
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)
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.