and low run totals.

[Duque]

That's why it's good to couple OBP with SLG, to form OPS. I'm not sure if you had an entirely good OBP team (say, a bunch of Stan Hacks) you'd win a lot of games - you need some power too.

[sweaver]

I think OPS would be better if we used 2xOBA + SLG. OBA is more important, which is why Runs Created does not correspond directly to OPS. But that takes more figuring.

What I was trying to say was, if there was any one stat to look at, that didn't require a formula, on-base would be it. But that's not completely true, because to get OBA you have to divide. I guess the closest you could get with "counting" stats would be hits+walks, but again you have to add. But, if I only get one, I would take OBA over BA or SLG alone. I was trying to differentiate those from OPS, a calculated stat. That may be a false difference, though. OPS would be better than just OBA.

And, I'd rather have a team of Stan Hacks than a team of Dave Kingmans. Score a lot more runs that way.

[LeGrandOrange]

And a lot more smiles.
Stan Hack is more worthy of Cooperstown anyway, so they might be more successful. Who knows.

[Old Judge]

All points well taken. I would certainly take Stan Hack over Dave Kingman as well. Using OPS instead OBA keeps me from choosing Hack over Henry Aaron, so I prefer that. I still have a problem with baserunning (and the way it affects pitchers) not carrying any weight on either stat. I guess the thing to do is run a list of the top 50 of all-time in each such category (TA, RC**, etc) and see which yields the fewest aberrations. Not necessarily a job for Monday morning though.

[gyb13]

Sure, but can you really be objective about aberrations, though? Bernie Williams has a higher career OPS than Sammy Sosa, yet who would you pick today?
Shouldn't you choose your players first, then use the stats to differentiate them, not the other way around (use the stats to rank players, then subjectively reorder 'aberrations')??