Stat for Isolated Power + OBP

[jar2574]

Is there a stat for isolated power + OBP?

I haven't found one.

I think it would be useful.

It would show you how much a batter is worth better than OPS, I think, because OPS counts the first base portion of base hits twice when it adds SLG and OBP.

Edited to fix typo and to avoid further confusion.

[ndc3]

OPS = On-base % + SLG %

And OPS essentially 'counts' every base hit twice, not just singles

[Rand]

Originally Posted by ndc3

OPS = On-base % + SLG %

And OPS essentially 'counts' every base hit twice, not just singles

Still not ideal as one point of OBP is more valuable then one point of SLG, but very easy and very quick for a pretty accurate measure of offensive ability.

[jar2574]

If we added isolated power to OBP, wouldn't we have the best measure of how far someone goes along the basepaths, on average, per plate appearance?

And thus, we'd have the best measure of how valuable the batter is?

[jar2574]

Originally Posted by ndc3

OPS = On-base % + SLG %

And OPS essentially 'counts' every base hit twice, not just singles

Yeah OPS has it's flaws, as Rand pointed out.

I'm not worried about doublecounting doubles, triples or home runs. I'm worried about doublecounting singles, because a single doesn't get the batter any closer to home than a walk.

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by jar2574

If we added isolated power to OBP, wouldn't we have the best measure of how far someone goes along the basepaths, on average, per plate appearance?

And thus, we'd have the best measure of how valuable the batter is?

Isn't that pretty much what slugging % is?

If a guy's slg% is 2.000, then on average, he gets 2 bases along on the basepaths per AB. If it's .400, he averages 4 bases every 10 ABs.

Sure, it uses AB instead of PA, but if you wanted, just use PA instead of AB like so:

((# singles) + (2 x # doubles) + (3 x # triples) + (4 x # HR))/PA

I'd like that better than ISO + OBP, because for 1) ISO uses ABs, too. And 2) slugging gives you a built in baseline, i.e. a .500 slugging is a single every other at bat. If an ISO + OBP gives you .600... well, what does that really mean?

[jar2574]

Originally Posted by Neags23

Isn't that pretty much what slugging % is?

If a guy's slg% is 2.000, then on average, he gets 2 bases along on the basepaths per AB. If it's .400, he averages 4 bases every 10 ABs.

Sure, it uses AB instead of PA, but if you wanted, just use PA instead of AB like so:

((# singles) + (2 x # doubles) + (3 x # triples) + (4 x # HR))/PA

I'd like that better than ISO + OBP, because for 1) ISO uses ABs, too. And 2) slugging gives you a built in baseline, i.e. a .500 slugging is a single every other at bat. If an ISO + OBP gives you .600... well, what does that really mean?

ISO + OBP would be very different from slugging. It would measure bases traveled per plate appearance rather than per at bat.

And shouldn't we really care more about value per plate apperances than per at bat?

OBP = how often a guy gets to first base, per plate appearance.

ISO = how many bases he travels, per at bat, subtracting the times he only got to first base.

If we add OBP and ISO, we will know how many bases a batter travels per plate appearance, which seems to be a good measure of how much he benefits his team.

In response to your second concern, ISO + OBP would also give you an easy baseline.

.500 ISO + OBP would mean the batter averages 1/2 base per plate appearance.

1.000 ISO + OBP would mean the batter averages 1 base per plate apperance.

Here are examples from a poor hitter, a great singles hitter who didn't walk much, a modern future hall of famer, and two of Bond's insane seasons.

1968 Mark Belanger = .313
1899 Willie Keeler = .497
2008 Albert Pujols = .778
2001 & 2004 Barry Bonds = 1.051 & 1.059

[ndc3]

Originally Posted by Rand

Still not ideal as one point of OBP is more valuable then one point of SLG, but very easy and very quick for a pretty accurate measure of offensive ability.

Agreed...just correcting the misunderstood formula

[jar2574]

Originally Posted by ndc3

Agreed...just correcting the misunderstood formula

The statement "OPS counts every base hit twice" is only true insofar as OPS counts the first base portion of every hit twice. OPS does not count the full value of doubles, triples, and HR twice.

But I do see where you are coming from. My initial response wasn't as well written as it should have been.

Anyway, OPS is obviously a very different stat than this hypothetical ISO + OBP.

The ISO + OBP formula would not "count [the first base portion of] every base hit twice" like OPS does.

And perhaps ISO + OBP would address the problem in OPS of overweighting slugging %.

Mostly, I'm curious as to whether ISO + OBP has a formal name.

Edit -- Sorry NDC3, I looked back at my first post and noticed that I said BA where I meant SLG. I didn't realize that, and so I didn't realize what you were getting at in your responsive post. I've changed that first post to avoid further confusion.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Neags23

If an ISO + OBP gives you .600... well, what does that really mean?

It means you've got a really good hitter. I've posted this recently, but here it is again:
SS .435
C .457
2B .457
3B .471
CF .483
LF .515
RF .522
DH .533
1B .555

These numbers represent the average OBPIP for players who got 500 or more plate appearances (in other words, full time players) in 1999, 2000 or 2001. The catcher numbers are inflated because very few catchers get that many PA in a season, and Mike Piazza skewed the numbers. DH is deflated because it also has few qualifiers, and most of the best hitting DHs got more appearance at another position than they did at DH. I think it would probably be fair to set catcher equal to (or lower than) shortstop, and reverse DH and first base.

Originally Posted by jar2574

Mostly, I'm curious as to whether ISO + OBP has a formal name.

I invented it (feel free to scoff), and I call it OBPIP, which means On Base Plus Isolated Power.

Naturally, I tend toward your opinion of its usefulness, and would love to see an option for it to be calculated within the game. (Currently you need to subtract AVG from OPS, which is time consuming.)

This subject came up in another thread just a week ago, and someone argued much more effectively against it than has been done here. I don't care, though; it's my child, and I love it. It won me six consecutive regular season titles in a Strat-O-Matic head-to-head league, though I would like to note that it's more useful over a long season than it is for a short series.