OAPS?

by jfs on Apr 30, 2006 11:16 PM EDT Comment 2 comments

Long-time listener, first-time caller. Regarding all of Albert's walks: I realize it's not the place to go for cutting-edge stat work, but the NY Times had an interesting piece today about an attempt to weigh the 'opportunity cost' of walks to sluggers -- in other words how to have OPS reflect the power possibilities lost by a walk, as deduced by stathead David Neft. "In figuring what he calls on-base advantage, walks (and times hit by pitch) are weighted not as full-unit successes for the batter, but by their marginal benefit beyond the batter's sidestepped slugging percentage." He then adds the on-base advantage to slugging percentage for a refined OPS. Here's the whole article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/sports/baseball/30score.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

If folks in the know have a chance to read it, could you conjecture on how useful this seems as a new stat category? Does it have a chance to catch on, and does it reflect the reality of hitter-impact a little better? Or not?

0 recs | Comment 2 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

questionable utility

The article is based on a plausible example (walking Albert is less damaging than walking weaker hitters). However, there no statistical evidence that the "refined" "OAPS" is a better indicator of offensive value, and it seems to me that discounting onbase percentage for very high slugging percentages makes the adjusted figure less valuable.

Using fewer outs by walking has a significant positive value even for an effective slugger. For example, six walks in a row (1.000 on base plus .000 slugging = 1.000 OAPS, I think) equals three runs scored plus bases loaded with no outs; three doubles and three outs (.500 on base plus 1.000 slugging = 1.500 OAPS, I think) equals two runs, a runner on base, and inning over. An index that attributes a higher value to fewer runs and more outs is heading in the wrong direction.

There are many ways to produce an index to compare offensive value, such as the numerous statistics in Baseball Prospectus. However, it seems to me that "OAPS" is a step in the wrong direction.

by madridbend on Apr 30, 2006 11:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But I think

the point of OAPS is that each walk is correlated with the hitter's existing slugging percentage -- therefore, in the scenario you mention, the six consecutive walks, the OAPS would be determined by the slugging percentage of each of the six different hitters walked. It's not a flat number. Doesn't that change things?

by jfs on May 1, 2006 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs