Crazy Uncle Milton's Shot Blasting Sploogefest Emporium

[Oleg]

Just for context...

OPS+ is adjusted for park factors and position.  It doesn't compare catchers to 3B.  It doesn't matter if you play your home games at Minute Maid or Citi Field.  Also, a 143 OPS+ means that the player has an OPS (remember, it's "adjusted") that 43% than average.

Another thing...OPS+ is a nice, easy stat.  It is by no means a complete stat, and one could argue that no stat by itself should be used in isolation.  Context.

Oleg is right, although you can get a little context by comparing the OPS+ to that of other players at the position.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-burdens-of-being-average/

Code Select Expand

2007 OPS+ by position
Pos   Mean   Median
C      86     83
1B    115    108
2B     96    100
3B    109    101
SS     94     94
RF    111    105
CF     97     88
LF    107    101

I am pretty sure OPS+ is not adjusted for position or the median of each position would be 100.

I thought the same thing.  From the article:

(Aside: For this little study, any player who spends at least half his games as a center fielder had all of his plate appearances count toward this sample, so long as he accrued more than 100 plate appearances. So guys who played multiple positions, like Ryan Freel, had all of their hitting stats counted toward the position at which they played most often. Not a perfect system by any means.)

I think that may take care of the disparity.

The OPS+ number for an individual player is not affected by the positon he plays.  That article is attempting to explain how positional averages are calculated and is really meant for the hard-core SABR geeks.  I doubt if most fans care whther Ryan Freel's numbers get lumped in with centerfielders or thirdbasemen.

You're right.  However, I do think it explains why the OPS+ mean isn't 100.

[MAD]

Just for context...

OPS+ is adjusted for park factors and position.  It doesn't compare catchers to 3B.  It doesn't matter if you play your home games at Minute Maid or Citi Field.  Also, a 143 OPS+ means that the player has an OPS (remember, it's "adjusted") that 43% than average.

Another thing...OPS+ is a nice, easy stat.  It is by no means a complete stat, and one could argue that no stat by itself should be used in isolation.  Context.

Oleg is right, although you can get a little context by comparing the OPS+ to that of other players at the position.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-burdens-of-being-average/

Code Select Expand

2007 OPS+ by position
Pos   Mean   Median
C      86     83
1B    115    108
2B     96    100
3B    109    101
SS     94     94
RF    111    105
CF     97     88
LF    107    101

I am pretty sure OPS+ is not adjusted for position or the median of each position would be 100.

I thought the same thing.  From the article:

(Aside: For this little study, any player who spends at least half his games as a center fielder had all of his plate appearances count toward this sample, so long as he accrued more than 100 plate appearances. So guys who played multiple positions, like Ryan Freel, had all of their hitting stats counted toward the position at which they played most often. Not a perfect system by any means.)

I think that may take care of the disparity.

The OPS+ number for an individual player is not affected by the positon he plays.  That article is attempting to explain how positional averages are calculated and is really meant for the hard-core SABR geeks.  I doubt if most fans care whther Ryan Freel's numbers get lumped in with centerfielders or thirdbasemen.

You're right.  However, I do think it explains why the OPS+ mean isn't 100.

Get a room, statfaggots.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

Just for context...

OPS+ is adjusted for park factors and position.  It doesn't compare catchers to 3B.  It doesn't matter if you play your home games at Minute Maid or Citi Field.  Also, a 143 OPS+ means that the player has an OPS (remember, it's "adjusted") that 43% than average.

Another thing...OPS+ is a nice, easy stat.  It is by no means a complete stat, and one could argue that no stat by itself should be used in isolation.  Context.

Oleg is right, although you can get a little context by comparing the OPS+ to that of other players at the position.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-burdens-of-being-average/

Code Select Expand

2007 OPS+ by position
Pos   Mean   Median
C      86     83
1B    115    108
2B     96    100
3B    109    101
SS     94     94
RF    111    105
CF     97     88
LF    107    101

I am pretty sure OPS+ is not adjusted for position or the median of each position would be 100.

I thought the same thing.  From the article:

(Aside: For this little study, any player who spends at least half his games as a center fielder had all of his plate appearances count toward this sample, so long as he accrued more than 100 plate appearances. So guys who played multiple positions, like Ryan Freel, had all of their hitting stats counted toward the position at which they played most often. Not a perfect system by any means.)

I think that may take care of the disparity.

The OPS+ number for an individual player is not affected by the positon he plays.  That article is attempting to explain how positional averages are calculated and is really meant for the hard-core SABR geeks.  I doubt if most fans care whther Ryan Freel's numbers get lumped in with centerfielders or thirdbasemen.

You're right.  However, I do think it explains why the OPS+ mean isn't 100.

Get a room, statfaggots.

Regardless of the metric you use, Ryan Freel sucks.

[Eli]

I think any decent offensive player worth his salt could out produce Ryan Theriot by June 23rd. Did we really pay this much money for a guy who performs worse offensively than Ryan Theriot?

Everyone else has already piled on you, but OBP and SLG aren't equal, so you can't just compare OPS straight-up.  Bradley's OBP is a good bit higher than Theriot's, which has made him more valuable.

Yes, it's sad that an elven shortstop has slugged more than Bradley (to this point in the season), but it's not true that Theriot has been a better offensive player, even with Bradley's struggles.

[Tank]

Also, a 143 OPS+ means that the player has an OPS (remember, it's "adjusted") that 43% than average.

Not exactly.

OPS+ doesn't actually directly compare a player's OPS to league average OPS.

Rather, the ratio of a player's ballpark-adjusted OBP over league OBP is added to the ratio of his ballpark-adjusted SLG over league SLG, and the sum normalized to 100:

OPS+ = 100 * ( (OBP / league OBP) + (SLG / league SLG) - 1)

Say, for sake of easy math, league OBP and SLG are both .400, and league OPS therefore: .400 + .400 = .800...

A player whose park-adjusted OBP and SLG are both 50% better than these league averages (.600 each) would have an OPS that is also 50% better than the league (.600 + .600 = 1.200 = .800*1.5).

His OPS+, however, would be...

100*((.600/.400)+(.600/.400)-1) = 200

...a full 100% higher than league average.

[Internet Apex]

He'll end up with much better numbers than Matt Murton, and I say that as a guy who thought the Cubs mishandled Murton terribly.

THI

They should have handled Red like they did Berut before they shipped him out. Surrounding his head with punches in the dugout and etc... I mean, they traded Murton for Rich Harden. Hell if they'd treated him nicer they may have gotten Johan Santana or some shit.

[morpheus]

He'll end up with much better numbers than Matt Murton, and I say that as a guy who thought the Cubs mishandled Murton terribly.

THI

They should have handled Red like they did Berut before they shipped him out. Surrounding his head with punches in the dugout and etc... I mean, they traded Murton for Rich Harden. Hell if they'd treated him nicer they may have gotten Johan Santana or some shit.

Fair enough, Ape X.  They did get some value for him in a trade.

[TDubbs]

He is good at breaking bats over his leg at least. 
Oh, wait. 

[Kermit, B.]

He is good at breaking bats over his leg at least. 
Oh, wait. 

That was a bit embarrassing.  I liked how Len and Bob were (rightly) saying if you're going to break a bat, you have to really commit to breaking it.

[SKO]

Statfags. All of your mothers need 9 months to shit.

[morpheus]

Statfags. All of your mothers need 9 months to shit.

Are you suggesting that we were all born through our mothers' anal passages rather than the usual vaginal birth?  Moreover, does this imply in some way that we are, in essence, fecal matter rather than people?  I'm confused.

[Oleg]

Also, a 143 OPS+ means that the player has an OPS (remember, it's "adjusted") that 43% than average.

Not exactly.

OPS+ doesn't actually directly compare a player's OPS to league average OPS.

Rather, the ratio of a player's ballpark-adjusted OBP over league OBP is added to the ratio of his ballpark-adjusted SLG over league SLG, and the sum normalized to 100:

OPS+ = 100 * ( (OBP / league OBP) + (SLG / league SLG) - 1)

Say, for sake of easy math, league OBP and SLG are both .400, and league OPS therefore: .400 + .400 = .800...

A player whose park-adjusted OBP and SLG are both 50% better than these league averages (.600 each) would have an OPS that is also 50% better than the league (.600 + .600 = 1.200 = .800*1.5).

His OPS+, however, would be...

100*((.600/.400)+(.600/.400)-1) = 200

...a full 100% higher than league average.

Interesting.  So, a 144 OPS+ would mean that the player OPSed roughly 22% better than league average?  That would make more sense.

My SaberOPS+ is roughly 95, so, there's that.

[SKO]

Statfags. All of your mothers need 9 months to shit.

Are you suggesting that we were all born through our mothers' anal passages rather than the usual vaginal birth?  Moreover, does this imply in some way that we are, in essence, fecal matter rather than people?  I'm confused.

You're a faggot and you have absolutely nothing to add to this discussion. You're not funny and you're not clever. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing me as long as they're one of my sycophants 99 percent of the time, but someone like with you objective analysis and statistics proving me wrong? You're a faggot.

[Waco Kid]

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/06/bradley-grabs-some-bench.html

Manager Lou Piniella has benched Bradley today against Detroit, and said the mercurial outfielder probably won't play on Friday either.

"Let's just call it a day off for today," Piniella said, adding Bradley will play on Saturday and Sunday "for sure."

Call it what you want, but it's still a benching. Bradley is hitting .205 against right-handers with 30 strikeouts in 117 at-bats.The Cubs face left-handers Mark Buehrle and John Danks on Saturday and Sunday.

[Kermit, B.]

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/06/bradley-grabs-some-bench.html

Manager Lou Piniella has benched Bradley today against Detroit, and said the mercurial outfielder probably won't play on Friday either.

"Let's just call it a day off for today," Piniella said, adding Bradley will play on Saturday and Sunday "for sure."

Call it what you want, but it's still a benching. Bradley is hitting .205 against right-handers with 30 strikeouts in 117 at-bats.The Cubs face left-handers Mark Buehrle and John Danks on Saturday and Sunday.

Thigh.  Bruise.