19
2013
Featured Post: How On-Base Percentage Directly Relates To Runs Scored
An article by 
There has long been a debate over the value of On-Base Percentage in baseball. The traditionalists say that On-Base Percentage has its place, but is not one of the main statistics front offices should be using when evaluating players. The fans that embrace advanced stats, however, argue that it is a very effective way of determining how well an offense performs.
Bill James
The popularity of the statistic among fans soared after Bill James and numerous others lobbied for it in the 1980s and 1990s. THere reasoning is this: a player making an out drastically reduces a team’s odds of scoring a run. They also argued that not making an out increases your team’s chances of scoring. In other words, they said getting on base is the most sure-fire way to score runs.
A large portion of the Met fanbase has been enraged by Sandy Alderson (a well-documented supporter of OBP) and his use of advanced statistics, especially when it comes to patience at the plate, walk rate, and on-base percentage. Through his comments in the media, he has lobbied numerous times for the stat, despite the displeasure of so many fans. That led me to conduct a little research on the effectiveness of the stat.
For my sample, I used every team’s stats over the last ten seasons (2003-2012). It’s a sample size of 300 different teams, which I felt would be enough to give an accurate measure of how OBP correlates to runs scored. Every little dot on the graph is one team, such as the 2007 Diamondbacks.
First, I wanted to look at something simple, like home runs. Teams with more power tend to score more runs, or so it is thought. Over the past ten years, the results were rather surprising.
There clearly is some type of correlation between home runs and runs scored, but it is much weaker than I thought it would be. Obviously there is a correlation because frankly, if you’re hitting 240 home runs in a season, you are going to score a ton of runs. However there are many cases in which teams have not followed this trend. So home runs do not directly correlate to runs scored, although they influence it.
Next, I wanted to see how this compares to On-Base Percentage, and whether it has a stronger effect on the number of runs a team scores.
Here, of course, you can see a very clear correlation. Teams that get on base more, teams who have batters that make outs less are more successful, and score more runs. However, you can obviously see that it is no perfect indicator of runs scored. Why is that so? Looking at last year’s rankings for both OBP and team runs scored, I saw that they were similar, but not in the same order.
The key thing to remember about On-Base Percentage is that it is a very rudimentary statistic. It has a very basic formula, and doesn’t take into account the values of the ways a player can get on base. Slugging percentage attempts to, but fails to put an accurate vale on each way someone can reach base. Is a double really worth twice as much to a team as a single? Is a walk worth three times less to a team than a triple? Over 100 years of baseball tells us that is not the case. That’s where wOBA, or weighted On-Base Average, comes in. It assigns a value to each way a hitter reaches base. How can they just choose those values? Doesn’t that make the stat arbitrary? The coefficients of walks, singles, doubles, etc. are based off the added probability of a run being scored. It’s essentially a bulked-up version of On-Base Percentage, and is even more effective at predicting runs scored.
I took the same date from earlier, the 2003 to 2012 seasons, and applied the same method I used for home runs and On-Base Percentage, only replacing it with wOBA.
Even a metric as well-developed as wOBA has its flaws, but it may be the most accurate in determining how many runs a team will score. There are still imperfections, but it’s about as close as we can get right now. Opponent defense, the offense’s ability to steal bases, managerial moves, and more all tweak the results a bit. This is no super-stat. There are none. But they are very effective.
There are always going to be exceptions to the rule, especially in a sport as complicated as baseball, but On-Base Percentage and more complex versions of it (wOBA) clearly correlate to runs scored, and are not by any means, meaningless statistics.
About the Author: Connor O'Brien
I am a very young, but passionate Mets fan who has blogged about the Mets for three years. I hope you all enjoy the unique perspective that a fan like me can bring to the table. More about me... favorite Met- Johan Santana... favorite food- Citi Field burgers and hot dogs!... favorite musician- Mos Def... favorite Mets moment- the no-hitter of course, but I also attended Game 1 of the 2006 NLDS as well as Johan's three-hit shutout in late September 2008. Follow me on Twitter @UpAlongFirst
189 Comments + Add Comment
Recent Comments
- RandomGuy: on Braves vs Mets Preview: Amazins Have Tough Assignment Against Medlen In Opener: Solid outing for Hefner.
- BadBadLeroyBrown: on Braves vs Mets Preview: Amazins Have Tough Assignment Against Medlen In Opener: Duda is NOWHERE near Ike Davis NOWHERE....You...
- Saturn: on Braves vs Mets Preview: Amazins Have Tough Assignment Against Medlen In Opener: All pitchers have to do is throw...
- Metsie: on Lutz Is The Easy Choice To Replace Davis, But Satin Is The Right Choice: Bynes is in charge of he team... Omar...
- Peter: on MMO Exclusive: A Look Inside The Mets Dominican Complex: First time I've ever read anything like...
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5393 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1269 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
Good post.
Connor, great research and mostly right on track. Two points I would contend with. Firstly, when ranking OBP and runs scored, it needs to be separated by league. The AL and NL play under different offensive rules and shouldn’t be combined in the rankings. That’s why there are two batting champs, MVPs, etc.
Secondly, it should be noted that OBP, SLG% and anything like that are factors of run scoring, sort of like a cause and effect. A blanket statement like “How On-Base Percentage Directly Relates To Runs Scored” leaves the study open for after-the-fact stats like RBI which are in fact a result of run scoring, not a factor of run scoring.
But a great study nonetheless and frankly, not news to some people here.
And OBs are a result of PAs….
So I guess we should dismiss them too since we want to say the LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR in an event is the key to what happens in the event right?
Can’t get an OB without a PA!
Can’t score a RUN without a PA!
Can’t get an RBI without a PA either!
So I guess PA correlates even BETTER than all these other stats doesn’t it?
This is the folly of your dismissal of RBI….
Your hiding behind a timing of recording a stat and ignoring the ACT that allowed the RBI, the OB(or not in some cases of RBI), and the RS!
The PA caused the RS because you could get the RS without that PA….
This is basically what your trying to do with OBP only to the extreme level!
I went one common denominator lower than you did!
Unfortunatly a chart can not show correlation….
All it can show is that more of something usually means more accross the board!
More HRs leads to more RS as does more OBP leds to more RS just as more RBI leads to more RS just as more PA leads to more RS just as more BA leads to more RS and every chart will show pretty much the same thing!
Do the same chart you did above using PA and you will see PA correlates and looks even BETTER on your chart than OBP does!
Why?
Because when you do a chart that shows the LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR compared to good results the thing that is present the most during good events will always look the way your chart does!
Since HRs are NOT the least common denominator in RS they don’t look as good as OBP because every run that scores HAS to touch a base as you guys have argued…
But that doesn’t mean the touching of the base is the CAUSE or DRIVER of the metric…Just that it is an event that happens during the course of the EVENT that your looking for!
Which is PAs will look AS GOOD as OBP and probably better!
Because PA must happen in the same way an OB must happen to get an RS….
But that doesn’t mean PA is the CAUSE of an RS,,,,
It is simply INCIDENTAL to the act that CREATED the RS, and the OBP, and the SLG, and the OPS.
You can increase OBP and never score a run from it…Because not all OB are RS….
All RS are recorded as an OB but that doesn’t mean ALL OB contribute to RS because they don’t…OBs get stranded all the time!
And all of Bill James’ OBP theory is based on the premise that OUTS are the limiting factor ina game…
You only get 27 (so he says) and you have to make the most out of those 27 outs as you can therefore OBP is KEY….
But games can have many more than just 27 outs…..
Which kills the entire premise his theory is based on….
It’s not about the OB itself it what you did with it.The OB is only significant to RS if something is DONE with it….IF it actually SCORES A RUN!
That can be because someone drove in an OB that existed or got themselves an OB that drove themselves in…..
Only THOS types of OBs are actually related to RS….The rest are wasted and do nothing towards RS and if it can not GUARANTEE an increase in RS then it’s pretty dumb to think it correlates because an increase in OBP does NOT GUARANTEE an increase in RS!
It could all be stranded and never score!
So your shooting for something that can’t get the job done by itself!
It requires LOTS of itself or help from other players (in the form of RBI) to achieve the goal you think it can achieve.
only 23% of OBP ever gets recorded as an RS….
75% of RS REQUIRED an RBI to get the job done….
Sure that RBI is an OB in some cases..But certainly not ALL cases!
over course the dot matrix show correlation. That is exactly what it does. and PAs is not a result that leads to another result. That is like saying waking up in the morning.
anyway, realistically, guess what having more PAs means (in the same number of innings?) that you made fewer outs, meaning you got on base more often.
so you are actually arguing that a higher OBP is what leads to more runs.
and no one is saying that every time you get OB you score a run. But over time, consistently getting OB more indicates teams that will score more runs. And connor’s results prove that.
An OB is not a result that leads to another result either….
It MAY lead to another result but there is no Guarantee!
It may never do anything for the rest of the inning but stay at first!
A PA is the result of getting to the plate….Which is the result of whatever happened previously.
The team that gets to the plate the most often will also be higher in OB, RS and everything else that could happen…..
For the same reason Bill James thinks getting OB does…..
Because it’s the one metric that MUST OCCURR for EVERY EVENT after it!
Just as OB MUST OCCUR for an RS to be recorded….
Your saying shoot for more fruit and your likely to get a more Apples….
But increasing the fruit could get you more Oranges and NO APPLES!
NO GUARANTEE you get the thing your looking for by looking for the generic and not the SPECIFIC!
Not sure what overall point you’re trying to make, but an OB incident almost ALWAYS leads to an additional PA but not the other way around.
There is only time I can think of when an OB does not lead to an official PA: Player A walks and is on first base. Player B comes to the plate. Player B works the count to 3-1. But before the next pitch, Player A tries to steal 2nd and is thrown out, making the 3rd out of the inning. Player B’s plate appearance does not count.
So only in similar cases will an OB not lead to an additional PA, and it will be the exception rather than the rule.
OTOH, a PA only leads to an OB much less than 50% of the time.
yes a PA leads to an OB less than 50% of the time…roughly 30% of the time (a little less)
an OB leads to an RS LESS than 25% of the time!
Check it out and you will see less than 25% of OB is recorded as a RS!
And a PA can drive in a run without being an OB…..
So it probably correlates as good if not BETTER than OB does as far as RS in concerned…
Too bad no one bothered to do the charts on PA, RBI, SLG and OPS…
SHowing a chart about HRs (who no one ever suggested was the best way to increase RS) and Two different versions of OBP(wOBA) is not proving that either of those is the BEST especially when you didn’t make a chart for the others….
I trust Connor’s honesty and believe he never bothered to look or create charts for those to see if OBP REALLY does correlate better than the others….
But not having them by someone LESS trustworthy might do it and omit it because it would kill the myth they are trying to promote.
Hopefully Connor will flesh out his study with more charts because I too would like to see more comparisons.
But what is the point of doing PAs? PAs are a direct result of OBP so if you have a higher OBP, you are going to get more PAs.
And what’s the point of correlating RBIs with runs scored? LOL, of course there is going to be an almost 1 to 1 correlation because they are ALMOST the same. (And, yes, I know that runs can be scored without an RBI but the numbers are almost the same.) What’s the point?
But not having them by someone LESS trustworthy might do it and omit it because it would kill the myth they are trying to promote.
What myth?
The point of the PA chart is to show that finding the LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR of all events always makes a better scatter chart than the next higher Common Denominator…
Every RS is an OB at some point right? Which is why it is said to be IMPORTANT to have a lot of OB because you can’t have an RS without an OB!
Problem is Not every OB is an RS,,,,So Increasing OB does not mean you get more RS. Other factors are at play.
Every RS is a PA at some point as well…And every RS that is an OB is ALSO a PA!
and JUST LIKE OB not EVERY PA is an RS….But it’s scatter chart will be AS TIGHT as the OBP because every RS is also a PA AND a OB!
OB and PA are both FRUIT to RS’ APPLE!
An Apple is a very SPECIFIC type of fruit!
It’s the fruit we WANT!
Your looking for more fruit and hoping the apples will find their way into the catch….
But collecting more FRUIT does not guarantee you get more apples…
It only LOOKS like fruit correlates better because what you want ARE fruit but that doesn’t mean the fruit your getting is the actual fruit you want!
.But it’s scatter chart will be AS TIGHT as the OBP because every RS is also a PA AND a OB!
A higher percentage of OBs result in RSs than do PAs. For example, maybe 30% of OBs will result in RSs but only 14% of PAs will. So how can there be a higher correlation between PAs and RSs than OBs and RSs?
Why not just state in plain English what theory you’re trying to prove instead of talking about fruit? LOL. You have a better chance of Connor picking up what you want if you state it clearly.
It doesn’t matter what the percentge is because the problem is ALL RS are OB as are all RS PA!
This is the CRUX of the IMPORTANCE argument!
Not all PA are OB or RS and not all OB are RS but ARE PA!
Do the chart and you will see the percentage of results means nothing!
Just like you believe the more OB the more RS…
The more PA the more OB and the more RS!
Because all you really doing is making a chart and comparing RS to something else it HAS TO BE 100% of the time!
But the chart doesn’t show that the thing your looking for does NOT become what you want 100% of the time!
So increasing it may not lead to a single run more in the RS column.
So what exactly are you trying to prove, Metsie. Put it concisely. In plain English. Not in terms of fruit, lol! And how does it relate to the FO and what they should do?
Not place more importance on OBP and place it somewhere else more significant to scoring runs than RS….
Something that actually can MAKE GOOD on the promise of increased RS and stop chasing the >OBP >RS ghost!
Look for the metric that put Detroit high up on the RS list without having to get on base as much as the teams they beat in the RS department!
The team that gets to the plate the most often will also be higher in OB, RS and everything else that could happen…..
How do you figure?
What if a team has more plate appearances and also has higher LOB’s (left on base) as was the case so often with the Mets?
I disagree that team with more PA’s scores the most runs and wins the game. It happens, but it’s not a rule.
OBP just accounts for hits and walks, but you also have to account to the kind of hits and total bases.
I would say the team with the most total bases wins more often than the team with the most PA’s.
you could actually use OPS as a proxy for that, since it does include slugging, which factors in TBs
Tb and r/g didn’t seem to correlate too well at first glance in the NL last year.
Would that be a different than the team who gets OB more and has a higher LOB?
NOPE!
I did the chart but can’t post it obviously…..
In 2011 the top 10 teams in PA dominated the list of top 10 RS teams….
Higher RS means higher OB (because an OB is required to have RS) which means higher PA because you can’t get more OB without getting more PA
THE RS Requires one of each….Therefore they both correlate rather closely.
Any situation where you can suggest one doesn’t work also applies to the other….
Sure a lot of PA can leave a lot of OB stranded just as a lot of OB can be stranded…
WHich is why it isn’t really the OB that is key to scoring the run it is what happens in the PA…
What that batter does in the box does MORE towards RS than the guy standing on the base!
Excellent post, Connor. That clearly shows how much more valuable wOBA is than HRs or OBP in predicting runs. I’ll be sure to give more attention to wOBA in the future.
nice post. very good graphical representation.
and yes, a graph like this is exactly showing the correlation. That is what a matrix like this does (I guess this is technically a scatter diagram?) the tighter the dots, the stronger the correlation.
Scatter charts only show the commonality of the two items being charted….Not actual, RELATION….
A chart comparing FRUIT and APPLES will be as tight as anything with OBP was with RS….Because all RS are OB and all Apples are FRUIT!
Not all OB are RS though…and not all Fruit are Apples!
Which is why scatter charts don’t work in trying to dicern WHAT IS NEEDED to get the intended goal!
the RS….
And while your looking at the trend look at how much OBP is actually required to score the same runs as the HRs do….
It’s FAR EASIER to create a team that combined hits 200-240 HRs than it is to create a team that combined has an OBP of 3.6 and Above….
That… does not make sense. It IS a correlation. There is a strong, CLEAR trendline in both the OBP and wOBA graphs.
Sure because all RS are OBs….
Yu said they correlate BEST!
Did you check SLG OPS and other metrics to be sure it actually did correlate the BEST?
I did a scatter sheet on PAs….It correlated just as good as yor OBP and wOBA did!
Conor, your charts are so good, can you do even more of them? LOL. What is the correlation between runs and team OPS? What about walks? What about stolen bases? As extreme mentioned, I’d also like to to now if there are any differences between the AL and the NL.
If I were to guess, if there was an NL only and AL only chart, there would be less variation. OPS would show slightly more variation than OBP, but far less than the HR chart. Walks alone and stolen bases would be all over the place, I think. For example, the Tigers scored a ton of runs last season, but was a disastrous base running team.
Great research on this one, Connor – no matter which side of the fence one might be on.
Nice job!
Getting on base equals runs…can’t expect to score on the homerun ball alone.
A guy hits a single….He gets an OB…Does he get a run? NO!
Therefore getting OBs does not equal RUNS…
In fact only 23% of the time does an OB score….
100% of HRs score though as does 100% of RBI be there a guy on base or via the HR….
And how often are homeruns hit? 5% of the time? So what leads to more runs according to your calculation that 23% of people that get on base score a run? 1 in every 4 players score if they get on bbase versus 1 in 20 hitting a homerun
Why do you guys always run to the HR?
All I’m saying is that ALL HRs are RS….Not all OB are RS….23% to be precise!
No one is saying go for more HRs but some here ARE suggesting they go for the 23% efficiency as opposed to other metrics which are MUCH MORE EFFICIENT in the generation of RS….
SLG for one….BA which when achived has a greater chance of scoring a runner on than a GENERIC OB which could be a walk or HBP that does NOT score a runner from third….
By focusing on HRs and not the other stats your just finding the WORST example of RS correlation and the RAREST form of RS and comparing it to something that is made in the proccess of creating as RS but does not CREATE the RS in and of itself!
Truth of the matter is 23% of OB is RS and 21% of RS is HR! (not a buig difference is there?) 95% of RS is RBI (73% is RBI minus the HR RBI being counted)
The fact that all RS has to be an OB doesn’t mean the RS changes with the OB! What actually happens is the OB goes up with the RS!
Walking 5 feet is required to walk 10 feet…But walking 5 feet doesn’t mean you walked 10!
Everyone who walked 10 feet walked 5 feet!
Which is why a scatter chart of people that walked 5 feet will appear tight for people who walked 10 feet….Your took the minimal description of what happened and made it IMPORTANT when it was nothing but happenstance and didn’t CAUSE the result you were actually looking for.
And just to be clear..The Percentage of the RS from HR is only counting the HR itself not any runners(OB) that may have scored as a result of the HR SO a lot of that 23% of OB that scores scores as a RESULT of the HR!
Because if you get on base 10 times and score 2 run getting on base 20 times does not GUARANTEE you score 4 runs!
Thats why it is rediculous to think how many times you got on base matters….
HRs produce 21% of RS all on thier own (not including MOB)!
How many of those OBs would have scored if NOT for the HR?
Yes Metsie. That is the way it works (although your % seems a little low). The point is, the act of not getting an out increases your probability of scoring. Nothing is guaranteed of course.
Yes Connor now your talking chances instead of RS though…
The OB itself doesn’t create the run….
It can in the case of the HR…It can in the case of someone else being OB (which is where RBI comes in)
But getting an OB in and of itself does not guarantee a run and if it can’t do it once then there is no guarantee it will score if you do it 10 times.
It’s not Corelated it is incidental!
Just as incidental as the PA….Whenever you have a PA you have a chance to score a run. OB no OB at the time you have a chance…
A guy is on then the guy AFTER him has a better chance of getting an RBI…But the guy on doesn’t have any better chance of recording an RS than he had when he was the guy at the plate!
He still needs something to happen to score him. And the chances of it happening are about the same as it was in the previous PA. It is still what the SECOND batter does that makes that OB meaningful.
And whatever MEANINGFUL he does that scores that run, will in many cases ALSO be an OB (doesn’t have to be though) and therfore MORE OB might translate to more RS because you also have MORE of the Catalyst needed to make OB score when it couldn’t do it on it’s own!
Again, not the argument.
The more times you have a higher probability of something happening, the more times it’s going to happen. You can pick apart certain situations in a game, situations which do happen sometimes, but over the 150 years the game of baseball has been played, this same trend has held true.
Not true in a world of HUMAN Accomplishment!
Having a better chance does not mean the Human is actually capable of taking advantage if it….
And in a statistical analysis it is not supposed to be about probability it is supposed to be about proved causation that you are looking to get more of!
Nothing about getting higher OBP proves you will get more runs than someone who get High SLG!
Cause it’s the SLG that drives in the OB to be an RS not the OB itself….
Metsie, read this:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/why_does_17obpslg_make_sense/
I have Connor….
Tangotiger is one of the biggest OBP Biased stat creators on this planet!
He invented that bad approach and weights for wOBA!
Because he wanted OB to be MORE IMPORTANT in his wOBA rankings….
WHich is why he even included RBOE which doesn’t belong in the metric at all as it isn’t earned!
Metsie, you have to understand that people put hundreds of man hours every year into developing these statistics and theories, both in front offices, and at independent research departments. Do you really think they just arbitrarily assign those numbers to formulas? Do you think that they just DECIDE what they like more and manipulate the formula to make it what they want? No chance. They use the millions of baseball games that have been played over the past century and a half to determine which numbers to use. Sabermetricians are some of the least biased baseball people out there. Their whole mantra is fact-based, show your evidence, etc. You can try to prove those thousands upon thousands of researchers that have been working for years with your list of top run-scoring teams from 2012, but it’s surely not going to convince many people.
God only knows what your babbling about no one ever said 50% of HRs was RS….
And my Percentages was not based on 2012 numbers it was over the course of several years!
Very informative post. More commonly a higher OBP directly correlates to more runs. But not always the case. You could be a team like Det with hitters like P. Fielder and M. Cabrera, and still finish 3rd in RS, but not even in the top 10 in OBP. (going by the stats you posted)
Nice post Conner. I am on the fence as too hitting philosophy, partly because I was a terrible hitter lol. Causation is difficult to prove and in this case I believe likely hood of runs scored is a better measure. For instance we have all seen the stats on a runner on and no outs V. runner on and two outs. In this way, as a batter leading off an inning, a on-base philosophy could be of high value; however, a batter driving in a run from third with one out should not be concerned with getting on-base as much as driving in the run. This illustrates the complexity of the situation. If a guy is on third with one out and the next two walk and number three hits into a double play the added OBP actually hurt the team. A nightmare OBP inning could go like this: single, walk, double play, single, walk, pop out. This leads to a high obp but no runs scored and the inning is over. This does not suggest that a arbitrary counting stat such as RBI is a better indicator of what is going to happen it only suggests a limited causation. RBI’s are a fine way to determine what has happened, i guess, but it is lousy for projection.
Good Point Nathan….Somthing being lost here….
Runner on third…an OB doesn’t drive him in…A Walk is an OB and doesn’t guarantee that run scores….
Sac Fly is better than an OB in that situation….
As far as driving in the run is concerned.
Wobp I think tries to make up for this but like most advanced stats it is convoluted and does little for projection. Individual advanced stats are so much more explanatory than team stats. The only advantage to team stats is to attempt to justify a philosophy but as we have seen individual players need to be able to play to their strengths and managers need to use players in their strength zones. For instance if a Lh batter only faces Rh pitching for an entire year and bats .380 with 18 hr’s than all is well with the world. If the same player faces lh pitching and stinks the place up the value is lost. If I were looking at FA hitters I would want a stat tailored to weighing their OPS for pitching strength. This could see if a guy feasts on middle relievers but is terrible in the first couple innings and against good relief. Richie Sexson and Burnitz come to mind here. Anyway, the point is, advanced stats have their place and should be utilized to value a players strengths honestly but to try and advance a team philosophy they aren’t a great fit due to the individual nature of one bater one pitcher at a time.
Advanced stats are always usefull but they need to be weighted against ALL other stats and the type of player your looking for!
I have no issue with someone looking for a high OBP when looking for a top of the order guy….
And have no problem with them taking a guy who hits 35 HRs with a high BA/OBP over a guy who hits 40 with a low BA/OBP
The problem is you have folks making statements that MORE OB MORE RS and that isn’t even close to being true!
It’s the TYPE of OB and the situation it occurs in that is what drive the RS metric.
Metsie what you fail to realize is at high obp guys are not a bunch of weak batting walk takers. The highest obp guys in the league are power hitters.
WHY? Because Pitchers walk them to pitch around them….
They also usually lead the league in walks too!
OB% does not = RS
The Fallacy of this this Article: Make sure no Met sees it except table setters.
Why would a Barry Bonds be walked? Ultimately to stop s him from obtaining an RBI or a RS. OB% is the same with base loaded or bases empty.
Accordingly, RBI’s are the best measure of RS.
Now for a leadoff batter OB% is important.
For a power hitter SLG% is the key. I’ll take a K over a walk when his pop can drive in multiple runs (RBI’s) and RS.
Saying RBI’s are the best measure of RS is like saying at bats are the best measure of plate appearances You can’t have an at bat without also having a plate appearance and you can’t have an rbi without having a run scored. One is a direct by product of the other.
Very well said.
Which is pretty much what your doing with OB and RS now isn’t it?
RS is not a product of OB because not all OB is an RS….
But all RS is an OB so in essence your reversing it and More RS increases OB because it HAS to!
they are not even close to the same thing. OB and RS are totally seperate entities.
Is an RS also an OB? Can you get an RS that was NOT an OB?
No? Then the event is the SAME in the respect to COUNTING!
Increase your RS and your OB HAS TO be higher because you can’t RS without OBing….
SO the events your counting correlate not due to a significance or importance of one act to the other….
Your just comparing what is some of the time compared to what it has to be ALL of the time in order to be counted at all!
Counting 5 feet and relating it’s significance to walking 10!
Everyone who walks 10 feet walks 5 feet!
You can’t walk 10 feet without walking 5 feet!
Walking 5 feet does not increase the number of folks who walked 10 feet!
You could get 20 people to walk 5 feet and NONE of them have to have walked 10!
Kind of like saying being born has a high correlation to death!
Being born doesn’t CAUSE you to die it’s just something that HAPPENS and HAS to happen at some point before you can die!
Which makes the PA no different than the OB!
I have already tried that reasoning but it’s lost in this ridiculous debate.
Actually my stat is the best one.
The team that leads the league in R/G leads the league in RS 100% (I am sure there is a couple of exceptions) of the time. There, now we can forget about RBI and OBP and just go with R/G. Who would have ever thought?
So now when we go out looking for players we should now look for the ones that score the most runs! They will be the best players. Imagine a team full of guys who scored 100 runs the year before. We would dominate!!!
The problem is one size does not fit all players in all situations.
With a runner on 3rd and less than two outs you need a long enough fly ball more than a walk which can set up a double play.
With a table setter p with no out you need to get on base.
With a table setter or a power hitter up and you are trailing by two runs and two men are in scoring position you need a hit.
With a power hitter up and you are training by three runs and two out you need an extra base hit (slg%)and not a walk with a weaker hitter up next.
I have always said that after the #5 spot I am not as concerned about OBP. However, to say that an out is better by the #3 hitter than taking the walk and bringing up the #4 hitter? I disagree. Sure the #3 hitter could drive in the run with an out. But then you have no body on and one out instead of possibly 2 people on and 0 outs with your cleanup hitter coming up. Sure he could hit into a dp but the chances are better of a big inning. Now by the time that gets to the #6 hitter, just drive in the run.
It does more than the Walk does for you because now your only 2 or 3 runs behind…not 3 or 4!
And scoring that run puts more pressure on the defense than walking a guy does….
All the walk does is set up the DP!
To get OUT of the inning!
Ballgame over!
and the walk got you a DP and down 3 runs….
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-years-most-pointless-intentional-walk/
Last year, around Major League Baseball, there were 1,055 intentional walks issued. (Zero to pitchers.) The Reds were issued the most, with 54. Joey Votto and Prince Fielder both were issued 18. Of all intentional walks, 93 were issued by teams in the lead, while 607 were issued by teams who were trailing. The rest, obviously, came with the score tied.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/28670/joey-votto
Joey Votto received 18 intentional walks 2012
AB SLG % Runs
18 0.567 10.206
Why did Votto receive those intentional walks. I am assuming they all were meaningful in a tight game. This is not pitch around but Votto received 18 intentional walks to increase his OB%. Lets assume there was an open base and a runner on 2b with two out in all the 18 intentional walks to Votto. If Votto has a chance to swing I am assuming based on his .567 slg% that 10.2 runs would have been driven in (RBI’s). That is why slg% is an important metric more so than OB% . Intentional walks have been part of the game forever.
Ok I simplified it and I grant you that you need OPS% which has become the Wholly Than Wow Metric. However OB% is still valid in my mind for only for table setters.
That’s false logic and a false assumption. That’s not how slugging percentage works. Also, did you research what each of the 18 base-out situations were? Were they all with a runner on 2nd and none out? Are you also 100% certain that the guy after Votto would go 0-18 in those situations?
If you put Mike Piazza and Ricky Henderson in the clean up spot, with the same amount of baserunners and plate appearances over 162 games, why would Piazza wind up with more RBI?
Simple…Piazza has greater talent. What kind of greater talent? That talent is striking a baseball and hitting it a long way. Very simplistic formula. Piazza’s skills allowed him to get the ball up both gaps with greater frequency than Henderson. Superior hitter. No questions asked. Both Hall of Famers. If you’re measuring them by OBP, Henderson’s OBP fools people into believing OBP is more important than RBI. That’s a complete myth.
RBI is the most important stat in baseball. Hitters with supreme hitting skills drive in the most runs. If you look at the elite players, they hit in the middle of the order. Why is that? They’re not there because they walk. Walks occur because pitchers rather not give them anything to hit. Better a base on balls than a drive up the gap that plates a runner, or worse, a drive over the wall. Once again, very simplistic.
The problem with stat worshippers is they’re always looking to dig deeper into the game in order to look smart. That’s fine, but to immortalize Bill James is a bit much. His formulas are cute to look at, but it’s like nice clothing on a female. At the end of the day, it’s the female we’re looking at. The real numbers are the fantasy-less baseball numbers like homers and runs batted in. Why the urge to look deeper into the game? What are we looking for with runners on base in the 8th inning of a tie game? Aren’t we searching for an RBI? So why are we so afraid of sticking with the RBI stat?
One thing that will NEVER change in baseball. The biggest RBI PRODUCERS will hit 3, 4 or 5. RBI will never be a consequence stat like walks are. RBI is the truest skill stat. It creates situations where batters are walked. Walks don’t create RBI totals. And at the end of the day, it’s not the stat that makes the players, it’s their SKILL.
“The biggest RBI PRODUCERS will hit 3, 4 or 5.”
Completely backwards. The best hitters will hit 3, 4, 5 and therefore have more RBI chances and therefore more RBI. Driving in runs isn’t an innate skill. It’s more a matter of opportunity. Using your scenario, what if Henderson batted cleanup and Piazza hit leadoff? Who would have more RBI? You know it’s Henderson.
And besides that, your comparison is severely flawed. Piazza, at least through his best years with the Mets not including his hang-on seasons with Oakland and SD, had an OBP near .390 while Rickey’s OBP was .401. So of course Piazza was more productive. Since OBP was mostly a wash, you move onto the second most important stat, SLG%. Now there’s a wide difference, which is why Piazza was more productive.
Try using players with vast difference in OBP. How about Joe Carter? He had 1,445 RBI. He was a scrub compared to Rickey.
No, you’re completely backwards. Ricky Henderson didn’t hit 3,4 or 5, because he couldn’t drive the ball as effectively as a guy like Piazza. Ricky for all his leadoff homers, was never looked at as anything more than a gap hitter who could slap the ball the other way. His pull power was ok. Piazza, on the other hand, had over the wall power from foul line to foul line. Henderson was never that class a hitter. That’s why he never hit anywhere other than leadoff. Where his hitting skills in the #1 slot was impressive, it was below average for a middle of the order hitter. And if you stuck Piazza leadoff, he would still drive in more runners than Henderson for the same reason I previously mentioned. Stick Piazza anywhere in the order, while Henderson would be batting 4th, and Piazza would still produce more RBIs.
The skill levels are greater for Piazza. Anyone who needs SLG% to measure the skill level of Piazza and Henderson is crazy. And that’s giving Henderson a host of “leg doubles” Piazza never sees because he’s slow.
I love how you gloss over “the best hitters hit 3, 4 and 5″ as if it’s just a sentence. The truth is talented hitters, not walkers, are what we’re looking for in the middle of the order, which is why softies like Henderson never see the middle, where the big fish swim.
Rickey Henderson could have definitely been a 3 or 4 hitter with the numbers he used to put up
Depends on the lineup and who’s around him.
“And if you stuck Piazza leadoff, he would still drive in more runners than Henderson…”
Categorically false, and you know it.
Yeah, assuming a normal lineup, that is laughable.
Right. I figured that was assumed. If the other seven hitters put up identical seasons, Rickey has way more RBI than Piazza if Rickey was cleanup and Piazza was leadoff. If you want to tell me that Piazza has more RBI in his cleanup season than Rickey does in his, then I agree, because of the power. But not when Piazza bats leadoff.
Since when does opportunity become more important than skill? To toss out Piazza’s skill by claiming his RBI totals would be diminished because he would bat leadoff is preposterous. Henderson hitting 4th would never drive in 100 ribbies. He doesn’t have that type of ability. You can stick Piazza anywhere in the order and he would drive in 100. The chances would still be there BY THE NUMBERS. The reason he bats in the middle of the order is because the best of the best hit towards the top of the order, so accordingly, Piazza’s skill would be better utilized with speed guys hitting ahead of him. No matter where Henderson hit, he wouldn’t drive in 100. Same with guys like Murphy, Reyes, Tejada. Guys with 100 ribbie potential are players like Duda, Davis and Wright. Why? Their ability to hit the ball to and over the wall consistently.
So explain this. In 1990, Rickey had a .577 SLG% and 61 RBI. In 1999, Piazza had a .575 SLG% and 124 RBI. Piazza only hit 12 more HR than Rickey did, so explain the 63 RBI difference.
SLG% lol….Another truly silly stat when comparing guys with good speed and guys with no speed. In this comparison, Piazza’s SLG% makes him more impressive. Ricky will see x-tra basehits because he had great speed. He turned singles into doubles anywhere from bloop hits to soft singles down the line. The “long single” for Piazza was easily a double for Henderson.
This is where stat followers miss the true concept of baseball. High OBP minus Speed= worthless. Speed makes OBP something to pay attention to. Piazza could only get to 2nd on doubles hit to the wall either up the gap or down the line. Henderson didn’t need those type of hits.
In 2005, Piazza had 62 RBI, basically the same number as Rickey in 1990, with a .452 SLG%. Why, in a such a power drought, did he have one more RBI than Rickey did with a 125-point SLG% advantage? Couldn’t be that he had more chances from the middle of the order, right?
2005? So now, you’re rummaging stats from a washed up Mike Piazza with an in his prime Ricky Henderson? Such silliness and desperation. What’s the point in this worthless comparison? They had the same RBI’s while Piazza was finished in 200 less at bats. This proves that “chances” is why RBI isn’t important? How comical is this question? lol. Ricky isn’t talented enough to drive in 100 rbis in the middle of the order. Your superfluous statistics don’t change those facts.
You can use all the big words you want, but you’re just chasing your tail now. Yes, Piazza was washed up and yes, he had fewer at bats and yes, Rickey had the bet season of his career. Yet Piazza, batting in the middle of the order, still had one more RBI than Rickey.
That’s game, set and match. Piazza as the middle of the order guy had much, much more RBI chances. Hence more RBI in a bad season. Now we can all get back to what we were doing.
XtreemIcon March 18, 2013 at 1:47 pm
In 2005, Piazza had 62 RBI, basically the same number as Rickey in 1990, with a .452 SLG%. Why, in a such a power drought, did he have one more RBI than Rickey did with a 125-point SLG% advantage? Couldn’t be that he had more chances from the middle of the order, right?
Reply
OmarsLegacy March 18, 2013 at 2:44 pm
2005? So now, you’re rummaging stats from a washed up Mike Piazza with an in his prime Ricky Henderson? Such silliness and desperation. What’s the point in this worthless comparison? They had the same RBI’s while Piazza was finished in 200 less at bats. This proves that “chances” is why RBI isn’t important? How comical is this question? lol. Ricky isn’t talented enough to drive in 100 rbis in the middle of the order. Your superfluous statistics don’t change those facts.
Reply
XtreemIcon March 18, 2013 at 2:55 pm
You can use all the big words you want, but you’re just chasing your tail now. Yes, Piazza was washed up and yes, he had fewer at bats and yes, Rickey had the bet season of his career. Yet Piazza, batting in the middle of the order, still had one more RBI than Rickey.
That’s game, set and match. Piazza as the middle of the order guy had much, much more RBI chances. Hence more RBI in a bad season. Now we can all get back to what we were doing.
Actually, game, set and match was when you had to rummage thru Piazza’s washed up stats to PROVE he was a SUPERIOR RBI man. That’s all you proved with your endless tirade of well placed, mind altering, exhausting scenarios and falsified numerations…Instead of mastering the art talking back, you should learn a little more about baseball. Thanks for self-owning yourself..LMAO. Perhaps it’s time you bequeath your mythical tag of being “insightful” when it’s obvious you’re no more than someone who spends entirely too much time discussing baseball through worthless number gyrations.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So are you telling me that Piazza hit 4th because there were 3 guys in the lineup better than him? I mean if RBI chances are the same in the 1st spot as they are in the 4th and he could drive in 100 from either spot, why bat him 4th? He would get more AB’s batting 1st so….
Come on. This debate gets more and more absurd.
TRS, what’s absurd is you jumping in and making flaming comments while I’m having a debate with someone else. Xtreeme doesn’t need you jumping in for him. Please refrain from such emotional outbursts. If you don’t like the debate, don’t entertain it. If it’s “absurd”, don’t enter the debate.
What’s laughable is Ricky Henderson driving in 100 ribbies from the middle of the order. The man never had that type of skill to drive the ball into the gaps consistently to be considered a middle of the order hitter. The assumption he would because he would see “x amount of chances” is the most irresponsible thing I’ve ever heard. Chances don’t drive runners in. Skill does.
Now you’re being completely absurd. Twice Rickey had over 70 RBI from the leadoff spot, hitting behind the 8 and 9 guys. You don’t think his same season, but with better hitters in from of him would have given more chances and more RBI? That’s baseball 101.
He drove in 70 ribbies twice in his 25 year career. He doesn’t have the pop to do it from anywhere in the order, unless you’re delusional enough to believe baseball teams blew a chance to use a 15 year 100 RBI man by forcing him to bat leadoff. Let this sink in. He doesn’t have the skill to drive in runs from the middle of the order. He didn’t strike the ball hard enough consistently to drive the ball over the heads of outfielders. This isn’t rocket science..
Sure he did. He had plenty of pop and enough to drive in 100 RBI from the 4 or 5 spot because the 2, 3 and 4 hitters would have given him plenty of opportunities. Just because he was better suited to lead off doesn’t mean he was void of the ability to drive runners in.
No, you’re wrong. He didn’t have that type of skill or someone would have put him in the #3 hole for the rest of his career. You don’t stick non-RBI producers in the middle of the order. That rule will never change. If you do, you will have a team like the 2013 Mets- one that stinks.
So you honestly think that a season like this
.325 .439 .577 1.016 with 28 HR couldn’t drive in 100 runs and be a #3-5 hitter?
Rickey hit leadoff because that’s where a team could best use his skill. He could be a decent #3-5 hitter or an exception lead-off.
lol TRS…Your own words settled the argument. Why stick a great leadoff man into the middle of the order so he can revert to an avergae 3, 4 or 5 hitter? You don’t is the answer! Why? He doesn’t have the skill! Unless you want the team to win as often as the 2012 Mets did.
If you go by YOUR OWN NUMBERS, 1 out of 3 runners get on base, so at the end of the day, Piazza and Henderson would see the same amount of chances. All stats are skewed in that regard. Again, skill dictates production, not irrational statistics based on probability.
Categorically? Since Henderson DIDN’T HAVE THE SKILL to bat 3, 4 or 5, you don’t have any absolute evidence he would drive in more. Fact of the matter is, Piazza would drive in more because of his slugger skill. That’s the one skill that’s proven in this discussion. Your “what if” scenario is faulty beyond belief.
What do you mean my own numbers? If you actually think that leadoff hitters hitting behind the 8 and 9 guys and cleanup hitters hitting behind the 2 and 3 guys will see the same number of RBI chances, you need to back up and understand how baseball works on a general level before you start getting into specifics.
“Skill dictates production” I knew you’d come to my side on this. Good hitters will hit in the middle of the order. The middle of the order will have more chances than the very top or very bottom, so they will obviously have more RBI production simply as a byproduct of their skill. But even in the event that the world turns upside down and Rickey, even without the power “skill” Piazza had, batted fourth, he’d have more chances and as a result more RBI than anyone who hits leadoff, regardless of their power.
The RBI has nothing to do with skill, except as a byproduct of the opportunities that skill gets you.
By the numbers, players get on base 1 out of 3 times. That’s the average unless you have some new statistic that was created just minutes prior to our debate. As for the 9th spot, double switches and pinch hitting player into the games as well. The 8th and 9th spots are always up for pinch-hitting and double switches in the NL. Poor excuse. The numbers don’t lie, right? Unless they’re against your argument, of course.
As for skills, I’m talking between Henderson and Piazza. Henderson doesn’t have the skill to produce 100 ribbies anywhere in the lineup. Piazza does. It’s pretty simple. Doesn’t need a synopsis, I don’t think.
Now you’re just twisting numbers to get whatever output you want. Maybe the grand total aggregate of every hitter in all of baseball might average out to 1 out of 3, you know how batting orders work. Or you should, anyway. Now I’m starting to wonder what you know. Bad hitters hit 8 and 9. Good hitters hit 2 and 3. The 8 and 9 guys never have the same OBP as the 2 and 3 guys. Do I really have to explain this to you?
You don’t need to explain anything to me. You’re nowhere near as intelligent as you presume you are. What you’re doing is playing a convenient little game of stat wordplay by spinning presumptions behind an orgy of worthless scenarios.
No one is twisting anything around. Since we’re talking facts, lets talk facts. 8 and 9 hitters aren’t always men on base for the leadoff man. If you’re going to talk YOUR NUMBERS in this scenario, please include 5, 6 and 7 hitters, because they easily could be on base with 2 outs for the leadoff man to make something happen. Leadoff men get their chances as well. Not every team has an excellent #2 hitter. Not every team has an excellent leadoff man. Few do, actually. You’re reaching now, because you’re trying to usurp some formula which detracts from 1 HUGE POINT: Henderson never had the skill to bat in the middle of the order and drive in 100 ribbies. Bottom line is ALL hitters come up with men on base throughout the game. Only proven guys with skill hit 3, 4, and 5. RICKY HENDERSON didn’t have that skill.
I’m just going to put this here.
For all the folks who are arguing about rbi’s per batting order position etc. if you want to see the raw stats go to the individuals page on baseball reference, click more stats, scroll down to situational hitting. In that section there is a listing of base runners while the player is at-bat and how many scored.
So Minnesota, SF and Detroit were in the top 10 in runs scored but none were in the top 10 in OPB, Detroit scoring the 3rd most runs of all.
Walks have always been better than outs, Bill James didn’t “discover this”. Hits are better than walks when men are on base, a great majority of the time. Strikeouts prevent anything from happening on the field – error, bad hop, wind blown pop up, bad decision by a player – and it is simply not so that it is the same as any out. Strikeouts remain a stat that is not weighted properly in the new Metrics and one that has a hidden negative effect as when a Pitcher knows he cannot strike a guy out, approach (a non Saber concept) naturally changes and this factor is not quantifiable
Nothing in the new stats helps me evaluate fielding and therefore I rely on what I see to “decide” that X is a better Shortstop than Y
Yes which is proof that team who HAD GOT the HIGHER OBP didn’t get the RS that everyone seems to think your supposed to get from adding more OBP than someone else!
“So Minnesota, SF and Detroit were in the top 10 in runs scored but none were in the top 10 in OPB, Detroit scoring the 3rd most runs of all.”
Yet you don’t mention that the Ranger, Yankees, Brewers Angels Cardinals Rockies and Diamondbacks were in the top 10 in Both Rus scored and OBP.
You also don’t mention that the Reds, Pirates, Mariners, Cubs, Marlins and Astros were in the bottom 10 in Both Rus scored and OBP.
It is never a 1 for 1 in this it is that in general more times than not teams that lead in runs scored happen to often lead in OBP.
See below, you should look for the exception because it is better than the rule.
Yes because those teams that were in the bottom of OBP and RS probably were lacking in whatever the EXCEPTION was that gave lower OBP teams more runs!
Obviously something OTHER than OBP is more important to scoring runs than OBP since someone else managed to score more than a team who achieved the higher OBP!
Whatever they did was MORE important than OBP….How much more can be debated…
How THAT relates to OBP to be determined….
Perhaps what is key is to look for the PERCENTAGE of OB that resulted in an RS and what it was they did to get there!
Getting more OBP is not a key to more RS buty a more efficient CONVERSION of the OBP you get probably IS!
So look for what gets you that better conversion FIRST and while you now KNOW what to look for there is no reason to not look for it and while you at it pick the players who have it AND the best OBP possible so it helps the other players who also have that attribute your trying to build with!
Good teams are good in a lot of stats hat doesn’t mean that one stat they are good in has any bearig on the other….
Thats just an ASSumption on your part….
All your doing is finding another label for an event that is present in every occurrance of the event your looking for…And saying because 100% of RS is an OB OB must be important to getting RS….
But 100% of RS is also a PA! That means PA correlates just as well as OBP does as far as RS is concerned!
Is a PA significant to scoring runs?
Only in regards you have to get a PA to score a run….
Same hold true for OB!
If what you guys claim is true then teams with a higher OB would ALWAYS beat a team with less….
Since that isn’t true then the statement you guys are making is also UNTRUE!
when I said beat a team I meant in regards to RS
Metsie you need to be honest with yourself and accept that you are talking nonsense and just listen to everyone else.
And you need to be honest and admit you admitted just yesterday that OPS correlates better than OBP!
Did he show the scatter chart for OPS?
No he didn’t did he!
It’s like saying Red apples are the only apples you can get….
Do a chart on Red apples and compare it to a chart of oranges and go SEE?
Well he showed a chart of home runs and obp, and home runs are the main component of slugging percentage, and ops is slugging percentage + obp, so i think its self-exlanatory really…
No there are far more doubles and triples combined than there are HRs….Sorry this staement is false!
So HR is not a major component of SLG at all
HR’s are not a major component to Slug%? Are you serious? HR’s have the greatest impact on Slug% above any. It’s not even close
Scroll down Metsie. I provided the other charts from my research that didn’t appear in the article. PAs, OPS, and batting average.
Detroit wasn’t in the top 10 of OBP yet they were there….
EXPLAIN IT!
Did you look at Connors chat?
Or just decide you could make them look better in OBP by dropping half a league out of the rankings?
As for this crap about splitting AL and NL for Offensive stats it’s really all BULL!
It should just be EASIER for AL team to rank higher than the NL counterparts because they have an easier time getting whatever it is you think you need to get….
That said Detroit is an AL team and didn’t even finish in the top 10 of the ENTIRE LEAGUE!
And if they could lead someone with a better OBP by providing SLG than if everyone increased SLG they ALL could do better than those high OBP teams now couldn’t they?
Doesn’t matter at all….
OBP and RS are recorded and awarded the same in both leagues!
The fact that one league should be able to produce more of it doesn’t matter because if they produce more OB as you claim then they will produce more RS….
Not only do they NOT produce more OB they don’t produce more RS either….
We are not penalizing teams for how MUCH they did we are talking about when they did what you say they should do did they get theRS you claim they should get!
NL/AL doesn’t matter! You say more OB leads to more RS and that rule (if true) shouldn’t care what league it is because OBP and RS are the same in BOTH leagues!
AL since 1973:
.265/.332/..409, 329 wOBA
NL since 1973:
.258/.326/.393, .319 wOBA
Yeah so the AL should hava higher OBP and a higher RS than any NL team….
What is this a discussion of how HARD it is to get OB or what will happen NOW MATTER HOW you get it?
Metsie, as I explained, it is an IMPERFECT statistic. The overall trend is ABSOLUTELY there. I explained how a double is not worth quite the same as a triple is in OBP, which make it an imperfect statistic. I showed wOBA, which corrects the values of singles, doubles, triples, etc. Even further, however, there are things not showed in that statistic, such as speed, defense, weather, ballpark, etc. Don’t get why you are stuck on the whole rankings thing. No one is claiming that the order of OBP rankings will be the same as RS rankings. This article is about how higher OBP tend to lead to higher numbers of runs scored.
Well, ops is better, and opsplus is even better.
Yes, they are better. OPS+ is marginally better than OPS because it is park and league adjusted.
Connor imperfect or NOT if it isn’t PERFECT it is also NOT MOST IMPORTANT!
Whatever can beat it wins!
Did you compare SLG and OPS scatter charts?
Try it and see what you get!
The facts have not been showed….
Show your scatter chart for SLG and OPS and PROVE your FACT!
The bottomline here Conner is this….
if a team with a LOWER OBP can score more runs than someone with a higher OBP that instead of DISMISSING the EXCEPTION in favor of the RULE….
You should look for the EXCEPTION instead because the exception is obviously BETTER at achieving the RS goal than the RULE is….
Find what it is those exceptions did better and get more of it!
Then the OBP doesn’t matter and if you can find more of the exception while trying to get as much OB out of it at the same time you will have the key to scoring more RS from a team building point of view!
that is the way statistics and probability work. You need to use a big enough sample size to make it meaningful (and 10 years of seasons if large), and see what happens.
No, you normally will not get 1005 correlation, but when you are up at 90%+, it is significant.
and of course there are exceptions to every rule. Doesn’t mean the rule is not true (and usually plays out as expected).
just seems logical that if the vast majority of the time OBP predicts runs scored, you don’t throw that out because an occasional team scores more than expected (usually with something like a fluke HR year or unsustainable “clutch” hitting).
It seem Logical Van until you realize the logic that since an OB can’t PROMISE an RS increasing it could be getting you nothing more than EMPTY PROMISES if thats what you look for to increase RS!
It could all be stranded meaning you didn’t get what you thought you were!
There is something else MORE SIGNIFICANT to scoring runs….
And I suggest it has more to do with a metric of the batter in the box than the metric of the guy on the base when he gets to that box!
Because the guy in Batters Box can achieve the goal WITHOUT the guy on the base!
No more guaranteed than the OB is to scoring but it CAN be done by him where the guy who is merely OB can not score himself without something else happening!
Defensive screwup or something that batter did in that box!
Since defensive screwups are rarer and you can’t build a bad team to play against I suggest you look for what happens in that batters box to make whatever OB you get cross the plate and if you can get it with the best OB from among the players that have it then you got some gravy for thre NEXT guy who gets in the batters box to work with!
No because ncreasing the OB doesn’t guarantee that you did more of what is needed to score runs!
I pointed out only 23% of OB scores….But I never said 23% of it scored because of OB!
In fact I said 21% of all RS is the result of the HR BY ITSELF without counting all the OB it also drove in….
So if you don’t increase the HRs at the same time you increase the OB you might not get that same 23% and I should mention that PART of that 23% of OB that results in a score INCLUDES those RS from the HRs themselves!
If I remove the HRs from the OB totals I bet OB and HR are neck and neck in the percentage of RS produced!
And what were the RBI totals for each? Who had more?
Yes van, I did not did not dig as deep as other people have. But it has been shown that the correlation of OBP to RS is somewhere around 80%. Keep in mind that is the BASIC version of the stat, bt of all the so-called “traditional” or basic stats, it has the strongest correlation.
Did you try correlating RS to SLG and OPS before you did your chart on OBP and oame to your conclusion that OBP correlates better than anything else?
Or did you do a chart on HRs then do a chart on OBP and conclude what you did?
To say it correlates BEST means nothing if it’s the only one you charted….
I could easily say ANYTHING correlates better than OBP if I never chart OBP to compare it…
Did you read my article or just look at the pictures? I don’t say OBP is the best stat out there. I SPECIFICALLY STATE and prove that wOBA is better. However, I am proving that the principle of OBP is correct, and how even in it’s simplest, age-old form, On-Pase Percentage is an accurate determinate of runs scored.
Slugging percentage is going to correlate better, and in my graph of it, it did correlate slightly better because, as I have explained, it values each type of hit, walk, etc more effectively. wOBA is really what we should be using.
“I SPECIFICALLY STATE and prove that wOBA is better”
You said
“Teams that get on base more, teams who have batters that make outs less are more successful, and score more runs”
But Detroit says otherwise doesn’t it?
wOBA would suggest you need to get a lot of guys to reach base on error the weighting system in wOBA is all wrong!
Why is a HR that Scores a run weighted less than 4 times an OB of a Single?
So you admit that SLG correlates better….
Remember SLG doesn’t take the NUMBER of OB into account just the weight of the typical OB….
So increasing OB does not mean you increased the SLG…You never know what that plus OB was SLGed at to get what you need.
SLG does NOT include walks….And OBP does….
SLG does not include or weight the PA as a plus or minus….
It merely weights the OBs according to how good they were and divides them by AB.
If it correlates better than OBP then it is the thing to look for not OBP!
“Why is a HR that Scores a run weighted less than 4 times an OB of a Single?”
Let me put it this way: In one game, Jose Reyes hits a double. In another Carlos Quentin hits a single. Are the Blue Jays twice as likely to score as the White Sox? The answer is no and 150 years of baseball history completely back up that statement.
Come on Conner….
Did you put it that way to avoid answering the question that truly has no answer whenever it is asked of someone who likes wOBA….
wOBA is an attempt to WEIGHT the OB isn’t it? “Weighted On Base Average?)
Why does a guy who just gets a single base get almost half the credit of the guy who gets four bases?
A guy with 10 singles will have a higher OBA weight than the guy who hit 6 HRs….
Because the weights are not proportional to the good of the hits they are meant to weight accordingly….
Player 1:
10 singles, 30 at bats wOBA: .295
Player 2:
6 HR, 30 at bats wOBA: .412
“The key thing to remember about On-Base Percentage is that it is a very rudimentary statistic. It has a very basic formula, and doesn’t take into account the values of the ways a player can get on base. Slugging percentage attempts to, but fails to put an accurate vale on each way someone can reach base. Is a double really worth twice as much to a team as a single? Is a walk worth three times less to a team than a triple? Over 100 years of baseball tells us that is not the case. That’s where wOBA, or weighted On-Base Average, comes in. It assigns a value to each way a hitter reaches base. How can they just choose those values? Doesn’t that make the stat arbitrary? The coefficients of walks, singles, doubles, etc. are based off the added probability of a run being scored. It’s essentially a bulked-up version of On-Base Percentage, and is even more effective at predicting runs scored.”
OBP and diff. versions of it have the strongest correlation of any statistic. Like I said in this paragraph, there are things that influence runs scored OUTSIDE of OBP that make it an imperfect indicator.
The qestion is Connor did you do the scatter charts for the other metrics and see that OBP correlated betterb than them or did you just do it for OBP liked what you saw and then decided to compare it just to HR?
Did you do the scatter chart for SLG and OPS and other metrics?
I bet you didnt’t which makes your conclusion on OBP correlating better incomplete research!
You don’t know that it correlates better than something else because you didn’t test it against anything but HRs.
Wrong again Metsie.
I DID do plenty of research on other statistics. Just decided not to put them in there for the sake of length of the post. First, the one on plate appearances that you claimed would be “MUCH BETTER” than OBP.
It turns out it is actually slightly weaker. It is similar to OBP because just using logic, the more times you get on base, the more PAs you will have, but the trend is not as strong as OBP.
http://www.upalongfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/pas-vs-runs-scored.jpg
Next, you have batting average, which, since getting a hit is not getting an out. And since hits count for about 70-75% of getting on base, there is a relationship, but not as strong as OBP.
http://www.upalongfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ba-vs-runs-scored.jpg
I also have an OPS graph I have is a OPS graph. OPS is essentially a revamped version of On-Base Percentage. It attempts to weight different types of hits differently. The biggest flaw of OBP is that it fails to do that. You will see that in the graph, as the relationship between it and runs scored is weaker than the graph of wOBA.
http://www.upalongfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ops-vs-runs-scored.jpg
Don’t think I left stones unturned when writing this.
OPS is not a revamped version of OBP Connor….
It is merely OBP plus SLG!
And it could be high because of the SLG instead of the OBP! WHich is WHY your EXCEPTIONS have gotten into your top 10 run producers!
I DID your charts with OPS which is why I know they correlate better than OBP…
and in every case they correlated better than OBP!
Why?
Because the exceptions were no longer exceptons anymore!
They fit with the parameter of the correlation….
Either the OPS was high due to high OBP or due to high SLG!
So no matter what that team got more of the OPS at least showed they belonged in the area.
And the only thing I found to correlate better than ALL of them was RBI….
I didn’t pick or mention RBI because I liked RBI I picked it because it was the best Correlator of ALL the stats I charted!
And I bet if you did the same chart you would see that too!
The dismissal of RBI as a team stat is bogus because your OBP requires a team component as well!
You just want to refer to that component as MORE OB but the truth is really that OB that drives in that OB that couldn’t drive in itself is an RBI…Even at times when it is NOT an OB!
OBP= OBP
SLG%= a revamped OBP
OPS= SLG%+ OBP
OPS= One version of OBP + OBP
Connor it is not revamped OBP….
BB and HBP dont count as AB and therefore are not the same as OBP in ANY WAY!
SLG = 1B + (2x2B) + (3x3B) + (4xHR) / AB
It says nothing about the percentage you got on base….So it has NOTHING to do with revamping OBP!
It has to do with weighting what the average OB you got was and says nothing about how often you got OB!
The higher the number doesn’t mean the more you got OB.
Just means the better the OB was…..
Runs are scored. Runs Batted In are awarded for the types of runs scored. Most runs scored (95%) are awarded as RBI.
Same as saying the team rankings for 0.95*runs scored will correlate to rankings for 1.00*runs scored.
RBI is awared for doing something at the plate that allows a run to score that couldn’t score without the act at the plate.
You can’t get an RBI while being OB….SO it has to be done in the Batters box….
If 95% of all runs are due to an RBI awarded to the Batter then doesn’t it make a lot more sense that he is just a bit more important in the CAUSING of the run than some guy who was merely OB and couldn’t score without him?
“You’ll never see a team last in OB% at the top of the heap in runs scored.”
No but pretty damn close to last!
Toronto Blue Jays 2011, 2010
Texas Rangers 2009, 2007
Detroit Tigers 2006
And the high OBP doesn’t guarantee much either
Cards 2007
Dodgers in 2007, 2011
Braves 2008
BUT SLG doesn’t correlate better than OBP right Slappy?
If a high SLG beats a High OBP then isn’t it better to look for High SLG instead?
Doesn’t High SLG correlate better than OBP does?
SLG DOES correlate slightly better than OBP, which I have said.
Well then change the title to say that Connor….
this entire post is about how OBP correlates best but not a single chart of SLG which you say correlated better is shown!
I don’t care what is actually the best correlator….
I just KNOW OBP isn’t it and I wish people would stop saying it is and arguing with me when I point out that statement as FALSE!
Nobody has said OBP is the best. What people say is that the principle of not getting outs (i.e. getting on base) increases the odds of your team scoring.
Connor I don’t know how much of this commentary you read but a LOT of people are saying OBP is the BEST correlator to RS….
And it was argued yesterday for a few hours until Martin finally admittd OPS was better!
Show me.
The correlations are VERY close
Metsie’s fanpost:
http://metsmerizedonline.com/2011/10/does-ops-correlate-better-to-runs-scored-than-rbi.html
I disagree with the way he went about that post. Rankings is not the way to go. Just take the data.
Reading my comments in that post and still relevant to me is that in general teams in the top of one of either OBP or Runs Scored will seldom find themselves in the bottom of one of either OBP or Runs Scored as well.
If you ranked them as a whole only 7 teams in the last 10 years have been both in the top 10 in either obp or runs scored and also being in the bottom 10.
And if you looked at them per league then in the NL no team during the last 10 years have been both n the top 5 in either obp or runs scored and also being in the bottom 5.
When you look at the AL 5 teams during the last 10 years have been both n the top 5 in either obp or runs scored and also being in the bottom 5. Two of those 5 coming this past season .
http://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0ApxE2V-jZhJHdGpIS0E5c01mblpWeWtkZmhod2hfLVE&gid=3
Nice work Mr NJ! Thanks for putting that together. I have to agree with you. OBP and even wOBA are imperfect and until we find the super stat (which will never be found) there are always going to be exceptions.
Hey Connor, congrats on getting a mention by Adam Rubin today.
Oh I didn’t even see that. Thanks Joe.
Props on the ESPN New York plug and while I am at it nice job in your attempt to show how OBP directly relates/correlates to runs scored.
Well done, Connor
Nice post.
To add wOBA and it’s derivatives, RAA and RC+ are always going to be much better indicators of the relationship between offensive prowess and runs scored simply because they attempt to neutralize the one big difference between ball clubs, the park they play in.
Great article, and it correlates with some of the data from a post earlier in the year that showed how the Mets ran into trouble last summer in August when they went AWAY from their more selective approach not because of it. That being said,however, there is still the issue of their “more selective approach” having been confounded by a string of games against ace caliber pitchers (which in fact happened).
The OBP directive is generally a good one but may be vulnerable to upper echelon pitchers.
Well I’m pretty much tired of re-arguing the same thing I have been saying for over two years now that OBP does NOT correlate better than other metrics as far as RS is concerned….
I did it the last two days and
On Day one got the guy I was arguing ADMIT OPS correlates better than OBP
On Day two got the author to admit SLG correlates better than OBP as far as RS is concerned…
That pretty much settles it so the next time someone says OBP is the BEST CORRELATOR to RS we know they are simply full of it because we have two metrics that correlate better,,,
And that doesn’t even include the RBI that correlates better than all of them!
I am unsubscribing from this thread!
Metsie, you have to understand that people put hundreds of man hours every year into developing these statistics and theories, both in front offices, and at independent research departments. Do you really think they just arbitrarily assign those numbers to formulas? Do you think that they just DECIDE what they like more and manipulate the formula to make it what they want? No chance. They use the millions of baseball games that have been played over the past century and a half to determine which numbers to use. Sabermetricians are some of the least biased baseball people out there. Their whole mantra is fact-based, show your evidence, etc. You can try to prove those thousands upon thousands of researchers that have been working for years with your list of top run-scoring teams from 2012, but it’s surely not going to convince many people.
Connor they put undred of Man hours into research and then go ignore what it said and claim OB is more important tyo RS than anything else?
So we have established SLG, OPS and RBI as all correlating BETTER and therefore MORE important….
We have established that OBP when High is not enough to beat a team with SLG in RS…
We have established there is NO DIRECT relation to your OBP and RS only that high in one stat probably higher in the other….
Yet we still hear from tham all this talk about OBP when their own research tells them they are lying and igoring to truth to say whatever the hell they WANTED to say and find before the research started….
1. Nope. We have established RBI as completely useless.
2. Show me one example ofa respected sabermetrician saying OBzp is the best indicator. ONE
3. “We have established there is NO DiRECT relation to your OBP and RS only that high in one stat probably means high in the other…”
That is the very DEFINITION of correlation, my friend. Look up any basic algebra or statistics video on scatter plots and you will see. Looking at your rankings theory is just hiding from the truth. You use rankings yet when I give EVERY team’s OBP and RS from the last TEN years, you dismiss it. You are basically saying other than the fact that there is a trend, there is no trend.
I have statistically proven you incorrect on every issue you have raised with this post.
Game. Set. Match.
considering RBIs are basically a different representation of RS, you could do the exercise with OBP predicting RBIs and get the same basic results.
correlate
verb
1.Have a mutual relationship or connection,, in which one thing affects or depends on another.
co·in·ci·dence
Noun
1.A remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.
OBP does not CORELATE it is merly COINCIDENCE
OB does not relate to RS…RS may relate to OB but not the other way around….
So to CORRECTLY Corelate what the two in this case….
RS Correlates well with OB and it correlates at 100%!
100% of RS is an OB….
100% of OB is not an RS…It does not CORELATE!
The same corelation doesn’t work both ways but your trying to say it does!
Add RS and yes OB will go up!
Add OB and no guarantee the RS goes up….RS is corelated to OB but OB is not CORELATED to RS!
It is merely coincidental!
You want to see some Saber guys who think OBP corelates better?
Read the comments above and then read the link Hotstreak posted.
How can a connection THAT strong be merely coincidental? Watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WQ8hUPX0BY
“100% of RS is an OB….
100% of OB is not an RS…It does not CORELATE!”
That is not at all what a correlation is. Watch the video.
If you don’t believe me, will you believe a physics professor at Bucknell?
http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~bvollmay/baseball/runs1.html
You could also read this:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/
No silly boy….
We do NOT agree OPS correlates better than RBI….
OPS only correlates BETTER than OBP!
You should pay attention more!
I said RBI regardless of what you think about it STILL is the BEST CORRELATOR of RS and EVERY CHART and RESEARCH DONE has PROVED that….
But you guys don’t LIKE the CORRECT Answer so say it doesn’t qualify AS an Answer….
Because if it did then it would beat ALL those stats you like in Correlation!
Metsie I with you. RBI tells clutch hits and where needed power clutch hits.
http://metsmerizedonline.com/2011/10/does-ops-correlate-better-to-runs-scored-than-rbi.html
No it doesn’t. RBI tells you runs batted in, nothing more. In fact it’s relation to clutchness is iffy at best.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=c,13,71&season=2012&month=0&season1=2012&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=3,d
And OBP doesn’t tell you anything but what percentage you got on base, not how many nor does it tell you how many of those OB actually scored so what is your point here?
RBI does CAUSE runs to score….OB does not!
Firstly if you’re going to address me, address what I wrote and and if I it happened to be in reply to someone, then read what that person wrote. I addressed a proposed idea that RBI’s somehow show clutchness, they don’t and I posted evidence of it. What you replied with is completely unrelated.
I’m also not going to argue with you about OBP and the way it directly relates to runs scored because you are wrong, there are better measurements that integrate the quality of the act adding OBA, adjustment for park, and league wOBA for example, but OBA is still adequate.
They won’t read it Hotstreak….
They are not actually interested in the TRUTH just in the making of OBP sound like it is important more than something else!
Sounds familiar since many of the same folks all love to say Sandy is doing a GREAT JOB despite the FACTS saying he hasn’t won more games in a season yet than a guy who got fired for NOT winning enough games….
Look at the names involved…
THEY ACTUALLY CORELATE 100%!
Metsie tell me why we would lie about something as silly as a baseball stat? What would ANY sabermetrician get out of that? Please tell.
I guess you can’t.
That linked post is hiding behind rankings. Wouldn’t the actual statistics be more accurate?
Actually R/g is the stat that correlates best to runs. Almost 100%.
I don’t even know what metric your talking about but if it translates to the player side the same as calculating the RS and RBI of a player per game or season then I bet it WOULD be a useful stat for choosing players and much better than anything OBP will tell you….
Duh, it’s Runs per game and it’s almost 100% correlated. The team that averages the most runs/game scores the most runs. There your RBI is trumped.
LOL, that’s the reason I am using R/G. It’s just so ludicrous to prove a point. Of course R/G correlates well with runs scored, just as RUNS Batted in would. But it also serves absolutely no purpose, proves nothing and is completely useless in determining what a team should be built around.
So I guess it’s safe to say Connor’s post will soon be upgraded to “Featured Post” status?
I think it reached that status.
And Featured Status it is.
“Sac Fly is better than an OB in that situation….”
So, a sac fly is better than a home run?
That’s because people associate OBP with taking walks and it’s anything but. It’s just a plain and simple principle. Don’t make outs, outs are usually bad.
Keep in mind, Metsie is also the guy who claims wOBA says that reaching on an error is ebtter than any hit.
also said a guy with 6 HR has a lower wOBA than someone with 10 singles. Never responded to my rebuttal:
“Player 1:
10 singles, 30 at bats wOBA: .295
Player 2:
6 HR, 30 at bats wOBA: .412″
Still no example of a respected statistician saying OBP has the strongest correlation, either.
Simple OBP is good because:
1) As many have said, it avoids an out and extends an inning. It increases run-scoring probability
2) With men on base, it may give the current batter better pitches to hit, as the pitcher may be less willing to risk a walk
3) It elevates a starter’s pitch count! Getting into the opposing team’s bullpen early is generally a good thing. Very few teams have strong middle relief.
Just wanted to get my 2 cents into this epic thread.
Wanna help me draft my fantasy team?
I don’t know how anyone can NOT see a correlation in these graphs.
Watching Metsie argue his point is like watching a 4 year old. He believes what he believes facts, evidence, logic and science be damned.
Connor, great piece and thanks for fighting the good fight in the comment thread.
What can I say. You can’t convince everyone I guess.
This.