ISO, or Isolated Power is just that; a way of isolating a player’s power hits. It’s a pretty simple statistic which is calculated by taking a players AVG and subtracting it from his SLG%. Essentially this equation removes singles from the players SLG% and leaves you with his ISO.
The name can be pretty deceiving because ISO isn’t an accurate measure of power. A player with plus speed, such as our own Jose Reyes, can maintain a respectable ISO due to his ability to turn long singles into doubles and doubles into triples. Therefore I would tend to look at it more as “extra base ability” as opposed to “power”.
ISO certainly isn’t a perfect stat, but it has it’s uses. My main beef with ISO is that it carries with it the same problems as SLG%. Both statistics fail to differentiate between a double and a triple or a HR. We all know those hits are not equal. Also as with most statistics, ISO isn’t something you want to judge on a small sample size.
28 comments
kingman 26
6/26/2011-12:24pm at 12:24 pm (UTC -4)
So we can assume Jason Bay’s .080 ISO is bad!
I have a question—why do you say that it “fails to differentiate between a double and a triple or a HR”—isn’t this kind of untrue, as a player with more HRs will have a higher SLG/ISO due to the most total bases a HR hitter accumulates?
kingman 26
6/26/2011-12:25pm at 12:25 pm (UTC -4)
“More” total bases not “most.”
stickguy
6/26/2011-1:00pm at 1:00 pm (UTC -4)
same question I had. I thought slugging was higer based on how many bases a hit went for.
kingman 26
6/26/2011-1:05pm at 1:05 pm (UTC -4)
It is.
SLG is simply at bats divided by total bases.
Prismo
6/26/2011-4:15pm at 4:15 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t like the SLG formula. So a max SLG can be 4.000 if a batter hits a HR every bat (that obviously won’t happen, but it’s hypothetically possible).
I think ideally (for me) the SLG formula would be (AB x 4)/(TotalBases). That way it’s actually out of 1.000, and the SLG represents how much power the player as a percentage of their total possible power.
It would just mean a little more for me. But…then I guess the arbitrary stat OPS would be all screwed up.
Prismo
6/26/2011-4:15pm at 4:15 pm (UTC -4)
Err sorry…
(TotalBases)/(AB x 4)
Kirk_C
6/26/2011-5:15pm at 5:15 pm (UTC -4)
Not necessarily. It’s widely believed that the way SLG weighs the hits isn’t correct. A HR isn’t worth 4x a single, and so on.
Also a player with more HR will not necessarily have a higher SLG%.
For example (if all other things are equal):
Player A: 30 HR, 20 2B= 160 TB.
Player B: 20 HR, 40 2B= 160 TB.
These players would have the same SLG percentage.
Kirk_C
6/26/2011-5:19pm at 5:19 pm (UTC -4)
Also the fact that SLG% incorporates singles makes it sort of silly. Since a single isn’t a power hit yet can raise the slugging percentage of a player like Ichiro. It’s misleading.
kingman 26
6/26/2011-8:07pm at 8:07 pm (UTC -4)
Kirk, I appreciate this, but are you really suggesting that player B is significantly less valuable than player A?
I just cannot agree with this.
60 XBH are less valuable than 50, even if the 60 includes 10 less HR?
Are 10 HR really more valuable than 20 2B?
Doubles drive in the overwhelming majority of the runners on base. Not 100%, but close, and sure, they don’t drive in the guy who hits the double, but player B surely contributes at least as much—if not more–than player A.
Kirk_C
6/26/2011-9:51pm at 9:51 pm (UTC -4)
No. That was my point exactly. I wasn’t saying that Player A was more valuable than Player B. I was pointing out the shortcomings of SLG%. Weighing the hits as: single-1, double-2, triple-3 and HR-4 doesn’t tell the whole story. But according to SLG% it does.
kingman 26
6/26/2011-10:06pm at 10:06 pm (UTC -4)
Gotcha!
And I agree!
metsfan4decades
6/26/2011-9:59pm at 9:59 pm (UTC -4)
Not to hijack this thread but it’s the latest one…
How about that game today?
How about Jose? I keep waiting for him to cool down but he’s just on fire.
Gee benefited from some fine offense, some good defense on the Mets part, some poor defense on the Rangers part and more than a handful of calls that went our way.
So far this month we:
- lost one series to the Pirates and split one
- won 2 series from the Braves
- won a series from the Brewers
- lost a series to the Angels
- won a series from the As
- won a series from the Rangers
Not bad for a team missing two of it’s best hitters and a mediocre pitching staff.
Lost 2 of 3 to the As.
Win 2 of 3 from the Rangers
You just can’t make any predictions going forward.
metsfan4decades
6/26/2011-10:02pm at 10:02 pm (UTC -4)
well dang…..that last part should have said Angels and Rangers not As.
Point being I can’t look at the schedule and say ‘we’ve got an easy one coming up’, or ‘we’ve got some tough teams ahead’. Hardly much of this month went the way many would have predicted. We can’t seem to beat the Pirates but can beat the Rangers and both series from the Braves?
I’m throwing the 8ball out.
Kirk_C
6/26/2011-10:13pm at 10:13 pm (UTC -4)
I can honestly say I’ve never enjoyed watching a .500 team as much as I have this year. It’s probably just the lowered expectations but I don’t find myself getting nearly as frustrated over losses.
This team has been a breath of fresh air. I thoroughly enjoy watching this group of players and the development of the young guys.
….well, except K-Rod.
metsfan4decades
6/26/2011-10:17pm at 10:17 pm (UTC -4)
Agree with both your point and the reasoning behind it.
KRod…I’m still surprised no one is talking about the reduced velocity on his FB. Still just saying ‘the more he pitches, the sharper he is’. Some are looking at the fact that he hasn’t pitched since Wed as the reason he gave up a couple of runs today. I’m not so sure.
stickguy
6/27/2011-9:04am at 9:04 am (UTC -4)
Just us seem to be worried about it it seems MF!
kistics
6/27/2011-8:38am at 8:38 am (UTC -4)
I think we’re all enjoying watching this team because of the fact that this team can play all 9 innings. This is no longer a team that lays down when facing big boys or when down early in the games. This is no longer a team that takes its foot off the gas once they get an early lead. They score in 1st inning, 5th inning and 8th inning.
kingman 26
6/27/2011-9:35am at 9:35 am (UTC -4)
+ Infinity
Sorry for those who disagreed last year, but I was UNDERSTATING the lax, slacker, mail-it-in, give up early, play cards, and do anything to avoid work nature of the Manuel Mets.
David Wright was so on the money with his comments to Larry Bowa.
He’s a very honest man and I cannot wait until he returns.
When I go to Citi later in the year, if anyone boos Wright, I will boo THEM loudly and with all of my considerable might.
stickguy
6/27/2011-11:11am at 11:11 am (UTC -4)
so I was right to blame Jerry?
Good to know!
metsfan4decades
6/27/2011-11:35am at 11:35 am (UTC -4)
I know hindsight is always 20/20 but there is no doubt in my mind now that Jerry lost that clubhouse.
kingman 26
6/27/2011-11:59am at 11:59 am (UTC -4)
It wasn’t hindsight for everyone!
metsfan4decades
6/27/2011-12:29pm at 12:29 pm (UTC -4)
I’ve lost the nesting on this one so hope I’m replying to Kingman’s: ‘it wasn’t hindsight for everyone’.
I very much remember you taking that team to task past couple of years but especially last year. You obviously were right on the money as a whole. I just don’t remember you putting the blame on Jerry for them ‘slaking’.
Or maybe I’m getting your position confused with someone else’s…….
kingman 26
6/27/2011-11:59am at 11:59 am (UTC -4)
To a large degree yes.
But also blame Francoeur, Ollie, Slappy, and maybe even Bay to an extent.
gategem
6/27/2011-1:53pm at 1:53 pm (UTC -4)
Jerry lost that club house because he realized he was gone after the year and at that time he couldn’t care less. Had he had a talented team he would have won and proved it in the past with the WhiteSox. He was not a brilliant manager but a baseball manager does not impact a team as much as a brilliant head coach in football. Also, you can’t have the same attitude in baseball over a 162 game schedule as you have in football. Eventually it wears on a team and the veterans start to tune you out.
I grew up with the Brooklyn Dodgers and witnessed a team that starting with when I became a passionate fan in the late 1940’s until the Dodgers moved never went through a losing season and were always a contender. Perhaps that is why I have little tolerance for losing and mediocrity. Most of the teams I have seen that were populated with young talent remained a loser and over the years that young talent only became older and were replaced with other marginal young talent. While developing young talent and later augmenting it with trades and free agents is the the best way to build there is no guarantee it will be successful and most of the time it is not. One has to cross his fingers and hope the GM did his job and the team develops into a winning franchise for many years to come.
kingman 26
6/27/2011-2:27pm at 2:27 pm (UTC -4)
Gategem you really get me studying and learning—my Dad also was a Brooklyn Dodger fan and is probably similar in age to you, maybe a tad older, he is 74.
After your recent comments about all of their winning seasons, I looked it up and while I knew they were very good for decades, I was pretty astonished to learn that the Dodgers from 1939 to 1963 in 25 years had TWO losing seasons! This is incredible! And they won 11 pennants.
It really can be said that the great Yankee teams of that same era really did somewhat overshadow the fact that the Dodgers in that era were also one of the all-time most successful sports franchises for a period that long.
The Yankees had ZERO losing seasons from 1926 to 1964. This is simply ridiculous! 39 years, 38 winning seasons, 26 pennants, 19 titles.
But the Dodgers’ accomplishments are still amazing. The Yanks’ are just off the charts.
kingman 26
6/27/2011-2:32pm at 2:32 pm (UTC -4)
39 years, 39 winning seasons…
gategem
6/27/2011-4:20pm at 4:20 pm (UTC -4)
The great Yankees players (primarily Ruth) helped save baseball after the BlackSox scandal but unfortunately for the remaining teams resulted in the best young talent continually signing with the Yankees. Hence, the incredible streak of winning years you researched. It was said that the baseball draft was setup to prevent the Yankees from hoarding all the young talent and force these players to sign with other teams thus distributing the best new talent. Of course the Yankees now purchase the best of the veteran talent. But back then they primarily developed them or duped other moronic GMs or owners in trading their best players for little in return.
stickguy
6/27/2011-4:54pm at 4:54 pm (UTC -4)
intersting though, it seemed to work.
about the time the draft came into play, the yanks hit the skids for a decade. Coincidence? probably not, but cheap owners did not help.
Not until someone came along willing to leverage the extra revenue the team always had, and FA happened to give them a way to spend it, did the pendelum swing back. And even then they had another fallow period, until a fortunate convergence of young guys + money to run up payroll to keep and augment them came along.