So what are OBP/SLG/OPS/wOBA anyway?
On the heels of the seminal For All The Dummies fanpost and the excellent contributions on FIP and statistical education in general, I thought I'd do my part by explaining some basic and advanced hitting stats. Many of you will already understand much of this, so I'll just go from the basics that we all know to what I think is the best single hitting stat.
Good ol' Batting Average and its problems. We all grew up knowing that a player who hit .300 was a good hitter. So what's wrong with using batting average to evaluate a hitter? The problem is that batting average misses two key things. First, it only covers hits. There are other important ways to get on base too, like Walks. Second, it equates all hits. A single is not as valuable as a double or home run.
Partial solutions: OBP, SLG and OPS. So one can turn to two other stats which include hits, but fill in the gaps that batting average leaves. On Base Percentage (OBP) [sometimes referred to as On Base Average or OBA] describes how often a batter reached base. It is calculated by adding hits, walks and hit by pitches and dividing that by total plate appearances (not just at bats). Slugging Percentage (SLG) attempts to measure the relative value of a player's hits by dividing Total Bases (4 for a home run, 3 for a triple, etc.) by at bats. Adding those two together gives you On Base Plus Slugging Percentage(OPS) which is a handy, but clumsy single hitting stat.
So what's wrong with OPS? The main problem is that it equates OBP and SLG when they aren't equal. First, they are on different scales: .000-1.000 for OBP and .000-4.000 for SLG. Second, and more importantly, OBP and SLG don't equally contribute to run scoring. In short, a raft of studies have found that OBP is much more important.
Problem solved: wOBA. Preeminent sabermetrician Tom Tango created a stat called Weighted On Base Average (wOBA) to appropriately account for the value of getting on base, hitting for power and pretty much all other outcomes from a plate appearance. This metric uses a system called linear weights to determine the run value of the various outcomes of a plate appearance. Without going to into too much detail, this is an empirical approach which looks at how various events (like a double, a walk or a stolen base) have affected run scoring over multiple years of data. [If you'd like a more detailed, math-heavy explanation of linear weights, click here.] Calculating wOBA is a bit complicated, so I let others do it, but it basically involves multiplying the run value coefficient of each event (like a double) by the number of times the player did that (how many doubles he hit), adding up all of those results for all events and dividing it by total plate appearances.
What does this number mean? This stat is scaled to OBP, so if you know what an average or good OBP is, then you know what an average or good wOBA is. As Dave Cameron at Fangraphs put it:
Essentially, what that means is that average wOBA will always equal average OBP for any given year. If you know what the league’s OBP is, you know what the league’s wOBA is. Usually, league average falls in the .335 range - it was .332 last year, but offense was down around the game in 2008, which may or may not continue.
What doesn't wOBA include? It isn't currently park normalized. It's like standard, raw rate stats in that guys in hitter's parks are going to do better and players at pitcher's parks are going to do worse. Also it doesn't attempt to equalize players at different positions. There are metrics which recognize the different real world hitting standards for a shortstop as compared to a first baseman, but wOBA isn't one of them. But they exist. We'll save that for another post in this series.
So how does this apply to the Royals? Here is the Royals 2008 wOBA leader board (min. 100 PA):
Mike Aviles .360
David DeJesus .355
Alex Gordon .344
M. Grudzielanek .329
A. Callaspo .328
Billy Butler .318
Jose Guillen .318
Miguel Olivo .313
Mark Teahen .311
John Buck .292
Ross Gload .290
Esteban German .285
Joey Gathright .280
Tony Pena, Jr. .174
If you are interested in learning more about wOBA and some other advanced hitting metrics, I would suggest the following sources, many of which I used to put this together:
What's new at Fangraphs, by Eric Seidman at Hardballtimes.com
The Joy of wOBA, by Dave Cameron at Fangraphs.com
Linear Weights, by Tom Tango at Tangotiger.net
The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball, by Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman and Andrew Dolphin [This is a book, so you'll have to buy it. No internet freebies.]
49 comments
|
10 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
pssh
we didn’t need even need batting average when i was growing up, all we needed was to look at the bulge of chaw in his mouth to tell if he was worth his spit.
by wildthang on Mar 6, 2009 2:50 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
And that’s the way it was and we LIKED it!!!
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 6, 2009 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
Hey, if wOBA doesn't help little leaguers, how meaningful could it be?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 6, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
wOBA is just one more psychologically crippling means...
by which modern society destroys the innocence of our youth by showing them that there is actually true competition in the real world, and that some people are better at some things than others. Our poor children have been subjected to this cruel torture for far too long. We must protect them by giving them all gold stars and home runs with every at bat.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 6, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
Indeed
Statistics tell children that trying hard and having skills isn’t enough. It tells kids that results matter. That’ can’t be good.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 6, 2009 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
Actually, the joy of...
…the other stats for our nation’s youth is that they can calculate them without having a college-level stats course. I don’t mean to sound snarky. It’s just that figuring easy stats—-and therefore promoting them—-is okay for the game overall. It makes the game fun for our youth, or at least the nerdy ones into numbers. – TL
Yes, we don't want the youth of America thinking too hard.
Intellectual competence is better left for the Chinese & Indian kids.
by hunter s. royal on Mar 6, 2009 11:37 PM EST up reply actions
and it's not like stupid kids can calculate ERA either
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
And one doesn't need to be able to calculate a stat to use it
Lots of people (even intelligent people) can’t tell you how to calculate slugging percentage or any number of simple stats. And even though most people can tell you how batting average is calculated, they don’t actually crunch the numbers. They look it up online, or in the newspaper or on the back of a baseball card. One doesn’t need to put together complicated spreadsheets of stats to recognize which are the best and most meaningful ones.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 7, 2009 5:13 AM EST up reply actions
I thought that today
in little league sports we don’t even count the most basic stat – RUNS! The score. We don’t keep score out of fear of “hurting” our children’s precious feelings. Ridiculous.
The world keeps score, the world is competitive, you don’t always win. Live with it. Learn from it.
Fourth to First
by kabrink on Mar 7, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Little League
has a World Series. I’m pretty sure they don’t draw straws to determine who goes.
I just got back from your mom's basement.
There are some places and some levels where they don't keep score
and don’t have winners or standings.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 8, 2009 3:52 AM EST up reply actions
There are
but most of them are leagues where the kids are 10 or younger. At that age learning how to play is more important than taking pitches so they can walk and score runs.
I just got back from your mom's basement.
I'm sure that's true
And they probably don’t need wOBA either. That’s more of a big boy stat.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 8, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
also
wOBA actually wouldn’t apply, since it’s based on models/empirical evidence of MLB baseball over the last 40 years or so. The nature of different levels of baseball means that each event will have a different run expectancy.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 8, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Sticks and stones may brake my bones but words will scar my inner child forever
Changing up the way you blog about baseball, one post at a time.
i doubt there are 5 baseball leagues in america that don't keep score
this is more of an urban legend than a real pheomena
if anything, youth sports are getting more competitive than less
Most T-Ball leagues that I've seen
don’t keep score. (Until the end of the season when some have a playoff.)
BA/RISP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Mar 6, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
Wow. I love baseball but damn...
This stuff is interesting, I’m just curious as to how many of you actually follow baseball like this, through mostly numbers. I think its awesome but I also think it’s kind of annoying calculating his Womp, and Ops and slug and blah blah freakin blah. I’d rather hear about mechanics of pitching and hitting, something I could apply to kids when coaching…just a little thought. Not talkin shit.
I don't see how its any different
Than following baseball through fangled statistics like “batting average” and “ERA”
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
You Can Show
Kids that getting on base (including walks) and picking a pitch to drive are more important than relying on BABIP to build a high BA.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Mar 6, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn't say that I follow baseball mostly through numbers
I think I evaluate players and analyze baseball mostly through numbers. But certainly during the season, I follow the Royals mostly through watching them, reading and watching news reports about them and talking about them in places like this.
I think tools and mechanics are important, as well as stats. One of the particular appeals of stats is that they more clearly defined than things like tools and mechanics which are, of course, extremely subjective.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 6, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
I like to know
that when Aviles, DeJesus, and Gordon are due up, I should stay in my seat, but when we get to the Guillen, Gload, and Olivo part of the order, it is probably safe to get a hot dog and a beer.
Jokes aside, this series of articles was suggested by readers who wanted to learn about the various stats. If they are not your cup of tea (or more appropriately, bowl of alphabet soup), feel free to skip them.
So I eat alphabet soup?
Anyways what a player does to get that hit, or throw that pitch is step one to getting a graded stat. The ability to perform these skills separates them from the others. I had a great website called chrisoleary.com in which this guy broke down swings and mechanics frame by frame (now a paysite), that is where the fun is. That is where you can really learn to appreciate the skill involved in a major leaguer. Because going to The K and hearing people tell major leaguers to “keep their eye on the ball” while on deck is flat out annoying…and by the way I do enjoy these articles, but after reading about mechanics you can follow the game more…also DDJ was about as smooth as it gets at the plate and will blow up this year!
"that is where the fun is"
There’s fun in a lot of places. Some prefer the art of tools-based analysis. Some prefer the science of statistical analysis. But a good mix of both is, I think, best.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 6, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
That's all that really matters
Enjoy.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 6, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, those guys hate saber-shit
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 7, 2009 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
Good Good
I didn’t even know wOBP existed before this article, we learn something new every day.
Changing up the way you blog about baseball, one post at a time.
Is wOBP Not
Called wOPS because of political correctness?
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
Good question
Actually it’s not a weighted version of any current stat (OBP, OPS or anything else). It weights pretty much all possible baseball events and their effect on run scoring. I assume they wanted it to be recognizable, so they just stuck a letter in front of an existing, known stat. Why did they choose wOBA instead of wOBP or wOPS? I don’t know.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 9, 2009 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions
One of the great things about these stats
is that I have no idea how to pronounce them. For BABIP, or BABip, I have always spelled it out. I recently heard my friend refer to it phonetically, like “babipp.”
So is it doubleyou-oh-bee-ay, or Wohba? Or does it rhyme with Joba?
I think the larger point I want to make is that when stats are used exclusively from one’s mother’s basement, it is quite humorous when they are pronounced in face-to-face settings.
Absolutely agree.
I mentally read wOBA as ‘whoa-buh.’ Phonetic pronunciations for the win!
WTF, self?
"They" (and I think "they" in this case is Tom Tango himself, not all three authors of "The Book," but I'm not srue
chose “wOBA” (weighed On-Base Average") because they started from OBP as they’re primary stat, but also wanted to acknowledge that the “weight” of each event . OBP has the advantage of being a “binomial” stat, that is, it has only two possible outcomes — on-base or not (leaving aside that traditional OBP [wrongly, in my opinion and those of the authors] leaves out Reached on Errors). Linear weights acknowledges that each event (BB, HBP, 1b, 2B, 3B HR, ROE…) has a different weight.
What I like about wOBA is that it actually represents the relative quality of a player’s average plate appearance. OPS doesn’t do that — as in the case of Mike Jacobs and Alex Gordon for example, Gordon actualy was a better hitter last year, but Jacobs had the higher OPS. In any case, OPS isn’t even really “one” stat like SLG or OBP.
Here are some reasons that they chose oBA over OPS or whatever:
1) wOBA is on an OBP scale so you get the idea — about .330 is gong to be an average player. They have to do slightly less “scalijng” of the Run Values of each even than they would to get things on a OBP scale than the weird non-scale that is OPS.
2) as a corollary, we know that a .350 OBP is always better than a .340 OBP. We don’t always know that a .800 OPS is better than a .785 OPS/
3) It’s called an average rather than percentage because while OBp really is a percentage (i.e., a .352 OBP means the player got on base 35.2% odf the time), wOBA is no longer a percentage, since each event is weighted differently. Rather, it is giving you the relative value of each of the player’s plate appearances.
4) Somehow, although I don’t understand this, having it on this particular scale allows access to “binomial theory,” although I suck at math and haven’t been able to figure out how to take the stuff from the Appendix to “The Book” and plug it into a binomdist function in Excel.
For Tango’s own account of wOBA, see his History of wOBA, Part I. I’m sure I got some stuff wrong.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Nice
In case anyone cares, I am pretty sure wOBA was used because the stat is scaled to match OBA with the idea that most people would already know what a good or bad OBA was (and weighted batting average was already taken by Baseball Prospectus and its equiavlent batting average stat (EQA)). OPS was probably passed over because (1) more people tend to get OBA after Moneyball than OPS and (2) the purpose behind wOBA was to stop using OPS.
you do realize that to a large degree
this is your fault, right?
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
well, it was more than once
but I really think, as I hope I can get across, that the big thing with Tango, et. al. isn’t simply that they are good with sabermetrics (although, of course, they are), but that they are 1) “open access” thinkers — they share how they do just about everything, and 2) they do so in a way that it is relatively simply to understand. FIPis so cool because it is just so easy to understand on an intuitive level, and not really any more difficult to calculate than ERA. Even WAR, which might be a bit intimidating at first, really makes sense on an intuitive level once you think about it, just like linear weights is just +2 or -10 or whatever.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
















