OPS+ and ERA+

[JET15]

What sites besides Baseball-Reference publish the OPS+ and ERA+ stats? More specifically, does anyone know of one that does split (L/R) OPS+ and ERA+ stats? Thanks in advance, folks

[rluzinski]

I think both metrics came from bf.com, so I don't know of anyone who'd provide a more indepth version of it anyway. What are you trying to do with it?

[JET15]

Russ: sorry it took so long to reply to your question... the kids and I play a baseball dice game and we rate the players to see how many dice they can throw. I was using OPS+ and ERA+ and I thought it would add just one more level of strategy to use the split stats.

 

Thanks for asking. I can't find them anywhere.

[Phenomenal Smith]

Russ: sorry it took so long to reply to your question... the kids and I play a baseball dice game and we rate the players to see how many dice they can throw. I was using OPS+ and ERA+ and I thought it would add just one more level of strategy to use the split stats.

 

Thanks for asking. I can't find them anywhere.

What game do you play? Is it your own creation?

 

[JET15]

Yeah, it's our own creation. Remember that simple dice game that used two dice for each at bat. We just added some more strategy and real player odds into the equation. Nothing too complex, but it's fun.

[Phenomenal Smith]

Cool. I dabble in various sports games myself (notice my sig).

 

You might be interested in these forums:

 

http://forums.delphiforums.com/seasonspast/start

 

http://forums.delphiforums.com/tabletopsports/start

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Can somebody explain what OPS+ is and how it relates to OPS? This might have been answered already so a link to another thread would suffice.

[sbrylski]

+ means relative to league average. So a 100 OPS+ would be exactly average, and a 110 would be 10% better OPS+, ect. Its useful for comparing stats from different seasons and eras.

 

To calculate it though, you have to do OBP+ and SLG+ seperately and add them.

 

OBP / lg avg OBP + SLG / lg avg SLG = OPS+

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Thanks for that. That is good information to have in my back pocket.

 

Wow. Lou Gehrig had an OPS+ of 208 in 1934. That's pretty amazing.

[brewjihad]

Also in BBref, you can go into a player's splits page and find their sOPS+, which factors in the split. For example, Prince Fielder sOPS+ finds against lefties finds what the league-average does against like-handed pitchers and then distributes like OPS+. So Prince's sOPS+ against lefties is 114, even though his OPS is .736- he's above league average in that situation.

[sbrylski]

Thanks for that. That is good information to have in my back pocket.

 

Wow. Lou Gehrig had an OPS+ of 208 in 1934. That's pretty amazing.

Babe Ruth's career OPS+ is 207. Now that's amazing.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

DFA Ruth!

 

OPS+/ERA+ is a crude stat in many ways, but imho it's the best way to quickly 'compare' players. Of course there's more accuracy in using it to look at careers'/5+ seasons' worth of data, but even just for one season it gives a decent idea of production relative to a player's peers.

[logan82]

sbrylski06 wrote:

OBP / lg avg OBP + SLG / lg avg SLG = OPS+

Does that total have to be divided by 2?

[sbrylski]

sbrylski06 wrote:

OBP / lg avg OBP + SLG / lg avg SLG = OPS+

Does that total have to be divided by 2?

My bad, I didn't finish the equation.

100 * ( OBP / lgOBP + SLG / lgSLG - 1)

 

[wisconsinfan47]

Wanted to revive this thread to simply point out that Mike Cameron is currently posting a tie-career high OPS+ (123, 2001 w / Seattle). His performance this year cannot be overstated.

[igor67]

On the downside though the defensive statistics I have seen have shown significant slippage for Cameron. Which doesn't mean get rid of him as he was good enough to be worse than he used to be and still a large upgrade over the last few years.

[dadofandrew]

Camweron has played his entire career in pitcher friendly home ballparks. He's finally in a neutral one, and a HR friendly one. His power numbers should be good.

[Ennder]

Just keep in mind both of these stats are horribly flawed for what they are used for. They dont' take RH vs LH into account, they used some pretty flawed park factors and they used flawed yearly factors to come up with their value. I'd be very careful using either stats as anything other than purely superficial comparisons. If you want to do serious statistical work I'd throw them both out the window.