I think with pitchers many tend to gravitate towards K/9, HR/9, WHIP (and its components), etc..

However, there are quite a few who look at opp OPS for pitchers. I use it. I tend to focus on it for MLB pitchers rather than minor lg prospects as I'm much less versed in minor league park factors that affect opp SLG.

For instance in my diamond mind baseball replay league I signed Glendon Rusch to a one year contract primarily b/c his Opp OPS was among the league leaders despite pitching in a homer friendly park. Meanwhile Lawrence and Eaton had much worse Opp OPS while pitching in a great pitchers park (Petco). Rusch was undervalued and I was able to sign him for one year while other owners in my league gave big $$$ to those Padres pitchers for long term deals. I'll get less risk and better performance for my $$$.

Lastly, Opp OPS isn't entirely neglected by the mainstream baseball media. I've seen Gammons reference it in atleast 3 Diamond Notes columns.

I think players who tend to stand closer to the plate are obviously going to get hit by pitches alot more. It's not so much a "skill" as a consequence of one's playing style. Though, as an A's fan, I do remember that at one point it seemed like every time Frankie Menechino pinch-hit he was purposely trying to get plunked.

That's an interesting point, hadn't thought of it that way. It must be an interesting debate that goes through a hitter's mind in that split second that the pitch is heading at him - the battle between instinctively getting out of the way and perhaps trying to take a plunking to reach base. I definitely know which way I'd lean (no pun intended) :)

I guess my point with both of these questions was more in reference to prospect analysis. Natsfan2005, you're right, I've seen opponent OPS used in discussions about big leaguers, now that I think about it. It just seems to me that it could be a more useful tool than h/ip when used to analyze minor league stats as well, and this is one area that I haven't seen it used much at all. I just finished reading the Prospect Book and for some reason these questions came to mind in that context.

I don't see why Pitchers OPS allowed shouldn't be a very good measure of effectiveness.

Batters HBP may not be a skill, but it's certainly a characteristic of some hitters.  Biggio and Baylor were two Major Leaguers who were hit constantly, and it looks like Carlos Quentin will be the next generations HBP guy.

I don't see why Pitchers OPS allowed shouldn't be a very good measure of effectiveness.

The whole DIPS idea might suggest otherwise. I don't see why slow outfielders who turn singles into doubles and doubles into triples should be blamed on the pitcher.

>>>   1. Why is OPS never considered when rating pitchers? It's become the de facto uberstat for rating batters, but it seems to me that if it is relevant to hitters, it should be relevant to pitching as well<<<<

When looking to project future performance, the frequency of how many hits a pitcher gives up is more telling than how far the ball went. Ig a pitcher is giving up more hits than inning pitched, then immediate red flags go up. You don't have to worry about how hard he is being hit.

Most guys who give up a low frequency of hits are not getting hit hard. It is the exceptions you have to look out for. A guy in the lower minors with a good  H/IP, but a penchant for giving up HRs might be challenging too many people because he is overconfident, or perhaps his stuff is good enough to fool most of the league, but not the great hitters.

Looking at H/IP, W/IP, and HR/IP is essentialy doing the same thing as OpOPS, but you are looking at the parts instead of the sum. By isolating the parts, we can get a clearer picture of what the pitcher's weaknesses and strength are.