Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

Off-Day Nats Stats: Baseball Stats 101, Hitting

As part of our continuing effort to make Nats fans the best fanbase in baseball (and in a shameless attempt to encourage more comments to stat-related posts), I've decided to start an occasional series about basic baseball stats.  Don't worry, there's not going to be a bunch of math, and I'll try to minimize the weird acronyms.  My goal here is to explain what the basic stats are and what they can tell you about a player.  These will also be the same numbers that I'll throw around with little or no explanation in upcoming stats posts as the season progresses.  Today's lesson is basic hitting stats.  Class starts after the jump.  (Don't worry, there won't be a quiz later.)  Fun hitting-stat tidbits at the end as your reward for staying with it!

Star-divide

The slash line

The most common way to summarize a hitter's ability is the so-called triple-slash line.  This is a short list of three different batting stats, separated by slashes.  The stats, in order, are batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage.  They're all decimal numbers out to three decimal places. For instance, Ryan Zimmerman's slash line in 2010 was .307/.388/.510.  Let's talk about what that actually means.

Batting average (BA)

Batting average is the fraction of at-bats in which a player got a hit.  Batting average is a little screwy because "at bats" don't include walks, hit-by-pitch, or sacrifices.  The idea is that BBs, HBP and sacs are all good things, so a player's batting average shouldn't be penalized by treating them as instances of "didn't get a hit."  League average is about .280.  A BA around .300 or higher is good, while .250 and below is bad.  BA has been around for well over 100 years, but newer stats are more useful for showing how good a player is at hitting.  For instance, BA doesn't include walks, and it also doesn't differentiate between slap-hitters and sluggers--which brings us to the next two stats...

On-base percentage (OBP)

On-base percentage is the fraction of plate appearances in which the player gets on base.  It includes walks, HBP, and sacrifices.  Another way to think of OBP is the percentage of time that a player doesn't make an out.  This makes OBP better than AVG for evaluating hitter performance, since avoiding outs is ultimately more useful for the offense than getting hits (although getting hits is part of avoiding outs).  League average OBP is about .340; less than .320 is bad, while greater than .360 is good.  Comparing BA and OBP can tell you something about a hitter's approach.  Remember Cristian Guzman's swing-at-everything philosophy?  In 2009, his BA was a decent .284, but his OBP was an out-machine-like .306.  Compare that to 2009's Discerning-Eyed Nick Johnson, who had a similar .295 BA, but a stellar .408 OBP; by drawing more walks, NJ got on base a third more often than the Guz.

Slugging percentage (SLG)

Slugging percentage is like batting average, except extra-base hits count extra: a double counts as two hits, a triple is three hits, and a home run is four hits.  This means that SLG could theoretically be as high as 4.000 if a batter hit a home run in every at-bat (OBP and BA max out at 1.000 if you always get on base or always get a hit).  Comparing BA and SLG tells you something about what kind of hits a batter gets.  If every hit is a single, then BA and SLG will be the same.  The more extra-base hits a hitter gets, the higher his SLG will be compared to his BA.   For instance, Adam Dunn had a .260 BA and a .536 SLG in 2010.  His SLG was a bit over twice his BA, meaning that on average, every hit he got was a bit more than a double--a rare accomplishment.  League-average SLG is around .420; more than .500 is good, less than .350 is bad.

Beyond the slash line

The slash line is the basic summary of hitting prowess that you'll see on every scoreboard and on-screen ticker in MLB.  However, it takes three numbers to sum up how well a player is hitting.  Isn't there some way to sum it all up in one number?

On-base-plus-slugging (OPS)

OPS is an attempt to combine a player's ability to avoid making an out (OBP) with his ability to hit for power (SLG) into one number.  Like the name says, you figure out OPS by adding OBP to SLG. For example, Zimmy had an OPS of .898 in 2010.  Average OPS is around .750 or so; more than .800 is good, and less than .700 is bad.  OPS is appealing because it's so easy to figure out from the slash line, but it has problems, too.  OBP and SLG aren't equally important for figuring out how good player is at offense, and OPS treats them as equal.  Also, if you're trying to put a player's entire offensive contributions into one number, why not roll in baserunning, too?

Weighted on-base average (wOBA)

The wOBA stat takes almost everything a player can do to score runs--hits by type, walks, stolen bases, and HBP--and rolls them into one number.  With the huge amount of statistical baseball history, it's possible to calculate how many runs any offensive event is worth (just like you can calculate the odds of winning a game from any base/out situation for finding WPA).  For instance, a dinger is worth 1.7 runs on average, and a walk is worth 0.62 runs.  wOBA is the average run value per plate appearance of everything a hitter does, weighted to put it on the same scale as OBP.  Like with OBP, a wOBA of .340 is league average; less than .320 is bad and more than .360 is good.  Ryan Zimmerman had a wOBA of .389 in 2010, which is nice, indeed.

The "plus" stats (OPS+, wRC+)

The "plus" stats take one more step to make a single number that expresses a player's offensive value in a way that is easy to compare among players.  The "plus" stats (OPS+ and wRC+) take the underlying stat and do a couple of things to them to enable comparisons on as much of an apples-to-apples basis as possible.  First, they adjust the data for park effects.  If a hitter spends most of his time in a pitchers' park like Petco (or old RFK), he gets more credit for hitting HRs than a hitter who gets a lot of AB in a hitters' park like Citizens Bank Park or Great American Ballpark.  More sophisticated analysis will actually weight individual hit types differently (for instance, it's easier to get a hit to drop for a double in the spacious outfield of CitiField compared to the average ballpark, but it's harder to hit a HR over the absurd outfield wall).  The second part is to "normalize" the number by scaling it so that a league-average hitter has a "plus" stat of exactly 100; more than 100 is better than average, and less than 100 is worse than average.  This makes comparing players a snap.  You don't have to think in your head that so-and-so's SLG is inflated by playing in a hitters' park, or try to sort out which parts of his slash line are above and below average.  A higher plus stat is better, period.

The two main "plus" stats I like are OPS+ and wRC+.  OPS+ is the park-adjusted, normalized version of OPS.  It's the most common hitting "plus" stat, since OPS is generally about as far into hitting stat math as the casual fan is willing to go.  However, it shares the limitations of OPS by weighting OBP and SLG equally, and by not including baserunning.  If you're using OPS+, you should really be using wRC+ instead.  You can think of it as the park-adjusted, normalized version of wOBA (technically it's based on a stat called wRC that also includes SB and CS--the details aren't important). wRC+ wraps up everything a player can do to help his team score runs in one number: a player with a wRC+ of 100 helped his team create exactly a league-average number of runs; a player with a wRC+ of 120 created 20-percent more runs than average, while a player with a wRC+ of 75 created 25-percent less runs than average.  Who cares if the math behind it is complicated when the end result is so easy to compare and interpret?

Nats with(out?) Bats

Given what we've just learned, let's see how the Nats are doing after the weekend sweep!

  • As a team, the Nats are hitting .226/.316/.351 with an 80 wRC+.  They're creating 20-percent fewer runs than average, and they are below average in every part of the slash line. That puts them in the bottom four in the NL in team offense
  • Danny Espinosa leads the team among players with at least 50 PA, sporting a 119 wRC+ and a .256/.364/.512 slash line.
  • Rick Ankiel lags the 50+ PA club, with only a 60 wRC+ and a .211/.286/.298 line.
  • Expanding our net to smaller sample sizes, Ryan Zimmerman had a 172 wRC+ in his 37 PA before hitting the DL (.357/.486/.536), while Wilson Ramos leads among active players with a 150 wRC+ in 34 PA (.414/.500/.483).
  • Putting aside Jesus Flores' 457 wRC+ (the result of getting a hit in his single PA so far this season--talk about SSS!), every other Nat I haven't mentioned so far has a wRC+ of less than 100.
  • Jason Marquis' 52 wRC+ is higher than Mike Morse (46), Jerry Hairston (48), Matt Stairs (37), and Ivan Rodriguez (27).
  • Adam "league average" LaRoche is almost there, with a .245/.339/.367 line and a 96 wRC+.
  • Despite his painful-to-watch struggles at the plate, Ian Desmond's .217/.266/.383 line is only about 15-percent worse than average, for an 86 wRC+.
  • For all his wolfish fearsomeness, Jayson Werth's .200/.302/.382 so far is only good for a below-average 89 wRC+.

In conclusion

The best stat to quickly compare overall offense is probably wRC+: 100 is league average, it includes ballpark effects, and it scales directly with the number of runs above or below average that a player creates (more is better).  You can find it on the invaluable fangraphs website. Right now, wRC+ tells us that the Nats aren't providing much offense outside of Spinner and Chubs.  Who says fancy stats have to disagree with what you can see with your own eyes?

Comment 25 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Spinner and Chubs

If that were a TV show, it would either be really awesome or really awkward.

Too much Pudge Rodriguez -- not enough Chubs Ramos.
http://natschubsclub.blogspot.com/

by ChubsClub on Apr 18, 2011 4:27 PM EDT reply actions  

I know you did a post about this last week, but...

How many plate appearances does it usually take for wRC+ to really become relevant. I still don’t really buy into the whole sabermetric argument (I prefer simplicity), but just curious to see what sample size is large enough

Proud supporter of #38 - Michael Morse

by tengoalyrunr30 on Apr 18, 2011 4:46 PM EDT reply actions  

I'm not sure what you mean by, "the whole sabermetric argument."

The idea behind the saber stuff is to find better ways to measure how and why teams win. Something like wRC+ is way simpler than even the slash line—100 is average, more is better, less is worse. Someone with a wRC+ of 110 creates 10% more runs than a guy with a 100 wRC+. Easy peasy, and let someone else calculate ’em.

There’s also a caveat I forgot to add to my discussion of sample size from last week. “Relevant” is really the wrong word. The stats are always relevant, because they’re always going to tell you what happened. Sample size comes into it when you want to say what’s going to happen based on what already happened. If someone hits .400 for a month, you’re less likely to say they’re really a .400 hitter than if they do it for a year.

That said, I don’t recall off the top of my head when wOBA stabilizes—I’ll check my links. I imagine it’s on the order of a season, like for OBP/SLG.

"And everybody lived happily ever after. Except the Phillies and the Mets. The End." --Sasskuash
Friend of Dukes and Desmond #3

by Doghouse on Apr 18, 2011 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Nationals ARE interested in BJ Upton

I was watching The Rundown on MLB Network and they said so. Wouldn’t be a horrible player to pick up, but he’s also not the best option. I trust that Rizzo could work out a favorable trade for the Nats because of his questionable attitude. Keep in mind that he’s from the Tidewater area.

"How the hell can I make my teammates better by practicing?" - Allen Iverson

by GetThatCurlyW on Apr 18, 2011 5:05 PM EDT reply actions  

Interesting

I wasn’t aware that OBP includes outs not traditionally a part of batting average – sacrifice bunts and sacrifice flies, for example. Does it also include number of times a batter reaches on an error? Those are times when a batter does not make an out, after all.

by d_c_guy on Apr 18, 2011 5:05 PM EDT reply actions  

Describing OBP as "not making an out" was an oversimplification on my part.

ROEs count as outs for OBP, so I guess you might rephrase it as, “not making an out, assuming there are no errors.” wRC+ actually includes ROEs.

"And everybody lived happily ever after. Except the Phillies and the Mets. The End." --Sasskuash
Friend of Dukes and Desmond #3

by Doghouse on Apr 18, 2011 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Of course if a player has a lot of sacrifice bunts, that likely is not a negative reflection on the hitter

… at least for those who hate small ball (I’m agnostic, leave me out of this). it would instead be a positive reflection on a batter (for being able to execute the bunt) and a negative reflection on the manager (if you think having the batter bunt is a dumb move in the first place).

Not that it’s going to make a huge impact on the final number, but I’m just figuring whether an individual stat is truly an accurate reflection of ability.

by d_c_guy on Apr 18, 2011 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

One correction

A sacrifice bunt is not considered an attempt to reach base, so it does not count against a player for purposes of OBP. Sacrifice flies are considered to be failed attempts to reach base however, and they penalize the player in OBP (but not BA).

Rob

-- Thank you for using real words!

by RobBobS on Apr 18, 2011 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Nice Job.....Can't Wait To See Your Defensive Stats

The defensive stats are the ones that confuse me most…..I pretty much have the offensive ones down. Even though I love reading stats, I am more on the “eyeball” side of the argument. For instance, I recently read comments by an obvious stats fan of another franchise, who slammed Ankiel as being a “bad” defender, and used defensive stats to back his argument; he also pointed out how great of a defender that Nyjer Morgan was. Checking the stats he mentioned, he was absolutely correct. My eyeball test,however, at least so far this season, I’ll take Ankiel 10 out of 10 times over Nyjer…..I’m very happy with the defensive play of our “bad” defensive CF player.

"Integrity First, Service Before Self, Excellence In All We Do" - USAF Core Values

by sullyzz on Apr 18, 2011 5:38 PM EDT reply actions  

You know I luvs me some stats

But I am highly skeptical of defensive stats as they currently stand. I think for most of the fancy advanced defensive metrics (esp. UZR), the variance between similar players (and even for the same player from year-to-year) is so great that the statistic used becomes too unstable to be a good predictor of future contribution. I especially take issue with what goes into calculating run-prevention and what doesn’t, and I don’t care for eyewitness accounts of what plays a defender could have or should have made. Even worse though is that some people take these numbers, as poor predictors as they are, and treat them like gospel. So I’m not surprised that someone is able to find some crazy numbers to prove his point.

Rob

-- Thank you for using real words!

by RobBobS on Apr 18, 2011 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

You took a simple "SSS" and turned it into a beautiful paragraph worthy of adorning a wall in the Louvre.

Anyway, everyone knows that a player’s defensive value is directly tied to how awesome he looks making his defensive plays. When I see a close defensive play, I have no idea whether the guy could/should have been able to make or not make that play. All I care about is did he look awesome making or not making that play.

And no, I have no numbers to back that up.

by dc Roach on Apr 18, 2011 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

We used to call that a "Sports Illustrated moment"

case in point — Ryan Braun diving for Espi’s ball in the second game last night. Bob & FP kept saying “look at his effort there”, “going all out for the ball”. Translation: Braun turned a double (and holding Stairs at third) into a three-run triple.

But it sure looked great.

by jbg2772 on Apr 18, 2011 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

good example

Who wouldn’t want to have Braun playing for their team, no matter what the stat guy say?

by dc Roach on Apr 18, 2011 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

You said it, brother

Ryan Braun took his shot on that play, because he had confidence he could make it. Confidence. Chew on that for a moment. That dude is every inch a ballplayer, at bat and in the field, and my hat’s off.

When Braun hung our Mike Moarse out to dry by 10 feet at second base, after Mike had rattled the LF wall for what shudda been an easy stand-up double, I applauded – kinda’ sheepishly, mind, but still I applauded. I know a great play when I see one.

"I only had a high school education and believe me, I had to cheat to get that."

- Charles Reiner

by Whupass on Apr 18, 2011 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

If he had any chance at all of catching it

then the decision to dive was a good one. The Brewers were very likely to lose the game if Espinosa gets a double; they were only slightly more likely to lose if it becomes a triple. They had a very good chance to win if he makes the catch.

Rob

-- Thank you for using real words!

by RobBobS on Apr 18, 2011 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

I forgot my sarcasm font on the last sentence

because according to the replays, Braun missed the ball by at least 3 feet. What I wanted to say (and obviously didn’t) was that, while it looked like a hustle play, it was a bad decision with no chance of success.

Don’t get me wrong; Braun’s a superior offensive talent, and has a gun, especially for a converted infielder. But I stand by the thought that it was the wrong play that looked prettier than it was.

by jbg2772 on Apr 19, 2011 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

So then it really didn't matter

the only downside I see is that he risked an injury on the play.

Rob

-- Thank you for using real words!

by RobBobS on Apr 19, 2011 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well, Stairs wouldn't have scored on the play,

but you’re right; probably no difference this time, assuming everything afterwards played out as it did.

by jbg2772 on Apr 19, 2011 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions  

Did you see his throw in the 9th against the Phillies?

  No chance at the tying run and let Pete Orr glide into second with the potential winning run……
  Threw so hard he almost did a flip and hit the mascot backstop about 20’ up……..

"… Sweet descend this rabble round...Pretty little patter of a seaport town
Rolling down the water... rolling down ......."

by cat daddy3000 on Apr 19, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

As a person

who knows jack-ish about what the different numbers in baseball mean informational posts like this will really help me get what’s going on during a game, which in turn will help get me more involved as a fan.

Thanks!

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Apr 18, 2011 5:54 PM EDT reply actions  

Math is hard.

Your voice of doom and gloom. Read more at natsnewsnetwork.blogspot.com

"Nobody’s got a monopoly on good writing, or the facts. If you can come up with one or the other or (ideally) both, you’re in the club." --Rob Neyer, Feb. 2, 2011

by Dave at District Sports Page on Apr 18, 2011 7:39 PM EDT reply actions  

Baseball is a game of situations

…Like life it’s own self. Math is the bridge to all scientific learning, and I have paid much obeisance, but apart from geometry – “The Mind of God” – math has little to do with what goes on between the white lines.

"I only had a high school education and believe me, I had to cheat to get that."

- Charles Reiner

by Whupass on Apr 18, 2011 11:27 PM EDT reply actions  

Sorry, but this is exactly wrong

Because of the nature of baseball and its repeated situations, we can identify optimum strategies through the use of mathematics. And, again, because of the nature of baseball, that optimization can lead to small but significant improvements in teams’ records. And very often, those small changes are enough to lead teams to the playoffs despite a lower talent level.

Rob

-- Thank you for using real words!

by RobBobS on Apr 18, 2011 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

That being said, one failure I've seen recently - Roenicke's shifts...

…comes from neglecting an important part of math-based baseball strategy. He has the spray charts and the numbers, true. But the spray charts and the numbers show only what hitters do WHEN THE SHIFT ISN’T ON. His shift-heavy strategy fails to take into account how hitters will respond to his change because he doesn’t have stats with a large enough sample size for those situations. Managers henceforth will thank him for creating enough shift situations that SSS ceases to be a problem for evaluating that strategy.

But my point stands. Math-based strategy is good but it’s very easy when using it to ignore the variable of “how the other team will respond to my shiny new strategy.”

"I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you."
-Leslie Nielsen, Airplane

by Jorgath on Apr 19, 2011 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed - the "static model" is a familiar fallacy

In the context of a baseball discussion, it’s moderately annoying; when applied to business investment and government tax models, as it routinely is, the results are uniformly disastrous. Ye’d think that the caveat, “All other things being equal, and if present trends continue,” had been adequately exposed as a fantasy by now, but some myths die hard.

Sorry, bit off topic – but not entirely. I hate the tail-chasing of statistical analysis almost as much as I despise “the shift.” We must expect impurity, and be certain that for every move, there’s a counter. So simple, that even a caveman…unless, of course, it’s a highly arrogant caveman.

"I only had a high school education and believe me, I had to cheat to get that."

- Charles Reiner

by Whupass on Apr 20, 2011 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation's blog about the Washington Nationals. Federalbaseball.com Trying To Make Every Fan A Nationals' Fan.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Cat_coons_small
***Pick6!!!>>>'''PLAY NOW'''<<<Pick6!!!***
Bugs-bunny-baseball_small
New GuessEm Rankings (5/24)

Recent FanPosts

45859-188-008f_small
Why don't more players -- and teams -- do vision training?
Marion2_small
Odd Baseball Question
Joker460_1__small
Philly-Tears Milkshake Brings This Boy Back to The Yahd!
Small
No excuses... too many men left on base
Small
Speed Camera on I-395 in DC coming from VA
Small
Harper HR Poll
Photo-1_small
A few takes, and some queries, from a neophyte
Small
The Gathering Storm

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

GAMETHREAD SPONSOR

Masn_medium

Yahoo_full_count

Ministry of Peace

Rizzo__kasten_and_chigliak_small Patrick Reddington

Ministry of Truth: Records Department (Editor)

Ws1_small Winston Smith

Ministry of Plenty

Teddy_clip_small Doghouse

Shadedlogo_small Dave at District Sports Page

Youppi_040618_mon_a_small bluelineswinger

Small d_c_guy

Adam_o_small jeff550

Imag0320_small SaratogaCountySports