I have been seeing that relative to a single, a double is worth about 1.5 (and a little change), a triple 2.2 and a home run 3.0.
Or per base a single being worth 1
2B: .75 (slightly more)
3B: 0.67
HR: 0.75
Now first of all, I've read people saying that a problem of OPS+ is that it doesn't weight home runs as much as it should. I don't understand that. A home run gets you 4 bases in your slugging percentage, but its real value is less than 4 times the value of a single, and a hair less than twice the value of a double. If anything, doesn't OPS+ underrate singles a lot, and doubles a little? If not, please explain what's wrong with my numbers.
Next:
If we take away the value of a single from each one we get:
2B: 0.5
3B: 1.2
HR: 2.0
or divided by the number of extra bases:
2B: 0.5
3B: 0.6
HR: 0.67
Now I am wondering how in the heck a triple can be worth more than twice as much more than a single than a double is.
A double has most of the RBI ability of a triple. Don't guys score from first on triples most of the time? If they did so all of the time then a double would have as much RBI value as a triple.
And a double puts you into position to be batted in almost as easily as a triple. If batters scored from second on doubles all the time then it would nearly have the run scoring value of a triple.
HOW does a triple end up with not just MORE but MORE THAN TWICE the added value of a double if a double drives in most of what a triple does and if a a player scores from second nearly as easily as from third (and at least half as easily). I assume that doubles score fewer guys from first, and fewer guys score from second on singles than is commonly assumed. Nevertheless, getting to second seems vastly more valuable than being on first. A triple just does not seem to give THAT much more than a double.
Anyway, my real question was going to be this. Assuming that the triple value is due to the underlined assumption in the paragraph above, then wouldn't the value of doubles and stolen bases be a lot higher for a fast baserunner who can score from second 80+% of the time on singles?
ISN'T A STEAL of second by a fast runner worth a lot more than a steal of second by a guy who only scores 40% of the time from second on a single?
Granted getting a slower runner off of first is an advantage, and a CS of a fast runner costs more, but to put a number on it, what would the value of a double be compared to singles, triples, home runs IF batters scored from second on singles 100% of the time?
for more visit this https://sportprofy.com/what-is-a-double-in-baseball/
Or per base a single being worth 1
2B: .75 (slightly more)
3B: 0.67
HR: 0.75
Now first of all, I've read people saying that a problem of OPS+ is that it doesn't weight home runs as much as it should. I don't understand that. A home run gets you 4 bases in your slugging percentage, but its real value is less than 4 times the value of a single, and a hair less than twice the value of a double. If anything, doesn't OPS+ underrate singles a lot, and doubles a little? If not, please explain what's wrong with my numbers.
Next:
If we take away the value of a single from each one we get:
2B: 0.5
3B: 1.2
HR: 2.0
or divided by the number of extra bases:
2B: 0.5
3B: 0.6
HR: 0.67
Now I am wondering how in the heck a triple can be worth more than twice as much more than a single than a double is.
A double has most of the RBI ability of a triple. Don't guys score from first on triples most of the time? If they did so all of the time then a double would have as much RBI value as a triple.
And a double puts you into position to be batted in almost as easily as a triple. If batters scored from second on doubles all the time then it would nearly have the run scoring value of a triple.
HOW does a triple end up with not just MORE but MORE THAN TWICE the added value of a double if a double drives in most of what a triple does and if a a player scores from second nearly as easily as from third (and at least half as easily). I assume that doubles score fewer guys from first, and fewer guys score from second on singles than is commonly assumed. Nevertheless, getting to second seems vastly more valuable than being on first. A triple just does not seem to give THAT much more than a double.
Anyway, my real question was going to be this. Assuming that the triple value is due to the underlined assumption in the paragraph above, then wouldn't the value of doubles and stolen bases be a lot higher for a fast baserunner who can score from second 80+% of the time on singles?
ISN'T A STEAL of second by a fast runner worth a lot more than a steal of second by a guy who only scores 40% of the time from second on a single?
Granted getting a slower runner off of first is an advantage, and a CS of a fast runner costs more, but to put a number on it, what would the value of a double be compared to singles, triples, home runs IF batters scored from second on singles 100% of the time?
for more visit this https://sportprofy.com/what-is-a-double-in-baseball/
