Sabermetrics are a bunch of malarkey . . .

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Charley575

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

Most teams can afford it, it is just that most teams have true black holes on their payroll making them unable to handle those black holes and Alex Rodriguez. Rodriguez has never been the problem, he has always produced.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by andymac

Most teams can afford it, it is just that most teams have true black holes on their payroll making them unable to handle those black holes and Alex Rodriguez. Rodriguez has never been the problem, he has always produced.

How many Division titles did the Rangers win with him? Yes, he produces, but for any team on an actual budget, he's overpriced. The Big Boys can pay that figure, but they are the minority. That's what sucks about modern baseball. Teams like the Marlins, Rays, Royals, and Pirates have become glorified AAA teams for the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, White Sox, and Mets. And in between these two extremes you have all the other also-rans who seldom make a twitch on the richter scale of post season appearances. Please don't try to tell me that if the Marlins would just pay A-Rod 30 mil a season and field 24 minor leaguers along side of him, they'd be competitive. That's silly.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Charley575

How many Division titles did the Rangers win with him? Yes, he produces, but for any team on an actual budget, he's overpriced. The Big Boys can pay that figure, but they are the minority. That's what sucks about modern baseball. Teams like the Marlins, Rays, Royals, and Pirates have become glorified AAA teams for the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, White Sox, and Mets. And in between these two extremes you have all the other also-rans who seldom make a twitch on the richter scale of post season appearances. Please don't try to tell me that if the Marlins would just pay A-Rod 30 mil a season and field 24 minor leaguers along side of him, they'd be competitive. That's silly.

The Rangers did a poor job of managing the rest of their team. He absolutely wasn't over-priced. Sure, there are a handful of teams his salary would probably be too much for but only a few and the Rangers certainly aren't on that list. The Rangers had no pitching (which is a product of poor player development not a hamstrung payroll) and were regularly near the league lead in runs scored when Rodriguez is on the team. To blame any part of those teams' troubles on him is ridiculous.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by Charley575

Teams like the Marlins, Rays, Royals, and Pirates have become glorified AAA teams for the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, White Sox, and Mets.

I wanted to respond to this simply because you mentioned the Marlins. Jeff Loria, who is one of the biggest tools in the sport, has ruined that team and it has nothing to do with not being able to afford to pay players. He's made more profit off that team than any other team has in baseball. They're only a AAA team for other squads because Loria has chosen to be a cheapskate.

Originally Posted by Charley575

And in between these two extremes you have all the other also-rans who seldom make a twitch on the richter scale of post season appearances.

You mean like the Rockies, Tigers, Cardinals, Astros, Indians, Angels, A's, Padres, Marlins, Mariners, Giants, Twins and Diamondbacks, who combined have accounted for 9 of the 14 World Series teams in the last seven years and 18 of the 28 League Championship combatants in the same period? Or do you mean the other also-rans?

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

I wanted to respond to this simply because you mentioned the Marlins. Jeff Loria, who is one of the biggest tools in the sport, has ruined that team and it has nothing to do with not being able to afford to pay players. He's made more profit off that team than any other team has in baseball. They're only a AAA team for other squads because Loria has chosen to be a cheapskate.
You mean like the Rockies, Tigers, Cardinals, Astros, Indians, Angels, A's, Padres, Marlins, Mariners, Giants, Twins and Diamondbacks, who combined have accounted for 9 of the 14 World Series teams in the last seven years and 18 of the 28 League Championship combatants in the same period? Or do you mean the other also-rans?

Yes, Loria is a tool, but John Henry looked like a tool for the five minutes he owned the team, too. Really, the team was ruined by Huizenga (Baldie, as he is sometimes known in South Florida), who bought a bunch of free agents to win the sries in 97, then promptly sold the whole thing off in 98. The honeymoon was officially over then, and it's never been the same since.

As for the Rockies, Tigers, etc., with the exception of the Cardinals and Astros, there is not a lot of consistency in those teams. They pop on the radar one year, and they are down again the next.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Charley575

They pop on the radar one year, and they are down again the next.

What is it you are expecting? Every team to be good every season?

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by andymac

What is it you are expecting? Every team to be good every season?

I'd like some consistency. Sure, teams will be up and down because players have good and bad years, or injuries occur, or whatever. My issue with modern baseball is that all the best players migrate to the "Big Boys" sooner or later. Roster turnover is terrible in MLB. As a fan, what incentive is there for me to invest anything in a team like Florida or Tampa, given that any good young players they get will be gone in 3 to 6 years. Gone to the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Mets, etc. The Marlins managed to dump Willis AND Cabrera this year. Hanley Ramirez will be next, just as soon as he starts making a little money, so why bother. To be honest, I haven't paid a great deal of attention to MLB the last few years. I get my baseball fix from OOTP.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Charley575

I'd like some consistency. Sure, teams will be up and down because players have good and bad years, or injuries occur, or whatever. My issue with modern baseball is that all the best players migrate to the "Big Boys" sooner or later. Roster turnover is terrible in MLB. As a fan, what incentive is there for me to invest anything in a team like Florida or Tampa, given that any good young players they get will be gone in 3 to 6 years. Gone to the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Mets, etc. The Marlins managed to dump Willis AND Cabrera this year. Hanley Ramirez will be next, just as soon as he starts making a little money, so why bother. To be honest, I haven't paid a great deal of attention to MLB the last few years. I get my baseball fix from OOTP.

It sounds like you want the impossible. You want consistency but you don't want there to be teams that are always good or always bad.

[Charley575]

You're right. I want the impossible. I want ROSTER consistency. I want an MLB environment where the good, popular players seldom change teams. Like in the old days. You know, the ones that are long gone? So, I generally shun MLB for the revolving roster cesspool that it is and get my baseball jollies from OOTP.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Charley575

You're right. I want the impossible. I want ROSTER consistency. I want an MLB environment where the good, popular players seldom change teams. Like in the old days. You know, the ones that are long gone? So, I generally shun MLB for the revolving roster cesspool that it is and get my baseball jollies from OOTP.

Ah, so you want to go back to the days when the players had virtually no choice over what team they played for.

[Charley575]

I'd actually settle for a moderation of the turnover, but there's no hope. The player's union has too much power. It wasn't SO bad until like, mid 90's. Now, you can't deny that roster turnover is out of control in MLB. Of course, I'm from South Florida and I was a Marlins fan from 93 until I got fed up a year or so ago, so my perspective is tinted by that. Still, too much turnover. Who wants to invest any money or time in a revolving door team?

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by Charley575

You're right. I want the impossible. I want ROSTER consistency. I want an MLB environment where the good, popular players seldom change teams. Like in the old days.

The old days were a much better example of the "haves" and the "have nots" than today's baseball, though. Bemoaning the fact that a handful of teams seem to be able to get all the good players, while yearning for the days when a handful of teams seemed to be able to keep all the good players, seems inconsistent. A Senators fan from '47-'61, an A's fan from '34-'68 (33 seasons without a top three finish!), a Cubs fan from '47-'66, a Phillies fan from '18-'48: think they were happy that the good players didn't change teams very often? Those teams are just old-school versions of today's Rays.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

The old days were a much better example of the "haves" and the "have nots" than today's baseball, though. Bemoaning the fact that a handful of teams seem to be able to get all the good players, while yearning for the days when a handful of teams seemed to be able to keep all the good players, seems inconsistent. A Senators fan from '47-'61, an A's fan from '34-'68 (33 seasons without a top three finish!), a Cubs fan from '47-'66, a Phillies fan from '18-'48: think they were happy that the good players didn't change teams very often? Those teams are just old-school versions of today's Rays.

I see what you're saying. I just don't like the idea that as a fan, I can't get enthusiastic about my team, or any of the players on it, knowing that they will soon be gone for no reason other than my team can't afford their salaries. Their eventual departure for salary reasons is as certain as the sun rising in the east. I don't know what the solution is, or if there is a solution at all, but it kills my enthusiasm for the MLB, and I can't be the only one.

[Left-handed Badger]

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.

Alright, what would you say is wrong with VORP out of curiosity. It has been mentioned it isnt "perfect" but nobody elaborates.

And for arguments' sake, I will give some problems with RBI.

1) No context of when/where in the game it came, and importance of that RBI.

2) It is team dependent. (Repeated ad nauseum here, and it is hard to understand why something team dependent is so horrible in a team sport)

For your guy A, he does get a raise in hit total, BA, OBP, and Slugging Pct. so he isnt completely punished. Just saying. Note: And if he does little things like that often enough, he perhaps may end up with a little extra come contract time.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by 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).

Ben Stiller Comedy? Are you sure you want to set the standard so low?

[Left-handed Badger]

I think somebody mentioned QB rating like 10 pages ago. But, for some reason it made me think. Ever since, QB rating became a big time stat. Has anyone else noticed how many more 1st and Goal at the 1 passes get thrown today that 10-20 years ago? More sophisticated schemes aside. I mean 10 years ago, a pass on 1st down in that situation would be a surprise to throw off the defense. Now it seems a run in that situation would be the surprise. No point other than player playing for the stats (which as always been around in every sport)


*shrugs*

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Alright, what would you say is wrong with VORP out of curiosity. It has been mentioned it isnt "perfect" but nobody elaborates.

Well, partly because the problems with VORP are a little more intricate and it takes digging into how VORP is created to understand them. In other words, things we don't expect anyone who refers to us as "VORPers" to really get or understand.

And for arguments' sake, I will give some problems with RBI.

1) No context of when/where in the game it came, and importance of that RBI.

2) It is team dependent. (Repeated ad nauseum here, and it is hard to understand why something team dependent is so horrible in a team sport)

For your guy A, he does get a raise in hit total, BA, OBP, and Slugging Pct. so he isnt completely punished. Just saying. Note: And if he does little things like that often enough, he perhaps may end up with a little extra come contract time.

You don't understand why it doesn't make sense to evaluate an individual player using a team dependent statistic? Well, I just don't know where to go from there. It is along the same line of thinking as saying Albert Pujols had a bad season last year because the Cardinals had a bad record. The team statistic of wins was low so Albert's output must have been low, right? But how about that Alex Cora, his team won a ton of games, what a great player.

[magnet]

Originally Posted by andymac

Well, partly because the problems with VORP are a little more intricate and it takes digging into how VORP is created to understand them. In other words, things we don't expect anyone who refers to us as "VORPers" to really get or understand.



You don't understand why it doesn't make sense to evaluate an individual player using a team dependent statistic? Well, I just don't know where to go from there. It is along the same line of thinking as saying Albert Pujols had a bad season last year because the Cardinals had a bad record. The team statistic of wins was low so Albert's output must have been low, right? But how about that Alex Cora, his team won a ton of games, what a great player.

You'll never get those keystrokes back, buddy.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by andymac

Well, partly because the problems with VORP are a little more intricate and it takes digging into how VORP is created to understand them. In other words, things we don't expect anyone who refers to us as "VORPers" to really get or understand.

Yeah, I expected an insult to my preceived abilities in math. (Straight A till algebra, Once I got the hang of Algebra in my 2nd go around I got Bs in it, couldnt figure geometry or calculus)

The "VORPers" have been quite a bit more perjorative overall in this thread than the other side. What with all the insults to intelligence.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by andymac

You don't understand why it doesn't make sense to evaluate an individual player using a team dependent statistic? Well, I just don't know where to go from there. It is along the same line of thinking as saying Albert Pujols had a bad season last year because the Cardinals had a bad record. The team statistic of wins was low so Albert's output must have been low, right? But how about that Alex Cora, his team won a ton of games, what a great player.

I keep trying to point out me (and many traditionalists) dont measure by RBis alone. You clearly dont fully understand what I try to point out. The reason I keep placing emphasis on team dependence is it is a team game. 9 players not one. Something that has been since baseball's inception. I am not saying the team should be the sole factor. But, it has to have some consideration. If you want individual sports, perhaps golf or tennis, maybe?

In football, I dont know of any stat that tries to separate Ray Lewis from the rest of his team and try to place a team independent stat on him. ANd how the heck do you try that with an O-linemen.

Again, as I mentioned last night, I think both sides get to the same place in many cases, just @$$-backwards of each other.