Sabermetrics are a bunch of malarkey . . .

[BoofBonser26]

Originally Posted by Jestre

Amazingly I get all kinds of replies but none of them addresses my criticisms of the flawed notion of VORP....

Um, actually, most of them do. Some of them make fun of your straw men as an added bonus.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Jestre

Amazingly I get all kinds of replies but none of them addresses my criticisms of the flawed notion of VORP....

- Tim Foley goes 1-4 with three strikeouts and a ninth-inning grand slam.
- Mike Schmidt goes 1-4 with three strikeouts and a fourth-inning solo home run.

Tim Foley wins "Player of the Game"

I don't think anyone trades Mike Schmidt for Tim Foley.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by RonCo

- Tim Foli goes 1-4 with three strikeouts and a ninth-inning grand slam.
- Mike Schmidt goes 1-4 with three strikeouts and a fourth-inning solo home run.

Tim Foli wins "Player of the Game"

I don't think anyone trades Mike Schmidt for Tim Foli.

:momsbasement:

[injury log]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Tim Foley wins "Player of the Game"

Tim Foli and Tom Foley both had pretty long careers. I had assumed he meant Tom, not Tim, but the argument works either way.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

And the point still stands... when you have all the stats you can use to create VORP, why look at RBI at all? What do RBI measure that hits, homeruns, walks, doubles, and so on don't?

Well, RBIs do show how many runs were driven in during your plate appearances. But, by that logic, what is so important about VORP? When I want to know someone's totals in hits, HRs, BBs, 2Bs and so on. I look at their totals in hits, HRs, BBs, 2Bs and so on. I dont need another stat for that.

Actually, to be fair, I dont think pros and cons on this issue are so far apart as we are making it here. Us non-VORPers admit that RBIs arent everything. Is why we look at other stats. Most of us here (cant speak for news paper writers. ) think a BB is a useful offensive weapon. But, how we differ in our methods is how we get to the point of where we see things. We traditionalists seem to look at the results. Sabremeticians, seem to be more theory. I'll admit most of the time the results they get are right. But, how they go about it is totally wrong. Their attitude, if you will, is what confuses. RBIs mean nothing? RBIs show a run was driven in. The winner of a game is who scores the most runs. So, the name of the game is to score runs and prevent the score of the opposition. The more people that get on base the better the chance of runs. Both sides agree.


But, what I cant understand of the sabremetricians is how they go about it. They refuse to acknowledge that not all lineups or even Plate appearances are created equal. To the VORPer. sac bunt=wasted. man on second with no out. 4-3 groundout that moves the runner to 3rd=wasted. (if these 2 situations are wrong, show me where I am wrong guys). Maybe a difference in philosophy, but, I dont want to measure players in a vacuum. Sure, VORP places different values on different positions. But, anyone with minimal knowledge of baseball can tell that a .300 hitting SS is rarer than a .300 hitting 1B.

And maybe just maybe, a guy fits better in a certain system/lineups. Not as pronounced as say football, of course. But case in point, one dynasty I had on OOTP. One year my 3B, who was like Wade Boggs without the eye, had a monster year. Had 114 RBIs off of 6 HRs. What he did was hit .330 and had about 50 2Bs. He was my perfect #3 hitter. Although, he only drew around 30 BBs (in 600 ABs), he also only had 24 Ks. He had an almost mystical (if possible in a computer game) to play hit&run. That ability was perfect for my team (cleanup guy with 33 HRs was only 15+ HR guy, and was inconsistent to be sure). With my 3B, my 1 and 2 guys when on base, I could run knowing he'd make contact. He'd whack a 2B drive them in. Now, the VORPers would say "With a guy with more HRs and BBs you'd score more runs". I say unless he rarely struck out, Bull. More Ks would have negated the hit and run somewhat. Which would mean more inning killer DPs, or Ks that didnt move anyone up. It would just fork the responsibility over the my clean up guy, who would have more RBIs in that scenario, but my offense would have been hurt overall (and I was bleeding for runs as it was that year)

But, you will here it from me right now. VORP probably does to a large extent tell me who is the BEST hitter (maybe, I play with this argument, for arguments' sake). But, most certainly it does not necessarily tell me who was the most VALUABLE. Best does not always mean the most valuable.

Sorry, I got a little inspired in my posting.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Neags23

Anomaly.

(sigh) Then what is the point of keeping score? What is even the point of playing the game?

[BoofBonser26]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

(sigh) Then what is the point of keeping score? What is even the point of playing the game?

No, the point is: play more games. Find out how likely this is to happen. Then know, when you see it again, what it means.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Well, RBIs do show how many runs were driven in during your plate appearances.

RBIs tell you what the batter and the batters before him did combined. It is a shared statistic, a player can't hit anybody in without someone else scoring a run. If you want to know the true value of an individual player you have to separate him from the players around him.

But, by that logic, what is so important about VORP? When I want to know someone's totals in hits, HRs, BBs, 2Bs and so on. I look at their totals in hits, HRs, BBs, 2Bs and so on. I dont need another stat for that.

The purpose of VORP is to tie all of those things together. Looking at each thing individually only gives you part of the story...VORP works to combine everything into an overall ability to contribute offensively. A 65 VORP player is going to drive in a different amount of runs depending on what happens in front of him and score a different amount of runs based on what happens behind him, but this statistic gives us an idea of that players' contribution without the noise of the other players.

Actually, to be fair, I dont think pros and cons on this issue are so far apart as we are making it here. Us non-VORPers admit that RBIs arent everything. Is why we look at other stats. Most of us here (cant speak for news paper writers. ) think a BB is a useful offensive weapon. But, how we differ in our methods is how we get to the point of where we see things. We traditionalists seem to look at the results. Sabremeticians, seem to be more theory.

It isn't theory, it is separation. We don't want to know how good the combination of players A-E are, we want to know how good player A is all by himself and how good player B is all by himself, etc. because that is how we figure out where we can improve.

I'll admit most of the time the results they get are right. But, how they go about it is totally wrong. Their attitude, if you will, is what confuses. RBIs mean nothing? RBIs show a run was driven in. The winner of a game is who scores the most runs. So, the name of the game is to score runs and prevent the score of the opposition. The more people that get on base the better the chance of runs. Both sides agree.

Yes, runs are what win the game but players don't score runs individually. They do it as a team and so as a statistic it only tells you how good that combination of players are which doesn't help you when you have to decide which players specifically to sign/release/trade or whatever.

But, what I cant understand of the sabremetricians is how they go about it. They refuse to acknowledge that not all lineups or even Plate appearances are created equal. To the VORPer. sac bunt=wasted. man on second with no out. 4-3 groundout that moves the runner to 3rd=wasted. (if these 2 situations are wrong, show me where I am wrong guys). Maybe a difference in philosophy, but, I dont want to measure players in a vacuum. Sure, VORP places different values on different positions. But, anyone with minimal knowledge of baseball can tell that a .300 hitting SS is rarer than a .300 hitting 1B.

The sac bunt isn't "wasted" in the eyes of a "VORPer", it does exactly what it was intended to do which is make it easier to score that 1 runner. However, in the process, it also makes it much less likely for the team to score multiple runs in the inning because you are giving up an out (something you only get 3 of before having to start over). So, unless you are in a situation where that 1 run is definitely all you need, you are lowering your odds of scoring the maximum number of runs by slightly increasing your odds of scoring that next run. There are not many situations in a baseball game where that is a good strategy, especially in todays fairly high run environment.

As for the SS to 1B thing, it is one thing to understand that a 1B should hit better than a SS, it is another to understand how much better which I don't think is very obvious with raw statistics.

And maybe just maybe, a guy fits better in a certain system/lineups. Not as pronounced as say football, of course. But case in point, one dynasty I had on OOTP. One year my 3B, who was like Wade Boggs without the eye, had a monster year. Had 114 RBIs off of 6 HRs. What he did was hit .330 and had about 50 2Bs. He was my perfect #3 hitter. Although, he only drew around 30 BBs (in 600 ABs), he also only had 24 Ks. He had an almost mystical (if possible in a computer game) to play hit&run. That ability was perfect for my team (cleanup guy with 33 HRs was only 15+ HR guy, and was inconsistent to be sure). With my 3B, my 1 and 2 guys when on base, I could run knowing he'd make contact. He'd whack a 2B drive them in. Now, the VORPers would say "With a guy with more HRs and BBs you'd score more runs". I say unless he rarely struck out, Bull. More Ks would have negated the hit and run somewhat. Which would mean more inning killer DPs, or Ks that didnt move anyone up. It would just fork the responsibility over the my clean up guy, who would have more RBIs in that scenario, but my offense would have been hurt overall (and I was bleeding for runs as it was that year)

What are you gaining with the hit & run if this guy is hitting all of these doubles? Even Prince Fielder can score from first base most of the time on an extra base hit. Again, you seem to miss the point on the sabermetric approach. We don't just want guys who BB and hit HR's. We want guys who get on base and who hit for power. Doubles are a form of power and if somebody hits a bunch of them you can sure bet that he is going to be well-liked in the sabermetric world...no matter how often he strikes out.

But, you will here it from me right now. VORP probably does to a large extent tell me who is the BEST hitter (maybe, I play with this argument, for arguments' sake). But, most certainly it does not necessarily tell me who was the most VALUABLE. Best does not always mean the most valuable.

Sorry, I got a little inspired in my posting.

Well, valuable is a bit of a grey area because it can mean different things. What VORP tells you is, if everything else is equal, this player has more value. Now, as ctorg has pointed out, an above average third baseman isn't going to be very valuable to a team who has a hall of fame caliber third baseman already...at least not in an on the field sense. He could return value in a trade or by being converted to a different position or something but you have to understand the individual value of that player to maximize that trade-off, which IMO makes VORP valuable even in those instances.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

I just wish I was getting royalties or something.

You got plenty of malarkey.

[Left-handed Badger]

Andy Mac, for the 3B I mentioned on my OOTP team. I meant he hit a lot of 2Bs, and I hit&run a lot with him (I shouldnt have implied he did both on all that many ABs). What I gained from hit&running when he was hitting was insuring I didnt hit into a double play. (He wasnt fast, but the 2 guys in front of him were). Like I said, he was more effective and valuable than a "better" player. If he walked, a lot, but struck out a lot. I couldnt have played with that philosophy. Now my clean up guy would have driven in a handful more runs. But, I would have scored less runs because I probably would have had 15-20 more DPs in front of him though, so would it be beneficial. By no means, is this a regular occuring situation. But, why not get the most out of the talent you do have?

My philosophy is get guys on base, and aggressive (within reason) baserunning. I have found if you sit around and passively wait for your guys to score runs. Quite often the game will be over and you are still waiting for your guys to score runs. That and my approach is if you are going down, go down fighting.

[mrbill]

I guess what I like about VORP is how it starts to approach the problem correctly, with many factors involved, as opposed to a very fixed formula stat like RBI.

RBI is only calculated by guys crossing the plate. It'll never be more than that. VORP at least takes into account position played and the park, while strongly distancing the calculation from the team around him and how they performed.

Yes, VORP doesn't take into account "leveraged" situations like our straw man "homerun with bases loaded vs homerun with no one on" case. But, it's easy to envision VORP+ that does weight situations based on their run-scoring potential. You'd have to penalize the person striking out with the bases loaded far more than someone striking out with no one on. You'd also weight hits in the 9th in close games over blowout hits.

Yes, it wouldn't be VORP anymore, but the approach in VORP is correct both for analyzing the value of past performance and other information to predict next year. RBI just leaves too much to the imagination.

[Syd Thrift]

The issue with not weighting VORP like that is that there's no evidence that hitting with runners on base vs. empty is a skill that anybody really has. Most hitters hit better with runners on base, but that's because a higher percentage of ROB plate appearances occur against bad pitchers than bases empty ones. There's no documented proof that some guys over the course of their career will hit better with runners on than others, at least not any more than you'd already expect them to hit given their stats in all other categories.

One other thing to note: we all play a computerized baseball simulation. Even if VORP had no bearing on the real world (which is not a concession I'm willing to make), it for sure helps to discern who's good and who's great in a computer sim that definitely does not have magical invisible superclutch phenomenons.

[mrbill]

That's true, and I never claimed you'd see VORP numbers change, its just you could change the formula to include that leverage weighting and then, when everyone's still about the same, at least you can't have that argument used against you.

[tysok]

Originally Posted by mrbill

That's true, and I never claimed you'd see VORP numbers change, its just you could change the formula to include that leverage weighting and then, when everyone's still about the same, at least you can't have that argument used against you.

VORP is base on runs created right? I think.

There's a runs created version that attempts to take into account runners on base and runners in scoring position. It would be somewhat leveraged for those situations at least... I doubt the game uses that version of RC, and who knows what an "offical" VORP in reality would use.

Sabermetrics aren't everything, they have problems of their own. RBIs aren't everything, it has its problems. Its just that there are less problems only looking at VORP than just looking at RBIs. VORP is just attempting to calculate how many uns this guy helps to produce. If guy A gets a 2-out single that moves guy B from 1st to third, then guy C singles guy B in.... guy C gets an RBI, guy B gets a run scored, but guy A gets nothing. Sabermetrics just figures in a little credit for guy A in scoring that run, and boils everything down to a single number to look at. If it's not taken in context it still means nothing, just like RBI or HR or SB alone.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by tysok

VORP is base on runs created right? I think.

There's a runs created version that attempts to take into account runners on base and runners in scoring position. It would be somewhat leveraged for those situations at least... I doubt the game uses that version of RC, and who knows what an "offical" VORP in reality would use.

Sabermetrics aren't everything, they have problems of their own. RBIs aren't everything, it has its problems. Its just that there are less problems only looking at VORP than just looking at RBIs. VORP is just attempting to calculate how many uns this guy helps to produce. If guy A gets a 2-out single that moves guy B from 1st to third, then guy C singles guy B in.... guy C gets an RBI, guy B gets a run scored, but guy A gets nothing. Sabermetrics just figures in a little credit for guy A in scoring that run, and boils everything down to a single number to look at. If it's not taken in context it still means nothing, just like RBI or HR or SB alone.

I think this brings into sharp focus what I was trying to argue waaaaayy back about eleventy pages now about the fact that some people aren't comfortable with VORP, because it's a complicated mathematical formula that the average person with an average high school education (sadly) has difficulty grasping. Or, maybe they ARE capable of understanding it, but don't want to invest the effort. Or, perhaps, they are just more comfortable looking at traditional stats for the information, because after all, VORP is nothing but a bunch of traditional stats canned through a formula and boiled down to a single number. If the foundation of VORP is traditional stats, then the traditional stats are telling the story, anyway. What we are arguing about then is how to look at those stats and weigh them. Personally, I, and I assume many others, are more comfortable looking at the stats individually to create a picture with a context unique to each player, as opposed to a "one size fits all" stat that may measure a player's value on a standardized scale (aside: I generally despise standardization. Don't get me started on "Standardized Testing" as a means of educating children), but really doesn't necessarily measure a particular player's value to a particular team or role.

(whew!)

Hey, didn't this start as a discussion about how to award MVPs? Yeah, uh, how about not strictly by VORP OR RBI's but rather by determining which player was MOST VALUABLE to his team that particular year? How valuable was Barry Bonds to the Giants all those years that they never won anything? How valuable is a player like A_Rod who earns 25+ mil a year to a team that can't afford to put anybody around him because he sucks up payroll like a fiscal black hole? I realize it's difficult to code intangibles into a text sim, but I guess that's why maybe it's not such a bad idea to let sportswriters pick the MVP after all. Sure, they can be stupid, but I think the best way to award the MVP is to try to decide which player was most indispensible to his team, and that's not always going to be the guy with the most RBI's or the highest VORP.

[BigCity]

Just like DIPS, VORP is yet another way to find some level of truth when valuing players. Each of us has our own ways - since I'm prob the oldest guy here, I still like the standard stats I looked at as a kid - BUT - I have to admit the new formulas uncovered details about players I either didn't know, or only suspected.

Sabermetrics is a wonderful process and better hobby... what I would have given to be the one that uncovered DIPS

As far as the media guys and their decisions - usually not much better than movie critics ... I'm always surprised I like the movies they say stunk.

City

[Syd Thrift]

It depends on the movie reviewer or the methodology. Me, I have a complex statistical database based on VOBSC (Value Over Ben Stiller Comedy).

[Syd Thrift]

dola,

If you think it's bad now, wait 'till Markus goes to that 3D engine and the SABR guys in here start talking about hits per ground ball and line drive percentage. There are a lot of mom's basemen stats out there that flat-out were not available 5 years ago and that will enhance the game in untold ways. OTOH, I imagine some will start remembering the good old days when a double was a double and a fly-out to deep left was a fly-out to deep left.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by Charley575

How valuable is a player like A_Rod who earns 25+ mil a year to a team that can't afford to put anybody around him because he sucks up payroll like a fiscal black hole?

Say what?

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

Say what?

I know the Yankees can afford it, but not many other teams can.