Fangraphs has unleashed a new stat today, wRC+. It’s meant to replace OPS+, baseball-reference’s park- and league-adjusted version of on-base plus slugging scaled so that league-average is 100 (like IQ and the SATs).
The difference between wRC+ and OPS+ is that the former is based on wOBA, a stat described here that more accurately assesses offensive production than OPS.
Of course, as with all stats, it’s a safe bet something will come along to render this one obsolete. And I’ll probably still rely on OPS+ some because I find baseball-reference so easy to navigate and operate.
But the career wRC+ leaderboards are here. The career OPS+ leaderboards are here.
Ty Cobb is a big mover, going from 10th all-time in OPS+ to six in wRC+. Really old dudes, like Dan Brouthers and Pete Browning, drop off a lot in wRC+.
Also, wRC+ appears to suggest a slightly greater variance in players’ offensive outputs, as it lists 26 players over 160 — or 60% better than average — whereas OPS+ only lists 14.
Tedquarters 
My understanding of wOBA is that it’s not adjusted for parks and leagues. If not, that’s a point in the OPS+ column, though that’s not to say that OPS+ is superior. For what it’s worth, Larry Walker, the first example to come to mind, is No. 64 in wRC+ (148) and No. 78 in OPS+ (140).
wRC+ is indeed adjusted for parks and leagues. Sorry, I should have mentioned that. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-is-wrc
there are only 6 players from the last twenty years on that list. isn’t that kind of odd?
A little bit, but it could just be random chance. 6/35 is about 17%, and players from the last 20 years certainly account for more than 17% of players in the history of baseball, since there have been more teams, but I’m not sure how much more.
Still, since this stat measures a player relative to the league he plays in, maybe the level of play has improved to the point that it’s harder for guys to distinguish themselves in extreme ways, like the guys on the first page. On the second page, 10/35 guys are from the past 20 years and on the third, 13/35 guys are.
So meet the new stat, and it’s NOT the same as the old stat? Woah.
I spent about 20 minutes looking for an advanced stat that rhymed with or vaguely sounded like “fooled” so I could respond with, “We won’t get [stat] again!”
But I couldn’t find one. That is what I was thinking of when i wrote the headline though.