VORP as a measuring stick

[Kelric]

I knew the relative value of Win Shares - I could look at a guy with 40 Win Shares and know just how much better his season was than usual. What I don't know is the basic value of VORP when compared to actual major league production. Is 50 All Star level? 70? Just how great was the 127 VORP season Nap Lajoie just put together in my sim? Would eight 60 VORP seasons merit HoF consideration?

Can anyone come up with something to explain the scale? I'd also love to find some real all time leaderboards when it comes to VORP. BR.com doesn't track it, unfortunately.

[CaLíKrAzY]

Open up a baseball prospectus, you will get a good idea on what an all-star caliber (HOF) player is (Manny Ramirez, Barry Bonds). Of course defense is'nt included in the VORP stat though.

[CaLíKrAzY]

Okay, heres an idea...

Barry Bonds,

2003 .341/.529/.749 (45, 90, 148 BB) VORP=104.2
2004 .362/.609/.812 (45, 101, 232 BB!) VORP=132.0

Manny Ramirez,

2003 .325/.427/.587 (37, 104, 97 BB) VORP=67.8
2004 .308/.397/.613 (43, 130, 82 BB) VORP=57.7

I think its safe to say anything over 50 is a monster year.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by CaLíKrAzY

Okay, heres an idea...

Barry Bonds,

2003 .341/.529/.749 (45, 90, 148 BB) VORP=104.2
2004 .362/.609/.812 (45, 101, 232 BB!) VORP=132.0

Manny Ramirez,

2003 .325/.427/.587 (37, 104, 97 BB) VORP=67.8
2004 .308/.397/.613 (43, 130, 82 BB) VORP=57.7

I think its safe to say anything over 50 is a monster year.

So 10 years with a VORP > 35 = a career VORP of 350. Does that seem a reasonable limit?

[Kelric]

Originally Posted by CaLíKrAzY

Open up a baseball prospectus, you will get a good idea on what an all-star caliber (HOF) player is (Manny Ramirez, Barry Bonds). Of course defense is'nt included in the VORP stat though.

I shouldn't have to pay money to a seperate entity to better understand the game. No thanks.

So it appears that 127 VORP season was truly historic.

[CaLíKrAzY]

I would think 40+ VORP is good enough seperate your apples from your oranges. But how long can they keep it up?

(averages are over the last 3 yrs)

Jeter averages 50+ VORP
Vladdy averages 45-50+ VORP
AROD averages 70+ VORP

That should give you an idea!

[CaLíKrAzY]

Originally Posted by Kelric

I shouldn't have to pay money to a seperate entity to better understand the game. No thanks.

So it appears that 127 VORP season was truly historic.

Baseball Prospectus is pretty addicting you should check it out!

[redeemed]

It's important to note that BP's VORP and OOTP's are not the same; BP's formula is exclusive to them. However, a 127 in either is remarkable.

On the other hand, replacement level is defined as the level at which your random AAA callup/waiver claim should perform at that position (I believe it's 80% of average production for most positions, 75% for catcher, 85% for 1B/DH), and that should be the same for both BP and OOTP.

[CaLíKrAzY]

Originally Posted by redeemed

It's important to note that BP's VORP and OOTP's are not the same; BP's formula is exclusive to them. However, a 127 in either is remarkable.

On the other hand, replacement level is defined as the level at which your random AAA callup/waiver claim should perform at that position (I believe it's 80% of average production for most positions, 75% for catcher, 85% for 1B/DH), and that should be the same for both BP and OOTP.

Yeah I have noticed some extreme VORP numbers in OOTP. I would rather just go off stats than use VORP than to determine if someone is a HOFer or not.

[turdfurgeson]

Originally Posted by CaLíKrAzY

Yeah I have noticed some extreme VORP numbers in OOTP. I would rather just go off stats than use VORP than to determine if someone is a HOFer or not.

i agree, i usually remove VORP from the "HoF" requirements list. While it may be a useful tool for gm's to evaluate their teams, and might in reality be a good measuring stick for awards, I just don't like to use it becuase it has not seemed to catch on yet, or is part of the discussion for those who cast the votes. At least yet.

So, in the game, I place less emphasis on this stat. And I am probably completely wrong to do so

[Kelric]

I don't use VORP as a measuring stick since I can't compare it to regular statistics in my mind. I miss Win Shares so far.

[Bay Area Bob]

Win shares use RBI though! And Saves and Wins! It's a really flawed and unnecessary metric!

[Syd Thrift]

I'm a big fan of Win Shares. FWIW, they only include saves to introduce the idea of leverage into the equation. Despite the talk of easy 1-2-3 9th inning saves, by and large closers pitch in the highest-leverage situations for their teams and they should have some sort of positive modifier because of this. Can't explain wins and RBIs as easily (although, given the choice between unmodified career ERA and W-L record, I'll take wins and losses every day of the week).

[dougaiton]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Despite the talk of easy 1-2-3 9th inning saves, by and large closers pitch in the highest-leverage situations for their teams and they should have some sort of positive modifier because of this.

Well, here's where James gets himself into trouble. Look at Tango Tiger's numbers of innings leverage:
http://www.insidethebook.com/li.shtml
Of course, a ninth-inning out is generally more important. Yet, it's actually incredibly complex! Let's look at a typical Rivera inning, coming in 1-2-3 with a 2-run lead and gets all three outs, let's say:
1.6/1.0/0.5
Well, that starts well, but by the end, wasn't high-leverage at all! What about a starter pitching the first inning:
0.9/0.6/0.4
Less leveraged, sure, but by the fifth, no-one on, tied ballgame:
1.2/0.9/.06
That's pretty darn close, isn't it? So a starter's fifth inning of a tie-ballgame is about the same as a closer with a two run-lead.

With men on base, leverage changes massively, and pitching five innings, starters are going to face far more high-leverage situations, because men on base is a far greater indicator of leverage than the point in the game you're at. Because starters pitch more innings, they'll pitch with more men on base, and those innings (where there are baserunners) are far more important to deciding a game than a 9th.

Again, Rivera may face a higher-percentage of high-leverage innings, but a starter will pitch many more high-leverage innings in a season, and as Win Shares is a counting stat, then starters should get more because they do more.

There are many other silly things about win shares, as well (the defense is wacky, wacky, wacky!).

[Syd Thrift]

I actually think the defense is the strongest part of Win Shares. Yes, it's wacky, but it's also one heck of a lot more accurate than Fielding Wins in terms of giving good grades to players who were historically regarded as good fielders, and it's impossible to apply ZR or similarly modern metrics to historical players. In that respect, it does the job better than anything else I've seen on the market.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I actually think the defense is the strongest part of Win Shares. Yes, it's wacky, but it's also one heck of a lot more accurate than Fielding Wins in terms of giving good grades to players who were historically regarded as good fielders, and it's impossible to apply ZR or similarly modern metrics to historical players. In that respect, it does the job better than anything else I've seen on the market.

Win Shares does a better job for sure of measuring historical defensive value than anything else that is in the public domain.

[The Wolf]

I'm perfectly happy with VORP, and am sorry that others are not.

[tysok]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bob

Win shares use RBI though! And Saves and Wins! It's a really flawed and unnecessary metric!

Win Shares.... Win Shares... the name tells you why it takes into account save, wins and RBIs... Win Shares...

What would that be measuring? How much your performance affected winning. Getting a win means you pitched well enough to earn it... getting a save means you "saved" the win. The point of the game is to win, so who got the win or save should get some points for getting the win or save than a pitcher that didn't get a win or save... also you win by scoring runs, so RBIs are important in what you did to help the team scrore runs...

Despite what others think about RBIs... RBIs would make a difference in how much you contributed to winning a particular game, which is all Win Shares is calculating.
So despite the idea that RBIs are ONLY a measure of the situation you find yourself in, the fact that YOU DID get that RBI contributed to winning the game more than someone who didn't get an RBI.

[dougaiton]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I actually think the defense is the strongest part of Win Shares. Yes, it's wacky, but it's also one heck of a lot more accurate than Fielding Wins in terms of giving good grades to players who were historically regarded as good fielders, and it's impossible to apply ZR or similarly modern metrics to historical players. In that respect, it does the job better than anything else I've seen on the market.

Well, it's built to give good grades to people historically who are considered to have been good defensive players, or, to put it the proper way round, built to grade well those that history records as having been particularly good defensively. Basically, the human eye could pretty much tell that Bill Mazerowski was better than Jose Offerman at 2B. More importantly than that, however, the statistics strongly implied it. We know that Rey Sanchez and the Mets infield of 2001 was excellent because it didn't make any errors, because the pitching staff had good ERAs, and because the BABIP were low.

For example, in the Abstract, James details quite clearly that his thoughts on how to rate catchers were based around 'Why do current statistics not rate Bench highly?'. We know that DPs turned is an important part of WS allocation, despite the fact that DPs turned are as context dependent as RBIs, for the most part, but Mazerowski was pretty darn good at them, so RACK that up in the formula. And so it goes: strikeout staffs get magically good defenses behind them, flyball pitching-staffs have remarkably good outfields behind them etc. etc.

Most importantly is really the thing that keeps UZR far ahead of WinShares: what are the bricks the building was constructed from? WinShares uses the same ol' bricks that we are told to believe gives an unreliable account of a player's defence. If I was to take the team DERA, and then compare it with the team ERA, and then assigned each portion of that ERA (-0.5, +1) to infielders and outfielders based on a basic OOTP fielding report, then I'd be just as theoretically sound as WS! Sure, we don't have better bricks from the past, but still...

I'm being unkind, and I take the point the WinShares, barring Rate of course, may be the best historical record on the market of players defensive record. But it doesn't mean I'd rather have WS than VORP!

Obviously, I'm preaching to the enlightened, but for those interested in the maths behind WinShares, try this:
http://walksaber.blogspot.com/2005/1...ough-pt-5.html
Parts 1-4 are the relevant ones, but this one links you to them all.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by redeemed

It's important to note that BP's VORP and OOTP's are not the same; BP's formula is exclusive to them. However, a 127 in either is remarkable.

Is there any place that defines how OOTP is calculating VORP? As other have noted, some VORP numbers seem odd and I'm curious as to the exact equation that OOTP is using. In particular, what is the replacement player basis being calculated as? Is this being recalculated each year? Are positional differences being accounted for? Are these positional differences 'hard coded' (i.e. 75% for catchers), or are these dynamically calculated based on the relative positional performance on a year-by-year basis?

I think if we are going to start basing our GM decisions on this stat that is prevalent in ootp, we need to know exactly how it is being determined.