FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Like it or not, OPS is a fair indicator of offensive balance in a hitter. By combining on-base percentage and slugging percentage, even the casual fan can identify who the more productive hitters are. Simplicity is key when creating a statistic that is aimed for general acceptance.

However, with simplicity come limitations. OPS doesn't give proper weight to players who can create offensive value in ways other than with the batted ball, with base-running a prime example.

Speed can be a killer. It puts pressure on pitchers, catchers and fielders and causes them to make mistakes. It also can make pitchers throw more fastballs, which can improve the OPS of other batters. Hitters with speed are also less likely to kill an inning with a double play ball, and if they can bunt, infielders are forced to move out of position, creating holes.

OPS also doesn't account for the cost of obtaining offensive production in terms of outs. The game of baseball is really about gaining bases while making as few outs a possible, so we should be measuring outs as well.

To remedy that problem, I've come up with something I call "BPO", or "bases per outs". As our own Adam White observed, it's really about measuring what you get for what you pay. BPO measures total bases gained relative to the outs it took to gain them.

BPO equals Gross Total Bases/Gross Total Outs, where:

Gross Total Bases (GTB) = Total bases (TB) + walks (BB) + hit by pitches (HPB) + stolen bases (SB) + sacrifice flies (SF) + sacrifice bunts (SH)

And Gross Total Outs (GTO) = At bats (AB) - hits + caught stealing (CS) + sacrifice flies (SF) + sacrifice bunts (SH) + double plays (DP)

SF and SH appear in both the numerator and denominator, but they don't cancel each other out. This is a ratio and a SF creates a ratio of 1, which is better than striking out (0) but worse than getting a hit (infinity). I include them for weight.

This new stat does have some weaknesses, I admit. BPO doesn't include bases gained by moving from first to third on a single, or from second to third on a fly out. It also doesn't measure park effect or the player's era. Perhaps BPO plus is a next step. For now it is best used on measuring players of concurrent eras.

Here's how the numbers work out for some recent Hall of Famers:

PlayerBAHABHRTBSLGBBOBPSBCSOPSBPOWade Boggs.3283,0109,1801184,064.4431,412.4152435.858.860Paul Molitor.3063,31910,8352344,854.4481,0994.369504131.817.831Tony Gwynn.3383,1419,2881354,259.459.790.388319125.847.829Ryne Sandberg.2852,3868,3852823,787.452761.344344107.796.792Cal Ripken.2763,18411,5514315,168.4471,129.3403639.787.735

For Boggs, Molitor, Gwynn and Sandberg, BPO is roughly the same as OPS. But Cal Ripken sees a pretty big drop off in BPO - and finishes far behind the others.

Let's look at another comparison of BPO, this time applied to ten players who were on the 2007 Hall of Fame Ballot:

PlayerBAHABHRTBSLGBBOBPSBCSOPSBPOMark McGwire.2631,6266,1875833,639.5881,317.394128.9821.068Tim Raines.2942,6058,8721703,771.4251,330.385808146.810.909Jim Rice.2982,4528,2253824,129.502670.3525834.854.807Dale Murphy.2652,1117,9603983,733.469986.34616168.815.803Don Mattingly.3072,1537,0032223,301.471588.358149.829.782Andre Dawson.2792,7749,9274384,787.482589.323314109.805.780Harold Baines.2892,8669,9083844,604.4651,062.3563434.821.778Dave Parker.2902,7129,3583394,405.471683.339154113.810.763Alan Trammell.2852,3658,2881853,442.415850.352236109.767.746Dave Concepcion.2672,3268,7231013,114.357736.322321109.679.628

After I compiled this chart, the first thing I noticed was that Rice and Raines moved in opposite directions when going from OPS to BPO. Rice, a plodding runner, dropped nearly 50 points, while Raines, a highly efficient base stealer with a keen eye at the plate, climbs almost 100 points. This also provides more evidence that Hall of Fame voters missed the boat with Raines, who got just 24% of the total vote in 2007.

Also, it's interesting that Alan Trammell, who doesn't look like he'll get in the Hall (only 18% of the most recent vote), scored a BPO of .746 while Cal Ripken, almost a unanimous first Ballot Hall of Famer, had a BPO of .735.

The case of Mark McGwire is a sad, confusing, affair. If he didn't take HGH, or if the rest of the league used it as much as Canseco claims, then he should be in based on his production. Most likely McGwire will join Joe Jackson and Pete Rose on the list of Hall outsiders of eternal moral debate. Speaking of Rose, here's another BPO comparison:

PlayerBAHABHRTBSLGBBOBPSBCSOPSBPORickey Henderson.2793,05510,9612974,588.4192,190.4011,406335.820.985Keith Hernandez.2962,1827,3701623,214.4361,070.3849863.820.818Pete Rose.3034,25614,0531605,752.3751,566.375198149.750.751Joe Morgan.2712,5179,2772683,962.4271,865.392689162.819.934

I'm looking forward to getting your thoughts on BPO.

By Greg Raleigh at www.DugoutCentral.com