Locked on Mariners and their war with OPS

[Seattle or Bust]

The most recent LO Mariners Podcast called out baseball fans as "casual" if they use OPS as a stat to compare players.

Colby states that Harvard found that every point of on base % is worth 4x that of a single point of slugging %. He says that makes OPS not a quality stat as it treats these stats as equal.

I on the other hand, say that's a largely BS claim because major league teams CLEARLY value slug more than the 4:1 ratio thrown out there by Harvard.

Take a player like Javier Baez... he is making $25 million a year, making him the 25th highest paid position player in baseball. Before getting paid by Detroit, Baez's highest OBP he ever recorded in a full season was .326 and he mostly averaged out to .315 which is pretty abysmal. However, he slugged anywhere from .480 to .530 over that stretch which is elite.

Now lets find a player who flips those stats... meaning high OBP, low slug. Luis Arraez is probably a good example. Arraez has a career OBP of .378 but a career slug of .424.

https://www.fishstripes.com/2023/1/27/2 ... uis-arraez <- this article does a good job laying out a potential Luis Arraez extension that pays him $17 million a year or so, comparing it to Jeff McNeil's extension. In any event, Arraez will likely not come near the $25 million a year that Baez makes. Yes, I realize Baez plays a more premium position but there were serious questions about Baez during free agency and he still got that massive contract.

If OBP is as important as Colby claims, Arraez should be one of the higher paid players in the league when his time comes, no? Certainly he should be projected to make far more than Baez given his OBP being worth WAY more than Baez's slug.

The answer is as stated above... teams value the ability to slug more because it's a rarer commodity than a player who can hit a bunch of singles. The 4:1 value is bullshit... that's what the math says but that's not how the game is played.

[D-train]

OPS is a bit flawed but not for that reason but because it double counts singles and at a minimum OPS+ is better.

The best stat for offense is wRC+ which is literally weight RUNS CREATED.

btw I would never listen to those clowns...

[GL_Storm]

I think OPS is fine but it is more for the casual fan. WRC+ is more exacting but my brain likes to look at BA, OBP, and SLG first and then I look over to WRC+ or OPS+, depending what site I'm on.

[Donn Beach]

Terms of sabermetrics obp is more valuable than slugging. The actual value changes depending who you ask, Beane had it at 3-1 in moneyball. Most sources have it less than that, don't see 4-1 anywhere. The reason being there is a higher correlation between runs and obp than runs and slugging. And yeah, terms of sabermetrics MLB still seems to undervalue obp

Consider a high-OPB, low-slugging-percentage team like the 2012 Minnesota Twins. The Twinkies finished 5th in the AL in OBP, but 12th in SLG. Based on team data going back 40 seasons, if Minnesota improved by 10 OBP points as a team, then I would expect it to score approximately 26 more runs on the season. But say instead they work to improve their weakness by 10 SLG points. Then I would expect them to score just 16 additional runs.

Now consider a low-OBP, high-SLG team like maybe the Baltimore Orioles in 2012. 6th in SLG, but 11th in OBP, the Orioles could expect a 28-run increase from a 10-point bump in OBP. And like the Twins, the Orioles would only get a projected increase of 16 runs from the 10-point bump in slugging. There appears to be some marginal benefit to increasing the Orioles’ weakness, OBP, but nothing noticeable. In both cases, improving OBP seems to be the more savvy option.

https://sodomojo.com/2013/01/22/obp-slu ... g-returns/

[Donn Beach]

OPS is a bit flawed but not for that reason but because it double counts singles and at a minimum OPS+ is better.

The best stat for offense is wRC+ which is literally weight RUNS CREATED.

btw I would never listen to those clowns...

There's issues with slugging, the value system. A triple isn't three times as valuable as a single. Singles get players on base, doubles drive them in. A home run is the complete package. A triple is what you need to complete a cycle.

[D-train]

OPS is a bit flawed but not for that reason but because it double counts singles and at a minimum OPS+ is better.

The best stat for offense is wRC+ which is literally weight RUNS CREATED.

btw I would never listen to those clowns...

There's issues with slugging, the value system. A triple isn't three times as valuable as a single. Singles get players on base, doubles drive them in. A home run is the complete package. A triple is what you need to complete a cycle.

Kind of depends. A triple with one out is a lot more valuable than a double but in general about the same unless you have a slower runner on first or the double is hit down the lines and an average runner can't score for 1st. That is why Jr. scoring on the Edgar double was so amazing. Have to be fast as hell to score on a double down the LF line.

[Seattle or Bust]

Terms of sabermetrics obp is more valuable than slugging. The actual value changes depending who you ask, Beane had it at 3-1 in moneyball. Most sources have it less than that, don't see 4-1 anywhere. The reason being there is a higher correlation between runs and obp than runs and slugging. And yeah, terms of sabermetrics MLB still seems to undervalue obp

Consider a high-OPB, low-slugging-percentage team like the 2012 Minnesota Twins. The Twinkies finished 5th in the AL in OBP, but 12th in SLG. Based on team data going back 40 seasons, if Minnesota improved by 10 OBP points as a team, then I would expect it to score approximately 26 more runs on the season. But say instead they work to improve their weakness by 10 SLG points. Then I would expect them to score just 16 additional runs.

Now consider a low-OBP, high-SLG team like maybe the Baltimore Orioles in 2012. 6th in SLG, but 11th in OBP, the Orioles could expect a 28-run increase from a 10-point bump in OBP. And like the Twins, the Orioles would only get a projected increase of 16 runs from the 10-point bump in slugging. There appears to be some marginal benefit to increasing the Orioles’ weakness, OBP, but nothing noticeable. In both cases, improving OBP seems to be the more savvy option.

https://sodomojo.com/2013/01/22/obp-slu ... g-returns/

If that's the case, what's with the trend of teams paying players who are bigger slug lower OBP players?

Why are teams OK with players striking out 200+ times if it means they hit 30 homers?

If OBP is more important, why are teams not working with players to swing less and walk more?

Why do teams not force players to shorten up and slap the ball with 2 strikes against a massive shift?

It's not adding up.