The Angels lineup has the chance to hit 20+ HR at each position this season

[Inside Pitch]

22 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

The “flaw” in OPS is that (as you said) it treats OBP and SLG the same.

That is a tiny flaw if you are just looking for how “potent” a player or team is.  So I don’t really see the point in arguing that.

Tiny eh?  1.7-1.8 for every 1 point of OBP to every point of SLG%.  Tiny

Perhaps you've heard of Tom Tango, he worked for three different MLB teams before being hired by MLB itself and was inducted into what is essentially SABR's HOF in 2020. Tango, along with Mitchel Litchman of UZR fame, and Andrew Dolphin (Baseball Prospectus), combined to write "The Book, Playing the Percentages in Baseball", aimed at essentially picking up where Bill James' Prospectus had left off.  Among the many breakdowns that Tango did was a comparison of OBP .vs SLG% and their impact on scoring.

Here is an actual chat dialogue that covers some of it 

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/why_does_17obpslg_make_sense/

You can either read through it or not, but this one chat touches on the methodology and how it correlates to actual scoring.  The short version is that the impact is NOT tiny but actually rather significant. Forty years worth of data all came to the same conclusion ... on average it's between 1.7-1.8 greater in value point for point than SLG% depending on the linear weights of all events (singles, BB, HRs ect), over three year samples.

22 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

But I will argue (if you want to talk about looking at the wrong stat) that being concerned about the team striking out a lot is a good way to look at the potency of an offense.

You'd be arguing with yourself then.

Allow me to remind you of my initial comment and your response. I stated point blank I don't want to see the team lead MLB in offensive strikeouts, and not be bottom 5 in OBP.   Your response was you didn't care if they again led baseball in Ks so long as the "OPS was good" -- because that happens often right?

2022 -- Angels - 687 (23rd) OPS+ 95
2021 -- Cubs -- .719 (19th) OPS+ 93
2019 -- Tigers -- .682 (29th) OPS+ 78
2018 -- CWS -- .703, (23rd) OPS+ 93
2017 -- Brewers -- .751 (15th) OPS+ 94
2016 -- Brewers -- .729 (18th) OPS+ 92
2015 -- Cubs -- .719 (17th) OPS+ 98
2014 -- Cubs -- .684 (21st) OPS+ 89
2013 -- Astros -- 674 (28th) OPS+ 86
2012 -- Athletics -- .714 (19th) OPS+ 99

You are free to go back longer, but ten full seasons is enough for me.

Outs are outs -- K's are just another out, but leading the league in Ks is bad because they almost never result in a run scoring and run scoring/run prevention are king.  It's a fairly simple concept that only someone going out of their way to be contrarian would disagree with. 

The 2021 Mariners won 90 games despite being outscored by 51 runs.   I don't to see the Angels try to do that either.
 

22 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

You might want to look at the teams that stuck out the most last year.  Lots of them scored tons of runs.

You might want to take your own advice and maybe not pretend outliers are commonplace

The league average K rate across MLB for hitters in 2022 was 22.4% according to STATS Inc.  There were all of 3 teams in MLB with team K rates above the league average in the top 10 and only 5 of the top 15 -- add one to both totals if you want to count the league average Phillies.  Conversely 10 of the bottom 15 in runs scored had K rates above the league average. 

I will say this much -- the Braves were a trip.  24.9% K rate -- 3rd worst in MLB and still managed the 3rd best runs total despite playing in a park that negatively impacts HRs..  So maybe that's what your hoping for.  

22 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Therefore, I will just go back yo what I said before.  If the team’s OPS looks good, I am not going yo care about how many times they strike out.

No problem -- I'm not trying to change you mind.  

I simply don't hold OPS in the same regard you do. This now 8 year old article breaks it down pretty well.  https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/9/18/9329763/separate-but-not-quite-equal-why-ops-is-a-bad-statistic  If you can find even 1 article that effectively counters this -- I'd love to read it.

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

Tiny eh?  1.7-1.8 for every 1 point of OBP to every point of SLG%.  Tiny

Perhaps you've heard of Tom Tango, he worked for three different MLB teams before being hired by MLB itself and was inducted into what is essentially SABR's HOF in 2020. Tango, along with Mitchel Litchman of UZR fame, and Andrew Dolphin (Baseball Prospectus), combined to write "The Book, Playing the Percentages in Baseball", aimed at essentially picking up where Bill James' Prospectus had left off.  Among the many breakdowns that Tango did was a comparison of OBP .vs SLG% and their impact on scoring.

Here is an actual chat dialogue that covers some of it http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/why_does_17obpslg_make_sense/

You can either read through it or not, but this one chat touches on the methodology and how it correlates to actual scoring.  The short version is that the impact is NOT tiny but actually rather significant. Forty years worth of data all came to the same conclusion ... on average it's between 1.7-1.8 greater in value point for point than SLG% depending on the linear weights of all events (singles, BB, HRs ect), over three year samples.

You'd be arguing with yourself then.

Allow me to remind you of my initial comment and your response. I stated point blank I don't want to see the team lead MLB in offensive strikeouts, and not be bottom 5 in OBP.   Your response was you didn't care if they again led baseball so long as the "OPS was good" -- because that happens often right?

2022 -- Angels - 687 (23rd) OPS+ 95
2021 -- Cubs -- .719 (19th) OPS+ 93
2019 -- Tigers -- .682 (29th) OPS+ 78
2018 -- CWS -- .703, (23rd) OPS+ 93
2017 -- Brewers -- .751 (15th) OPS+ 94
2016 -- Brewers -- .729 (18th) OPS+ 92
2015 -- Cubs -- .719 (17th) OPS+ 98
2014 -- Cubs -- .684 (21st) OPS+ 89
2013 -- Astros -- 674 (28th) OPS+ 86
2012 -- Athletics -- .714 (19th) OPS+ 99

You are free to go back longer, but ten full seasons is enough for me.

Outs are outs -- K's are just another out, but leading the league in Ks is bad because they almost never result in a run scoring and run scoring/run prevention are king.  It's a fairly simple concept that only someone going out of their way to be contrarian would disagree with. 

The 2021 Mariners won 90 games despite being outscored by 51 runs.   I don't to see the Angels try to do that either.
 

You might want to take your own advice and maybe not pretend outliers are commonplace

The league average K rate across MLB for hitters in 2022 was 22.4% according to STATS Inc.  There were all of 3 teams in MLB with team K rates above the league average in the top 10 and only 5 of the top 15 -- add one to both totals if you want to count the league average Phillies.  Conversely 10 of the bottom 15 in runs scored had K rates above the league average. 

I will say this much -- the Braves were a trip.  24.9% K rate -- 3rd worst in MLB and still managed the 3rd best runs total despite playing in a park that negatively impacts HRs..  So maybe that's what your hoping for.  

No problem -- I'm not trying to change you mind.  

I simply don't hold OPS in the same regard you do. This now 8 year old article breaks it down pretty well.  https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/9/18/9329763/separate-but-not-quite-equal-why-ops-is-a-bad-statistic  If you can find even 1 article that effectively counters this -- I'd love to read it.

This is an epic rant over nothing.

I am not going to measure my satisfaction of the team’s offense by how many times they strikeout. . . . because you can still have a great offense if you strikeout a ton.

That was the point and remains the point.  But if you want to keep ranting, be my guest.

And just for fun because you brought it up, I personally worked directly with Allan Roth in compiling creative baseball stats for ABC Sports.  The LA chapter of SABR is named after him from his body of work, which would include work I had a direct hand in.

You can criticize me looking at OPS all you want.  But the stat exists and it has value for many purposes.

Would you want a player that strikes out 75 times with an OPS of .820 or a guy that strikes out 175 times with an OPS of 1.100?

It’s not that I “hold OPS in some elite high regard”, I simply cited it to make a point.

I never once argued it to be the best or the superior way to measure anything.  It’s baseball language that people understand, so it gets used.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Dtwncbad

[Inside Pitch]

9 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

This is an epic rant over nothing.

I am not going to measure my satisfaction of the team’s offense by how many times they strikeout. . . . because you can still have a great offense if you strikeout a ton.

That was the point and remains the point.  But if you want to keep ranting, be my guest.

This is projection (the ranting gibberish), and deflection (failing to respond to actual information).

I responded to your incorrect view of the value of OBP/SLG with actual data.  I welcomed you to offer facts of your own in hopes that maybe your opinion is based on something other than your typical inflated opinion of what you think you know but instead you're stomping your feet talking about me "ranting".

It's funny and par for the course.   I stick to the topic you try to paint me as being emotional....  Again, 100% projection.

9 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

And just for fun because you brought it up, I personally worked directly with Allan Roth in compiling creative baseball stats for ABC Sports.  The LA chapter of SABR is named after him from his body of work, which would include work I had a direct hand in.

I know, I think it's awesome.  You've mentioned your internship with Roth while in college before and those of us who follow stats know who he was. The man loved his OBP and also went on record that RBI were an overrated stat.  

I believe you once said that your primary job was to find creative/interesting stats for game of the week telecasts.  A neat FYI about your past but nothing that actually has to do with what's being discussed whereas I mentioned Tom Tango because its his data that is in question and not merely name dropping in a vain attempt to gain credibility. Now, if you have any examples of how you researched linear weights and looked for ways to advance baseball's usage of numbers under the tutelage of Allan Roth or anything actual germane to the topic-- do tell.  

9 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

You can criticize me looking at OPS all you want.  But the stat exists and it has value for many purposes.

Lighhten up, Francis.  Nobody is out to get you because you use OPS.  But if you're going to respond to something with basically "I don't care because OPS!!!!", then you're opening the statistic up for discussion. You aren't OPS, you didn't invent OPS, there is no reason for you to be so triggered because someone else thinks that OPS falls short of other more advance statistics.

OPS is easy to use/find, that's it's niche.  So is OPS+ which gives one much greater insight into actual performance .vs peers.

9 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Would you want a player that strikes out 75 times with an OPS of .820 or a guy that strikes out 175 times with an OPS of 1.100?

Congrats -- your little scenario of 175 Ks and 1.100 OPS has happened exactly once in MLB history -- and goldilocks balls were involved. Prior to that the closest you'll likely come is Mac and Sosa during their roid days.  Now go make a list of all the guys that posted an OPS of .820 and outperformed hitters who struck out 175 times.  

9 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

It’s not that I “hold OPS in some elite high regard”, I simply cited it to make a point.

I understand you're triggered but If you're going to go to the effort to frame your tripe as a quotation, try not to embellish was was said.  I said I don't hold OPS in the same regard as you do -- the rest is in your head and I'm not responsible for whatever the voices are telling you, quit making shit up. 

9 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

I never once argued it to be the best or the superior way to measure anything.  It’s baseball language that people understand, so it gets used.

So you agree with me that there are better far more useful stats available, ones that offer real insight and like me view OPS's best attribute is that it's easy to find, easy to use.

LOL..   

I'm sure your ego won't let this go -- so, go ahead and respond with your usual BS projection and please make sure to misquote, misdirect, and misrepresent how this exchange went down ... I simply don't care but I am thankful to have once again been reminded of why I make it a point to ignore your posts.

[Lou]

[Dtwncbad]

13 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

This is projection (the ranting gibberish), and deflection (failing to respond to actual information).

I responded to your incorrect view of the value of OBP/SLG with actual data.  I welcomed you to offer facts of your own in hopes that maybe your opinion is based on something other than your typical inflated opinion of what you think you know but instead you're stomping your feet talking about me "ranting".

It's funny and par for the course.   I stick to the topic you try to paint me as being emotional....  Again, 100% projection.

I know, I think it's awesome.  You've mentioned your internship with Roth while in college before and those of us who follow stats know who he was. The man loved his OBP and also went on record that RBI were an overrated stat.  

I believe you once said that your primary job was to find creative/interesting stats for game of the week telecasts.  A neat FYI about your past but nothing that actually has to do with what's being discussed whereas I mentioned Tom Tango because its his data that is in question and not merely name dropping in a vain attempt to gain credibility. Now, if you have any examples of how you researched linear weights and looked for ways to advance baseball's usage of numbers under the tutelage of Allan Roth or anything actual germane to the topic-- do tell.  

Lighhten up, Francis.  Nobody is out to get you because you use OPS.  But if you're going to respond to something with basically "I don't care because OPS!!!!", then you're opening the statistic up for discussion. You aren't OPS, you didn't invent OPS, there is no reason for you to be so triggered because someone else thinks that OPS falls short of other more advance statistics.

OPS is easy to use/find, that's it's niche.  So is OPS+ which gives one much greater insight into actual performance .vs peers.

Congrats -- your little scenario of 175 Ks and 1.100 OPS has happened exactly once in MLB history -- and goldilocks balls were involved. Prior to that the closest you'll likely come is Mac and Sosa during their roid days.  Now go make a list of all the guys that posted an OPS of .820 and outperformed hitters who struck out 175 times.  

I understand you're triggered but If you're going to go to the effort to frame your tripe as a quotation, try not to embellish was was said.  I said I don't hold OPS in the same regard as you do -- the rest is in your head and I'm not responsible for whatever the voices are telling you, quit making shit up. 

So you agree with me that there are better far more useful stats available, ones that offer real insight and like me view OPS's best attribute is that it's easy to find, easy to use.

LOL..   

I'm sure your ego won't let this go -- so, go ahead and respond with your usual BS projection and please make sure to misquote, misdirect, and misrepresent how this exchange went down ... I simply don't care but I am thankful to have once again been reminded of why I make it a point to ignore your posts.

Epic rant #2 over nothing.

Let’s resolve this.  In the context of this conversation you are mentally trapped over the relative value of different stats while I was simply making a broad conversation a point.

You have entirely fantasized that I had an “incorrect view of OBP and SLG.”  That never happened.  The flaw of equally weighting OBP and SLG in OPS is old news.  You simply don’t get that it’s still OK to mention OPS, especially since it’s mainstream baseball language.  Cal it slang if you want.

OPS was perfectly fine for the purpose I intended and you adamantly insist the technical value of the conversational stat I used was inadequate.

I think you are looking for a “I stand corrected.”  Sure, if I were writing an analytical piece.

Except I wasn’t.  And there is nothing wrong with making a conversational point.  Using a slang word can trigger an English teacher too.

And I laughed at “Lighten up Francis”. . . when what really happened was you basically saying, “Anybody use OPS, and I’ll kill ya.”  Who should lighten up?

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Dtwncbad

[Inside Pitch]

13 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

I'm sure your ego won't let this go -- so, go ahead and respond with your usual BS projection and please make sure to misquote, misdirect, and misrepresent how this exchange went down 

Nailed it!

[Dtwncbad]

9 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Nailed it!

If a fan broadly says they won’t worry about the team’s ability to score runs if their OPS is good, they have made a valid point.

Note the top ten scoring teams last year are the same exact ten teams with the top team OPS.  Top five in each stat are also the same teams.

An imperfect stat doesn’t automatically make the stat invalid to use to make a point.

The question really is if you are OK hearing a point without being distracted by the imperfection of the stat used.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Dtwncbad

[Inside Pitch]

13 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

I'm sure your ego won't let this go 

Nailed it!!!

[Inside Pitch]

So -- about those 20 HRs from every position. SS gonna be rough.  Catcher probably too, unless they really go with the rook and he repeats his AA success.

[Revad]

2 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

So -- about those 20 HRs from every position. SS gonna be rough.  Catcher probably too, unless they really go with the rook and he repeats his AA success.

Playing time at SS will be interesting, probably fluctuating throughout the season.  I wonder how many starts Fletcher gets at SS.

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Nailed it!!!

As I get older I get more self-aware.  I do have an ego sometimes and I do get trapped in arguments.

Thats for sure.

But this particular exchange really isn’t a good example of that.

I think this exchange was always rooted in a disconnect of context.

I have simply stuck to the original truth that I made a conversational point.

You never were willing to say “OK I get that.”

While I do have an ego, I think this particular exchange revealed someone else’s stubbornness and ego.

[Inside Pitch]

3 minutes ago, Revad said:

Playing time at SS will be interesting, probably fluctuating throughout the season.  I wonder how many starts Fletcher gets at SS.

I honestly hope the deciding factor at SS ends up being defense.  Not saying you completely sacrifice offense over defense (Squid), but given the end of the shift, run prevention may gain value at SS.

I think you nailed it when you say we will see a lot of moving parts there.

[Inside Pitch]

On 3/7/2023 at 2:32 PM, Inside Pitch said:

I'd rather they not lead the league in Ks and finish bottom five in OBP...  AGAIN.

On 3/7/2023 at 4:37 PM, Inside Pitch said:

Don't look now but OPS counts OBP -- which is the most important factor to scoring runs..  

On 3/7/2023 at 6:44 PM, Inside Pitch said:

Its not about preferring it, it's the reality that scoring runs is the end all be all of offense and getting on base is the single most important factor involved. That said, a hit is preferable to a walk and that too has been mathed out.

21 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

You'd be arguing with yourself then.

14 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

please make sure to misquote, misdirect, and misrepresent how this exchange went down 

Nailed it!

[Dtwncbad]

6 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Nailed it!

Dude, you argued with me from the get go on something I never argued, yet accuse me of arguing with myself.

But evidently you needed this.  So I hope you got what you wanted from it.

 

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

So -- about those 20 HRs from every position. SS gonna be rough.  Catcher probably too, unless they really go with the rook and he repeats his AA success.

I guess I have to say it because it’s so obvious.  Hahaha. .  .Let’s all just note Inside Pitch did not go full throttle at Chuck for using 20 homers as a flawed and inferior indication of being offensively productive, easily seeing the broad point and context of what Chuck was saying.

This was never about OPS.

I’m living rent free.  And for the record, that’s on me to fix.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Dtwncbad

[BTH]

4 hours ago, Revad said:

Playing time at SS will be interesting, probably fluctuating throughout the season.  I wonder how many starts Fletcher gets at SS.

I think it’ll be like 50% Fletcher, 35% Urshela, and 15% Rengifo. I think they’ll use SS as a way to squeeze Urshela’s bat in. I don’t think they like Rengifo’s defense at SS and much prefer him being the guy who bounces around at 2B/3B/OF.

[Swordsman78]

On 3/7/2023 at 3:44 PM, Inside Pitch said:

=

Its not about preferring it, it's the reality that scoring runs is the end all be all of offense and getting on base is the single most important factor involved. That said, a hit is preferable to a walk and that too has been mathed out.

wOBA, wRC+ -- both are worlds better by virtue of being park adjusted/weighted. Raw OPS has it's uses, it's fast and easy to find, so are the others to be honest, but it treats OBP and SLG% equally and is a worse indicator of "offensive potency" as a result.

The Angels had 19 baserunners today -- only scored 5 runs.  Outs are outs, but it's significantly harder to score a run on a K than it is a ground out or a fly out. Leading the league in Ks like the Angels did last year played a role in how a team that was 11th in HRs ranked 25th in runs scored -- ranking 26th in OBP didn't help either.

 

Considering the Angels played a good amount of games with an inordinate amount of AAA guys last year, we should probably not be citing any negative stats that resulted.

[oldguy]

On 3/7/2023 at 8:11 AM, jsnpritchett said:

It's possible the 2019 Twins did it.  I don't have the patience to go through the position logs to find out if the non-Buxton CFs had at least 10 HR, but they had 20+ from all other positions: 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2019.shtml

 

Good find! Kepler hit 12 of his homeruns while playing CF, so the 2019 Twins are in the club!

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/home_run.php?p=keplema01