Sabermetrics are a bunch of malarkey . . .

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Neags23

If the "RBIs are great!" side has any valid point, it's only that this is the method real world writers most often use to vote for MVP.

That's not necessarily a good thing, though. If you want the game to model that stupidity, I suppose you could... but why would you want to?

I'm not picking a side 'cause I don't have to, but isn't the game supposed to be realistic? Currently that includes "real life" stupid MVP votes.

As long as there are options available to customize the game to your preference, why should this matter?

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by andymac

I have never tried to convert anyone. I didn't start this thread, just responded to the complaints about the stats and the attacks on the guys who created them (just because a thread is started off by saying "I'm not attacking" or whatever doesn't mean what follows doesn't attack, nor does hiding under the veil of humor). I could not care less how many people want to stick with the "traditional" stats, I'll just feel that I am better informed than they are. It isn't like by using the "non traditional" stats, I no longer understand the "traditional" ones.

What you guys either don't remember or weren't around to witness, is that the reason the game chooses the MVP the way it does now is because there were many posters complaining that the game was obviously choosing the wrong guy using the "traditional stats". So, Markus changed the formula (I don't remember exactly what version this happened with).

Your point is well taken, but the reason this discussion is so lively is because we have two sides, each with a valid point, who have a different concept of how the game "should" award the MVP.

Your position is that you hate the sports writers who you deem "stupid" and you feel "vindicated" that OOTP chooses the winner in a more enlightened fashion. Ok. Good point.

The OP's position is that he's dissatisfied with OOTP because it's method of choosing the winner is too cold and calculating, and it ignores the, for lack of a better word, "sentimental" or "human" aspect when awarding the MVP. In my opinion, another good point.

My point is that your position is technically the right one, but if the sports writers started handing out MVPs to the guy with the best VORP, the public at large would judge them "stupid", for using this eggheaded stat that nobody can even understand, and doesn't want to.

Understand?

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by Charley575

I think you've entirely missed my point, and I'm not going to restate it in it's entirety. Go back and read what I wrote, please, about the appeal of traditional stats vs. Sabermetric ones to the average baseball fan.

I didn't miss your point, I just don't think it's a valid one.

It's really the David Eckstein and Ross Gload effect.

Because something might appeal more to the average fan doesn't mean it's the best way to evaluate something.

Fast food appeals more to the average American than health food, doesn't mean it's good for them.

It might really appeal to someone and make them feel all warm and fuzzy that an odd shaped rock is from an alien world. But when a scientist uses objective analysis and finds it's dried cow dung... well, appeal and warmth and fuzziness don't really cut it.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by Neags23

I didn't miss your point, I just don't think it's a valid one.

It's really the David Eckstein and Ross Gload effect.

Because something might appeal more to the average fan doesn't mean it's the best way to evaluate something.

Fast food appeals more to the average American than health food, doesn't mean it's good for them.

It might really appeal to someone and make them feel all warm and fuzzy that an odd shaped rock is from an alien world. But when a scientist uses objective analysis and finds it's dried cow dung... well, appeal and warmth and fuzziness don't really cut it.

True, but baseball is a game. It's to be enjoyed. No one's health is at stake. If people don't want to try to understand those complex formulas and they just want to enjoy the game, I don't see why you guys have to say, be it implicitly or explicitly, that they are "stupid".

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Charley575

Your position is that you hate the sports writers who you deem "stupid" and you feel "vindicated" that OOTP chooses the winner in a more enlightened fashion. Ok. Good point.

Your point is apparently to put words into others' mouths. I don't feel "vidicated" by anything OOTP does. I wasn't part of the argument that got the formula switched even though I was of the opinion that those metrics are better for choosing the MVP. I don't care how the game chooses an MVP, I don't think it is a very important aspect of the game.

What I do care about is that those who talk about sabermetrics either do so with some knowledge about it or at least avoid making biased assumptions and/or comments about something they know little about.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Charley575

True, but baseball is a game. It's to be enjoyed. No one's health is at stake. If people don't want to try to understand those complex formulas and they just want to enjoy the game, I don't see why you guys have to say, be it implicitly or explicitly, that they are "stupid".

You are correct and I have never used the term "stupid" (even though you have characterized me as someone who has) to describe anyone who does not care for sabremetrics. I better term is probably ignorant, which isn't a description of someone who lacks intelligence but simply of someone who lacks knowledge.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by andymac

Your point is apparently to put words into others' mouths. I don't feel "vidicated" by anything OOTP does. I wasn't part of the argument that got the formula switched even though I was of the opinion that those metrics are better for choosing the MVP. I don't care how the game chooses an MVP, I don't think it is a very important aspect of the game.

What I do care about is that those who talk about sabermetrics either do so with some knowledge about it or at least avoid making biased assumptions and/or comments about something they know little about.

Ok, I'm sorry. I should probably have not said "you". I was really talking to the side of the argument which I perceive you to be taking, and summarizing all of those positions. I believe it was Neags who made the "stupid" reference, although, you implied it awhile back when you said you were "more enlightened" than the average fan. That may be true, but you shouldn't call people stupid because they don't want to dig as deep into statistics as you do.

[pressure]

I have a feeling this thread is about talked out, but I just had to add my 2 cents-

I understand the desire to have your MVP's chosen in a manner that is as close to reality as possible, meaning using "traditional" stats. But I really don't understand how people "won't trust" or just dismiss sabermetric stats. I mean, if you don't care because it's just a game, thats ok - I can understand that. Likewise if you don't want to put the effort in to understanding what those stats represent- fair enough. But not believing or trusting things that have gone through tons and tons of analysis with really really big sample sizes? I just don't get it. Go apply for a job with the Kansas state board of education. Go ahead, don't believe in it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the way it is. Go look up D.I.P.S. It's totally counter intuitive, -BUT- it's been studied to death (probably because it is so counter intuitive) and it holds up every time.

And secondly-If your REALLY talking about who is the most valuable player (not selected MVP) in baseball or in your league, it is always based not on what the player did in the past but what the player is projected to do in the future. GM's that want to win games, don't care about what a player did in the past, they want predictions of what they will do now and in the near future.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Charley575

That may be true, but you shouldn't call people stupid because they don't want to dig as deep into statistics as you do.

I agree, but I think ignorant is fair. There is knowledge out there that they choose not to have. I am ignorant, for the most part, about politics. It isn't that I don't have the intelligence, but I don't have the desire to put time into understanding it the way I could. Because of that, I don't participate much in political discussion because I feel I would be out of my element with those who have much more knowledge. Yet, many baseball fans act like they are experts despite their unwillingness to "dig deep" as you put it.

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by Charley575

Ok, I'm sorry. I should probably have not said "you". I was really talking to the side of the argument which I perceive you to be taking, and summarizing all of those positions. I believe it was Neags who made the "stupid" reference, although, you implied it awhile back when you said you were "more enlightened" than the average fan. That may be true, but you shouldn't call people stupid because they don't want to dig as deep into statistics as you do.

I never called anyone stupid.

I said that if you wanted the game to model the stupidity of using RBI's as an important factor in MVP voting, you could, but why would you want to.

That's not calling anyone stupid, and certainly not calling the average fan stupid.

If the average fan doesn't want to dig as deep into stats, that doesn't make them stupid at all. But believing that a stat which doesn't measure individual performance is a a good stat to use to evaluate individual value is uninformed, at best.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by pressure

I have a feeling this thread is about talked out, but I just had to add my 2 cents-

I understand the desire to have your MVP's chosen in a manner that is as close to reality as possible, meaning using "traditional" stats. But I really don't understand how people "won't trust" or just dismiss sabermetric stats. I mean, if you don't care because it's just a game, thats ok - I can understand that. Likewise if you don't want to put the effort in to understanding what those stats represent- fair enough. But not believing or trusting things that have gone through tons and tons of analysis with really really big sample sizes? I just don't get it. Go apply for a job with the Kansas state board of education. Go ahead, don't believe in it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the way it is. Go look up D.I.P.S. It's totally counter intuitive, -BUT- it's been studied to death (probably because it is so counter intuitive) and it holds up every time.

And secondly-If your REALLY talking about who is the most valuable player (not selected MVP) in baseball or in your league, it is always based not on what the player did in the past but what the player is projected to do in the future. GM's that want to win games, don't care about what a player did in the past, they want predictions of what they will do now and in the near future.

It's not that people don't trust Sabermetrics, it's that they don't understand what goes into them and they don't want to because there's no FUN it it for the average person. Baseball is just a game. It's supposed to be fun. We are not discussing matters of great national or global importance, so I say, if people don't like Sabermetrics, that's their right and they shouldn't be regarded as rubes for it, AND....

Perhaps with that, we are just about talked out. Great discussion, though, guys.

[Jestre]

I find it humorous that the pro VORP'ers consider themselves enlightened and more knowledgeable than those of us that don't worship at that altar. VORP is only useful as a tool to measure an individuals "potential" value over a period of time. It does not measure that players "REAL" value in producing "REAL" runs. VORP may be useful to identify future player performance but is totally worthless in evaluating past "REAL" contributions to run production.
If I have a choice of a player at a position that I know is going hit .300 score 60 runs and knock in 60 runs and draw 100 walks or a player that is going to hit .260 and score 100 runs and knock in 100 runs and draw 50 walks then I am going to take the latter player even though his VORP is lower, it would be "ignorant" not to.

Here's an analogy; you as a manager have to pick between the following employees to retain. Employee #1 works hard, puts in overtime, performs all his assigned tasks well and is a good team player. Employee #2 comes to work on time, leaves the second his shift is over, spends time on the OOTP forum, can be abrasive, but every so often comes up with brilliant idea's that bring the company significant profits. Who is more valuable to the company???

[treedom]

Originally Posted by Jestre

If I have a choice of a player at a position that I know is going hit .300 score 60 runs and knock in 60 runs and draw 100 walks or a player that is going to hit .260 and score 100 runs and knock in 100 runs and draw 50 walks then I am going to take the latter player even though his VORP is lower, it would be "ignorant" not to.

If you make this same choice with everyone in your lineup it's likely that you're gonna see those runs and ribbies decline.

[andymac]

If I knew for sure that a player was going to be really lucky, I would rather have him too but I still wouldn't consider him more valuable than a guy who is a better player.

[wlight1]

Originally Posted by Charley575

Actually, the above statement was "humor", used to make the point that the overwhelming majority of people don't know what all these formulas mean and don't want to. That's their right. I mentioned previously that I have some scientific training myself, and I understand the usefulness of these formulas. Numbers don't lie. When properly analyzed, the numbers can dissect past performance and in many cases predict future outcomes to a high level of reliability. Whether the subject is baseball statistics, or the existence of black holes, THE MATH DOESN'T LIE. That having been said, my point that I'm trying to drive home in this thread is this... the majority of baseball fans are not fascinated with Sabermetrics. Most of them have never heard of it, and if you try to convert them, they'll either walk away from you or punch you in the face, or at least threaten to. Maybe it's an idea that just hasn't caught on yet. I tend to think, however, that the reason it hasn't caught on, and most likely won't ever be popular, is because it sort of takes the fun out of the game. It IS still a GAME, after all. People just want to enjoy it. Most of them don't want to dig that deep. So, you Sabermetric folks out there are technically correct. Sabermetrics tell the story in the stats much better than traditional stats. It's just not something that Joe Average, with his 80-100 I.Q. can relate to in a tangible way. In a country that still stubbornly refuses to adopt the metric system after everyone else has done so, your battle will be even tougher. Sorry.

I agree with Charley 100% here, and Jestre is a perfect example:

baseball is simply a matter of which team scores the most runs. VORP is completely divorced from that equation. You don't walk away from a game saying wow we outvorped them 7-3 we kicked their butt.

Some people just don't want to get it, and they obviously have the right to enjoy the game however they choose. I think in the specific context of the MVP discussion, and I think L_L_N made this point, the brilliance of OOTP in this and other regards is its customizability. As long as there's an option to give out year-end awards based on traditional stats OR on more advanced metrics, everybody wins. It's technically realistic to use RBI as the primary stat for determining the MVP, because in real life that's pretty much what the BBWAA does. On the other hand, it's more satisfying to many OOTPers to use better methods of determining a player's value. I think this discussion mirrors in an interesting way some of the real-world debates about how exactly we should define 'valuable' (the dustup over the Rodriguez/Ortiz decision, and the real issue of how much to value a player's defensive contribution, masked by AL East partisanship, springs immediately to mind as a good parallel to this thread).

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by Jestre

I find it humorous that the pro VORP'ers consider themselves enlightened and more knowledgeable than those of us that don't worship at that altar. VORP is only useful as a tool to measure an individuals "potential" value over a period of time. It does not measure that players "REAL" value in producing "REAL" runs. VORP may be useful to identify future player performance but is totally worthless in evaluating past "REAL" contributions to run production.

This doesn't make any sense. VORP doesn't identify future performance any more than a crystal ball could. It doesn't have anything to do with potential. I really think you are misunderstanding what VORP is. VORP measures INDIVIDUAL player value. RBI's are not an individual stat. The only RBI you can accumulate individually is a home run.

"REAL" runs can only be scored when people reach base. "REAL" runs are produced more frequently when a player's hits are worth more bases. That's on base percentage and slugging percentage.

An individual player cannot control who is on base in front of him and cannot control who drives in runs behind him if he happens to be on base. Individual players have absolutely no control over that. Why would you value a guy more for something he has nothing to do with? That just makes no sense.

Take leadoff hitters, for instance. Their RBI totals are generally pretty low. Is that because they're lousy hitters? No, it's because there aren't often runners already on base when they come up to bat. Should they be punished for that? I think not.

Then, take #8 hitters, for instance. Their run totals are generally lower than those guys in the #1 slot. For one, they don't get as many AB's. For two, the #9 hitter is generally the weakest hitter in the lineup. If you take a guy that gets on base 10 times in a week, and he's hitting #8, the pitcher behind him might get 1 or 2 hits, so he may only score 2 runs. If he was placed in the #1 or #2 slot, the #3 or #4 guys behind him will likely get 5 or 6 hits, resulting in that player scoring 5 or 6 runs. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the hitter. He doesn't control what the guys around him do.

Originally Posted by Jestre

If I have a choice of a player at a position that I know is going hit .300 score 60 runs and knock in 60 runs and draw 100 walks or a player that is going to hit .260 and score 100 runs and knock in 100 runs and draw 50 walks then I am going to take the latter player even though his VORP is lower, it would be "ignorant" not to.

If you take that .260 hitter that draws 50 walks and put him in the #9 hole, he's not gonna have those 100 RBIs. If you put him in the #1 hole, he's not gonna score 100 runs. Because those numbers have nothing to do with him as an individual player.

That's really pretty fundamental to meaningful player analysis. Even if you don't want to worship at the VORP altar, this should at least be really easy to see.

Forget VORP and RC/27 and all that for a minute. Can't you at least see that RBIs and Runs are absolutely worthless stats given the examples and explanations above?

[Jestre]

Originally Posted by treedom

If you make this same choice with everyone in your lineup it's likely that you're gonna see those runs and ribbies decline.

That's what you guys are not understanding, they did produce those rbi's, only in the future may they not.

[wlight1]

Originally Posted by Jestre

That's what you guys are not understanding, they did produce those rbi's, only in the future may they not.

You're wrong about that much. I don't know that it's going to do much good to explain it again, but the point isn't that the player did not produce the RBI. The point is that the fact that they produced the RBI is not a good indicator of their value as a hitter.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Jestre

That's what you guys are not understanding, they did produce those rbi's, only in the future may they not.

They produced the hits, but the RBI's are a production of more than just that player. If player A can do the exact same thing as player B but you are going to consider player A more valuable because there were people on base when he did it and there weren't when player B did it then IMO you are missing something. To everyone their own though.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

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.

You do make a good case for a leadoff hitter. But generally leadoff hitters dont win the MVP. (note: Though sometimes I do think they are more deserving)


Anyhow, I see your point partly. But, the MVP should be about helping your team win the most. VORP is theoretical. RBIs show what you actually did. Yes, you can make a case the guy with the higher VORP will be the guy you want NEXT season. But, for that season the guy with all the RBIs did the best job. He deserves the MVP. The MVP isnt on who might've been the best, but on who WAS the best.


Maybe both VORP and RBI (for argument sake) should both be a factor. Personally, I dont think ONE stat should be the single, sole factor for defining who is MVP (and that does come somewhat for RBI as well VORP in all honesty).