OBPS

[Mackrel829]

Quote: Originally Posted by RainOnTim

You guys ever watch this video? It's pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eECjjLNAOd4

Please just let this die.

That's hilarious though.

[ktd1976]

Quote: Originally Posted by ExarKub00720

This was how it all started. I was referencing the name of the formula and saying the slugging, despite the name, isn’t a percentage. That began this misunderstanding that spiraled this all out. It’s closer to a ratio of anything, how many times does x happen when you do y. Because the name the type of formula used to solve for slugging is a weighted average formula it was believed that it meant that slugging itself was weighted, it’s not. Slugging can show a lot of things when you look at it compared to other numbers, but in the end the number you get is simply going to just mean that’s how many bases on average a player gets per at-bat. So to sum it all up, how you get bases doesn’t matter at all, how you add them up used though an example of what is called a weighted average but again that just is the name of that math formula and doesn’t hold any real significance outside of that’s just what it’s called.

You literally quoted where you stated "Slugging isn't a percentage, it's a weighted average" Then claim you never called it that.

Quote: Originally Posted by Feros Ferio 7

This is an amazing thread. Also whoever says it's weighted is wrong. They try to cite sources but they are applying a term to weighing the bases which give you a non weighted counting number which is TB. If yoh wanted a weighted slugging stat you would need to apply a weighted percentage to how valuable each type of hit is. Traditional slugging percentage does not do this. Slugging percentage just takes TB/AB=%. The math alone says the percentage is not weighted. You want a close approximation to weighted slugging (it doesn't exist) look at weighted OBA. https://library.fangraphs.com/offense/woba/ Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

This is exactly the point I was making. Slugging percentage/average is an unweighted average. Total bases is a non weighted number. Just because you need to use a formula to find that number (when the number isn't given) and that formula is similar to a weighted formula, doesnt make the result a "weighted result"

[ExarKub00720]

Quote: Originally Posted by ktd1976

You literally quoted where you stated "Slugging isn't a percentage, it's a weighted average" Then claim you never called it that. This is exactly the point I was making. Slugging percentage/average is an unweighted average. Total bases is a non weighted number. Just because you need to use a formula to find that number (when the number isn't given) and that formula is similar to a weighted formula, doesnt make the result a "weighted result"

Again my quote was about me talking about the math formulas which is state over and over and over and over and over and over again. I was not referencing the term as anything to how to use slugging but simply the name of the type of formula used to solve it.

You then assumed I meant that as slugging has weight which wasn’t at all what I was referenced. Baseball has so many mislabeled terms. If you recall you kept insisting slugging was a percentage until you finally admitted it’s closer to an average.

I am not sure how though the name of that math formula type causes such a big fuss when everyone agrees that how you get bases doesn’t matter in terms of how you use the formulas. It’s just s name, things have names doesn’t change how you interrupt the math. It could have been called the death formula wouldn’t meant a single thing.

[ktd1976]

Quote: Originally Posted by ExarKub00720

Again my quote was about me talking about the math formulas which is state over and over and over and over and over and over again. I was not referencing the term as anything to how to use slugging but simply the name of the type of formula used to solve it. You then assumed I meant that as slugging has weight which wasn’t at all what I was referenced. Baseball has so many mislabeled terms. If you recall you kept insisting slugging was a percentage until you finally admitted it’s closer to an average. I am not sure how though the name of that math formula type causes such a big fuss when everyone agrees that how you get bases doesn’t matter in terms of how you use the formulas. It’s just s name, things have names doesn’t change how you interrupt the math. It could have been called the death formula wouldn’t meant a single thing.

This was your exact quote.

"Slugging isn’t a percentage though, it’s a weighted average. It does measure the chance someone might hit for XBH but the math to get the slugging is not how you get percentages but instead weighted averages."

That first sentence, you CLEARLY state that slugging isn't a percentage, it is a weighted average.

Now, you are trying to back track, by saying you never called it that, even though you clearly did.

[IndianSummer]

Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[ExarKub00720]

Quote: Originally Posted by ktd1976

Actually, slugging percentage IS a percent. It is the percent of bases a player gets per at bat. OBPS basically is a way to measure how good/valuable a hitter is. It is a better indication of value than batting average, and even on base percentage, and here is why. lets use 3 fictional players as an example. Player 1 200 Plate Appearances. 57 hits 2 HR 8 doubles 10 walks. Player 2 200 PA 47 hits 8 HR 8 doubles 20 walks Player 3 200 PA 45 hits 12 HR 10 doubles 20 walks Which player is more valuable? Lets look at the numbers. Player 1 AVG=.300 OBP=.335 SLG=.426 Player 2 AVG=.261 OBP=.335 SLG=.527 Player 3 AVG=.250 OBP=.325 SLG=.627 At first glance using the standard numbers, you would probably lean towards player 1, who has the highest average, and is tied for the highest OBP. But, he doesn't hit for power. When he gets on base, he almost always only gets ONE base. Looking a bit deeper. Player 1 OBPS=.761 Player 2 OBPS=.862 Player 3 OBPS=.952 Using OBPS, it clearly shows that Player 3 is actually more valuable, because, even though he has a lower average, and a slightly lower on base percentage, when he does get on base, gets multiple bases quite often. What OBPS measures, is not only the frequency a player gets on base, but also the frequency a player gets MULTIPLE bases per at bat. It combines the two into one number, that gives a better representation of a hitter's overall value.

This was your original chiming in, saying that slugging percentage is an outright percentage when others had said it wasn't quite a percentage (I wasn't even the first to say that it wasn't a pure percentage in this thread)

Quote: Originally Posted by ExarKub00720

Slugging isn’t a percentage though, it’s a weighted average. It does measure the chance someone might hit for XBH but the math to get the slugging is not how you get percentages but instead weighted averages.

This is me chiming in, and yes I said it's a weighted average... but you brought up slugging percentage as clarifying that is what it was from a mathematical standpoint, ie it's a percentage and not an average.

It isn't a formula of percentage though, something you even in time agreed upon as you began properly labeling at as average herein out. I just simply said it's a weighted average... context being what it is, this is in reference to only the math being what was in the background.

Again, I make a point in my quote... you love taking quotes and only use tiny portions of them, but it said this.

"...but the math to get the slugging is not how you get percentages but instead weighted averages."

I maybe could have worded that a bit better, but from the very start, I mention this as a math term and not a reference to how to use slugging. I make zero mention of certain bases being worth more cause they came from x y or z or anything of the such.

All I have said this entire time was what the name of the formula was, and countless times pointed out it meant nothing more than a simple name.

I'm sorry, but context is important and I made it clear from my first post this was talking about just a pure math context of what a formula was called and not whatever the hell this has become now.