Which stat proves a player's skill more?

[STL FANATIC]

A high average or a high OBS proves that a player has some skill in a certain area of the game, but when looked at by themselves, it can only compare two players skills in that stat....not overall.

For instance, if Player A has a .300 AVG and Player B has a .200 AVG, then Player A is (probably) better at getting hits in his at bats.

If Player C has an OBS of .350 and Player D has an OBS of .450, then the only conclusion you can draw is that player D is better at getting on base in his at bats.

You can use niether by themselves to say which is a better player.

I don't however agree that OPS is the all around measuring stick either. It's simply a combination of SLG and OBS, and those are important stats, but there are plenty of other important ones too.

[leafs13]

A high average or a high OBS proves that a player has some skill in a certain area of the game, but when looked at by themselves, it can only compare two players skills in that stat....not overall.

For instance, if Player A has a .300 AVG and Player B has a .200 AVG, then Player A is (probably) better at getting hits in his at bats.

If Player C has an OBS of .350 and Player D has an OBS of .450, then the only conclusion you can draw is that player D is better at getting on base in his at bats.

You can use niether by themselves to say which is a better player.

I don't however agree that OPS is the all around measuring stick either. It's simply a combination of SLG and OBS, and those are important stats, but there are plenty of other important ones too.

I think you mean OBP not OPS.

Player A is (not probably) better at getting hits.

Yes, player D is better at getting on base.

OPS is basically the best stat, except for things I don't know how to calculate. So what other stats are important? SB % is the only stat that comes to mind.

[STL FANATIC]

A high average or a high OBS proves that a player has some skill in a certain area of the game, but when looked at by themselves, it can only compare two players skills in that stat....not overall.

For instance, if Player A has a .300 AVG and Player B has a .200 AVG, then Player A is (probably) better at getting hits in his at bats.

If Player C has an OBS of .350 and Player D has an OBS of .450, then the only conclusion you can draw is that player D is better at getting on base in his at bats.

You can use niether by themselves to say which is a better player.

I don't however agree that OPS is the all around measuring stick either. It's simply a combination of SLG and OBS, and those are important stats, but there are plenty of other important ones too.

I think you mean OBP not OPS.

Player A is (not probably) better at getting hits.

Yes, player D is better at getting on base.

OPS is basically the best stat, except for things I don't know how to calculate. So what other stats are important? SB % is the only stat that comes to mind.

Your right, I meant OBP all the way until the end when I actually said OPS wasn't the all telling stat.

The reason I said probably was just to escape any odd situations (like one player having 3 hits in 10 at bats while the other's .200 average came over 300 at bats...hard to say the player with only 10 at bats is necessarily a better hitter).

As for OPS, it very well may be the best stat, but its not the tell all stat...that doesn't exist.

I believe the basic stats help for one thing. Ya know, HR's and RBI's. And then yes, SBs. Also, K/BB ratio.

I dunno. I mean, I guess OPS is the best stat to overall compare offensive players.

However, it's just more my style to break OPS down into all it's basic pieces (OBP and SLG, and then OBP to hits/avg, BB, HBP, and SLG to 1Bs, 2Bs, 3Bs, and HRs...all that stuff) and rather than combining it all with one formula, look over it all and analyze it myself. That way I can weight things differently based on the situation, plus I can get an idea of what type of player a guy was.

[leafs13]

Your right, I meant OBP all the way until the end when I actually said OPS wasn't the all telling stat.

The reason I said probably was just to escape any odd situations (like one player having 3 hits in 10 at bats while the other's .200 average came over 300 at bats...hard to say the player with only 10 at bats is necessarily a better hitter).

As for OPS, it very well may be the best stat, but its not the tell all stat...that doesn't exist.

I believe the basic stats help for one thing. Ya know, HR's and RBI's. And then yes, SBs. Also, K/BB ratio.

I dunno. I mean, I guess OPS is the best stat to overall compare offensive players.

However, it's just more my style to break OPS down into all it's basic pieces (OBP and SLG, and then OBP to hits/avg, BB, HBP, and SLG to 1Bs, 2Bs, 3Bs, and HRs...all that stuff) and rather than combining it all with one formula, look over it all and analyze it myself. That way I can weight things differently based on the situation, plus I can get an idea of what type of player a guy was.

The player with 3 hits is still better at getting on base, its just way to small of a sample size so it's not comparable.

HRs and RBI are not important in my thinking because a player's HRs are used in SLG already and RBI is partly luck. It depends on how often you can drive players in for runs. Strike outs aren't that bad, they can only really hurt with a RISP and one or no outs. They can help though, to stay out of double plays which is a rare situation.

[HedleyLamarr]

Both AVG and OBP have flaws.

All hits count the same, whether you hit the ball 500 feet or 50 feet, line drive or bloop or bunt.

And with OBP, they include HBP's and IBB's. Getting a hit and making the pitcher work and throw strikes, and working the count, takes more skill than getting hit in the back or taking 4 pitches thrown in the opposite batter's box.

[leafs13]

Both AVG and OBP have flaws.

All hits count the same, whether you hit the ball 500 feet or 50 feet, line drive or bloop or bunt.

And with OBP, they include HBP's and IBB's. Getting a hit and making the pitcher work and throw strikes, and working the count, takes more skill than getting hit in the back or taking 4 pitches thrown in the opposite batter's box.

You're right partly...But OPB includes getting normal walks which usually runs the count deep.

[HedleyLamarr]

Both AVG and OBP have flaws.

All hits count the same, whether you hit the ball 500 feet or 50 feet, line drive or bloop or bunt.

And with OBP, they include HBP's and IBB's.  Getting a hit and making the pitcher work and throw strikes, and working the count, takes more skill than getting hit in the back or taking 4 pitches thrown in the opposite batter's box.

You're right partly...But OPB includes getting normal walks which usually runs the count deep.

It's a skill to work the count, there's no doubting that.

But IBB's aren't a skill, yet are included in OBP.

[leafs13]

Both AVG and OBP have flaws.

All hits count the same, whether you hit the ball 500 feet or 50 feet, line drive or bloop or bunt.

And with OBP, they include HBP's and IBB's.  Getting a hit and making the pitcher work and throw strikes, and working the count, takes more skill than getting hit in the back or taking 4 pitches thrown in the opposite batter's box.

You're right partly...But OPB includes getting normal walks which usually runs the count deep.

It's a skill to work the count, there's no doubting that.

But IBB's aren't a skill, yet are included in OBP.

Yes, IBB just depend on how bad the hitter behind you is.

[infrared41]

Overall skill or hitting skill? Billy Beane and the A's swear by OBP. Tough to say really. Wade Boggs hit for a very high average but I never thought of him as much of a threat in clutch situations. Someone may have the stats to prove me wrong but I always saw Boggs as a singles hitter who didn't mean much to the bottom line. Jason Giambi leads the league in OBP right now. Who knows? Both stats have their merit.