Morris or Bumgarner?

BTW, I read that too quickly originally. When I first scanned it, I thought the lgOBP and lgSLG things were the ratios that RickStain had suggested.

I'd love to understand the arcane calculation (sincerely) behind whatever they are.

 

The actual posts bear no resemblance to that.

I didn't ask about "other ways." I was trying to understand WHAT YOU TOLD ME WAS the simplest way to create an adjustment -- you told me what you gave me was a meaningful way to adjust someone's OPS. Your words were, "The simplest method, which is perfectly effective, is to take (Runs scored by both teams in player's home games divided by Runs scored by both teams in player's road games) over a number of years, usually 3-5."

You created a subjective "adjustment" that you want to apply to an objective number, and then applied it in a way that made absolutely no sense to me. You created an adjustment that either discounts his home games OR his away games. ... and then applied it to ALL of his games. I asked you twice how that makes sense and you didn't tell me.

Then, you went right to the insulting tone -- how much respect you've lost for me. The "My god!" post because I am so dense.

And your "other ways" revision to the conversation now. ... was pulling this gem out of nowhere and introducing it: "Well, then just take what I told you to do to create that multiplier add 1 to it and divide it by 2."

I understand that kind of kindergarten adjustment -- "why not adjust the other 81 games back down to a multipler of 1 to try to compensate?" I'd have just suggested that is junk (and of course it is; I won't waste my time even explaining why) and responded way more gently if you had simply told me to ignore what you had told me in the first place!

 

I HAVE!

I find a zillion different things. Each a bit different than the one I read before it. It's not just confusing -- there is nothing precise about what I have been able to find. Most pages just explain it conceptually and don't show me the actual calculation they would use to create their adjustment multiplier. ... because it is "complicated" or "difficult."

Maybe I don't know where to look -- and by all means SHOW me -- but when I go to baseballreference, which puts an OPS+ number on every players' page, I can't find ANY PLACE ON THE SITE where they tell me how THEY calculated that number. -- specifics. Maybe it exists on their site and I really am dense, but I can't find it. When I click on the category it gives me a formula 100*[OBP / lgOBP + SLG / lgSLG -1] ADJUSTED TO THE PLAYER'S BALLPARK(S).

I have found enough things via google to GUESS what that "adjustment" might be (if I actually had something definitive, then I might try to address the methodology and subjectivity of it, as I understand it), but nothing tangible. I know from WAR, when I have tried to do this, that one WAR number (for example on baseballreference.com) is not the same as the next guy's WAR number (fangraphs.com) -- because there is no consistent methodology. This probably similar. Still, I have kind of been able to figure out the WAR calculations on those two sites. But not with this OPS+ — it's the "adjustment" that creates the "+," that still has me in the dark. So I figured I'd use someone posting some OPS+ numbers as a reason to ask if anyone who throws those numbers around as something I am supposed to find meaningful, can actually demonstrate where the numbers come from for me. I thought it is kind of a straightforward thing to ask.

It would be great if someone could pick a player and SHOW how you would calculate their OPS+, even though I didn't think that would be likely based on my past attempts at this. The best response I got, from Gehrig, told me that the adjustment is an "arcane" calculation -- exactly what google (your suggestion) has left me with.

 

That is rich.

Act condescending, Rick, and then when I ask a question (twice) that you apparently realized was a legit question -- you had told me to adjust an objectively calculated number, and created a multiplier that could only possibly apply (if I bought the subjective reason for the adjustment) to a portion of what you told me to apply it to -- pull some bullshit out of your sphincter with no explanation that CHANGES what you had me trying to understand. ... and insult me for not intuitively understanding where it came from.

Anyone who followed the thread (and it's still there), knows that you were insulting me BEFORE you even gave me that explanation -- which amounted to a kindergarten adjustment after you told me how perfectly effective it was without that kind of meatball math applied to it to try to ratchet down the adjustment you were making. But you were telling me how I'm to math what so and so is to something and how much respect you've lost for me?

Seriously? You were the one who was acting condescending about how "simple" it is (which I would have put up with if you really could walk me through something meaningful), and then did a left turn into kindergarten division to address what I pointed out was a problem with what you were telling me.

But throw "concern troll" into a few more posts, because that somehow changes the chronology of you acting like a jerk toward me.