Juan Soto - The Truth making it in DC this year

[mdnatsfan]

Shirley Povich. Shirley was in "Who's Who in American Women", about 1952, and a great writer.

Say what?

[bluestreak]

Bluestreak, you said wOBP weights a home run more than a single. But doesn’t OPS already do that by using slugging percentage?  Just seems easier to me focus on OPS.  MLB average is about .770. Just go from there. It’s like when we just focused on batting average. .250-.275 was ok. Over .300 very good.

Yeah. But Slugging, and therefore OPS, give too much weight to home runs. A homer is not likely to score you four times as many runs as a single.  A Single is not twice as likely to score a run than a walk. wOBA and wRC+ also include stolen bases.
I use both. But the point of baseball is to score runs and these stats are better at measuring run creation, in my opinion.
The adjusted stats also allow you to compare among different eras.

And as to OPS. It’s ranged from .700 in 2000 to .782 in 2014 (.728 this year). So it’s hard to know what’s average.

Like I said, I use them all. I like having more data to use.

[Elvir Ovcina]

Think wOBA is like OBP, but weights for events (ie, a home run is better than a single is better than a walk).  wRC+ is basically wOBA, but standardized to include park effects and set so that 100 is average. So if you have a wRC+ of 147 your offensive production is 47 percent above average. So it’s a good way to compare Trevor Story to Trea Turner taking Coors into account.

Just for reference the stats that have “+” behind them (ERA+, OPS+) are the same as the stated stat but standardized for park factors and adjusted so that 100 is average. I love them for comparisons between players that play in different parks and because the give me reference as to how a guy compares to average.  It’s still hard for me to look at an OPS of .845 and know what that means. I still use the traditional stats, but the new ones are helpful when used in combo.

For reference Mike Trout has a wRC+ of 191 and Jacob deGrom has an ERA+ of 212

EDIT: I apologize if you didn’t want this explanation or didn’t find it useful.

That article (not your explanation) reads very much like a guy who doesn't know a whole lot about baseball and knows a lot less about stats than he thinks he does.  He cites in series statistics that are intercorrelated (or worse, just incremental variations of one another) as if they're completely independent.  That's the worst kind of advanced stats geek.   

[bluestreak]

That article (not your explanation) reads very much like a guy who doesn't know a whole lot about baseball and knows a lot less about stats than he thinks he does.  He cites in series statistics that are intercorrelated (or worse, just incremental variations of one another) as if they're completely independent.  That's the worst kind of advanced stats geek.

Yeah, you're right. Quoting wOBA and wRC+ is basically the same thing. If you lead in one, you will definitely lead in the other, so it adds zero information. I can see including OPS though since that's a more accepted stat. But even then that are measuring much of the same. If you lead in one you will lead in the other.  If I were writing the article I would have rewritten it as:

"Overall, Soto had the slight edge over Acuna in offensive production (OPS .923 to .917; wRC+ 145-143) but was clearly behind in fielding (minus-5 DRS), and baserunning (1.9 BsR). Those latter two figures helped limit his bWAR to 2.9."

So yeah, this guy likely doesn't fully understand the stats he's quoting.

[Natsinpwc]

Yeah. But Slugging, and therefore OPS, give too much weight to home runs. A homer is not likely to score you four times as many runs as a single.  A Single is not twice as likely to score a run than a walk. wOBA and wRC+ also include stolen bases.
I use both. But the point of baseball is to score runs and these stats are better at measuring run creation, in my opinion.
The adjusted stats also allow you to compare among different eras.

And as to OPS. It’s ranged from .700 in 2000 to .782 in 2014 (.728 this year). So it’s hard to know what’s average.

Like I said, I use them all. I like having more data to use.

Good points.

[Ray D]

A homer is not likely to score you four times as many runs as a single.

I'd like to see stats on that if there are any.  How often do you hear that a pitcher "scattered eight hits over seven innings for one run" (or something to that effect).  In that case, a homerun would have been worth eight singles.

[bluestreak]

I'd like to see stats on that if there are any.  How often do you hear that a pitcher "scattered eight hits over seven innings for one run" (or something to that effect).  In that case, a homerun would have been worth eight singles.

So they use a formula that takes the average of years and years of baseball, but I can't show you that here. But I think about it this way. Would you rather have 1 homer, 4 consecutive singles, 2 consecutive doubles or 4 consecutive walks? In terms of what will net you the most runs, I think it's probably the singles and that's reflected in the formula. I know there are situations like the one you stated above, but if you look at the average value of a single vs a home run, it comes out that the singles are the most valuable, probably because the biggest value of a hit is derived from just getting on base.

So here is the basic formula (it gets tweaked slightly year to year).

Basic wOBA = (.7* (BB + HBP) + .9*1B + 1.25*2B + 1.6*3B + 2*HR)/PA

So singles are a little less than half as valuable as a Homer and about 20 percent more valuable than a walk. This kinda makes sense to me in the above scenario I gave.

I also understand why some people don't like the advanced stats. That formula is kind of ridiculous and it's hard to calculate yourself. And you have to trust that the weights are done correctly because somebody certainly can't do that themselves. It's like a black box that spits out a number (like WAR) and isn't necessarily intuitive.

But what you give up in simplicity (in my opinion) is made up for by a more accurate stat.

But I like the simple ones too, because they are easier to manipulate in my head.

[Elvir Ovcina]

I'd like to see stats on that if there are any.  How often do you hear that a pitcher "scattered eight hits over seven innings for one run" (or something to that effect).  In that case, a homerun would have been worth eight singles.

There are, but they're complicated because the expected value of a single and a homer are so context-dependent and the but-for world matters for every iteration.  On average, a HR is roughly 3.15 times as valuable as a single when compared to a random outcome from any plate appearance. 

So they use a formula that takes the average of years and years of baseball, but I can't show you that here. But I think about it this way. Would you rather have 1 homer, 4 consecutive singles, 2 consecutive doubles or 4 consecutive walks? In terms of what will net you the most runs, I think it's probably the singles and that's reflected in the formula. I know there are situations like the one you stated above, but if you look at the average value of a single vs a home run, it comes out that the singles are the most valuable, probably because the biggest value of a hit is derived from just getting on base.

So here is the basic formula (it gets tweaked slightly year to year).

Basic wOBA = (.7* (BB + HBP) + .9*1B + 1.25*2B + 1.6*3B + 2*HR)/PA

So singles are a little less than half as valuable as a Homer and about 20 percent more valuable than a walk. This kinda makes sense to me in the above scenario I gave.

I also understand why some people don't like the advanced stats. That formula is kind of ridiculous and it's hard to calculate yourself. And you have to trust that the weights are done correctly because somebody certainly can't do that themselves. It's like a black box that spits out a number (like WAR) and isn't necessarily intuitive.

But what you give up in simplicity (in my opinion) is made up for by a more accurate stat.

But I like the simple ones too, because they are easier to manipulate in my head.

Yeah, but that assumes the alternate to either a single or a homer is an out - which it's not.

[Ray D]

  On average, a HR is roughly 3.15 times as valuable as a single . 

I can't challenge that, but  why does the guy who hits 40 homeruns generally get paid so much more than the guy who hits 126 singles?

[Smithian]

I can't challenge that, but  why does the guy who hits 40 homeruns generally get paid so much more than the guy who hits 126 singles?

Because a home run is a guaranteed man across the plate.

Singles require luck.

It's why on paper lineups filled with speed, contact, and base stealers sound great, but they don't always generate much on the scoreboard. It always takes luck to string together hits and generate runs, but moreso when you're relying on contact hitters and not power hitters.

[GburgNatsFan]

BABIP.

Because a home run is a guaranteed man across the plate.

Singles require luck.

It's why on paper lineups filled with speed, contact, and base stealers sound great, but they don't always generate much on the scoreboard. It always takes luck to string together hits and generate runs, but moreso when you're relying on contact hitters and not power hitters.

[Ray D]

Because a home run is a guaranteed man across the plate.

But that was the point of my argument that a homerun should be deemed to be worth more than four singles.

[bluestreak]

I can't challenge that, but  why does the guy who hits 40 homeruns generally get paid so much more than the guy who hits 126 singles?

Because front offices haven't always behaved in a rational manner. Signing someone who mashes to the exclusion of all else usually leaves you with an albatross of a contract like the O's with Chris Davis.

But even thinking that, is this actually true? Most folks who hit 40 homers also have a lot of singles and doubles, etc. Albert Pujols hit a ton of home runs, but he got on base a LOT when he wasn't hitting homers. Barry Bonds got on base a crap-ton when the ball didn't leave the park. And someone who only hits 126 singles isn't very good. But let's look at extreme examples and I'll limit it to traditional stats.

Joey Gallo 40 HR (3rd in MLB), 38 Singles, 24 Doubles, 103 H. .206 BA, .312 OBP, .810 OPS, 500 AB

Jose Altuve 13 HR, 124 singles, 29 doubles, 168 H, .315 BA, .384 OBP, .834 OPS, 534 AB

Who do you think is more valuable? Who do you think is going to get paid more? 

These guys have very similar OPS, but i'd argue that their value is wildly different.

The single is worth a lot more than a quarter home run because the act of simply getting on base is incredibly valuable.     

[Natsinpwc]

Because front offices haven't always behaved in a rational manner. Signing someone who mashes to the exclusion of all else usually leaves you with an albatross of a contract like the O's with Chris Davis.

But even thinking that, is this actually true? Most folks who hit 40 homers also have a lot of singles and doubles, etc. Albert Pujols hit a ton of home runs, but he got on base a LOT when he wasn't hitting homers. Barry Bonds got on base a crap-ton when the ball didn't leave the park. And someone who only hits 126 singles isn't very good. But let's look at extreme examples and I'll limit it to traditional stats.

Joey Gallo 40 HR (3rd in MLB), 38 Singles, 24 Doubles, 103 H. .206 BA, .312 OBP, .810 OPS, 500 AB

Jose Altuve 13 HR, 124 singles, 29 doubles, 168 H, .315 BA, .384 OBP, .834 OPS, 534 AB

Who do you think is more valuable? Who do you think is going to get paid more? 

These guys have very similar OPS, but i'd argue that their value is wildly different.

The single is worth a lot more than a quarter home run because the act of simply getting on base is incredibly valuable.   

Altuve’s OPS this year was .120 less than 2017. Didn’t have as good a year. Not only fewer HRs but fewer doubles and triple also. Maybe slugging overvalues extra bass hits but they are worth more than singles.

[Natsinpwc]

Singles may actually be overcounted in OPS because they are counted twice. Once in OBP and once in slugging. Hitters have more singles than extra base hits.

I think a bigger flaw in OPS is that it includes OBP which counts a walk the same as a hit. That’s certainly not their true value. Even a single is sometimes more valuable than a walk.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

I think a bigger flaw in OPS is that it includes OBP which counts a walk the same as a hit. That’s certainly not their true value. Even a single is sometimes more valuable than a walk.

singles count twice as much in OPS as walks.  Once for getting on, once for the base gained via a hit.  Walks do not count in SLG.  If anything, singles are overvalued in OPS relative to walks.

[Natsinpwc]

singles count twice as much in OPS as walks.  Once for getting on, once for the base gained via a hit.  Walks do not count in SLG.  If anything, singles are overvalued in OPS relative to walks.

True. But a guy who has a .400 BA and a .400 OBP is more valuable than a guy who has a .250 average and a .400 OBP.

Best to look at the slash line to get a fuller picture.

[bluestreak]

Singles may actually be overcounted in OPS because they are counted twice. Once in OBP and once in slugging. Hitters have more singles than extra base hits.

I think a bigger flaw in OPS is that it includes OBP which counts a walk the same as a hit. That’s certainly not their true value. Even a single is sometimes more valuable than a walk.

That's the whole point I was trying to make about wOBA and wRC+. OBP is a flawed stat because it overvalues walks relative to singles. Slugging is flawed because it overvalues extra base hits. and OPS is just adding two flawed stats together.  WRC+ has walks and HBP as less valuable than singles and home runs between 2 and 3 times as valuable as singles.

Altuve’s OPS this year was .120 less than 2017. Didn’t have as good a year. Not only fewer HRs but fewer doubles and triple also. Maybe slugging overvalues extra bass hits but they are worth more than singles.

But even when you compare Altuve's (relatively) down year. He's still tons more valuable than Gallo. And they are about the biggest homer only/single only pair I can come up with.

 Actually, lets compare Gallo to Lorenzo Cain.

AB 539, Hits 166, 1B 129,   2B 25,  HR 10,  BA .308   OBP .395 OPS .813   

Cain has almost the same OPS, and about 3.2 times as many singles as homers. Again, who's more valuable? Who's getting paid more.

I don't think I have ever said that home runs are more valuable than singles. I am saying they aren't 4 times (or more) as valuable. Somewhere between 2-3 times.

[Ray D]

singles count twice as much in OPS as walks.  Once for getting on, once for the base gained via a hit.  Walks do not count in SLG.  If anything, singles are overvalued in OPS relative to walks.

No, it's one of the things I like about OPS.  Walks are important, but singles are better, and I like that they get more weight.

(Technically, singles count even more than twice as much I think. Because slugging is based on at bats while OPS is based on trips. Since there are less at bats than trips, a hit adds more to your slugging than a walk adds to your OBP.)

[Ray D]

I think a bigger flaw in OPS is that it includes OBP which counts a walk the same as a hit.

I don't see how it's a flaw in OPS.  It isn't the OPS that counts them the same, it's the OBP.

[Natsinpwc]

I don't see how it's a flaw in OPS.  It isn't the OPS that counts them the same, it's the OBP.

Agree. It’s subsumed in the OPS. The other flaws discussed in this thread are in the slugging %.

[bluestreak]

Mods Can we break the stats discussion out of the Soto thread?

[Smithian]

On the Acuna question, I think they're basically even in a lot of ways. I think Acuna should get ROY due to team success.

Soto is exactly what Nationals need. He is a middle of the order power hitter who tallies up walks and puts the ball over the wall. I also think his defense will slowly improve with more game time. He isn't slow, just young.

[Panther Modern]

Good story by WaPo on Soto: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/11/07/feature/nationals-juan-soto-rides-big-swing-to-rookie-of-year-caliber-season/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8c8b19dec7e4

[Senatorswin]

Let's hope no sophomore slump for Soto.