..I meant “Do you truly understand the value of OPS? Do you know the correlation between OPS, OBP, SLG or VORP AND WINS?”

Sorry, it’s late (early…depending on where you are.).

… stats that apportion credit for the actual wins.

But yeah, I’m not sure Omar21’s feelings are going to be swayed by actual information at this point. If Win Shares don’t account for the weather or the height of the grass then they’re obviously worthless.

I’m guessing that the correlation you are posting is between a teams winning percentage and the aforemetioned stats.

Naturally, the correlation with those stats will be high because winning teams tend to spend money, and they tend to spend money on player’s with high batting avgs. Also, OPS is a function of POWER and HRs feed that. Again, self fulfilling prophecy as winning teams spend on high OPS guys.

Teams that spend on high OPS guys, tend to spend on pitching as well, which doesn’t prove anything.

I meant counting stats on a game by game basis.

Sure, overall, teams that spend on high OPS players tend to spend everywhere else as well, making them winning teams. Rate stats also take into account the HR, which feeds every rate stat.

Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make the point you are making.

On a game by game basis tho, I think the team that homers more wins the game more often than the team that gets on base more, or steals more bases. This is how I meant my comment to be taken.

So, a 1-4 with a HR will look similar to a 3-4 with 3 singles in OPS, but the guy who hit the HR had at least a large an impact.

The MVP is an individual award. Driving in runs and scoring after a walk require a lot of things to happen that you can’t necessarily take credit for. If you do it on such an extreme scale, then you can make a case. Couple it with extraordinary defense, and you might have a case.

But when a guy like Howard, who isn’t a slug on the bases and walks a good enough share, hits HRs at such an extreme pace, he is making a larger impact on his own than most individual players.

Also, it is common knowledge amongst baseball players, that POWER is what pitchers fear. Sure the guy who gets on base at a .375 clip is annoying as hell, but a pitcher isn’t afriad to go at them.

When trying to get thru a lineup 3 times, it’s the power guys that they are mindful of. I love Utley, but the reality is, that he’s an .825-850 OPS guy, batting in a very fortunate spot in the lineup in a very fortunate park, os his stats are highly inflated…..almost Coors like.

Howard is not the MVP, but he’s a top 10 guy. There are NOT more than 10 players in the league that make a bigger impact ON THEIR OWN.

You cannot tell me that if you had to create a lineup of 8 replacement level hitters, with a choice of one guy to put in the middle, that you’d take Ethier over Howard. If that’s the case, then more power to you. I think it’s pretty clear that HOward is a far better choice there.

…if you apply rate stats the way you are, you are assuming that all of the bases are applied as efficiently as possible. This is an incorrect assumption.

Its like the difference between a pitcher who throws 10 quality starts and another who throws 4 great games and 6 shitty ones.

Same rate stats, but 2 different types of guys.

It’s not realy fair to compare rates and counting stats in a correlation analysis in this context, but even if you do, there are still major flaws to your logic.

fine, whatever. i’ve read your posts multiple times and still have no idea what you’re trying to convey. i give up. have a nice night.

What amazes me the most about this thread recently is just how many of us are reading on a Sunday night.

…you are looking for would take an analysis of decades of baseball performance.

It’s not rocket science. If you want to use flawed stats to support your counter argument, and go as far as to apply them as “fact”, why can’t I use intuition and a century of baseball strategy to support mine?

Why do I have to invest the energy to prove this when you are too lazy to go beyond your own personal conflicting opinions, especially when you ahve proven yourself to have a comprehensive understanding of your own “facts”.

Let’s look at this from another perspective.

I think you agree that most in baseball buy into the protection argument. Look at lineup construction throughout baseball, and there is evidence of this. Every announcer in the game acknowledges lineup protection.

Therefore, it’s pretty clear that managers and pitchers are abiding by this theory.

EVEN IF it didn’t make sense intuitively, altho I think it clearly does, IF MANAGERS AND PITCHERS ARE BUYING INTO IT, DOESN’T BECOME A SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY?

Whether it makes sense or not, if you are going to pitch more aggressively if the following hitters are more likely to drive them in, then the THEORY becomes FACT.

will cause people to jump on you. you’re just throwing arbitrary numbers around.

Biased are we?

You’re being an abrasive asshole and making no points that are pertinent to the discussion. What the fuck is your point for joining the discussion? To tell us Scott saw 60% strikes? To tell us Ausmus followed him in the order?

Asumus was batting 8th you dumbass. The majority of Scott’s at bats were 5th and 6th.

Each had only approximately 300-400 ABs. How the fuck can you say Ausmus was batting behind him?

We’re debating something taht touches upon so many facets of the game. You jump in, say nothing for 25 posts, FINALLY post ONE SIMPLE fucking “fact”, and it’s totally off base.

Perhaps you don’t like the tone of the discussion, but I don’t think anyone here is asking you to defend them, especially when you’re going to post dumb shit like your little Luke Scott argument, which takes 3 seconds to disprove and doesn’t really tell us anything.