by rmapasad on Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:04 pm

runs created discredited LMAO!!!!!! Hey shit for brains, when you get to change your weights every year, of course wOBA will be more accurate. BTW, where is your wOBA calculation?

Or does your lying stupid ass already realize it yields the same result and you are just praying I don't bother to do the math

BTW, how good can wOBA be? I didnt see anything in the formula to account for all those lucky ground ball hits you like to bitch about.

You ain't got a clue douchebag >.

__I am tired of you constantly turning stuff into ridiculous 14 year old level pissing contests instead of calmly trying to get at the truth. __

I ran all teams from 2010-2017 - Runs, OBP, Slug, OPS, W/OBA, RC and 1.8 * OBP + Slug__. __

1. Your little calculation gave 20 pts of overall OPS more to the "better SLug" side. Of course if one side gets 20 more OPS pts. the way you jiggered it, they'll score more runs. That wasn't the way these studies were done. __The question is: __300/360/500 better than 300/330/530 ? -

I found four teams that had identical OPS's from 2010-2017.

D-Backs 256/**321**/411 = 732 OPS 5292 runs scored

Orioles 255/313/419 = 732 OPS 5216 runs scored

Twins 254/**319/**396 = 715 OPS 5142 runs scored

White Sox 255/315/400 = 715 OPS 5004 runs scored

So teams at equal OPS with the better OBP and worse Slug scored more runs. To be fair, Runs Scored are "corrupted" by baserunning issues (SB. CS, GDP) so not relying heavily on this comp.

2. Here are the correlations. I took the STDEV's of each category to the average in that category and then cross-referenced the STDEV's to each other.

OBP*1.8 + Slug v. w/OBA - correlation was very good .09 STDEV... Almost a perfect match.

RC to W/OBA - not good correlation at all at .81 STDEV

RC to Actual Runs Scored - Same bad correlation of .82 STDEV. Which is wierd since RC takes baserunning stuff into account. Park adjustments in RC account for a good share of that variance.

then:

W/OBA to Runs Scored - good correlation at .26 STDEV. W/OBA uses park adjustments too.

1.8* OBP + Slug to RS - good correlation at .28 STDEV.

I understand why W/OBA seems like a better metric than Runs Created.

3. But now I have to show one other correlation: raw OPS

Raw OPS v. W/OBA - very good correlation at .07 STDEV

Raw OPS v. Runs Scored - good correlation at .26 STDEV

Raw OPS v. Runs Created - bad correlation at . 84 STDEV

4. BUT and this is what floored me - good old fashioned OPS seems to work. Not a whole helluva lot. Perhaps this substantiates that 1 pt of OBP is no better than 1 pt of Slug and vice-versa, but quite honestly I have neither the time or inclination to re-read all the W/OBA and OBP*1.8 stuff. It's not that any of that stuff is INVALID. It's not. It just doesn't seem that it adds much to the party that OPS doesn't.

Maybe in the higher power environment of 2002-2007 when all these new "advancements" on OPS came about OBP added more runs, but recently it doesn't seem to.