Sabermetrics are a bunch of malarkey . . .

[Dagrims]

What a thread.

I wonder why MLB doesn't track GWRBI any longer. That really seemed to be a great indicator of the most valuable players in a league.

Let's talk about wins and saves for pitchers next!

[7foot3]

Originally Posted by Jestre

What all of these VORP and RC followers don't seem to understand is that baseball is simply a matter of which team scores the most runs. VORP is completely divorced from that equation.

This may have been touched upon, but, this is so far from the truth, its not even funny. a lineup of 9 guys with a higher combined VORP will outscore the lower VORP lineup, and do so very frequently (depending how much higher the VORP is). Some people are acting like VORP was made up by some drunks at a bar. Regression analysis of years upon years of data is just a little bit different. We've seen from actual results how much a walk, double, etc is worth to real run scoring.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

What a thread.

I wonder why MLB doesn't track GWRBI any longer. That really seemed to be a great indicator of the most valuable players in a league.

Let's talk about wins and saves for pitchers next!

This thread belongs in the boxing forums. Some very outstanding real punches thrown here.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by RchW

Nice interview. That's Erik's brother asking the questions.

I had no idea.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Neags23

Wouldn't some kind of RBI% formula like,

RBI-HR/(RBI-HR)+LOB

(where LOB is runners left on base for the entire season)

at least give you a better idea of production than RBIs?

I don't know if that's really a formula since I just made it up in my head, but I'm basically trying to get an RBI efficiency stat. So the number of RBIs you get minus the number of times you drove in yourself, divided by the total # of runners on base when you came to the plate.

Shouldn't that give you how efficient you were at driving in runs? That wouldn't penalize leadoff hitters who have no one on base in front of them, etc.

So if a hitter has 120 RBIs, 35 homers and left 130 runners on base would have an RBI% of .395.

Or for a leadoff guy who has 40 RBIs, 5 homers, and left 40 runners on base would have an RBI% of .467.

Of course, I don't know if they keep up with the total # of runners left on base for the entire season for each player, and I don't know if that formula actually does what I'm trying to get it to do.

I got a C in STAT405...

Baseball Prospectus has this, in fact they break it up by which base the runners are on. So, they have R1BI%, R2BI% and R3BI%.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Jestre

I never said RBI's are a better indicator but they are a component. Those of us that do not worship at the altar of VORP consider many factors in determining a players season. To ignore some stats because they are team oriented or situational in grading a players performance is simply not realistic in that that decision can penalize or benefit some players artificially, which puts VORP firmly in the realm of theoretical. I would bet that the majority of non VORP'ers would rate players extremely similar to VORP'ers on a value basis but perhaps significantly different on a seasonal performance basis.

Yes, I mean in OOTP I like getting guys with high OBP. I recognize that is good. Ok, but I also realize they have to score or it dont mean jack (Except for wearing out the starter to hopefully get to a weaker reliever).

Sure, great individual performances are great. But, it IS a team sport. Baseball will always be a team sport. As long as that is the case then "team-dependant" stats will always be important.


The V in VORP should stand for "vacuum" as in this is the best enviroment it works in.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

I wonder why MLB doesn't track GWRBI any longer.

Miller Beer would not pay for it.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Yes, I mean in OOTP I like getting guys with high OBP. I recognize that is good. Ok, but I also realize they have to score or it dont mean jack (Except for wearing out the starter to hopefully get to a weaker reliever).

Sure, great individual performances are great. But, it IS a team sport. Baseball will always be a team sport. As long as that is the case then "team-dependant" stats will always be important.


The V in VORP should stand for "vacuum" as in this is the best enviroment it works in.

Realize that if you can accumulate 9 guys with an OBP of .350, your offense will send at least 7 guys to the plate in one inning about once a game. So even if that .350 is totally hollow (all BB) your offense can be relied upon to score a run a game. Obviously, that's the most radical case. Give me 9 true lead-off hitters and I'll beat 9 sluggers with .250 OBPs more often than not.

[Jestre]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Realize that if you can accumulate 9 guys with an OBP of .350, your offense will send at least 7 guys to the plate in one inning about once a game. So even if that .350 is totally hollow (all BB) your offense can be relied upon to score a run a game. Obviously, that's the most radical case. Give me 9 true lead-off hitters and I'll beat 9 sluggers with .250 OBPs more often than not.

A slugger with a .250 OBP is playing in the California League in A ball.

[RonCo]

I'm stretching each case to its farthest. You won't find any .350 OBP guys who do nothing but walk, either.

[RonCo]

I'll also note that there have been two cases in baseball history of players hitting more than 30 HR with registering OBP in the .250s. Tony Armas did it in 1983, and Dave Kingman in 1986. Armas had 107 RBI, kingman 94. For some odd reason, both of these offenses (Armas's 1983 Red Sox and Kingman's 86 As) were anemic, and floundered in mid-pack despite having these fearsome sluggers see over 500 AB.

[Jestre]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I'll also note that there have been two cases in baseball history of players hitting more than 30 HR with registering OBP in the .250s. Tony Armas did it in 1983, and Dave Kingman in 1986. Armas had 107 RBI, kingman 94. For some odd reason, both of these offenses (Armas's 1983 Red Sox and Kingman's 86 As) were anemic, and floundered in mid-pack despite having these fearsome sluggers see over 500 AB.

It surely doesnt take VORP to recognize that Kingman and Armas sucked, I can figure out that Rob Deer sucked too without using VORP....

[Russ]

FWIW, I haven't seen jestre calling anyone stupid or ignorant. Jestre seemingly understands VORP and just disagrees with the premise. He hardly deserves the insults or to be laughed at.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Jestre

It surely doesnt take VORP to recognize that Kingman and Armas sucked, I can figure out that Rob Deer sucked too without using VORP....

Surely you can't be saying that a guy with over 100 RBI sucked?

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by Russ

FWIW, I haven't seen jestre calling anyone stupid or ignorant. Jestre seemingly understands VORP and just disagrees with the premise. He hardly deserves the insults or to be laughed at.

Amen. That's exactly what I was saying, oh so long ago.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Russ

FWIW, I haven't seen jestre calling anyone stupid or ignorant. Jestre seemingly understands VORP and just disagrees with the premise. He hardly deserves the insults or to be laughed at.

Jestre is being disingenuous with his arguments. He suggests he understands VORP, then goes about describing it incorrectly, then avoids the counterpoints when pointed out. Both VORP and RBI can be used to directly judge the quality of a player's season. The purpose of the thread was a discussion about how to judge a season that had the most value, and whether a guy who strongly out "VORPed" a guy who had more RBI was a worthy award-winner. The answer is very clearly "yes," despite the fact that it hasn't happened often in the real world. This, too, will change.

[RonCo]

He is either arguing just for the fun of it, or clinging to a position borne of raw faith. The issue of how valuable the RBI stat is has gone so far in the baseball community to be coming close to the evolution discussion in society as a whole--only the truly faithful are clinging to old school thoughts.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Jestre is being disingenuous with his arguments. He suggests he understands VORP, then goes about describing it incorrectly, then avoids the counterpoints when pointed out. Both VORP and RBI can be used to directly judge the quality of a player's season. The purpose of the thread was a discussion about how to judge a season that had the most value, and whether a guy who strongly out "VORPed" a guy who had more RBI was a worthy award-winner. The answer is very clearly "yes," despite the fact that it hasn't happened often in the real world. This, too, will change.

I got ya. I didn't think you were being rude anyway. And I see your points.

I think people are focusing on the wrong part of his argument though. If he had said theoretical instead of predictive, it would've made more sense.

[andymac]

Jestre has a different idea of what value means and I can dig that, but the thing is the RBI is still a poor stat for what he wants. There are SABR stats like Win Percentage Added that are much better at evaluating each at-bat's raw value.

[Russ]

Yeah, I'm all about WPA. It's genius.