Sabermetrics are a bunch of malarkey . . .

[BoofBonser26]

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.

You do realize that getting guys on base, and around them, is kinda like the entire point of the game since that's how you score, right?

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Russ

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

It is interesting and does what it is designed to do and I could definitely see it being a legitimate tool to argue for the MVP award. It is a poor tool if you want to know who the better player is, though.

I should note that it would be even more interesting if it could leverage for the quality of the batter/pitcher.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Wow... what a thread

I like VORP because a) the stats used are park-adjusted and b) it's relative to the player's position. When looking for underpaid/cheap players, I check their VORP and their defensive ratings, and if both are relatively high I am pretty sure to have a good deal...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andymac

It is interesting and does what it is designed to do and I could definitely see it being a legitimate tool to argue for the MVP award. It is a poor tool if you want to know who the better player is, though.

You're right about that. Where I think it has the most use is with the bullpen and rating middle relievers.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Russ

You're right about that. Where I think it has the most use is with the bullpen and rating middle relievers.

Yea, in my mind it is a great stat for "telling the story" of the season.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Wow... what a thread

I like VORP because a) the stats used are park-adjusted and b) it's relative to the player's position. When looking for underpaid/cheap players, I check their VORP and their defensive ratings, and if both are relatively high I am pretty sure to have a good deal...

Since you're here....

Can you clear up the confusion about how OOTP computes VORP?

[lewis31lewis52]

Hey, Markus like VORP! I think that about settles the argument.

[Jestre]

Originally Posted by 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.

My idea of value is actual production no matter what outside effects helped or hindered that production. You simply cannot separate park effects, team lineup strength, city effect etc from actual production. If VORP is all that it is cracked up to be then Edgar Renteria and J.D. Drew and Julio Lugo would have thrived in Boston...but they didnt because players do not play in a vacuum and never will. When you try to remove all outside influences from a players numbers then you have an experimental, theoretical rating especially when all the numbers you are using to formulate your VORP rating were not produced in a vacuum.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jestre

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

Not for long. Soon he will be saying "You want fries with that?"

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by BoofBonser26

You do realize that getting guys on base, and around them, is kinda like the entire point of the game since that's how you score, right?

LOL, I say the same thing to my relatives at MLB games.

But, no, Boof. You, me, RonCO, etc. realize this, but some here, by their own words, just don't think so.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Wow... what a thread

I like VORP because a) the stats used are park-adjusted and b) it's relative to the player's position. When looking for underpaid/cheap players, I check their VORP and their defensive ratings, and if both are relatively high I am pretty sure to have a good deal...

Just don't forget their age and tendency to get injured when you do that, Markus!

[Jestre]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

LOL, I say the same thing to my relatives at MLB games.

But, no, Boof. You, me, RonCO, etc. realize this, but some here, by their own words, just don't think so.

We all realize that Einstein, some of us just think there is more to it than that.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Jestre

My idea of value is actual production no matter what outside effects helped or hindered that production. You simply cannot separate park effects, team lineup strength, city effect etc from actual production. If VORP is all that it is cracked up to be then Edgar Renteria and J.D. Drew and Julio Lugo would have thrived in Boston...but they didnt because players do not play in a vacuum and never will. When you try to remove all outside influences from a players numbers then you have an experimental, theoretical rating especially when all the numbers you are using to formulate your VORP rating were not produced in a vacuum.

Without caring if that production is skill or luck? There are always exceptions to every rule (i.e. Renteria), but nobody has said that VORP is perfect. It is just better than anything else we have. RBI's sure weren't going to tell me whether Renteria would be successful in Boston or not either.

[sporr]

Originally Posted by Jestre

My idea of value is actual production no matter what outside effects helped or hindered that production. You simply cannot separate park effects, team lineup strength, city effect etc from actual production. If VORP is all that it is cracked up to be then Edgar Renteria and J.D. Drew and Julio Lugo would have thrived in Boston...but they didnt because players do not play in a vacuum and never will. When you try to remove all outside influences from a players numbers then you have an experimental, theoretical rating especially when all the numbers you are using to formulate your VORP rating were not produced in a vacuum.

The only problem with production regardless of outside effect is that if you play for Colorado, you have a headstart when it comes to putting up monster numbers. But that doesn't make you a good player. VORP is good in that it can give you the value of a player compared to other players. It's like an "overall" rating in OOTP. I don't think anyone here is saying that it's the only thing to look at when evaluating a player. But it does give you a quick idea of whether a player is adding value to the team or not.

Let's say you see a player that is hitting .240 but has driven in 100 RBI. Another player has only driven in 70 RBI but is hitting .260. By looking at VORP, you might realize that acquiring the 2nd player and putting him in the lineup in place of the 1st player will allow your team to score even more runs. Sure the first player has driven in 100 runs, but maybe there are many players available out there that would have driven in even more.

[tysok]

Originally Posted by andymac

Without caring if that production is skill or luck? There are always exceptions to every rule (i.e. Renteria), but nobody has said that VORP is perfect. It is just better than anything else we have. RBI's sure weren't going to tell me whether Renteria would be successful in Boston or not either.

I found the VORP numbers somewhere. Renteria in '04 with the Cards put up just over 20.
With Boston he put up mid 19.

If you actually look at his stat lines he was in the norm of what he usually does, struck out a little more often than normal, but then he kept that up in Atlanta when he's supposedly "back to his old self". He only drove in 2 fewer runs (but then Damon hit 5 more HRs than Womack did) but scored a lot more.

What killed Renteria in Boston was fielding, 30 errors. VORP doesn't measure that.

Drew just sucks. He had 2 years that he actually made into 140 games before last year... and really only 2 useful years as well. One was in Atlanta on his walk year, and the other was with LA on his walk year. Amazing... the guy is an injury prone nightmare except on walk years.

[RonCo]

I'm not sure why the hate for JD Drew. He's obviously snotty, so I'm sure that hurts him. But he's done nothing but hit and get on base everywhere he's gone. If he weren't hurt so often he would probably be looking at a HoF kind of career. He's managed to play at least 140 games in 3 of the last 4 years, too.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jestre

We all realize that Einstein, some of us just think there is more to it than that.

No, you clearly don't realize it, Einstein, or you would not have been posting what you have been in this thread. It's been all I can do to keep from laughing out loud.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jestre

I have no interest in OOTP6/7/8

That by itself nearly made me fall out of my chair.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Wow... what a thread

Why, thanks Markus!

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I like VORP because a) the stats used are park-adjusted and b) it's relative to the player's position. When looking for underpaid/cheap players, I check their VORP and their defensive ratings, and if both are relatively high I am pretty sure to have a good deal...

That's a bunch of malarkey.

[ctorg]

I've been struggling to find a way to explain the viewpoint of people who go for traditional stats to others like me who go more for sabermetric measures. I have a sort of intuitive understanding of it that I can't seem to put into words correctly. That is, I understand it on some level, but my attempts to communicate that understanding fall short.

It's something like this:

Sabermetric stats will give you how well a player put himself in a position to add to his team's chance of helping the team win. It eliminates the luck of what his teammates did and all that and gives you a purer idea of a player's skill apart from happenstance.

Traditional stats tell you, factually, how often a guy drove in runs. They make no attempt at getting rid of luck or anything else. You just get what he did, rather than a more abstract theoretical value.

Now, the reason why I'm not satisfied with this is, well, all RBIs tell you is how many runners a guy drove in. The utility of knowing that is, well, questionable. Knowing how many players a guy drove in is kind of useless as far as determining how good he is. I mean, Steve Jeltz could have driven in 100 if he'd had a team of amazing players surrounding him and getting on base in front of him all the time. Would that make him better than a guy who hits 30 homers and walks a lot but only drives in 80?

So I always end up just turning my own argument around and making it about why sabermetric measurements are better, yet somewhere inside I do understand the desire to look to traditional stats instead. I just can't explain it.