from Amazon
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
OPS and OPS+
I understand the reason for the existence of OPS. There’s the OBP pillar over here, there’s the SLG pillar over there, and we need something to keep the house from falling, so, let’s use the OBP + SLG pillars together.
But, why does OPS+ need to exist? No person actually calculates OPS+ by hand or by computer even. B-R.com calculates it for you, so you are basically taking it on faith. If you are going to take a metric on faith, why not take one that is not biased? That’s why I support RC+ (though not the James version of Runs Created). OPS+ doesn’t even mean anything. It just happens, by luck, to approximate RC+.
Bill James recently noted when asked about OPS+:
I don’t much like OPS. OPS is an approximation which has gained favor over better measurements because of its simplicity. A mathematical derivation based on a convenient approximation doesn’t strike me as a best option.
And he’s right. OPS is a nice shortcut, which will ensure its survival. But, to add the level of complexity required to get it to OPS+ is not the best option. It may be an ok option, it may be a passable option. It may even be half-decent option.
OPS+ is nowhere near the best option, and there’s no point in debating for it on that basis. The argument for OPS+ requires you to concede that you are not interested in the best. And if you want to argue for OPS+ the way you’d argue that you’re happy at your crappy job because it pays the bills, then so be it. It gets the job done.