There seems to be more emphasis on those two stats these days than batting average.
There seems to be more emphasis on those two stats these days than batting average.
http://tinyurl.com/2uep4lbhttp://tinyurl.com/dx5s6vFull Count wrote:
There seems to be more emphasis on those two stats these days than batting average.
on base percentage = total times on base divided by total plate appearances. so basically
(hits + walks + hit by pitch) / ( total times up to bat, including normal at-bats, walks, sacrifices, etc). walks etc raise your OBP and not your BA, but the only thing that lowers your OBP but doesn't lower your BA is a sacrifice, i believe.
slugging is calculated like batting average, but a double is worth 2, a triple is worth 3, and a homer 4.
suppose you have 2 singles, a double, a home run, 8 outs, 2 walks, and a sacrifice fly:
OBP = (2 singles + 1 doubles + 1 hr + 2 walks) / total = 6/15 = .400.
BA = (2 singles + 1 double + 1 hr) / (4 hits + 8 outs) = 4/12 = .333
SLG = (2 singles + 2*1 double + 4*1 hr) / (12 at-bats) = 8/12 = .667
The one that's really talked about a lot now is OPS, which is just OBP + SLG, i.e. .400 + .667 = 1.067.
also, reaching base on an error counts as an out for all of them.
While we're on baseball stats, perhaps it is time for one of the classic moron tests.
People who follow baseball often talk about "runs produced" which they calculate as Runs + RBIs - HRs = Runs Produced.
Now anyone with even a shred of intelligence will immediately see that subtracting HRs from this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But then again, this is Letsrun - perhaps there are those who are sufficiently moronic that they think it does make sense.
Anyone?
if you hit a home run, you get an RBI and a Run, but you only produced 1 run, so subtracting Home runs negates that. if you hit 10 grand slams, you get 40 RBI + 10 runs = 50 runs produced, but you only produced 40, so subtracting 10 home runs makes 40
wilfredo wrote:
if you hit a home run, you get an RBI and a Run, but you only produced 1 run, so subtracting Home runs negates that. if you hit 10 grand slams, you get 40 RBI + 10 runs = 50 runs produced, but you only produced 40, so subtracting 10 home runs makes 40
OK, one moron and counting.
Anyone else?
It makes perfect sense, individually you don't want to double count. You subtract overlap. Just like finding the area of a triangle on a sphere, but you probably never learned that.
sdgfsadfffdsa wrote:
It makes perfect sense, individually you don't want to double count. You subtract overlap. Just like finding the area of a triangle on a sphere, but you probably never learned that.
This is great - two morons so far. How many more volunteers?
gaoinenhinpn wrote:
wilfredo wrote:if you hit a home run, you get an RBI and a Run, but you only produced 1 run, so subtracting Home runs negates that. if you hit 10 grand slams, you get 40 RBI + 10 runs = 50 runs produced, but you only produced 40, so subtracting 10 home runs makes 40
OK, one moron and counting.
Anyone else?
Explain your side.
went to black HS wrote:
gaoinenhinpn wrote:OK, one moron and counting.
Anyone else?
Explain your side.
Fair enough.
Which should count more - a run scored by one individual hitting a single thereby driving in another individual from second base or a run scored by one person hitting a home run? Personally, I think that they are both equally valuable to helping a team win. Each is worth exactly one run.
Why then does this absurd "runs produced" calculation yield on the one hand a total of two "runs produced" but on the other only one?
The second moron stated his case that we should avoid double counting (and perhaps that this was too difficult of a concept for me to understand). How ironic. The whole problem is that each run IS double counted except for those produced through home runs. What? Are these home run runs somehow "special" runs that they should get counted only half as much as all other runs?
Or perhaps the fact that one individual is getting credit both for scoring the run and for driving it in is a bit too difficult of a concept for some to grasp.
Perhaps it would be easier to grasp if "runs produced" was calculated as runs produced = 0.5*runs + 0.5*RBIs. This would make intuitive sense since when you score a run you are really only responsible for half of it (the other half being credited to the person driving you in). Of course, there is no real difference between this and runs produced = runs + RBIs. (note the lack of any subtraction for HRs).
Now, if you'd like we could go through example after example until we are blue in the face - but if it isn't obvious to you after the above, well...
You're very impressed with yourself and quite undeservedly so. Your arguments are not valid. The "runs produced" stat calculates precisely what the phrase implies.
The Horror wrote:
You're very impressed with yourself and quite undeservedly so. Your arguments are not valid. The "runs produced" stat calculates precisely what the phrase implies.
Ahhh, typical reply when one has no ground to stand on. You could have done just as well by saying "neener, neener, neener".
"runs produced" does NOT calculate actual runs produced. As has been pointed out, it gives full credit for half the job done (except in the case of home run produced runs).
"runs produced" also does not provide a meaningful offensive statistic due to the absurd way it is calculated.
I suppose I should add in the proverbial "You'd be pretty impressed with yourself...if you had a brain that was capable of registering the sensation".
At any rate, three morons self-advertised. Anyone else?
Stats can be very deceiving.
I remember Joey Belle in Cleveland used to just tee off towards the end of the season in meaningless games on the #4 and #5 pitchers. Made up for those 0-fers he took against the good pitchers.
Who put any emphasis on "runs produced" anyway?
OBS has recently been a more popular stat to measure offensive capability, if not some of the sabremetrics like WAR.
For those who don't understand slugging, think of it as the average number of bases a player gets per at bat.
Yeah, I see what gaoinenhinpn is saying. Game 1 of the season, A-Rod hits a home run with Jeter on base and the Yankees win 2-0. Jeter gets credit for his one run scored, he has now produced one run. A-Rod gets credit for his run scored plus his two RBI. He has now produced three runs.
So Jeter and A-Rod have combined for four runs produced...but the Yankees only won 2-0. I am in agreement, perhaps the equation for Runs Produced should be (Runs+RBI-HR)/2.
letsrun expert wrote:
Yeah, I see what gaoinenhinpn is saying. Game 1 of the season, A-Rod hits a home run with Jeter on base and the Yankees win 2-0. Jeter gets credit for his one run scored, he has now produced one run. A-Rod gets credit for his run scored plus his two RBI. He has now produced three runs.
So Jeter and A-Rod have combined for four runs produced...but the Yankees only won 2-0. I am in agreement, perhaps the equation for Runs Produced should be (Runs+RBI-HR)/2.
Actually, I see what you're saying about the HR, I was focused more on the double count before. It's unnecessary. Wow, why is it even in there? The equation should just be (Runs+RBI)/2.
Clearly all of these scoring mechanisms are flawed, which could explain why this isn't a real stat. But why do you think you should get more runs produced for a 2 run homerun than an hitting RBI triple and then stealing home?
wilfredo wrote:
Clearly all of these scoring mechanisms are flawed, which could explain why this isn't a real stat. But why do you think you should get more runs produced for a 2 run homerun than an hitting RBI triple and then stealing home?
To whom are you addressing that question? No one here has suggested they be worth different amounts.
gaoinenhinpn wrote:
At any rate, three morons self-advertised. Anyone else?
The moron count stands at one.