Two offensive stats really matter: runs and RBI. The rest is complication.

there is only one statistic that has any true impact on the outcome of the game and that is total runs. As long as score is measured in runs this will be true.

you guys crack me up, but i enjoyed reading all the comments and math problems. but i think just the basic stats like ab's, hits, runs, rbi's, etc. say the most. and the players who get into the hall of fame sometimes get there because of their popularity and stats sometimes don't really matter for an in-between player. So going crazy with OPS if it's better or worse will just drive you all crazy. just go by the raw numbers.

An at bat doesn't include BB or Sacs so why are these included in the statistics?

Thanks for explanation.

I am a "statistician" and would like to point out that you are missing some parenthesis in your formulas. Also, a more transparent way to write your master formula might be

OPS = OBP + SLG

= (H+BB+HBP)/(AB+BB+SF+HBP) + TB/AB

Another factor is whether there are men on base when the batter is up. The pressure factor of driving in runs (after all, runs are what winning is all about)plays into the greatness of a player.

this is the first i've actually found out what ops means, and on face it seems like a very effective way of evaluating a hitter. i, by all means, don't claim to be a statistician (spelling), but it does seem slightly flawed, particularly after reading anon17198's article. i would sum it up in a short sentence: There is truly no way to evaluate how well any one player can hit. there are too many factors that go into it, granted many of these factors can be put into statistics, such as obp versus left handed and right handed hitters, and one can even break that down to curveballs, fastballs, changeups, sliders, etc. that the hitter faces and winds up connecting, getting walked, or getting hit by. it comes down to the fact that anything can happen in baseball, or all of sports for that matter, and there is no absolute way of evaluating how well one particular hitter can perform.

It is true that the article on o.p.s. does not tell us what us what it means (it doesn’t even make clear what the initials o.p.s. stand for: On-base pct. Plus Slugging pct.?)

The o.p.s. is based on the fact (at least I accept it as fact) that the basic unit of offense is the base; that’s why an error is charged for giving a runner a base. Two bases are worth more than one base , though not twice as valuable (a mathematician or statistician could figure out the precise value in terms of run production very quickly). The o.p.s., then, tells us how many bases a player will earn, on average, each time he walks to the plate.

The batting average tells us what pct. of his at-bats will produce hits; the slugging pct. tells us how many bases he will produce with those hits. The o.p.s. tells us on what pct. of at-bats he will get to first or beyond, all together.

It is therefore a good and telling stat. However, its weakness is that it does not factor in other methods of advancing around the bases: stolen bases and, possibly, balks (often induced by the runner). Ricky Henderson and Lou Brock are quite a bit more valuable than their o.p.s. suggests.

I read the article on OPS and still can't figure out what it stands for. It tells me how to figure it out, but not what it means.

I would like to comment about a few of the assumptions. The article states "Generally the OPS of a good player is considered to be around .900 to .950." A lot of analysts feel an OPS of 800 or over is a good player, and that 900 or higher is a very good, very-high impact kind of player. Very few players can consistently produce at 900 OPS or higher year in and year out, though some obviously do.

There are only a handful of players who eclipse an OPS of 900 in a given year yet there a "good" offensive players who are more consistently in the 800s.

For example, Wade Boggs, a Hall Of Famer, had a lifetime OPS of .858. Are we saying he wasn't a "good" ball player since he wasn't a 900 or 950 player?

Another example is Tony Gwynn, another Hall of Famer who had a lifetime OPS of .847. Tony was also a perennial star who could not consistently produce an OPS above 900.

One last comment about some of the known flaws of OPS:

1- It is correctly pointed out that slugging and OPB are given equal value in OPS but it has not been demonstrated statistically that this is a valid way to measure these 2 components of OPS

2- Slugging percentage is by itself viewed as a suspect measure of hitting prowess due to the way total bases are counted. Is a home run really worth 4 times a single, and is a double really worth twice a single, in terms of how each type of hit affects a team's likelihood of scoring runs and/or winning games? This ratio of impact for singles, doubles, triples, and home runs and not been clearly proven statistically. Some players with limited power can have a rather high slugging percentage due to a high batting average. For example, would we generally think of a player who hits 7 home runs as a power hitter? Tony Gwynn had a .511 slugging average in 1987 with .500 generally considered the benchmark of a good power hitter- yet Tony hit only 7 home runs in 1987 (but he did bat .370).

3- When calculating OPS, some items are counted once and some items are counted twice or more. For example, a single counts towards both OBP AND Slugging, so all singles are counted twice in the final OPS. How can you count the result of 1 AB twice in any statiscal measure? Walks are counted once in OPS, only counting towards OBP but not counting towards Slugging. So, are we thus saying a single is worth twice as much as a walk? How has this been proven in terms of true impact. Is a double worth 3 times as much as a walk (doubles count twice in Slugging and once in OBP vs. walks counting once - only in OBP)? Again, this has not been elucidated.

OPS is useful as a general measure of a player's ability to get on base by hits or walks and to have impact hits (doubles, triples, and home runs). Just some thoughts on the pros and cons of OPS

Could have simplified the formulas and called them plate appearances. AB's don't include SAC, SAC fly, BB, HBP. Plate Appearance is anytime a player goes to bat.

I don't understand why OPS wouldn't be used more. I know some people say that it's flawed and OBP is more valuable, but OPS is the easiest to calculate a hitter's performance.