Bases Created, Outs Made, OPS, and the Phillies (and You!)
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Bases Created, Outs Made, OPS, and the Phillies (and You!)
David Murphy, Daily News Staff Writer
One of the tricky parts about my job is straddling the line between accuracy and accessibility when using statistics. A lot of people know what OPS means and what it represents. But a lot of people don't, and both groups of people want to read about the Phillies. Sometimes I get emails complaining about my use of RBIs and pitcher wins in a story. Other times, I get emails complaining about my use of OPS and WHIP. Sometimes, I get both types of emails in the same day.
The problem with "counting" stats like RBI and hits and strikeouts is the fact that they do not consider the big picture, like how many runners a hitter had on base in front of him, or how many plate appearances the hitter had. The problem with a lot of percentage stats is that they are not intuitive. The difference between a .260 batting average and .300 batting average is four hits for every 100 at-bats, which is maybe 24 hits over the course of a season. What, exactly, does that mean in the context of an individual plate appearance? Try explaining the same for on base percentage and slugging percentage. Fast forward all the way up to a less accessible stat like Wins Above Replacement and you can understand why a lot of people just don't want to be bothered with it.
But what if there was away to lessen the disconnect by finding a way to quantify the events that really impact the outcome of a game in an intuitive fashion? Linear weights, the backbone of WAR-related stats, just aren't intuitive enough for a lot of people.
Here's my attempt. It comes with a disclaimer: I am not a math whiz. In fact, I hated math all the way up through college. But the following makes sense to me, and from my perspective it provides a relatively accurate and intuitive measurement of offensive performance. Maybe some form of this already exists. Whatever the case, it killed some time.
1) Outs, not hits, define success and failure.
Part of our problem lies with our desire to measure a player's success at the plate. But baseball is a game of failure. A game is not decided by a team's batting success. It is decided by a team's batting failure. A hit does not bring a game closer to its conclusion. An out does. Every out that a hitter makes brings his team closer to defeat. So why don't we measure performance with outs as baseline?
2) Two potential outcomes
Every time a hitter steps to the plate, he can create one of two outcomes: out creation, or base creation. This is the basic concept behind OPS: add the percentage of plate appearances that a hitter reaches base to the number of bases he creates per at-bat (single equals 1 base, double equals 2, etc.) and you get his OPS. The flaw, of course, is the fact that you are adding two fractions with different denominators (Times on Base divided by Plate Appearances, and Total Bases divided by At Bats).
Or. . .
TOB/PA + TB/AB
The basic rules of math say that we are not allowed to do what we do when calculating OPS. Which is why it is a flawed statistic.
3) Outs as the common denominator
To me, the simple solution is to use the one potential outcome that is common for all hitters as the denominator. In other words, the solution is to measure a hitter's production, or the bases that he creates, against the outs that he creates. After all, every out is worth the same amount: 1/27th of a team's allotted time at the plate. When a player doesn't make an out, he both creates offense and extends the amount of time his teammates have to score. When he makes an out, he decreases the amount of time his teammates have to score.
A player's value, then, is the offense he creates, or the bases he accumulates, measured against the outs he makes. The question every general manager should ask himself when he adds a hitter is, "Are the bases that this player creates worth the outs that he makes?"
Or, "How many bases-per-out does this player create?"
To answer the question, you simply divide a player's Total Bases Created by his Total Outs Made.
Think about it in this light: In the first inning of a game, Ryan Howard and Pete Orr both make outs during their at-bats. Both at-bats result in the elimination of 1/27th of the outs the Phillies are allotted for the game. But sheer intuition tells you that Ryan Howard is more valuable to a lineup than Pete Orr. And when you measure the offense he produces against the outs that he makes, the result tells you the same thing.
4) Calculating Bases Created
Total Bases is already a common statistic, one that counts a single as one base, a double as two, a triple as three, and a home run as four. But it doesn't include walks and hit-by-pitches. So just add a player's BBs and HBPs to his TBs and you get the total bases he has created.
5) Calculating Outs Made
Take a player's plate appearances and subtract the number of times he has earned his way onto base (Hits + BBs + HBPs) and you get the number of outs he has made.
6) Calculating Bases Created/Outs Made
Just divide. So, for example, Carlos Ruiz has creates 129 bases while making 125 outs this season. Divide 129 by 125 and you find that he has created 1.032 bases-per-out. Now take Pete Orr, who has created 19 bases while making 32 outs for a .594 bases-per-out ratio. In other words, for every out that Carlos Ruiz has made, he has created 1.032 bases, while Orr has only created .594 bases. Which, layman's terms, means an out by Carlos Ruiz is almost as justifiable, or almost as easy to swallow, or almost half as detrimental, as an out by Orr. Assuming, of course, they maintain their respective ratios.
The number looks similar to OPS, but in my mind it more accurately combines a player's on base percentage (or out-avoiding ability) with his slugging percentage (or base-creating ability). Ruiz, for example, has a .982 OPS against a 1.032 BCOM, which suggests that OPS undervalues Ruiz, while Orr has a .731 OPS against a .594 BCOM, which suggests that OPS overvalues Orr. The difference, in this case, lies in their on base percentages: Orr's is .302 while Ruiz's is .416.
7) A quick test
Obviously, a pitcher's success is based on the same two principles as a hitter's. Except the goal is to make as many outs as possible while allowing as few total bases as possible. To judge the accuracy of our little formula, I took the hitting and pitching performances of each team in the National League from 2011 and subtracted their Bases Allowed/Out Made (pitchers) and their Base Created/Out Made (hitters) and compared the result against their winning percentage. To give us a number that is easier to compare, I multiplied both sides by 27 outs. In other words, the table below shows the total bases an offense created over 27 outs (the average game, in other words), and the total bases a pitching staff allowed over 27 outs. I then compared their NL rank in that category to their NL rank in winning percentage.
| Team | BA/27 Outs | BC/27 outs | Difference | Win Perct. | NL WP% Rank |
| 1. Phillies | 15.309 | 17.665 | +2.356 | .630 | 1 |
| 2. Brewers | 16.486 | 18.537 | +2.051 | .593 | 2 |
| 3. Cardinals | 17.306 | 19.140 | +1.834 | .556 | 4 |
| 4. DBacks | 17.657 | 18.438 | +0.782 | .580 | 3 |
| 5. Braves | 16.116 | 16.809 | +0.693 | .549 | 5 |
| 6. Dodgers | 16.447 | 16.774 | +0.328 | .509 | 7 |
| 7. Giants | 15.759 | 15.957 | +0.198 | .531 | 6 |
| 8. Nationals | 16.826 | 16.681 | -0.145 | .497 | 8 |
| 9. Reds | 18.437 | 18.157 | -0.279 | .488 | 9 |
| 10. Marlins | 17.525 | 17.231 | -0.294 | .444 | 12 |
| 11. Mets | 18.303 | 17.911 | -0.392 | .475 | 10 |
| 12. Rockies | 19.179 | 18.391 | -0.788 | .451 | 11 |
| 13. Padres | 16.705 | 15.515 | -1.190 | .438 | 14 |
| 14. Cubs | 18.720 | 17.314 | -1.406 | .438 | 15 |
| 15. Pirates | 18.516 | 16.113 | -2.403 | .444 | 13 |
| 16. Astros | 19.452 | 16.088 | -3.363 | .346 | 16 |
So no team's rank in the difference between Bases Allowed and Bases Created per 27 outs (which is the same as their rank in the difference between their BAOM and BCOM), was more than two slots better or worse than their final rank in overall record.
This year? The Phillies' differential ranks 11th. Which should jibe with what you've seen.
8) The Phillies' offense in 2012
Here is the rundown of the BC/OM of each Phillies hitter (min. 60 PA), with their OPS in parentheses:
- Carlos Ruiz 1.032 (.982 OPS)
- Jim Thome .857 (.844 OPS)
- Hunter Pence .799 (.822 OPS)
- Shane Victorino .665 (.721 OPS)
- Ty Wigginton .658 (.715 OPS)
- Juan Pierre .624 (.734 OPS)
- Brian Schneider .596 (.675 OPS)
- Jimmy Rollins .575 (.688 OPS)
- John Mayberry Jr. .560 (.652 OPS)
- Placido Polanco .545 (.617 OPS)
- Freddy Galvis .507 (.617 OPS)
- Why bother? There are no stats, no data available for that sort of inquiry. And why hire Woodward & Bernstein when you can get the Pink Panther for that investigation, or Get Smart?
MontCo, last I looked, was the owner-in-charge of this team. He has a powerful group of 'investors' behind and aside him. As they continue to print money, why change?
They epitomize conservative managerial ethics. Do nothing until you absolutely have to. Then write off the losses and write off your customers. GM did the same thing.
Personally, I like this column. It takes my mind off of things I can't control. And takes my mind off of a team that currently epitomizes pathetic. Sadly, as a fan, I can't watch.— 24sDad - Well if the answers are so obvious, why should he do a column on it?
— cloudkitt - This wasn't killing time, this was wasting time. You could have spent your journalistic skills investigating why Monty and Giles play their game of duplicity with the paying fans and press and why they are clearly demonstrating a lack of interest in solving the Phillies descent into ignominy. Its obvious by the fact they are not firing Cholly, his coaches and not bringing up Domonic Brown, that they have an ulterior motive. Where are Woodward and Bernstein when you need them?— daystrum
- @BJG83 hit it: wOBA is really the Sabermetrics stat that attempts to address a lot of this. wOBA is, in my opinion, a better metric than OPS. But Murphymetrics isn't too bad an idea. I would definitely factor in sacrifices somehow, although wOBA does not. But it factors in more than OPS and if you look at wOBA leaders they're the typically the top hitters you would expect. wOBA weights different plate events which (being an old math guy) is the right idea. Taking that approach and Murphy's idea, and some of the comments you could probably come up with an enhanced wOBA that factors in more. For example you could add a weighted value for sacrifices and deducts some weighted value for outs. This exercise is left to the reader but it will be on your final exam.— s
- I eagerly await the "Murphyball" book and movie. Don't forget us on the way up David.— s
- I did some rough calculations and this shows what most sense, that Carlos Ruiz has been the Phillies' most valuable hitter the last three years. It's funny how the hitting guru always bats him at the bottom of the order. Overall, I think it would be a good idea to express all of the counting stats in terms of "per outs made." It drives me nuts when a guy like Rollins has 725 plate appearances (as he did in 2009) and scores only 100 runs and dimwitted fans, Phillies' management, and much of the press think he is a catalyst because he scored the magic number 100 runs, despite being a lead off hitter with the third worst OBP among all regular players in the NL.— jtj10
Thanks for the article Murph. Good numbers. Now can you do one that is just as comprehensive on the pitching? :)
Cheers.— zubzub- Thanks for the article Murph. Good numbers. Now can you do one that is just as comprehensive on the pitching? :) Cheers. (HTML deleted)— zubzub
- If you look at the stats for the three areas -- pitching, batting, fielding -- it's really the pitching that's been the clearest problem. Both starting and relief pitching are way down from last year's pace. While you couldn't realistically expect a repeat of last year's pitching you also wouldn't expect the sort of drop we're seeing. Some of the hitting is actually better, although maybe not situational enough (although Murphy also had some stats questioning that). The fielding sure feels a lot worse and the standard fielding numbers are down. But some of the Sabermnetrics fielding numbers are actually better, which is mind boggling. — s
- I get a chuckle out of the fixation with bringing up JaMarcus Russell...oops, I mean Domonic Brown. The Phillies had a speedy left handed hitting outfielder in camp that they practically spit on and then just kicked to the curb. He's now hitting over .350 in Boston. They had another lefty outfielder who was the MVP for LV last year who's now hitting bombs for Oakland. No thanks, we opted for Bowker instead.
Regarding this statistical analysis: pretty heady stuff for a game played by such mental giants as Victorino.— dasher - How about discussing poops— stoky
- while I like the idea, it forgets one very important fact. RUNS!! lets say team A has 12 total bases in 9 innings and team B has 21. Based on Murph's stat you'd think team B was better, however, team A hit 3 HRs and scored 3 runs. Team b spread a few doubles, walks, and singles over the game and ddin't score. Who wins? I suggest adding Runs and runs produced into formula somehow. We have all seen this year that being able to creat a base with a man on 3rd is more important to the team then creating one with no one on.— jeff gross
- Like it. It always bugged me on some level that OPS was adding two different percentages. Thanks, David.— Robbo
- I always maintained that Placido Polanco is one of the most overrated offensive players of the last decade or so, without looking at those numbers. His BA looks good all the time, but he's not the great hitter people think he is.— EL Zorro
- A couple of points: 1) As interesting as the BC/OM stat is, when Murph puts it side-by-side with OPS he comes up with two very similar assessments of the Phillies' lineup, except for slight anomalies with Pierre and Rollins. So is OPS really all that far off-base? 2) Some batters are more likely to cause fielders' errors than others. Those who routinely hit the ball hard -- line drives and sharp ground balls -- are going to get on base through errors that, arguably, they forced. This consideration should be factored in to any BC stat, but it would be awfully hard to do.— Dave Clemens
