Sabermetrics are a bunch of malarkey . . .

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Russ

I think PECOTA is pretty genius. That and WPA are in my mind the two best things that have come out in the last ten years or so. It seems like the rest, like VORP, are just new ways to express not getting out and hitting XBH. It pretty much tells me nothing that's not already on the back of a baseball card if you know how to look at it.

I don't see how you can get the replacement level info from the back of a baseball card. You can see how often they got on base or how much power they hit for but the baseball card can't put that into context.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by sfeldkamp

VORP is really more of a predictive stat than a descriptive stat. The purpose and utility of it is not so much to decide which player's had a better season, but to compare player's contributions isolated from his team-mates so you can decide which player might be better in another setting, say for instance, your own team.

The real purpose is to put everyone in the same context so you can compare their contributions. Yes, you want to isolate him from his teammates, and his league, and his park, and sometimes his time. If you don't do that then you have no idea what his straight numbers mean. If you're going to argue that 130 RBI is always better than 90 RBI then you'll have to argue that it doesn't matter if you play in Coors or Dodger Stadium, if you have Rickey Henderson batting in front of you or Neifi Perez, or if you play in 1968 or 1997.

VORP is most definitely a descriptive stat. Without adjusting for context you'll describe a midget standing on a skyscraper as the tallest man in the world.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Russ

Regardless, VORP is basically OPS run through a bunch of equations to adjust for era and park factors and playing time compared to 80% of the league average.

No. It's more like Runs Created run through a bunch of equations to adjust for era and park factors and playing time compared to 80% of the league average.

Here, read "The world according to VORP":

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotsto...rob&id=2751842

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

The real purpose is to put everyone in the same context so you can compare their contributions.

Exactly.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andymac

I don't see how you can get the replacement level info from the back of a baseball card. You can see how often they got on base or how much power they hit for but the baseball card can't put that into context.

It's 80 percent of the league average. If you're comparing A-Rod and Jeter's 2007 seasons, who cares? They played in the same environment.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

No. It's more like Runs Created run through a bunch of equations to adjust for era and park factors and playing time compared to 80% of the league average.

Here, read "The world according to VORP":

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotsto...rob&id=2751842

And, how do you compute Runs Created?

Here, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runs_created

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Russ

It's 80 percent of the league average. If you're comparing A-Rod and Jeter's 2007 seasons, who cares? They played in the same environment.

80% of the league average at their position. So, unless you think a league average shortstop hits the same as a league average third basemen, we are talking about very different contexts.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andymac

80% of the league average at their position. So, unless you think a league average shortstop hits the same as a league average third basemen, we are talking about very different contexts.

Actually I don't think that. But these are assumptions people have been making for as long as the game has been played and now they have been given numerical values. The position has always been taken into consideration.

[Anisoptera]

I wouldn't put RC on the same level as VORP, if that is what you are doing. It's really pretty crappy compared to other similar stats. Bill James might do a good job of introducing ideas to the masses, but he's not so good at putting stuff out there that passes the test of time.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Anisoptera

I wouldn't put RC on the same level as VORP, if that is what you are doing. It's really pretty crappy compared to other similar stats. Bill James might do a good job of introducing ideas to the masses, but he's not so good at putting stuff out there that passes the test of time.

Well, if RC is pretty crappy then VORP is crappy too, becuase that's how it's derived.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Russ

Actually I don't think that. But these are assumptions people have been making for as long as the game has been played and now they have been given numerical values. The position has always been taken into consideration.

Have always been taken into consideration how? Sure, you can say that third basemen hit better than shortstops on average without needing to calculate anything but where does that really get you? You can't really expect to "eyeball" the difference and come up with a defensible number.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andymac

Have always been taken into consideration how? Sure, you can say that third basemen hit better than shortstops on average without needing to calculate anything but where does that really get you? You can't really expect to "eyeball" the difference and come up with a defensible number.

Not numerically. But even before VORP, when you look at a SS who hit 330/450/650 you know that he's more valuable than a DH who hit the same. And you can eyeball it, but it is nice to have a more concrete number. I'm not arguing with you about that, I'm just saying that it's hardly revolutionary.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Russ

Not numerically. But even before VORP, when you look at a SS who hit 330/450/650 you know that he's more valuable than a DH who hit the same. And you can eyeball it, but it is nice to have a more concrete number. I'm not arguing with you about that, I'm just saying that it's hardly revolutionary.

You keep bringing up these phrases and terms such as "holy grail" and "revolutionary" like the SABR community is some religious cult. They are just better stats, that's it. They are not some unbelievable tell all, be all perfect formula and nobody has said that they are. They are simply better than what we had before.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by BoofBonser26

No and yes. SABR stats are designed to do both.

Yeah, I've been taken down twice on that one. I should have said it was how they started out. It's not really what they developed into.

No, it's not. Do you really simply want to say the guy with more RBIs was better without considering that stat is largely controlled by his team-mates? Really, until we get over this, we can't advance our understanding very far.

SABR stats will tell you what it was the player did. In other words, it will tell you which player was better, for his team, in real life. Not in a vacuum.

Casey Blake and Grady Sizemore had the same number of RBIs last year.

Personally, I'll take the SABR stats over traditional ones anytime. Going back to my analogy, SABR stats won't give you the richest person. They'll give you who is better at getting rich. I don't personally think it's as valuable to the game of baseball which person is the richest (i.e. who knocked in the most runs, who hit the most homers, who scored the most times). But for some, that is a standalone measure of success.

And you've just made a strong case for SABRmetrics and why traditional stats are nice but don't really begin to tell the whole picture.

I know. That's why I'm a much bigger fan of SABR stats than traditional stats. I'm merely trying to say that it's not as lights-out as we would like to think (and I did a pretty bad job, I guess, so I'll be quiet then).

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andymac

You keep bringing up these phrases and terms such as "holy grail" and "revolutionary" like the SABR community is some religious cult. They are just better stats, that's it. They are not some unbelievable tell all, be all perfect formula and nobody has said that they are. They are simply better than what we had before.

OK, I agree. And, for the record, I'm a sabr guy.

[Anisoptera]

Originally Posted by Russ

Well, if RC is pretty crappy then VORP is crappy too, becuase that's how it's derived.

Real VORP or OOTP VORP? I'm prett sure real VORP doesn't use RC at all. A derivation (MLV), sure, but not RC itself. OOTP VORP I have no idea and by others it sounds as though it may not even be calculated correctly.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Anisoptera

Real VORP or OOTP VORP? I'm prett sure real VORP doesn't use RC at all. A derivation (MLV), sure, but not RC itself. OOTP VORP I have no idea and by others it sounds as though it may not even be calculated correctly.

No real VORP. MLV comes from RC. I really have no idea how OOTP calculates it. But if RC is the foundation of MLV and you don't trust RC, how can you trust VORP, MLV, or RC/27?

I mean, this is the formula they use to determine team runs in MLV:

Team Runs T_RUNS =T_OBP*T_SLG*T_AB

Which is RC in it's most basic forumla.

[Anisoptera]

Originally Posted by Russ

No real VORP. MLV comes from RC. I really have no idea how OOTP calculates it. But if RC is the foundation of MLV and you don't trust RC, how can you trust VORP, MLV, or RC/27?

I mean, this is the formula they use to determine team runs in MLV:

Team Runs T_RUNS =T_OBP*T_SLG*T_AB

Which is RC in it's most basic forumla.

Perhaps I really am the one misunderstanding here, but it is my understanding that MLV was created due to the flaws of RC. The big problem being that RC imagines that the player is hitting in a lineup of clones of himself, but that you should be judging him based on a team of average players.

This link someone posted probably explains it better: http://www.stathead.com/articles/woolner/mlvdesc.htm

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Anisoptera

Perhaps I really am the one misunderstanding here, but it is my understanding that MLV was created due to the flaws of RC. The big problem being that RC imagines that the player is hitting in a lineup of clones of himself, but that you should be judging him based on a team of average players.

This link someone posted probably explains it better: http://www.stathead.com/articles/woolner/mlvdesc.htm

That's what I read. But it uses the basic RC formula. I thought people were having problems with that.

[Anisoptera]

Originally Posted by Russ

That's what I read. But it uses the basic RC formula. I thought people were having problems with that.

Maybe I'll look at it again later and try to explain the difference (it's been awhile and my memory is a bit fuzzy so maybe someone fresher on it can step in), but for now I'll just say I'm pretty sure it is different. The basic idea may be the same, but it's different in an important way.