Most under-valued stat?

[Appling]

Some in this forum have stated that Batting Average, or RBI total, or stolen base total -- are meaningless (or at least over-valued) as a offensive performance stat.

Which "raw stat" do you believe is most often under-valued by the majority of baseball fans? Some nominees:
* Times on Base
* Total Bases
* On-Base Percentage
* Slugging Average
* Other??

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It's not a "raw stat," but RC/PA is probably the best ain't it?

[Joltin' Joe]

OBP is the most underrated by the casual fan.
BA is the most underrated by statheads.

[Appling]

It's not a "raw stat," but RC/PA is probably the best ain't it?
If you like counting stats you should love RC; and if you prefer percentage stats, RC/PA is the answer. But this is exactly what I meant to exclude when I asked about "raw stats" (BA, OBP, RBI, HR, etc.)

[rsuriyop]

I know that alot of people like rbi's, but I'm also sure that just about everyone here knows just as well as I do that it is heavily dependent on chance/opportunity. But if you really want to know what the most under-valued stat is, I'd personally have to go with BA w/ men on base, which of course is completely independent of chance/opportunity and likewise serves as a good measuring stick as to how well a player can hit under pressure.

I really think that it is a seriously under-valued stat that should be used more often than not when evaluating players. Just think, how valuable would a player be who hits .350 in a given season but .220 w/ men on base compared to someone who hits .260 but .380 w/ men on base? I'd take the latter over the former.

[538280]

I know that alot of people like rbi's, but I'm also sure that just about everyone here knows just as well as I do that it is heavily dependent on chance/opportunity. But if you really want to know what the most under-valued stat is, I'd personally have to go with BA w/ men on base, which of course is completely independent of chance/opportunity and likewise serves as a good measuring stick as to how well a player can hit under pressure.

I really think that it is a seriously under-valued stat that should be used more often than not when evaluating players. Just think, how valuable would a player be who hits .350 in a given season but .220 w/ men on base compared to someone who hits .260 but .380 w/ men on base? I'd take the latter over the former.

But the problem is that almost all players have about the same BA with men on base as they do overall. As I've said, every single PA in the majors is a clutch situation, so the best way to measure how clutch a player is is by looking at his overall numbers.

As for my answer to the poll, I'll say OBP, because the "majority" of baseball fans are probably casual fans and OBP is the most undervalued by them.

[rsuriyop]

But the problem is that almost all players have about the same BA with men on base as they do overall.

That I cannot confirm. But there certainly are instances where some players apparently do hit a whole lot better w/ men on than they do overall. Are you suggesting that those probable few who do excell in this particular area should be ignored just because "almost all players have about the same BA with men on base base as they do overall?" Check out these 2005 batting splits of Manny Ramirez and Gary Sheffield:

Ramirez*
Overall BA: .292
BA w/ bases empty: .228
BA w/ men on: .327
OPS: .982

Sheffield*
Overall BA .291
BA w/ bases empty: .243
BA w/ men on: .382
OPS: .891

Clearly, as my research shows, both Ramirez and Sheffield apparently hit a whole lot better w/ men on base than they did overall last year. And while I'm sure that most people would think that Ramirez was the better overall hitter as his higher BA and OPS would have one believe, Sheffield was clearly the more valuable of the two because of his significantly higher BA w/ men on.


* http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/clutch-masters/

[538280]

That I cannot confirm. But there certainly are instances where some players apparently do hit a whole lot better w/ men on than they do overall. Are you suggesting that those probable few who do excell in this particular area should be ignored just because "almost all players have about the same BA with men on base base as they do overall?" Check out these 2005 batting splits of Manny Ramirez and Gary Sheffield:

Ramirez*
Overall BA: .292
BA w/ bases empty: .228
BA w/ men on: .327
OPS: .982

Sheffield*
Overall BA .291
BA w/ bases empty: .243
BA w/ men on: .382
OPS: .891

Clearly, as my research shows, both Ramirez and Sheffield apparently hit a whole lot better w/ men on base than they did overall last year. And while I'm sure that most people would think that Ramirez was the better overall hitter as his higher BA and OPS would have one believe, Sheffield was clearly the more valuable of the two because of his significantly higher BA w/ men on.


* http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/clutch-masters/

Sheffield actually has done slightly better over his career with men on base, with a .317 BA in those situations compared to .298 overall. But, there is still little evidence he should be described as clutch. He has been horrible with the bases loaded and bad down the stretch run in September and October, and has a BA and SLG well below his regular season averages in the postseason (although his postseason OBP is very good).

[Appling]

But if you really want to know what the most under-valued stat is, I'd personally have to go with BA w/ men on base, which of course is completely independent of chance/opportunity and likewise serves as a good measuring stick as to how well a player can hit under pressure.

I really think that it is a seriously under-valued stat that should be used more often than not when evaluating players. Just think, how valuable would a player be who hits .350 in a given season but .220 w/ men on base compared to someone who hits .260 but .380 w/ men on base? I'd take the latter over the former.
I tend to agree with you -- but I now have come to agree with those who say that BA with RISP should almost always be higher than BA w/o RISP for the same hitter -- for a number of reasons outlined in another thread. (SEE: "Hitting with RISP" in this forum.)

BA with bases empty is not very important, but BA with RISP is very important. With bases empty, OBP is more important than raw BA.

[rsuriyop]

I tend to agree with you -- but I now have come to agree with those who say that BA with RISP should almost always be higher than BA w/o RISP for the same hitter -- for a number of reasons outlined in another thread. (SEE: "Hitting with RISP" in this forum.)

BA with bases empty is not very important, but BA with RISP is very important. With bases empty, OBP is more important than raw BA.

Interesting that you bring up BA w/ RISP. You know, I was actually thinking about whether or not I should favor it over BA w/ men on base as the most under-valued stat. But then it occurred to me that I didn't even know the difference between the two! Because wouldn't anyone on base (be it first, second, or third) be able score depending on how well the ball is hit or how fast the runners on base are? Perhaps you could shed some light on this issue for me.

[digglahhh]

"Scoring position" implies that the runner is at least on second base implying that there is a good chance that he can score on the most common type of hit, a single to one of the outfielders.

BA/ wish RISP tends to be higher in general b/c a substantial % of those opportunities include a runner on 3B with less than two out. Therefore flyballs to the outfielders that would normally be outs become sac flies, which are not counted as official ABs.

[rsuriyop]

"Scoring position" implies that the runner is at least on second base implying that there is a good chance that he can score on the most common type of hit, a single to one of the outfielders.

BA/ wish RISP tends to be higher in general b/c a substantial % of those opportunities include a runner on 3B with less than two out. Therefore flyballs to the outfielders that would normally be outs become sac flies, which are not counted as official ABs.


Oh, alright. I see now. But still, taken literally, batting w/ men on base can also mean batting w/ men in scoring position. I guess that's the part that really confused me to begin with. But I see what you're saying. In that case, I suppose I'll change my position in favor of BA w/ RISP. :)

Thanks for the clarification, by the way.

[sickle]

I know that this may sound to "trendy", but I have to go with OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging). Billy Beane is the master of this, and when I get around to it, I will finally finish Moneyball.

Not only does this stat factor in how many times a player gets on base, but it also factors in how many bases he hits for. With getting on base, you set your teammates up to drive in runs, but slugging also accounts for how FAR you go, hopefully making it easier for your teammates to drive you in. Usually, as well, slugging percentage is a good determinant of how good a player is at bringing guys in. How often to you see guys with high SLG% but low RBI totals?


RISP is a very vital stat, as it becomes a determinant of RBIs, so really, in essence, these two stats are very closely related, which I feel takes away from the value of each stat, as they are closely correlated.

[yanks0714]

I kind of waffled on this. I stronly believe that OBP and SLG are the most important which would included OBS.

But I do believe that both are picking up more and more steam in the statistical studies being done in and on baseball. Therefore, I don't think they are as under-valued as they once were.

I selected Total Bases in the poll. I seldom see studies on the total bases a player accumulates. When you do look at the leaders in this category it jumps right out at you. The leaders are always, always, amongst the best hitters in the game.

The posts stating BA W/RISP are forgetting one major thing. It's teammate dependant. It's valid only because your teammate got himself on base and is in a position to score.

How well you do in this situation is, for the most, not noticibly better than you do in 'regular' situations. Yeah, I know Gary Sheffield 'looks' good in this category. But he is not a 'clutch' performer in the sense of hitting when they need it...not anymore than anyone else is.

I vaguely remember a study done some time ago that showed Eddie Murray as the greatest 'clutch' hitter with regard to runners in scoring position (I cannot remember whether it was just w/risp or w/risp late in game, 7th inning or later). But ya know what? His BA wasn't significantly better than it was 'normally' which supports '538280' contention.

Plus, too much attention to that category may be unimportant. What good is it to drive in a runner when you're up by 5 or more or down by 5 or more?

My Big 3: OBP, SLG, OBS, and Total Bases as most under-valued.

[Appling]

I selected Total Bases in the poll. I seldom see studies on the total bases a player accumulates. When you do look at the leaders in this category it jumps right out at you. The leaders are always, always, amongst the best hitters in the game.

The posts stating BA W/RISP are forgetting one major thing. It's teammate dependant. It's valid only because your teammate got himself on base and is in a position to score.


I agree that Total Bases is a very important and often-overlooked hitting stat.
But most contributors to this forum seem to prefer "ratio stats" (BA-Slg.% - OBP and OPS) to "counting stats" (Hits, HR, RBI, TB). Of the counting stats, I think TB is the most important -- best correlated to Runs created. Too bad we don't have situation splits data for seasons prior to 1959.

But BA with RISP is also a valid and important stat. Every player gets some AB with RISP, and this stat kicks in only in that situation. Just remember to make adjustment for SFs, which tend to inflate a player's BA with RISP.

[SamtheBravesFan]

OBP is the most underrated by the casual fan.
BA is the most underrated by statheads.

What he said. Every statistic has some kind of importance, even if it seems mundane and nitpicky.

[KCGHOST]

To me it is OBP. The casual fan just doesn't grasp the significance of reaching base without an out being registered.

[unfinished_business]

believe me!


it is RUNS!!! RUNS RUNS RUNS!!!

on offense you try to score them.
on defense you try to prevent them.

....

[Appling]

believe me!


it is RUNS!!! RUNS RUNS RUNS!!!

on offense you try to score them.
on defense you try to prevent them.

....
Certainly Team Runs is the goal. But what individual hitting stat is the best predictor of runs created for the team? Perhaps OBP, perhaps OPS, perhaps Total Bases -- or maybe good old-fashioned Batting Average (but only "BA with Runners In Scoring Position").

[redbuck]

What about the defensive stats? I like range factor, if possible divided by total chances in the field.

A fielder's ability to cover ground is immensely important to a team's success. While it depends on the pitcher to a great deal, the difference between ARod and Jeter at shortstop was very large, something the Yankees apparently didn't notice when they made their decision a couple years ago.

I tried to create a formula once just to compare a couple players using the 5 classic tools of baseball- hit for power, hit for avg, run, field and throw using the following stats even though they don't match exactly and obviously have very different weights: SLG, OBP, Stolen bases - 2 x caught stealing, fielding percentage and range factor/Total chances.

[Gashouse6]

OBP is the most important. It doesn't really matter if you get a hit as much as getting on. Some hitters are really good at drawing the walk or lean in to a few. Not to many people really look at the On Base Percentage.

[538280]

What about the defensive stats? I like range factor, if possible divided by total chances in the field.

A fielder's ability to cover ground is immensely important to a team's success. While it depends on the pitcher to a great deal, the difference between ARod and Jeter at shortstop was very large, something the Yankees apparently didn't notice when they made their decision a couple years ago.

Defensive stats are often under valued because they haven't reached a wide audience (most baseball fans still think that defense is pretty much beyond the reach of statistics), but range factor is not a very good defensive stat. It's okay for just a thumbnail sketch because it's really easy to calculate, but trying to use it for anything scientific isn't right.

Bad teams always have better range factors than good teams, because they get more assists due to more runners on base. This false normalization makes it no good to evaluate anything. My new favorite way of evaluating defensive players for 2B, 3B, and SS is to find assists as a percentage of team total and for OFers putouts as a percentage of team outfield putouts. That makes a decent adjustment for tendencies of the staff.