nfoligno Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2009/07/10...loser_look.html 10 days to Camp: A closer look at run metrics for Bears' linemen By Brad Biggs We reached out to KC Joyner to go over some of the run blocking metrics he completed after film review of the Bears. The numbers showed that right guard Roberto Garza was not only the Bears' most efficient run blocker last season, he was one of the best guards in the game, ranking ahead of the three Pro Bowlers Joyner has final numbers for--Chris Snee, Leonard Davis and Alan Faneca. "If you ask me about the 22 teams I've run the numbers on so far, he is probably the second most surprising,'' said Joyner, who will publish the results and more in Scientific Football 2009. "[New York Jets center] Nick Mangold is probably the most surprising. I knew Mangold was good but he is head and shoulders above any other center and will probably be the highest ranked POA lineman [94.3 percent] when I am done in another two weeks. "The last time I did this, in 2005, Garza was in the low 80's and for him to be [at 88.3] is a little surprising in that he's ahead of these Pro Bowl guards. I love doing the numbers, watching the tape and then running the numbers. In most cases the numbers agree with what you say in scouting, `This player is this and that.' Usually, the metrics follow what you're seeing in scouting. Whenever the two disagree, I lean on the metrics more than scouting. You can see a player have one bad play and in the back of your mind, `He stinks.' The metrics don't care. The one bad play will be registered and then `Let's see the other 150 he had.''' POA refers to Point of Attack. Joyner breaks down every play over the course of the entire season and evaluates each lineman when they were involved at the POA on a running play. Garza's net success percentage of 88.3 means he lost at the point of attack on less than 12 blocks out of every 100. The Bears were one of only six teams in the league last season to have all five linemen start all 16 games. Here are the breakdowns for their starters (we also covered it here on Monday): LT John St. Clair 79.5 LG Josh Beekman 85.7 C Olin Kreutz 81.5 RG Roberto Garza 88.3 RT John Tait 84.6 "Beekman did well, especially considering he was a first-year starter,'' Joyner said. The numbers for centers are typically lower than the other linemen and Joyner said there are a number of factors that go into that. "Defenses often line up where that is the position they want to attack,'' he said. "They want to attack with the nose right over the center. Centers tend to be the smallest of the offensive linemen. That's why Mangold's numbers are even more impressive. Usually you see a tackle or guard with the best percentages. "The scouts still talk about Kreutz as an elite guy. I didn't see it on tape. He's not a bad center by any stretch of the imagination, he just got beat more last season than you're used to seeing.'' Joyner pointed out that centers are involved in many combination blocks and that can also lead to them having a lower percentage because if the other half of the combo block fails, the center's half fails too. New left tackle Orlando Pace recorded a run metric of 83.5 with St. Louis in 2008. "He's a better pass blocker, and he's not an elite pass blocker,'' Joyner said. ``What I think is he is going to be an improvement over St. Clair. That's a relative term. He's an incremental improvement. The Bears aren't getting the Orlando Pace of a few years back. It's obviously a stop-gap measure. I'll take it over St. Clair and what I saw last year. They're going to need to solve the problem one of these days.'' Projected backup Kevin Shaffer fared very well in Cleveland last season according to the run metrics. Shaffer has played left tackle before, too, so the Bears have solid depth on their line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted July 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Man do I have an issue w/ this stuff Joyner is throwing out there. How does he evalaute? I know he says "Point of attack", but how does he measure whether or not the OL won the battle? I believe this is referring to run plays only (run metrics), so does he credit the OL with "win" if his man doesn't make the tackle? So when our guy gets pushed back a couple yards, and the RB has to change direction, only to be tackles by someone else, does that OL still get credited w/ winning at the POA because his guy didn't make the tackle. Sorry, but these stats simply do not seem to support what I saw, what most other fans saw, what scouts saw, and evidently by our staff's addressing OL so hard, what our staff saw. I didn't see our OL creating holes for Forte. Just because they might standup their designated DL doesn't mean they won the battle. If they don't create space, they are not winning the battle. I have said before that I felt Garza was a better run blocker than pass protector. Further, I said Tait was as well, and our run game stats to the right side of the bear that out. At the same time, stating that Garza was among the league best OGs just seems like a bit of a stretch, to say the least. http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2009/07/10...loser_look.html 10 days to Camp: A closer look at run metrics for Bears' linemen By Brad Biggs We reached out to KC Joyner to go over some of the run blocking metrics he completed after film review of the Bears. The numbers showed that right guard Roberto Garza was not only the Bears' most efficient run blocker last season, he was one of the best guards in the game, ranking ahead of the three Pro Bowlers Joyner has final numbers for--Chris Snee, Leonard Davis and Alan Faneca. "If you ask me about the 22 teams I've run the numbers on so far, he is probably the second most surprising,'' said Joyner, who will publish the results and more in Scientific Football 2009. "[New York Jets center] Nick Mangold is probably the most surprising. I knew Mangold was good but he is head and shoulders above any other center and will probably be the highest ranked POA lineman [94.3 percent] when I am done in another two weeks. "The last time I did this, in 2005, Garza was in the low 80's and for him to be [at 88.3] is a little surprising in that he's ahead of these Pro Bowl guards. I love doing the numbers, watching the tape and then running the numbers. In most cases the numbers agree with what you say in scouting, `This player is this and that.' Usually, the metrics follow what you're seeing in scouting. Whenever the two disagree, I lean on the metrics more than scouting. You can see a player have one bad play and in the back of your mind, `He stinks.' The metrics don't care. The one bad play will be registered and then `Let's see the other 150 he had.''' POA refers to Point of Attack. Joyner breaks down every play over the course of the entire season and evaluates each lineman when they were involved at the POA on a running play. Garza's net success percentage of 88.3 means he lost at the point of attack on less than 12 blocks out of every 100. The Bears were one of only six teams in the league last season to have all five linemen start all 16 games. Here are the breakdowns for their starters (we also covered it here on Monday): LT John St. Clair 79.5 LG Josh Beekman 85.7 C Olin Kreutz 81.5 RG Roberto Garza 88.3 RT John Tait 84.6 "Beekman did well, especially considering he was a first-year starter,'' Joyner said. The numbers for centers are typically lower than the other linemen and Joyner said there are a number of factors that go into that. "Defenses often line up where that is the position they want to attack,'' he said. "They want to attack with the nose right over the center. Centers tend to be the smallest of the offensive linemen. That's why Mangold's numbers are even more impressive. Usually you see a tackle or guard with the best percentages. "The scouts still talk about Kreutz as an elite guy. I didn't see it on tape. He's not a bad center by any stretch of the imagination, he just got beat more last season than you're used to seeing.'' Joyner pointed out that centers are involved in many combination blocks and that can also lead to them having a lower percentage because if the other half of the combo block fails, the center's half fails too. New left tackle Orlando Pace recorded a run metric of 83.5 with St. Louis in 2008. "He's a better pass blocker, and he's not an elite pass blocker,'' Joyner said. ``What I think is he is going to be an improvement over St. Clair. That's a relative term. He's an incremental improvement. The Bears aren't getting the Orlando Pace of a few years back. It's obviously a stop-gap measure. I'll take it over St. Clair and what I saw last year. They're going to need to solve the problem one of these days.'' Projected backup Kevin Shaffer fared very well in Cleveland last season according to the run metrics. Shaffer has played left tackle before, too, so the Bears have solid depth on their line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Man do I have an issue w/ this stuff Joyner is throwing out there. How does he evalaute? I know he says "Point of attack", but how does he measure whether or not the OL won the battle? I believe this is referring to run plays only (run metrics), so does he credit the OL with "win" if his man doesn't make the tackle? So when our guy gets pushed back a couple yards, and the RB has to change direction, only to be tackles by someone else, does that OL still get credited w/ winning at the POA because his guy didn't make the tackle. Sorry, but these stats simply do not seem to support what I saw, what most other fans saw, what scouts saw, and evidently by our staff's addressing OL so hard, what our staff saw. I didn't see our OL creating holes for Forte. Just because they might standup their designated DL doesn't mean they won the battle. If they don't create space, they are not winning the battle. I have said before that I felt Garza was a better run blocker than pass protector. Further, I said Tait was as well, and our run game stats to the right side of the bear that out. At the same time, stating that Garza was among the league best OGs just seems like a bit of a stretch, to say the least. Yeah, even when Joyner's stats are favorable to Bears players, they raise some questions in my mind. For one, he doesn't seem to be differentiating between the various ways an offensive lineman can win at the point of attack. What I mean is that there's no valuation (that I can see) placed on different types of blocks in Joyner's analysis: a pancake is the same as a stand-up is the same as a cut-block. The different ways that an o-lineman can get his guy blocked have significantly different effects on the success of the run game. By way of a for-instance, Garza cut-blocked a LOT last season. It seemed like every time they were running behind him, he was diving at somebody's legs. That's all well and good, except that a cut-block effectively takes both the defender AND the blocker out of the game: it's pretty hard to get down the field and make a second-level block when you're lying on the ground with a DT on top of you. By Joyner's metrics, however, a lineman who wins with cut-blocks 88% of the time is every bit as good as a lineman who ragdolls his man 88% of the time, and stays free to hustle down the field and make a second block. In terms of real-world impact, that's just not true. Still, there are two things on which I do unequivocally agree with Joyner: Josh Beekman was better last season than everyone thought, and John St. Clair is an AWFUL run-blocker. Even though Pace isn't the stellar player that he was 4-5 years ago, even a league-average tackle would be a big upgrade over St. Clair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted July 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Good point on the types of blocks argument. I still want to understand how Joyner defines "winning". When he says Garza won at the point of attack (POA) X% of the time, how does he define winning? That is really key for me. If it is no more than your man didn't make the tackle, that doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot to me. With regard to Beekman, I really don't think anyone is truly anti-beekman. Few would argue he did better than expected, and some would argue far better. I simply do not agree he was that good in terms of run blocking. While I realize he was next to St. Clair, Forte running inside/left was about as bad as it got last year. It seemed like every time he tried to run to the left, he was met w/ a stone wall. Beekman did better than expected, but expectations were incredibly low. I like him for depth, but was happy we choose to upgrade. Yeah, even when Joyner's stats are favorable to Bears players, they raise some questions in my mind. For one, he doesn't seem to be differentiating between the various ways an offensive lineman can win at the point of attack. What I mean is that there's no valuation (that I can see) placed on different types of blocks in Joyner's analysis: a pancake is the same as a stand-up is the same as a cut-block. The different ways that an o-lineman can get his guy blocked have significantly different effects on the success of the run game. By way of a for-instance, Garza cut-blocked a LOT last season. It seemed like every time they were running behind him, he was diving at somebody's legs. That's all well and good, except that a cut-block effectively takes both the defender AND the blocker out of the game: it's pretty hard to get down the field and make a second-level block when you're lying on the ground with a DT on top of you. By Joyner's metrics, however, a lineman who wins with cut-blocks 88% of the time is every bit as good as a lineman who ragdolls his man 88% of the time, and stays free to hustle down the field and make a second block. In terms of real-world impact, that's just not true. Still, there are two things on which I do unequivocally agree with Joyner: Josh Beekman was better last season than everyone thought, and John St. Clair is an AWFUL run-blocker. Even though Pace isn't the stellar player that he was 4-5 years ago, even a league-average tackle would be a big upgrade over St. Clair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Good point on the types of blocks argument. I still want to understand how Joyner defines "winning". When he says Garza won at the point of attack (POA) X% of the time, how does he define winning? That is really key for me. If it is no more than your man didn't make the tackle, that doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot to me. With regard to Beekman, I really don't think anyone is truly anti-beekman. Few would argue he did better than expected, and some would argue far better. I simply do not agree he was that good in terms of run blocking. While I realize he was next to St. Clair, Forte running inside/left was about as bad as it got last year. It seemed like every time he tried to run to the left, he was met w/ a stone wall. Beekman did better than expected, but expectations were incredibly low. I like him for depth, but was happy we choose to upgrade. Not sure, that's why I'm not a huge stat guy. We all saw what we saw las year with our OL. IMO - the rankings from worst to best are St. Clair, Tait, Garza, Beekman and Kruetz. One thing I am excited about, is that Pace has said he is healthy for the 1st time in a few years. Not to say he's found Ponce DeLeon's summer villa, but he's not a geezer. My guess is the change of scenery changed/enhanced the off-season program for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted July 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 That is probably the exact way I would rank last years OL in terms of pass blocking. That isn't how I would rank our OL last year in terms of run blocking though. For run blockings, worst to not quite worst: St. Clair, Beekman, Kreutz, Garza, Tait. Tait got a lot of crap last year, deservedly so, but he was not as bad as some make out in terms of run blocking. Understand, I am not saying he was good, but not as bad as the rest of the crap ass bunch. Regarding Pace, I too hope he has something left, and that he can stay healthy. I know he is saying he is as healthy as he has been....but I wonder how many players (including Pace himself) have said that in the past. Not sure, that's why I'm not a huge stat guy. We all saw what we saw las year with our OL. IMO - the rankings from worst to best are St. Clair, Tait, Garza, Beekman and Kruetz. One thing I am excited about, is that Pace has said he is healthy for the 1st time in a few years. Not to say he's found Ponce DeLeon's summer villa, but he's not a geezer. My guess is the change of scenery changed/enhanced the off-season program for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Man do I have an issue w/ this stuff Joyner is throwing out there. How does he evalaute? I know he says "Point of attack", but how does he measure whether or not the OL won the battle? I believe this is referring to run plays only (run metrics), so does he credit the OL with "win" if his man doesn't make the tackle? So when our guy gets pushed back a couple yards, and the RB has to change direction, only to be tackles by someone else, does that OL still get credited w/ winning at the POA because his guy didn't make the tackle. Sorry, but these stats simply do not seem to support what I saw, what most other fans saw, what scouts saw, and evidently by our staff's addressing OL so hard, what our staff saw. I didn't see our OL creating holes for Forte. Just because they might standup their designated DL doesn't mean they won the battle. If they don't create space, they are not winning the battle. I have said before that I felt Garza was a better run blocker than pass protector. Further, I said Tait was as well, and our run game stats to the right side of the bear that out. At the same time, stating that Garza was among the league best OGs just seems like a bit of a stretch, to say the least. I agree, there really is no metric for this stuff, you gotta go with good scouting IMO. Does this take into account different schemes? Does it adjust to specific types of blocks? It seems very flawed to say the least. My concern with the OLine this year is that we will have 3 or possibly even 4 new starts on the line (I don't care what the stats say, it should be a tight competition between Garza, Shaffer, Beekman, and Buenning for the RG spot). When you adjust the line that much, with a completely new left side, its gonna take a while before the whole line has the scheme down and are all on the same page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 I'll quit watching the games and then perhaps I'll believe some of this crap about how good our Oline was. Thankfully JA doesn't bite on this BS and had enough common sense to get some upgrades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 THIS JUST IN!!! In his next article, Joyner will evaluate GMs on his new metrix of WCS, or "Woulda Coulda Shoulda". He'll give a GM +1 if their selection is with in 1 selection of a player who was in the pro bowl in the last year. It's +2 if that same player is left-handed. He'll give a GM -1 if their selection is from a college team that lost by more than 2 TDs in their last game or their last bowl game. Finally, he'll go to a random acronym generator on the internet and give a GM +5 if any of selections' names can be turned into any variation of a curse word. Is anyone else tired of this clown's made up statistics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted July 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 I agree it will take time for the OL to form chemistry. I would add further that not only do they need to form chemistry with each other, but they have to get on the same page as their RB and QB, learn tendencies and such. I remember years ago listening to an OT talk about how they had to adjust to different QBs because as each QB began to feel pressure, they would do different things. One QB may simply take a few steps up in the pocket. Another is running backward. Another is scrambling to his left, while yet another to his right. Point is, the OL can't just look behind them to see what their QB is doing. They have a clock in their head, and if the QB still has the ball after X number of mental ticks, they have to begin blocking a different way. Anyway, all this will take time. No argument there. However, while I would agree 100% our OL will not have great chemistry on day one, I would also point out a few things which IMHO, sort of off-set. (1) On an individual basis, there is a significant upgrade. Pace and Omiyale may need time to develop next to each other, but that doesn't mean Pace will not be a significant upgrade on day one over St. Clair. Ditto elsewhere. Chemistry is one thing, but our OL was simply so bad last year, that our upgrades should prove better from an individual standpoint from day one. It may take time to see the great pulling blocks, for example, but should not take time for Pace to simply flatten his man. (2) I think Pace and Kreutz will offer a lot in helping this OL come together sooner. As much as I would like to see Williams on the left, at the same time, it would worry the hell out of me (short term) for Williams to pair w/ Omiyale, who has not played OG, and frankly has limited experience at OT. But next to Pace, you gotta think Omiyale's chances or more quickly developing and adapting are much improved. While not immediatly next to him, I also think Kreutz and Pace will greatly benefit Williams. So while the OL may need time to form chemistry, I think having a pair of pro bowlers on the OL will help push that along. (3) New QB, but I think stability at the center position will go a long way in more rapidly pushing that chemistry along. I would agree our OL is likely to get better as the year goes along, but at the same time, I would argue that on day one, they will be an upgade over last season. I agree, there really is no metric for this stuff, you gotta go with good scouting IMO. Does this take into account different schemes? Does it adjust to specific types of blocks? It seems very flawed to say the least. My concern with the OLine this year is that we will have 3 or possibly even 4 new starts on the line (I don't care what the stats say, it should be a tight competition between Garza, Shaffer, Beekman, and Buenning for the RG spot). When you adjust the line that much, with a completely new left side, its gonna take a while before the whole line has the scheme down and are all on the same page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted July 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Among the most mind-boggling for me was when he said he would take the stats over what scouts said. Just think about that for a moment. While I am not saying scouts are perfect by anymeans, I would much rather take the opinion of someone who actually watched a player, rather than someone crunching numbers. THIS JUST IN!!! In his next article, Joyner will evaluate GMs on his new metrix of WCS, or "Woulda Coulda Shoulda". He'll give a GM +1 if their selection is with in 1 selection of a player who was in the pro bowl in the last year. It's +2 if that same player is left-handed. He'll give a GM -1 if their selection is from a college team that lost by more than 2 TDs in their last game or their last bowl game. Finally, he'll go to a random acronym generator on the internet and give a GM +5 if any of selections' names can be turned into any variation of a curse word. Is anyone else tired of this clown's made up statistics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Among the most mind-boggling for me was when he said he would take the stats over what scouts said. Just think about that for a moment. While I am not saying scouts are perfect by anymeans, I would much rather take the opinion of someone who actually watched a player, rather than someone crunching numbers. It's entirely possible that his scouting metrics could be right in a number of cases and scouts or viewers or coaches could be wrong. But I'm not sure I've seen that established. What I want to see before I buy in to a new scouting metric is more detailed data and actual ability to predict future performance. If his metrics say an O-lineman was good or bad at something, what does that translate to in terms of rushing yards, sacks, or total points? How much variance is there from year to year? If I took away the names and numbers, could you tell who is a HOF lineman using his metrics versus a guy who plays 1 season and falls apart? Take OPS in baseball. It's a fairly new stat, but everyone knows it now. Why? Because OPS correlates quite strongly with runs scored. Higher OPS, more runs scored. High OPS in one season tends to be something a player keeps, and you can use it as a rough metric to guess at future performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 I agree it will take time for the OL to form chemistry. I would add further that not only do they need to form chemistry with each other, but they have to get on the same page as their RB and QB, learn tendencies and such. I remember years ago listening to an OT talk about how they had to adjust to different QBs because as each QB began to feel pressure, they would do different things. One QB may simply take a few steps up in the pocket. Another is running backward. Another is scrambling to his left, while yet another to his right. Point is, the OL can't just look behind them to see what their QB is doing. They have a clock in their head, and if the QB still has the ball after X number of mental ticks, they have to begin blocking a different way. Anyway, all this will take time. No argument there. However, while I would agree 100% our OL will not have great chemistry on day one, I would also point out a few things which IMHO, sort of off-set. (1) On an individual basis, there is a significant upgrade. Pace and Omiyale may need time to develop next to each other, but that doesn't mean Pace will not be a significant upgrade on day one over St. Clair. Ditto elsewhere. Chemistry is one thing, but our OL was simply so bad last year, that our upgrades should prove better from an individual standpoint from day one. It may take time to see the great pulling blocks, for example, but should not take time for Pace to simply flatten his man. (2) I think Pace and Kreutz will offer a lot in helping this OL come together sooner. As much as I would like to see Williams on the left, at the same time, it would worry the hell out of me (short term) for Williams to pair w/ Omiyale, who has not played OG, and frankly has limited experience at OT. But next to Pace, you gotta think Omiyale's chances or more quickly developing and adapting are much improved. While not immediatly next to him, I also think Kreutz and Pace will greatly benefit Williams. So while the OL may need time to form chemistry, I think having a pair of pro bowlers on the OL will help push that along. (3) New QB, but I think stability at the center position will go a long way in more rapidly pushing that chemistry along. I would agree our OL is likely to get better as the year goes along, but at the same time, I would argue that on day one, they will be an upgade over last season. No argument here. However, I get the feeling some people are gonna be expecting the OLine to play awesome right away, but I highly doubt that will be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted July 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 I am not totally discounting stats. I just question the idea of going w/ stats over what the eyes tell you. You use OPS, but is that really a good comparison to what we are talking about? OPS is based on hard data. There is no arguing whether a player reached base, or whether he hit a single double or whatever. Joyner's run blocking metric is based on soft data. Whether or not a player won at the POA is a subjective answer. One person may feel holding your position is winning. Another may feel the need to actually see a whole. I just question what he based his data on. How is a "win" measured. As I said before, I can easily see him basing the stat based on whether or not an OL's key blocking assingment makes the tackle. For example, if the DT Garza is matching up w/ doesn't make the tackle, he "wins at the point of attack". But if this is the case, is that a true measure? How about when your center helps double team? Should Garza (and I am just using him as an exmaple here) get the credit for the "win". How about when your FB or TE has to help out? How about when the block doesn't create a hole, and the RB is forced to bounce outside. In that scenario, which we saw plenty often, the OG's key assignment is not likely to make the tackle, yet at the same time I would not say he won at the POA as he didn't create a hole and forced the RB to alter his direction. Point is, I simply question this stat in general, and further, question the idea that Garza was among the best in the league in run blocking when our eyes simply saw something different. I have actually said in the past that Garza is not an awful run blocker, and for me, his pass protection is his greater area of weakness. In particular, I think Garza struggles most when the assignment doesn't simply call for him to block the man in front of him. When opponents stunt or use mis-direction, that is when it seems to me Garza is the most lost and the least effective. But while I would admit he wasn't as bad of a run blocker as pass protector, to say he was among the best in the league? It's entirely possible that his scouting metrics could be right in a number of cases and scouts or viewers or coaches could be wrong. But I'm not sure I've seen that established. What I want to see before I buy in to a new scouting metric is more detailed data and actual ability to predict future performance. If his metrics say an O-lineman was good or bad at something, what does that translate to in terms of rushing yards, sacks, or total points? How much variance is there from year to year? If I took away the names and numbers, could you tell who is a HOF lineman using his metrics versus a guy who plays 1 season and falls apart? Take OPS in baseball. It's a fairly new stat, but everyone knows it now. Why? Because OPS correlates quite strongly with runs scored. Higher OPS, more runs scored. High OPS in one season tends to be something a player keeps, and you can use it as a rough metric to guess at future performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.