Sabermetrics are a bunch of malarkey . . .

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Russ

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

To clarify, while I do disagree with the VORPers. I do like a good debate, and finding out where everybody's strategies and theories and such are coming from.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by RchW

But Cap'n Kirk got all the girls.

True that.

[andymac]

So, essentially, we should determine the MVP only by their at-bats with guys on base (and in fact only the ones where they successfully hit someone in) is what RBI fans are advocating. All other at-bats are meaningless then?

[pressure]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

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.

I have a hard time understanding what is theoretical about vorp, It is based entierly on AB, Hits, doubles, Hr's, walks, etc.... All of the "normal" stats that people have. What it DOES do- is it removes the statistics that are based on luck (like RBI's or runs) I mean vorp is no more theoretical than batting average. And no one seems to have a problem with that one.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by pressure

I have a hard time understanding what is theoretical about vorp, It is based entierly on AB, Hits, doubles, Hr's, walks, etc.... All of the "normal" stats that people have. What it DOES do- is it removes the statistics that are based on luck (like RBI's or runs) I mean vorp is no more theoretical than batting average. And no one seems to have a problem with that one.

It isn't theoretical, but I wasn't about to go there. If they don't want to understand, they aren't going to understand.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Neags23

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.

"

Believing that RBI's are actually relevant is so uninformed that you pretty much have to be a traditional sportswriter to do it.

[gmo]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

But, the MVP should be about helping your team win the most.

So what about big-numbers players on losing teams (e.g., ARod 2003)?

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

The MVP isnt on who might've been the best, but on who WAS the best.

Should determining the "best" account and discount for having a sort of head-start on the competition by having more guys on base in front of you or capable of driving you in behind you?

I am okay with a division winner with the most RBIs basically because of those two factors getting the MVP over a sabermetrically better player, but that should be understood and acknowledged as a largely team award in that case.

Sorry if everyone was done. Just wanted to stir the pot again.

[RonCo]

This is about the funniest thread I've ever read.

VORP is not projective, nor theoretical. It's based on actual production based on amount of innings played.

[RonCo]

RBI as a stat is not useless. It certainly has value, because RBI are valuable. But RBI count does not define a good hitter.

Hubie Brooks and Joe Carter are examples of high-RBI guys who were really not good hitters. Orlando Cabrera drove in 96 runs one year, but was a far less that league average hitter. If you understand VORP, you understand that if you had replaced a Joe Carter with a real hitter, you would have gotten a guy who drove in a lot more runs that Carter did.

[The Shaman]

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.
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???

Yes, the game of baseball is made up of a series of individual hitter vs. pitcher matchups, so individual run production is certainly important, but at it's heart and in the boxscore baseball remains a team sport.

So player B individually accounts for 200 runs (R+RBI) while player A only 120...Easy enough to understand, but that remains at the individual level. Player A walks 50 more times, that 50 more outs from player B and at least 50 (but likely more PA, and therefore opportunities for runs, that never occur). Assuming a 600 AB season, player A accounts for 180 hits, player B only 156, that's another 24 more outs from player B and at least another 24 plate appearances that never happen.

So how many runs never happen because player B is, at least in the sense, really NOT as productive as player A? That's a minimum of 74 run scoring opportunities that never come about because of the in-effectiveness of player B. Yeah, it's not likely that you'll get a 1:1 ratio, making up the entire 80 run difference between the two players (then again, it's highly unlikely that with those example stats you'll ever find an example where player A really did have the higher VORP. Then again I can't figure out how the OOTP VORP works anyway, it doesn't seem to follow the "real" (that'd be BP's) formula).

You might not like VORP, but it does in a sense take things like that into account...and yeah, I realize that I just gave you the OBP vs. BA argument, which shockingly enough I still had to give from time to time.

[Left-handed Badger]

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.
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???

To first paragraph:

Actually, I would take both if possible. That .300 hitter with a lot of BBs would fit nicely as a #1 or #2 hitter. Wouldnt necessarily want him anywhere near my heart of the order.

[lewis31lewis52]

Quick question - where is everyone getting the idea that VORP is theoretical? If VORP is, then so are RBI.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by lewis31lewis52

Quick question - where is everyone getting the idea that VORP is theoretical?

Because it is a new fangled sabremetric stat that somebody created in their mom's basement while watching star trek re-runs. All of those stats are theoretical.

[Left-handed Badger]

Well since VORP seems to record run opportunities rather than actual runs. That seemed to be the definition of theoretical.

[RonCo]

It's fine to call VORP theoretical. The value VORP uses for various stats is based on expected/average values in the run environment. However, VORP _is_ merely a way to weight actual stats a player accumulated. So at its root VORP is not theoretical. It's based on actual performance.

BTW...Bill James would probably appreciate not receiving hate mail about VORP since it was defined by Keith Wollner. As I remember, Wollner even used a different basis for run value than Bill James's RC.

[RonCo]

In that way it's like calling ERA theoretical. I mean, if a guy only throws 6 innings, and gives up 3 runs, his ERA is 4.50. Obviously, this is theoretical, because he only gave up 3 runs so how the heck could he possibly have an ERA of _4.5_????? Are you nuts????

So, the 3 runs are real runs. And the 6 innings are real innings. But the 4.5 is a theoretical projection based on a 9-inning opportunity.

Last I heard, no one has any issues with using this theoretical stat to judge the value of a pitcher.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by 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.

Is it really luck? Or is their a neuro-chemical response tied to the fight or flight reflex in the amygdila that allows some hitters to better focus in pressure situations while others panic?? These advanced formulas are great for games like OOTP but might not be comprehensive enough for real life.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by bababui

Is it really luck? Or is their a neuro-chemical response tied to the fight or flight reflex in the amygdila that allows some hitters to better focus in pressure situations while others panic?? These advanced formulas are great for games like OOTP but might not be comprehensive enough for real life.

The data suggests that it's luck.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by RonCo

In that way it's like calling ERA theoretical. I mean, if a guy only throws 6 innings, and gives up 3 runs, his ERA is 4.50. Obviously, this is theoretical, because he only gave up 3 runs so how the heck could he possibly have an ERA of _4.5_????? Are you nuts????

So, the 3 runs are real runs. And the 6 innings are real innings. But the 4.5 is a theoretical projection based on a 9-inning opportunity.

Last I heard, no one has any issues with using this theoretical stat to judge the value of a pitcher.

I am not going to even bother with explaining this one. I guess we could do it by 1 inning instead of 9. But, since baseball is 9 innings long......

Besides dont they have some stat to measure expected ERA anyhow?

[bababui]

Originally Posted by RonCo

The data suggests that it's luck.

The data doesnt measure biology. The data is incomplete.