Disco Hayes makes a case for using Opp. OPS instead of WHIP

I've given up 14 hits...all for singles. I've only walked 2 batters in 10.2 innings. Opponents are slugging (and hitting) .304 off me and their on-base percentage is .327. That makes an OOPS of .631 which sounds a lot better than a 1.5 WHIP. I haven't thrown well this year, I'll be the first to admit it. I'm not trying to make up a stat to think otherwise, but I think I have limited damage by keeping the hits to singles and it got me to thinking maybe there's something to this.

This is the kind of stuff I was really excited for when the Disco blog first started. Hey stat guys....thoughts?

almost 3 years ago minda33 17 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

He's arguing for one poor stat over another

Opponents’ OPS and WHIP are both poor stats because of how little a pitcher has control over what happens to balls in play. Defense independent pitching stats plus batted ball data is a good way to evaluating pitching. Opp. OPS and WHIP are not.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 29, 2009 10:24 PM EDT reply actions

A pitcher can at least limit extra base hits

by getting ground balls. It’s the fly balls and line drives that go for extra bases. An OOPS might not necessarily be more informative than combining K/BB and GB/FB/LD rates, but it’d be easier to understand. OOPS would be something like a rough xFIP that doesn’t neutralize for BABIP and is on a recognizable scale. Depending what you think of BABIP, that’s not necessarily a bad idea.

by kcdc1 on Apr 29, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions

An OOPS might not necessarily be more informative than combining K/BB and GB/FB/LD rates, but it’d be easier to understand.

Easy to understand, but it contains a lot of superfluous junk which buries the important information. It’s a very unreliable stat.

OOPS would be something like a rough xFIP that doesn’t neutralize for BABIP and is on a recognizable scale.

I really don’t think that it is like xFIP at all. OOPS includes a lot of defense and batted ball luck (good and/or bad).

I mean OOPS isn’t entirely worthless, just like batting average isn’t entirely worthless. They both tell you something. But the problem is that they tell you very, very little and can easily lead you in the wrong direction (and they often do). That’s why they are both poor stats.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 29, 2009 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Right

Like I said, it’d be sort of like a rough xFIP that doesn’t neutralize for BABIP “luck.” It’s better than WHIP and batting average, probably not as good as xFIP. But I think it tells you something that’s different from FIP and xFIP and it’s interesting, so it’s a perfectly good stat. Any stat can be good if you understand what it tells you. They’re just bad when you misinterpret them (eg batting average).

by kcdc1 on Apr 30, 2009 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions

What does it tell you?

Let’s say that a pitchers opp. OPS is .750. What does that reliably tell you about his pitching? If you want more detail, let’s say opponents are hitting .275/.325/.425 against him. Is he pitching well? You really have no idea. How much of those numbers come from good or bad defense? How much of those numbers come from good or bad batted ball luck? I wouldn’t say that any stat can be good. Any stat can tell you something. But that doesn’t mean they are all good. Opp. OPS tells you something, but there are a dozen or more stats which give better, more reliable information which help describe and evaluate pitching performance. So why waste one’s time on a dog like opp. OPS?

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 30, 2009 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions

Not a bad idea, I don't think

not that this makes it a bad idea, but throughout The Book, they use pitcher’s opponents wOBA rather than ERA in their analysis

it would be a a decent supplement, at least, to FIP or something

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 29, 2009 11:45 PM EDT reply actions

I think it would benefit Hayes,

because he’s just giving up singles. OOPS at least somewhat accounts for the difference between giving up 14 doubles, and the 14 singles he has given up.

I thiiink that’s what he was getting at. He did mention that his WHIP is frustratingly high, and that looks really bad.

WTF, self?

by minda33 on Apr 29, 2009 11:49 PM EDT reply actions