Sabermetrics are a bunch of malarkey . . .

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

I am not going to even bother with explaining this one. I guess we could do it by 1 inning instead of 9. But, since baseball is 9 innings long......

Besides dont they have some stat to measure expected ERA anyhow?

My point is that VORP is a theoretical stat the same way that ERA is. It is 100% fair to call VORP a theoretical stat. So what? Any non-counting stat is theoretical.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by bababui

The data doesnt measure biology. The data is incomplete.

You made me laugh out loud.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by RonCo

You made me laugh out loud.

Stats are a two dimensional representation of a 4 dimensional world. To say that nuerochemistry doesnt effect the way that players perform in pressure situations is foolish.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by bababui

Stats are a two dimensional representation of a 4 dimensional world. To say that nuerochemistry doesnt effect the way that players perform in pressure situations is foolish.

I don't say neuro-chemistry has no affect. The data, however, suggests that if neurochemistry affects outcomes:

1) The affect is very tiny
2) The affect is not predictable, nor consistent within an indivudual player.

It does seem natural and fair to suggest that if neuro-chemistry does affect how a player performs, one would expect to see it in the way performance is measured. People have studied this in a billion different ways. The only group I've seen that has performed a study that supports "clutchness" (which is what you're discussing) is real is one from Andy Dolphin that suggests neuro-chemistry might be worth 1-2 runs a year. Of course, to do this, they need to leverage the theoretical stat of runs created.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by RonCo

My point is that VORP is a theoretical stat the same way that ERA is. It is 100% fair to call VORP a theoretical stat. So what? Any non-counting stat is theoretical.

Possibly, but I still remember their being some kind of stat that measures what a pitcher ERA should have been rather than actually was. Though if remember it doesnt account for pitching under pressure similar to VORP not accounting hitting under pressure.


Anyhow, overall, I am afraid I might saying something I will regret. And since a lot of your guys opinions have helped me in the past. I'll just say I disagree about VORP. And that my opinions is that I want stats that I can "stand" on, for my perspective. And let it go. Nothing more seems to possibly be gained on this discussion anyhow.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I don't say neuro-chemistry has no affect. The data, however, suggests that if neurochemistry affects outcomes:

1) The affect is very tiny
2) The affect is no predictable, nor consistent within an indivudual player.

It does seem natural and fair to suggest that if neuro-chemistry does affect how a player performs, one would expect to see it in the way performance is measured. People have studied this in a billion different ways. The only group I've seen that has performed a study that supports "clutchness" (which is what you're discussing) is real is one from Andy Dolphin that suggests neuro-chemistry might be worth 1-2 runs a year. Of course, to do this, they need to leverage the theoretical stat of runs created.

Well, one more. I do have to say, not everything can be studied. And "Clutchness" is likely one of them.

[BoofBonser26]

Hilarious thread.

I'll just say the following:

Keith Wollner, inventer of VORP, is currently working for the Cleveland Indians.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Possibly, but I still remember their being some kind of stat that measures what a pitcher ERA should have been rather than actually was. Though if remember it doesnt account for pitching under pressure similar to VORP not accounting hitting under pressure.


Anyhow, overall, I am afraid I might saying something I will regret. And since a lot of your guys opinions have helped me in the past. I'll just say I disagree about VORP. And that my opinions is that I want stats that I can "stand" on, for my perspective. And let it go. Nothing more seems to possibly be gained on this discussion anyhow.

There is no one way to look at a player that is all-encompassing or perfect, of course. VORP has weaknesses. But being a worse identifier of good hitting than RBIs is not one of them.

Put a player with a 70 VORP in the same place in the batting order and on the same team as a guy with a 55 VORP, and he'll drive in more runs than the 55 VORP guy a vast, vast majority of the time.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I don't say neuro-chemistry has no affect. The data, however, suggests that if neurochemistry affects outcomes:

1) The affect is very tiny
2) The affect is not predictable, nor consistent within an indivudual player.

It does seem natural and fair to suggest that if neuro-chemistry does affect how a player performs, one would expect to see it in the way performance is measured. People have studied this in a billion different ways. The only group I've seen that has performed a study that supports "clutchness" (which is what you're discussing) is real is one from Andy Dolphin that suggests neuro-chemistry might be worth 1-2 runs a year. Of course, to do this, they need to leverage the theoretical stat of runs created.

Thats fair enough. But what of a negative impact? There is a process called amygdila hijack that might drive an otherwise excellent player batting in non-pressure situations to perform much more poorly when under the pressure of certain intense situations.

The evidence is still incomplete as to if RBI is a worthless stat in real baseball. In OOTP I am definitly in the VORP camp.

[BoofBonser26]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Well, one more. I do have to say, not everything can be studied. And "Clutchness" is likely one of them.

How can you possibly say that in response to post showing that clutchness HAS BEEN STUDIED?

[lewis31lewis52]

And pretty much proven not to exist.

And Bill James works for the Red Sox. See a theme going on here?

[gmo]

Originally Posted by RonCo

My point is that VORP is a theoretical stat the same way that ERA is. It is 100% fair to call VORP a theoretical stat. So what? Any non-counting stat is theoretical.

I think the argument would be more that anything not explicitly measuring runs is a "theoretical" stat. Runs are real and the only thing that actually matters. Hits however may or may not result in that ultimate measure of success, so they are "theoretical".

Of course, you can replace "runs" with "wins" in the above and make exactly the same argument. What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, clutch.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by bababui

Thats fair enough. But what of a negative impact? There is a process called amygdila hijack that might drive an otherwise excellent player batting in non-pressure situations to perform much more poorly when under the pressure of certain intense situations.

The evidence is still incomplete as to if RBI is a worthless stat in real baseball. In OOTP I am definitly in the VORP camp.

Clutchness has been looked at from about every direction possible. And, yes, you can study it as long as you can agree on what a high-pressure situation is. That is, afterall, what you're saying this amygdala-based idea is saying...some guys will perform better or worse than their "normal state" performance suggests. I mean...if it doesn't change their productivity stats, then what else could it change?

As I said, RBI is not totally worthless (as some Saber-guys will say to incite riots). A guy who drives in 150 runs is _almost certainly_ a pretty good player. But RBI is not a high-quality stat because it is highly dependent upon the team a guy plays for and where he hits in the order. Put Manny Ramirez in the 8 hole and watch his RBI total drop from 150 to 85. Does that mean Manny's skill level dropped 40%? No. It means the Red Sox manager screwed up. In this case, it's likely that Manny's VORP will register similar scores in year 1 and year 2--showing that Manny's a really good and valuable hitter, despite his drop in RBI "productivity."

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by BoofBonser26

How can you possibly say that in response to post showing that clutchness HAS BEEN STUDIED?

(sigh) Ok, there is no way to accurately study it. Just because there was a study doesnt mean it was accurate.

I just cant seem to picture A-Rod batting with those patches they use to study neuro-impulses attached to him and then attached to a machine by wires 10 feet behind. Might make running the bases a bit hard.

[BoofBonser26]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

(sigh) Ok, there is no way to accurately study it. Just because there was a study doesnt mean it was accurate.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=2656

[BoofBonser26]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

(sigh) Ok, there is no way to accurately study it. Just because there was a study doesnt mean it was accurate.

I just cant seem to picture A-Rod batting with those patches they use to study neuro-impulses attached to him and then attached to a machine by wires 10 feet behind. Might make running the bases a bit hard.

Yes, if that were how you actually studied clutch, it would be pretty f-ing stupid.

BUT IT'S NOT.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by BoofBonser26

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=2656

Nice link.

[BoofBonser26]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Nice link.

Thanks.

I got it in 10 seconds on google searching "baseball clutch study."

Amazing how far some people go to hide from the truth.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by andymac

Because it is a new fangled sabremetric stat that somebody created in their mom's basement while watching star trek re-runs. All of those stats are theoretical.

Except that the guy who invented VORP works for the Cleveland Indians as their Manager of Baseball Research and Analytics.

[BoofBonser26]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Except that the guy who invented VORP works for the Cleveland Indians as their Manager of Baseball Research and Analytics.

Point valid, but I'm certain he was being satirical.