[Padreman]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

Lots of things. First, he has an OPS+ of 152 but an actual OPS of .853

Your league offense must be very depressed. If it is 1971 then that makes sense.
Pitchers who had awesome numbers (and I am guessing there were a lot) tend to look worse because the league environment makes it easier to be better at preventing runs.

It also takes park effects into account. His home park may or may not made it easier to produce runs.


Also, you note that he did not lead any category in hitting, but he was too 10 in 13 of them. He excels at every aspect of run production.

Finally, he played in 157 games for 681 PA's.
There is a lot of value in actually playing games and showing up for work.

WAR is an advanced stat but still a stat that is a counting stat in terms of more playing team meaning a higher value (assuming your well)

So he is s great hitter for his environment and is durable.

Then as other have mentioned, he must also be good defensively.

If I may ask for more info. What was his OPS+ ( and ERA +) ranking?
I love OPS + more than maybe anyone of this board. It has flaws but it is a great quick and dirty stat to get a very quick idea of who has performed relative to the league and their parks. When I do free sgency I often begin my analysis by sorting by OPS + and then further investigating the higher ones.

And it is not the end all stat. Nor is War or any other evolution. The greet ting shout OOTP is that it has given us a lot of great evaluation tools. Only by using them all csn you get an idea about a player.
Where you begin is up to you, whether it is OPS+, WS, War or traditional slash line. A slash line is great spit you are going to use traditional stats Since it encompasses the two main core pillars of how a player produces runs.
You know how well he can get base hits, how well he can get on base apart from base hits and how well he hits for power.

Finallly, what was his RC and RC/27 and those rsnkings?

They see among the oldest of saber stats but another quick and dirty stat that I like.

RC is nice because it shows the value of durability and showing up for work.
The second shows how the player is affecting the scoreboard per game (besides defense)


This is a good discussion, there are so many good ways to evaluate an player. There is really no wrong way unless you use only a single number and or use some crazy thst have been proven to be not good indicators of success.

So there is my lesson on statistics for the day I used to be more up date on this stuff until i shifted my analysis from baseball over to basketball.

Wow that's over my head. I'll post those stats when I get home