---------- Original message ----------
From: Joe Watson
Date: Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Subject: AVG v OPS v OBP+SLG
To: (Email sent to Gashouse League email addresses.)
It's hot stove time at my house (evidence of snowy winter, attached ... but, don't take this to mean the globe's not warming toward near-term Mann-made catastrophe with survival cannibalism ... if the Rapture doesn't get us, first).
Hold it. Back to baseball.
As threatened, I submit for your consideration a Gashouse League scoring metric, i.e., AVG vs. OPS vs. OBP plus SLG.
May I suggest we adopt OBP *and* SLG as scoring metrics?
The League used OPS in Ought Seven to general acceptance (and appreciation, I think). We reverted to Yahoo's default AVG in Ought Eight with acceptance but pushback. Your humble dictator ... I mean ... co-commissioner had panicked and thought we needed to generify our scoring because we were losing franchises. (Expect a future commissioner's office burp about league-size, before pitchers and catchers report.)
Your humble co-commissioner believes he was wrong about AVG *and* wrong about generifiying the league. (I cite the rambling August 29, 2007 discussion of OPS and move on. But, if you've been able to block that brainf*rt out ... or are new to the league ... I commend it to you.)
Why adopt *both* OBP *and* SLG instead of just adopting OPS, the mash-up of the two? Three reasons:
So, I submit for your consideration: If we add a 6th pitching metric, we jettison AVG and adopt OBP *and* SLG.
Think about this and lemmehave it.
Joe
From: Joe Watson Date: Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Subject: AVG v OPS v OBP+SLG
To: (Email sent to Gashouse League email addresses.)
It's hot stove time at my house (evidence of snowy winter, attached ... but, don't take this to mean the globe's not warming toward near-term Mann-made catastrophe with survival cannibalism ... if the Rapture doesn't get us, first).
Hold it. Back to baseball.
As threatened, I submit for your consideration a Gashouse League scoring metric, i.e., AVG vs. OPS vs. OBP plus SLG.
May I suggest we adopt OBP *and* SLG as scoring metrics?
The League used OPS in Ought Seven to general acceptance (and appreciation, I think). We reverted to Yahoo's default AVG in Ought Eight with acceptance but pushback. Your humble dictator ... I mean ... co-commissioner had panicked and thought we needed to generify our scoring because we were losing franchises. (Expect a future commissioner's office burp about league-size, before pitchers and catchers report.)
Your humble co-commissioner believes he was wrong about AVG *and* wrong about generifiying the league. (I cite the rambling August 29, 2007 discussion of OPS and move on. But, if you've been able to block that brainf*rt out ... or are new to the league ... I commend it to you.)
Why adopt *both* OBP *and* SLG instead of just adopting OPS, the mash-up of the two? Three reasons:
1. We may want to revert to Ought Seven's 12 metrics instead of using 10. We could use an extra metric. We could use an extra metric instead of Errors ... which was just squat for fantasy management purposes. Errors was like cockroaches. It didn't add anything but presence and pretty much just served to foul the place (I borrow from Darrell Royal). So, adopting *both* OBP *and* SLG gives us a meaningful additional offensive metric without fouling up the place. Why even think about an extra metric? For later discussion, I want to re-open the worm can of RP Holds. If we want to add Holds? We need a 6th metric over on offense.
2. We might learn something. Intuition (Detective Bob's the Man of Science here and he can validate) tells me there's an incremental "baseball observational" benefit from measuring the two vs. just accepting the mash-up of the two. Like what? Ichiro strikes me as a high OBP guy but not a great SLG guy. Adam Dunn may be a fine SLG guy, but squat as an OBP guy. Yet both those players are valuable and have a meaningful place in BASEBALL. (By the way, can 2013 and the End of the Selig Era come soon enough?) So, we Gashouse Leaguers may learn something about the distribution of value on a roster by paying attention to *both* the OBP *and* SLG metrics instead of taking OPS. I mean, you still value an OPS guy above a specialist OBP'er or SLG'er. But, you're not hosed if you have a specialist. I could be all wet. But, I'm not a Man of Science.
3. Relative metrics level our playing field vis-a-vis absolute metrics. Last year, Yahoo started displaying "games played" in the detail standings data. It was clear that we retirees with no social lives and nothing better to do than check lineups daily before each time zone's first pitch times ... had a clear ... and perhaps determinative advantage in the "absolute" categories ... like Runs, Ribs, Dingers and Steals. You guys with jobs and travel obligations, tough. You just can't keep up. No way. If we balance things a bit by removing an "absolute" measure and replacing with another "relative" measure, we reward quality of play a bit more and quantity of play a bit less. Your humble co-commissioner wants a level playing field.
2. We might learn something. Intuition (Detective Bob's the Man of Science here and he can validate) tells me there's an incremental "baseball observational" benefit from measuring the two vs. just accepting the mash-up of the two. Like what? Ichiro strikes me as a high OBP guy but not a great SLG guy. Adam Dunn may be a fine SLG guy, but squat as an OBP guy. Yet both those players are valuable and have a meaningful place in BASEBALL. (By the way, can 2013 and the End of the Selig Era come soon enough?) So, we Gashouse Leaguers may learn something about the distribution of value on a roster by paying attention to *both* the OBP *and* SLG metrics instead of taking OPS. I mean, you still value an OPS guy above a specialist OBP'er or SLG'er. But, you're not hosed if you have a specialist. I could be all wet. But, I'm not a Man of Science.
3. Relative metrics level our playing field vis-a-vis absolute metrics. Last year, Yahoo started displaying "games played" in the detail standings data. It was clear that we retirees with no social lives and nothing better to do than check lineups daily before each time zone's first pitch times ... had a clear ... and perhaps determinative advantage in the "absolute" categories ... like Runs, Ribs, Dingers and Steals. You guys with jobs and travel obligations, tough. You just can't keep up. No way. If we balance things a bit by removing an "absolute" measure and replacing with another "relative" measure, we reward quality of play a bit more and quantity of play a bit less. Your humble co-commissioner wants a level playing field.
So, I submit for your consideration: If we add a 6th pitching metric, we jettison AVG and adopt OBP *and* SLG.
Think about this and lemmehave it.
Joe
