Rosenthal on Tex and the Orioles

[RShack]

40 homers, 290 BA, 120 OPS+

28 homers, 270 BA, 135 OPS+

Which player gets the larger deal?

Bogus example.

Show me a guy who hits 40 dingers and has an OPS+ that isn't way higher than somebody who hits 28 dingers and has a lower AVG. I bet you can't.

Or, even if you can, you're paying a ton for BB's. You might as well be asking which of the following guys gets more money:

• .330 AVG, 3 HR's
• .260 AVG, 43 HR's

Same basic point. Of course guys who hit dingers make more money. Always have, always will.

Slugging is always paid a premium, and when you go by OPS you're giving it a premium too.

So, what's your point.

Let me guess: GM's are stupid and SG is way smarter than they are, is that it?

If you're trying to say that people should trust just one number, and you're arguing whether it should be HR's or OPS+, well, it's a dumb argument because in reality people look at multiple numbers. However, we can agree that slugging gets a premium, just like you give it when you go by OPS.

[bluehens45]

We also need to remember that Prince Fielder will be on the market as well. I know a team would have to trade for him but he is still so young and i could see the Yanks going after him. If Tex does sign with the Yanks i for one hope we make a move for Prince. Dont get me wrong i would love to have Tex but there is other options in Fielder and Dunn.

[itsernst]

We also need to remember that Prince Fielder will be on the market as well. I know a team would have to trade for him but he is still so young and i could see the Yanks going after him. If Tex does sign with the Yanks i for one hope we make a move for Prince. Dont get me wrong i would love to have Tex but there is other options in Fielder and Dunn.

as well as howard...he may very well be available too.

[RShack]

Wrong..

http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dunnad01.shtml

114 OPS + for Dunn when he hit 40 in 2006.

Yeah, and he hit .234. What's your point?

There's nothing here that OPS tells you that looking at traditional stats doesn't.

[davearm]

Since SG is taking so much heat for his quick-and-dirty example, I thought I'd point out that the premise really isn't that farfetched.

[u]	         PA   AB    H  2B  3B  HR   BB    AVG    OBP    SLG    OPS  OPS+[/u]Player A	650  610  177  25   7  40   40  0.290  0.334  0.551  0.885  121Player B	650  550  149  46  12  28  100  0.271  0.383  0.551  0.934  135Player C	650  520  141  30   7  28  130  0.271  0.417  0.517  0.934  135

Player A hit .290 with 40 HRs and a 121 OPS+, mainly because he walked only 40 times.

Player B hit .270 with 28 HRs and a 135 OPS+, mainly because he was a good walker and a 2B and 3B machine.

Player B hit .270 with 28 HRs and a 135 OPS+, mainly because he was a walk machine.

The conversion from OPS to OPS+ is based on the 2006 Cubs. Theriot was 135 with a .934 OPS; Barrett was a 121 with a .885 OPS.

[Mackus]

Since SG is taking so much heat for his quick-and-dirty example, I thought I'd point out that the premise really isn't that farfetched.

[u]	         PA   AB    H  2B  3B  HR   BB    AVG    OBP    SLG    OPS  OPS+[/u]Player A	650  610  177  25   7  40   40  0.290  0.334  0.551  0.885  121Player B	650  550  149  46  12  28  100  0.271  0.383  0.551  0.934  135Player C	650  520  141  30   7  28  130  0.271  0.417  0.517  0.934  135

Player A hit .290 with 40 HRs and a 121 OPS+, mainly because he walked only 40 times.

Player B hit .270 with 28 HRs and a 135 OPS+, mainly because he was a good walker and a 2B and 3B machine.

Player B hit .270 with 28 HRs and a 135 OPS+, mainly because he was a walk machine.

Yeah there are ways to make the examples work. Still think the 135 OPS+ guy is way more valuable regardless of how the exact stats shake down.

[davearm]

Yeah there are ways to make the examples work. Still think the 135 OPS+ guy is way more valuable regardless of how the exact stats shake down.

Player A looks like a Soriano type to me.

Player B is Curtis Granderson 2007, if a bunch of singles are switched to walks to deflate the BA without impacting the OBP.

Player C is Bobby Abreu-ish, again with some singles traded for walks.

Now how each of these batting skillsets would get paid in an otherwise identical ballplayer (age, position, etc), hard to say.

[tywright]

Since SG is taking so much heat for his quick-and-dirty example, I thought I'd point out that the premise really isn't that farfetched.

[u]	         PA   AB    H  2B  3B  HR   BB    AVG    OBP    SLG    OPS  OPS+[/u]Player A	650  610  177  25   7  40   40  0.290  0.334  0.551  0.885  121Player B	650  550  149  46  12  28  100  0.271  0.383  0.551  0.934  135Player C	650  520  141  30   7  28  130  0.271  0.417  0.517  0.934  135

Player A hit .290 with 40 HRs and a 121 OPS+, mainly because he walked only 40 times.

Player B hit .270 with 28 HRs and a 135 OPS+, mainly because he was a good walker and a 2B and 3B machine.

Player B hit .270 with 28 HRs and a 135 OPS+, mainly because he was a walk machine.

The conversion from OPS to OPS+ is based on the 2006 Cubs. Theriot was 135 with a .934 OPS; Barrett was a 121 with a .885 OPS.

I'd be inclined to say that a guy who walks more will be more likely to continue his success than a guy who doesn't. Thus giving a long term contract to a free swinger is probably not a good idea.

[Sports Guy]

My general point(which should have been obvious and not needed to be explained) is that the GM is going to go for the traditional numbers over the OPS+ type number...Mackus can speculate all he wants but until he sights me an example of that, then he is not correct.

In fact, someone show me a quote by any GM where they even talk about OPS+ AT ALL!

[Mackus]

My general point(which should have been obvious and not needed to be explained) is that the GM is going to go for the traditional numbers over the OPS+ type number...Mackus can speculate all he wants but until he sights me an example of that, then he is not correct.

In fact, someone show me a quote by any GM where they even talk about OPS+ AT ALL!

I've heard GMs talk about WARP3 and Win shares. And OPS+ is just OPS adjusted for league average, so thats obviously something they know about.

I'm gonna fall back to the general opinion that you vastly underrate how intelligent and up to date GMs are. The fact that you think you are smarter than not just a few of them but damn near all of them is a bit smug at the very least.

This goes back to a debate we had a while ago. You seem convinced that GMs look at one stat first. Then the next. And then the next. And have a pecking order of what is important and base opinions solely off of what is the highest in the pecking order.

That's ridiculous. There is no chance that's how people make their opinions, especially not people with the time and resources of MLB front office personnel. They look at everything. EVERYTHING. Then apply a weight to the things they think are most important, and come up with an overall picture of a player.

So yes, they look at HR. They look at AVG. They look at OPS+. They look at RC/27. They look at Age. They look at how the players are liked/perceived by teamates and fans. Everything is a data point. And I really believe that all the GMs look at all these factors for every major player they look to sign. Certainly different guys will have different weights applied to what is important among these points, but they are all there.

[tywright]

My general point(which should have been obvious and not needed to be explained) is that the GM is going to go for the traditional numbers over the OPS+ type number...Mackus can speculate all he wants but until he sights me an example of that, then he is not correct.

In fact, someone show me a quote by any GM where they even talk about OPS+ AT ALL!

Can you cite examples where you are correct? I mean have you heard a GM explicitly say he doesn't not take into account sabermetric stats?

[YankThis!]

OPS was invented by a GM.

[Sports Guy]

I've heard GMs talk about WARP3 and Win shares. And OPS+ is just OPS adjusted for league average, so thats obviously something they know about.

Knowing about it and putting more weight into than HRs, Wins, ERA, RBIs, BA, etc are 2 different things.

I'm gonna fall back to the general opinion that you vastly underrate how intelligent and up to date GMs are. The fact that you think you are smarter than not just a few of them but damn near all of them is a bit smug at the very least.

Sorry but you are the one giving them too much credit...Too many stupid decisions being made all the time...Too many poor contracts..Too many times you them interviewed and revert back to the old ways...You have never seen me(although you do keep puting words into my mouth which is always so nice of you) say they don't look at the other stats that you are mentioning...I just don't think they are putting the weight into them that you do.

This goes back to a debate we had a while ago

Yes, the debate about your ability to constantly put words into my mouth..Again, thanks for that.

[bluehens45]

as well as howard...he may very well be available too.

I would shocked if he left Philly.

[Sports Guy]

Can you cite examples where you are correct? I mean have you heard a GM explicitly say he doesn't not take into account sabermetric stats?

You and Mackus must have gone to the same reading comprehension school.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THEY DON'T LOOK AT ALL STATS!

They just put a lot more weight into the "old school" stats and I am speaking in general terms, not overall.