Quote:
Originally Posted by Syd Thrift
Actually, people who follow VORP would say that the sample size is way too small to draw any conclusions. That being said, all else being equal, yes, if you agree with VORP then you would rate a .280/.350/.450 player with 80 RBIs equal to a .280/.350/.450 player with 100 RBIs? Why? Because RBIs are a team stat, not an individual stat.
Now in your magical fairy world where gaining RBIs is an actual documented skill instead of the product of opportunity, sure, RBIs could mean something. In actual baseball, they really don't, and none of your straw men can save that.
|
Insults don't help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jestre
Reality.
Two realtors sell a condo from the same complex, same unit cost. One realtor gets $100,000 the other gets $125,000. Which realtor is better??? According to VORP they are both the same.... just luck that one got more money right????
|
It could be luck, it could be some intangible skill.
The argument is silly. VORP is a good tool, but not the end all be all of existance. RBI is an okay stat, but it too is not the end all be all of existance. VORP is figured on league average at a position. You can't say that a 3B with a VORP of 80 is worse than a RF with a VORP of 120 without looking at context. If every other RF in the league can't hit then your 120 VORP RF is inflated. The average RC in RF is so low that replacement level is pathetic, so a solid RF looks like a god. The 3B is competing among a league full of solid 3B, the replacement level for 3B is much higher and the 3B with an 80 IS a god among them. Without context you're just looking at RBIs that have been renamed VORP. Take VORP mixed with other stats and you can see who was better... VORP by itself and you see who was better than others at his position only.
RBI doesn't mean very much. A guy could have 100 RBIs and be a god because he only had 120 ABs with guys on base. Another could have 100 RBIs and be pathetic because he has 600 ABs with men on third. Without the context you're just finding out who pushed across the most runs, not who was actually best at pushing across runs.
Without context baseball statistics mean nothing. This is simply evidenced by Bonds vs Ruth. Bonds hit 73 HRs in a season and is now the all time HR leader. Is he the best HR hitter ever to play the game? Most people would say no, he hit 73 HRs in 2001 when the entire league hit 2,952. Ruth hit 60 in 1927 when the entire league hit 439, he hit more than any other team in the AL. Bonds accounted for 2.5% of the HRs hit in the NL, Ruth accounted for 13.5% of the HRs hit in the AL. Without context the number is meaningless. No stat can stand alone, sabermetrics are just tools to help you along the way.