I wonder sometimes at the value of OPS+ for comparing certain kinds of hitters; specifically, hitters asked to hit the home run, as opposed to hitters asked to get on base. In theory that's what OPS is for (and OPS+), but can you just add them up together... I don't know. To some extent you ask the big boppers to bop, because it gets the people around them better pitches (ie, the Bonds effect); now, Bonds had a fine (great, even) OPS+ iirc, so it's not a problem in his case, but what about the 30-40 HR hitter who doesn't take walks, and so has a .320 OBP (with a .550 SLG, say, for a .870 OPS) (.300 BA) He's asked to not take walks, and so his OBP drops... and his SLG probably doesn't increase by as much as the drop in OBP.
Not that I'm saying it's definitely relevant in the Hawk's case, but it could be, and in general it probably is to some extent. OPS and OPS+ are statistics that are tailored with a particular opinion of what is important, which may well fail to include the value of certain players; solely using statistics to define something is a trap you can fall into all too easily.
Not that I'm saying it's definitely relevant in the Hawk's case, but it could be, and in general it probably is to some extent. OPS and OPS+ are statistics that are tailored with a particular opinion of what is important, which may well fail to include the value of certain players; solely using statistics to define something is a trap you can fall into all too easily.
Comment