Sabermetrics are a bunch of malarkey . . .

[Qwerty75]

Originally Posted by ctorg

Referring to the first post, I really don't see how Griffin's numbers are better than those other two guys in 2013 and 2015. To me the other guys are obviously more deserving of the MVP.

RBI, silly.

[treedom]

2015 may be a little fuzzier, but 2013...wow, I don't think there's any doubt that the game made the right pick for MVP. Eldrige's numbers are very obviously superior.

[lewis31lewis52]

Originally Posted by Qwerty75

RBI, silly.

Do people still believe RBI are a good stat for measuring a player's ability?

[Jestre]

Originally Posted by andymac

It makes you realize how far a good portion of people have come. Some just refuse to move forward, though.

Last time I checked they still gave the W to the team with the most runs, not the team with the highest VORP. I am sure that its just a matter of time before VORP is passe and some other theoretical, constructed acronym is the rating du jour.

[Qwerty75]

Originally Posted by lewis31lewis52

Do people still believe RBI are a good stat for measuring a player's ability?

Obviously some do, or we wouldn't have this thread.

Or to be fairer, they think RBI are a good stat to measure past performance. That POV has some merit, but overlooks the lineup context within which a single batter operates. A batter with more PA with RISP will have a greater RBI total than someone with fewer opportunities, the other circumstances of their batting being equal.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Jestre

Last time I checked they still gave the W to the team with the most runs, not the team with the highest VORP. I am sure that its just a matter of time before VORP is passe and some other theoretical, constructed acronym is the rating du jour.

Runs are the result of a teams' ability, this is a discussion of how to measure an individuals' ability. A player can't score a run or drive one in by himself unless he hits a home run, in all other situations they need the help of teammates. Evaluating a player based on the abilities of his teammates is awfully silly.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Well, that is why it is a roster with 25 players instead of 1. I know it is cruel. But, part of the MVP should be captializing on your chances.

I dont mean to do this but. By your standards you would have 2 runs scored 15 men LOB and wonder why people think your team had a bad day.

I think you're missing the idea. Let's take my example - I don't ever look at RBI. I don't know whether 100 RBI in a season is considered good or not. What I would respond to you is that a game with 2 runs and 15 men LOB is a risk I am willing to take - If I get 17 runners on base in every game, I'll take the few times I get 2 runs, because more often than not I'll have many more runs. It's frustrating on a micro level, but the odds are that if you get 17 runners on base, you'll score more than 2 runs.

Should capitalizing on your chances be more highly prized than the potential to capitalize on your chances that you created? Well, look at it this way: In 2007, Player A had more RBI than player B, and despite having slightly worse OBP and SLG, he capitalized more on his chances. If I look at it in hindsight, I'd rather have had Player A on my team this year. But, if I had to pick a player to have on my team next year, I'd take Player B. Why? Easy: I've never seen anything demonstrating that capitalizing is a skill rather than the fruit of pure randomness, whereas there is evidence of high correlation of performance from one year to the next for stats like, say, OBP and SLG.




I also have a thought for Jestre, who claimed that runs and RBI are good indicators of a player's actual contribution in a given season. I can see RBI, but I just don't see runs mattering at all. Scoring is fairly easy - put me on base, and I bet you I'll score more often than David Ortiz. Yet I'd rather have Ortiz in my lineup than me. Scoring, other than on a home run, is something you have little control on once you get on base. Basically, your run total is more of an indication of the guy hitting after you's ability than yours, see what I mean? Let's say you lead off every inning, to simplify things. The best you can do, as a hitter, is get a home run - the next best thing is a triple, then a double, then a single, then a walk. Basically, you have to get on base, and it'll be up to the other guys to drive you in. So, the ability you should have is to get as far as possible. Scoring, unless in the case of a HR or stealing home, is not in your hands. All you can do is maximize your chances of scoring by getting on base - once on base, you have very little merit for scoring more runs because, as I said, I'd score more than Ortiz, but there's no way I'm a better player.

[gmo]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

Should capitalizing on your chances be more highly prized than the potential to capitalize on your chances that you created? Well, look at it this way: In 2007, Player A had more RBI than player B, and despite having slightly worse OBP and SLG, he capitalized more on his chances. If I look at it in hindsight, I'd rather have had Player A on my team this year. But, if I had to pick a player to have on my team next year, I'd take Player B. Why? Easy: I've never seen anything demonstrating that capitalizing is a skill rather than the fruit of pure randomness, whereas there is evidence of high correlation of performance from one year to the next for stats like, say, OBP and SLG.

It can always breakdown to something like what "valuable", but the hindsight and randomness make good sense to me being included for picking MVP. I have no problem with a "lucky" player being named MVP even though sabermetrically he is not at the top of the heap. So I think there is a fair argument in that. The stathead way is to compute the route most likely to achieve positive results, not get the "right" answer in every scenario. Teammates and results can and do matter, though that is no reason to disregard as malarkey tools that were basically constructed backwards from the "right" answer and do usually get it.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by gmo

It can always breakdown to something like what "valuable", but the hindsight and randomness make good sense to me being included for picking MVP. I have no problem with a "lucky" player being named MVP even though sabermetrically he is not at the top of the heap. So I think there is a fair argument in that. The stathead way is to compute the route most likely to achieve positive results, not get the "right" answer in every scenario. Teammates and results can and do matter, though that is no reason to disregard as malarkey tools that were basically constructed backwards from the "right" answer and do usually get it.

I'd originally written something that I subsequently deleted in that message. I was wondering whether it was fair to reward people for their higher performance if it was due to randomness rather than ability. I'd say it probably is, but... I can't shake the idea that it's undeserved out of my head.

[mrbill]

I think the reason VORP looks so unattractive as an MVP metric is how it leaves no room for discussion. It's cold and calculated by a very specific formula that leaves no room for feelings or stories or heroics. Sportswriters would have nothing to do if VORP was how we voted awards.

VORP also misses out on fielding. Clearly last year, Ryan Braun outhit Tulowitzki, but his fielding was so much worse and at a much less important position, I wouldn't have given him the ROY. WARP is a better stat, but of course fielding is hard to quantify and weigh alongside hitting stats.

RBI and runs though, that just goes along with "must play for a winning team" as a poor reason to give someone an award. In the NBA, maybe that's a better reason, there's only 5 guys on the floor and the MVP would likely make his team a winner. In baseball, maybe 40 AB a season can you actually drive yourself in, the other 600+, you need your teammates to do something too. And you can score all you want, if your pitching sucks, you still lose.

I feel like you still can have healthy debates using VORP in place of RBI/Runs and make a better decision about the individual who made the most impact on his team in a season.

[gmo]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

I'd originally written something that I subsequently deleted in that message. I was wondering whether it was fair to reward people for their higher performance if it was due to randomness rather than ability. I'd say it probably is, but... I can't shake the idea that it's undeserved out of my head.

Yeah, that can be a tough call. It may be unfair/undeserved, but FWIW I am okay with conceding, "them's the breaks."

But when trying to determine who is best in a vacuum (i.e., would be best in equal or random situations) or as you said who you would want next year, those old counting number stats are much, much weaker than these new-fangled tools. They are more sophisticated and less intuitive, but using them is in a simple sense like using AVG instead of hits.

[Charley575]

I guess I can see both arguments. On the one hand VORP is a better measure of who is the better hitter. The one most likely to produce. On the other hand, HR and RBI are more "real". They represent actual production to which one can bear witness in a more tangible way. I think that's why people are turned off by Sabermetrics. It's strictly for wonks. I mean, when I think of the people who come up with these formulas, I see a lot of Captain Kirk posters on the wall, if you know what I mean. I'll bet most of these guys have never seen a real girl naked. And that's just sad...

[bababui]

refuses playoff expansion

Great. Make baseball a joke like the NBA and the NHL. Divisions should be eliminated. The top four teams in each league should make the playoffs and there should be a balanced schedule.

[wlight1]

Originally Posted by Charley575

I guess I can see both arguments. On the one hand VORP is a better measure of who is the better hitter. The one most likely to produce. On the other hand, HR and RBI are more "real". They represent actual production to which one can bear witness in a more tangible way. I think that's why people are turned off by Sabermetrics. It's strictly for wonks.

Sure, I can see both arguments. It's just that one is right and one is wrong. Advanced baseball metrics are strictly for wonks if 'wonks' are anybody interested in the game. RBI can be shown to be primarily a measure of how many of your teammates got on base in front of you. Is that the main skill of a good hitter? I guess some people think so.

[Tony M]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

It's runs created per 27 outs. Not Runs Created just divided by 27. Why would that even be a stat?

O = AB - H + CS + GDP + SH + SF
RC/27 = RC / O * 27

Fair point.

[Russ]

This is a better rivalry than Sox/Yanks, IMO.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by wlight1

Sure, I can see both arguments. It's just that one is right and one is wrong. Advanced baseball metrics are strictly for wonks if 'wonks' are anybody interested in the game. RBI can be shown to be primarily a measure of how many of your teammates got on base in front of you. Is that the main skill of a good hitter? I guess some people think so.

Ok, yes. Look, I'm a physics major, so I understand that advanced mathematical formulas like VORP tell the "true" story about a hitter's value. That's what they're for. The reason that there is such resistance, however, is that nobody remembers VORP. Nobody walks away from the ballpark saying, "Woa, that was unbelievable the way that guy walked twice and doubled with the bases empty. That's the greatest thing I ever saw! I bet his VORP is gonna skyrocket!" No. They don't say that. But if a guy strikes out three times and then hits a 1-2 pitch 450 feet with the bases loaded to win the game in the bottom of the ninth, people remember that. People "feel" that. It's special. That's what I'm talking about. Because MVP awards are voted upon, and not simply given to the player with the best VORP, one has a legitimate beef in complaining that OOTP is not following the usual protocol for awarding the MVP. I think that was the OP's sentiment. He was complaining that the person who was awarded the MVP by OOTP was not the person who would have been awarded the MVP IRL, and stricly in that sense, he's right.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by lewis31lewis52

Do people still believe RBI are a good stat for measuring a player's ability?

Yes.

The players.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Charley575

Ok, yes. Look, I'm a physics major, so I understand that advanced mathematical formulas like VORP tell the "true" story about a hitter's value. That's what they're for. The reason that there is such resistance, however, is that nobody remembers VORP. Nobody walks away from the ballpark saying, "Woa, that was unbelievable the way that guy walked twice and doubled with the bases empty. That's the greatest thing I ever saw! I bet his VORP is gonna skyrocket!" No. They don't say that. But if a guy strikes out three times and then hits a 1-2 pitch 450 feet with the bases loaded to win the game in the bottom of the ninth, people remember that. People "feel" that. It's special. That's what I'm talking about. Because MVP awards are voted upon, and not simply given to the player with the best VORP, one has a legitimate beef in complaining that OOTP is not following the usual protocol for awarding the MVP. I think that was the OP's sentiment. He was complaining that the person who was awarded the MVP by OOTP was not the person who would have been awarded the MVP IRL, and stricly in that sense, he's right.

Well said, Charley. That's exactly how I felt, in addition to the frustration of not being able to firmly grasp the mathematics involved.

My mind just rebels at the thought of a Bill James coming up with some weird formula and saying, "I'm brilliant, therefore you must believe in this" and the rest of us just following along and nodding our heads. I'm sorry, but many of you who favor VORP really don't understand it either and could not calculate the OOTP version using a spreadsheet if you tried all night. You like to think it makes you look brilliant to support it without knowing exactly how it works. Those of you who think you do, witness the confusion over RC/27, for goodness sake.

I'm taking the traditional view of baseball performance, with the statistics that are tried, true, and simple to understand. If that makes me look stupid and backward in some eyes, so be it. One of the first responders, and now Charley, made the excellent point that it is more realistic not to allow the computer to select awards based on VORP and RC/27. Why? Because I cannot ever, EVER, recall anybody talking about VORP in terms of baseball award winners and hall of fame members in real life.

So long, from the OOTP village idiot!

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Charley575

I see a lot of Captain Kirk posters on the wall, if you know what I mean. I'll bet most of these guys have never seen a real girl naked. And that's just sad...

But Cap'n Kirk got all the girls.