Andruw's struggles not helping his case for Hall

[FRENCHREDSOX]

ok, much as I hate to admit it, the last 3 posts have made me loller.

Why ? It is a fact that you can make varied stats say "whatever" you want you just need someone to believe you.One of the reasons I dislike some Saberstats is their methodology (or lack of) & also the LACK of a published formulae.

Elsewhere there was a nice debate on VORP (Value over Replacement player) which showed :

1° the actual title was misleading?as it wasnt value but just BATTING value &
2° THE replacement player NEVER existed & his level was so bad that no GM would acyually call him UP!

So what is/was the use of VORP? None Overall,some in a specific context & even that context has to be judged as dubious as WE dont have the accurate formula for VORP
..............................

[HoustonGM]

Uh, that's an incredibly inaccurate representation of the debate...considering #1 is a) wrong and b) ridiculously nitpickiy, and #2 was a) actually never even mentioned and b) also wrong...

[HoustonGM]

For anybody that wants to see for themselves, here.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Uh, that's an incredibly inaccurate representation of the debate...

Not really HGM as I said you can make STATS say what you want if you pick & choose & ignore certain stats.FRAA for example is IMO a very good saber stat & says exactly what it is A FIELDING assessment whereas VORP doesnt it says VALUE ----now VALUE means total VALUE .

Unless I am mistaken Baseball is a duopolistic sport (or in the NL a triopolistic sport for Pitchers) which has more than 1 trait to determine value.The only time VORP is accurate is when it "judges" DHs'

[HoustonGM]

Not really HGM as I said you can make STATS say what you want if you pick & choose & ignore certain stats.

Yeah.

FRAA for example is IMO a very good saber stat

FRAA is one of the "saber stats" that is most frequently bashed by sabermetricians outside BP because it does find itself with different views of players than a) reputation and b) more advanced fielding stats.

whereas VORP doesnt it says VALUE ----now VALUE means total VALUE .

As I said in the other thread, when the argument against a stat is what it's called, that's incredibly weak.

And no, value by itself doesn't mean anything without more context given to it. In this case, it means offensive value. FRAA and VORP measure the same thing - a player's value in terms of runs, FRAA for defense, VORP for offense. Stop nitpicking the name of the stat when anybody that uses it knows full well what it means.

Unless I am mistaken Baseball is a duopolistic sport (or in the NL a triopolistic sport for Pitchers) which has more than 1 trait to determine value.The only time VORP is accurate is when it "judges" DHs'

Once again, nitpicking over the name. Would it really make you feel better if from here on out it was referred to as OVORP? Does that really all of a sudden make it a good stat in your eyes? Because, with all the arguments focusing solely on nit picking the name, I'd think that changing the name should suddenly make it a great stat. Or, you know, you can just accept that it's named just fine and isn't meant to be an all-encompassing value stat such as WARP or Win Shares. It's meant to estimate a players offensive value for hitters and a players run prevention value for pitchers.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Yeah.


FRAA is one of the "saber stats" that is most frequently bashed by sabermetricians outside BP because it does find itself with different views of players than a) reputation and b) more advanced fielding stats.


As I said in the other thread, when the argument against a stat is what it's called, that's incredibly weak.

And no, value by itself doesn't mean anything without more context given to it. In this case, it means offensive value. FRAA and VORP measure the same thing - a player's value in terms of runs, FRAA for defense, VORP for offense. Stop nitpicking the name of the stat when anybody that uses it knows full well what it means.


Once again, nitpicking over the name. Would it really make you feel better if from here on out it was referred to as OVORP? Does that really all of a sudden make it a good stat in your eyes? Because, with all the arguments focusing solely on nit picking the name, I'd think that changing the name should suddenly make it a great stat. Or, you know, you can just accept that it's named just fine and isn't meant to be an all-encompassing value stat such as WARP or Win Shares. It's meant to estimate a players offensive value for hitters and a players run prevention value for pitchers.

VORP has more than that as a flaw,OK simply give me the formula how VORP final results are achieved - I know how SLG/BA/OBP/OBA are calculated how is VORP achieved ?


In order to assess its "usage" (actual value for GMs/Managers or even BMers) then I (& I assume others) need to know what it uses & what it doesnt & WHAT weights.



For example is HRs weighted more than SBs & if so why & by how much? Also VORP ignores team strategies* - the VORP values are heavily weighted (based on the results) to AL style hitting rather than NL small ball.



* bunting/SACs etc

[HoustonGM]

VORP has more than that as a flaw,OK simply give me the formula how VORP final results are achieved - I know how SLG/BA/OBP/OBA are calculated how is VORP achieved ?

http://www.stathead.com/bbeng/woolner/vorpdescnew.htm

In order to assess its "usage" (actual value for GMs/Managers or even BMers) then I (& I assume others) need to know what it uses & what it doesnt & WHAT weights.

I'm pretty sure front offices can get the full details of BP's stats, provided they pay. Also, if this is your gripe with the stat, which is legitimate, than don't waste time nitpicking the name.

For example is HRs weighted more than SBs & if so why & by how much?

They're weighted by their actual average run values.

Also VORP ignores team strategies*

First off, it's meant as an estimate. Secondly, it doesn't "ignore team strategies" as much as it "assigns a value to them.

- the VORP values are heavily weighted (based on the results) to AL style hitting rather than NL small ball.

It's heavily weighted towards the actual run values of what goes on on the field. Yes, home runs provide better run value than sacrifice bunts. This does not mean that it's weight to favor the AL. It means its weighted to actually estimate run production.

Also, players are compared to players in their own league.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

http://www.stathead.com/bbeng/woolner/vorpdescnew.htm

That is not the formula that is an explaination of what VORP takes into account - no weights nor even a % allocation.

I'm pretty sure front offices can get the full details of BP's stats, provided they pay. Also, if this is your gripe with the stat, which is legitimate, than don't waste time nitpicking the name.

The name is "not a nit pick" as you quaintly put it but a legitimate FALLACY - A car is a car not a bus,thus when you call something VALUE OVER REPLACEMENT PLAYER then it states EXACTLY that the VALUE.* not really important however*

They're weighted by their actual average run values.

Really? Well that actually contradicts what Woolmer actually says....

One slight problem with this is that a leadoff hitter will get a higher percentage of team PA's than the #9 hitter will, even if each plays every inning of every game. This method does not attempt to adjust for differences in PA's resulting for lineup position.

First off, it's meant as an estimate. Secondly, it doesn't "ignore team strategies" as much as it "assigns a value to them.

again wrong Woolmer states here

Let's assume for a moment that the player in question plays every single game during the season, and accumulates exactly 1/9th of the team's late appearances (this is roughly equivalent to saying that the player is hitting fifth, although we aren't explicitly modelling batting order effects here). We'll also assume that the rest of the team is composed entirely of league average hitters.


MLV, as described above, compares a player to a league average hitter. However, the distribution of hitting talent is not equal throughout all positions. Due to the defensive difficulty of the shortstop, there are fewer good hitters capable of the fielding demands of the position. As we move closer to a complete measure of a player's value, we need to understand and correct for the systematic differences in position.

thus VORP only assigns to League Average with no consideration at ALL to strategies employed by team #1 or team #30 thus the St Louis "small ball" of the 80's would be totally undervalued.In essence ALL strategies are ignored & it implicitly over rates batters with high IBBs (such as Bonds in his hey day)

Also as it takes the league average RC as the basis for comparison THEN implicitly any deviation away from League average standard RC will be BE mismanaged & corrupted- he states that he compares a #5 batter & a #9 batter as EQUAL thus undermining the role to position & demands that Managers' & ipso facto Players' have for a Leadoff hitter or a Clean up hitter.

Which is illogical as each position in the batting order HAS specific roles/demands & returns

It's heavily weighted towards the actual run values of what goes on on the field. Yes, home runs provide better run value than sacrifice bunts. This does not mean that it's weight to favor the AL. It means its weighted to actually estimate run production.

Also, players are compared to players in their own league.

Lastly VORP (or should I say RP) is based on 1 year 1998.But is 1998 the typical year,is it standard,what were the Averages & why that sole year to determine RP ? AGAIN Woolmer states "hit about .235/.300/.356" but again no strategy nor management effects (eg Pinch Hitters/Runners or substitutions).

[HoustonGM]

That is not the formula that is an explaination of what VORP takes into account - no weights nor even a % allocation.

Read the article. VORP is simply comparing a player's MLV (Marginal Lineup Value) to replacement level. The article links to a mathmatical explanation of MLV.

The name is "not a nit pick" as you quaintly put it but a legitimate FALLACY - A car is a car not a bus,thus when you call something VALUE OVER REPLACEMENT PLAYER then it states EXACTLY that the VALUE. not really important however

It is nitpicking, because it's not a fallacy. It does tell you a player's value over a replacement level player. His offensive value. You know this, yet you nitpick the name. Fine, from now on, we'll refer to it as OVORP. Does that make the stat good now?

Really? Well that actually contradicts what Woolmer actually says....

Um, no, it doesn't. MLV doesn't adjust for differences in plate appearances due to lineup positions. That has nothing at all to do with the weightings of the different offensive components (singles, doubles, homers, etc.)...

again wrong Woolmer states herethus VORP only assigns to League Average with no consideration at ALL to strategies employed by team #1 or team #30 thus the St Louis "small ball" of the 80's would be totally undervalued.In essence ALL strategies are ignored &

How am I wrong if that's exactly what I said? By the very definition of looking at the stats, which are generated by the strategies, it's not ignoring the strategies. It's assigning value to the outcomes...

it implicitly over rates batters with high IBBs (such as Bonds in his hey day)

Uh? How? An IBB is the exact same thing as a regular walk. IBBs have identical value to a non-intentional walk.

Also as it takes the league average RC as the basis for comparison THEN implicitly any deviation away from League average standard RC will be BE mismanaged & corrupted- he states that he compares a #5 batter & a #9 batter as EQUAL thus undermining the role to position & demands that Managers' & ipso facto Players' have for a Leadoff hitter or a Clean up hitter.Which is illogical as each position in the batting order HAS specific roles/demands & returns

Yes, each position in the batting order has different roles. However, what each player does still has an estimated value, and that's what VORP is. A estimate of a player's offensive value. A walk from a #5 hitter is as valuable as a walk from a #9 hitter. Yes, obviously, a walk in front of a good hitter is technically mroe valuable than a walk in front of a pitcher, but that's not what VORP is meant to do. It's meant to estimate a player's own individual value, regardless of surrounding players, team specific strategies, etc. It's meant to allow you to compare any player on any team to any other. It is an estimate.

Lastly VORP* (or should I say RP) is based on 1 year 1998.But is 1998 the typical year,is it standard,what were the Averages & why that sole year to determine RP ?

Uh, no. That's just when the article was written. Replacement level is calculated for each separate year based on that year's stats...2007 VORP isn't calculated using the 1998 replacement level. It's calculated using the 2007 replacement level.

AGAIN Woolmer states "hit about .235/.300/.356"* but again no strategy nor management effects (eg Pinch Hitters/Runners or substitutions).

It's not meant to.

Also, it's Woolner.

[HoustonGM]

How can you judge a player's BVORP (Ovorp isnt even close to being correct as running stats aren't included, nor are any smallball stats)

Holy ****ing schmoley. Cut it out with this freaking name stuff. Seriously, it's beyond pointless. Batting Value over Repalcement Player. Offensive Value OVer repalcement Player. OH MY GOD. JUST SHUT UP ABOUT IT.

Show me one statistic that takes into account each individual team's strategies. One. Besides the statistics that track what managers do, there isn't any. I don't even know how you would even begin to do account for different team strategies.

I guess every statistic is just bad because it doesn't take into account strategies. **** all statistics to ****.


Seriously, come on now. There are some very legitimate gripes with VORP, and people here are whining about the NAME and the fact that it doesn't do something that every other statistic doesn't do as well. Maybe it's time to take a step back and realize that you're just grasping at straws here (and not even mentioning any legitimate issues with VORP, none of which invalidate the statistic).

[HoustonGM]

(Besides, you were the one who suggested changing the name from vorp to something else - I just suggested something a little more accurate. - )

I only did it because you're all just whining about the name, so maybe if you just think of it as named something else you'll all feel a little better. I think it's perfectly fine by it's current name. But then again, I'm not going to nitpick a stat's name. The stat could be called BFFLJORP for all I care, as long as it does what it's meant to do.

And yeah, Batting VORP is SO MUCH mroe accurate than Offensive VORP.

And you think because you can't come up with a stat that takes into consideration strategies no one else can? WTF. Overselling yourself a little? LOL

Um, no. Show me a stat that does, though.

Maybe it's time for you to realize that bvorp is extremely limited

It's limited to offensive value. Yes. That's what it's meant for. It's not end-all-be-all stat. It's one stat. It must be used in conjunction with other stats. Holy heck.

Of friggen course it's limited. Every stat is limited.

is pointless to quote the stats from since no one even knows how it works.

I guess the articles that have been linked to that do show how it works were just imaginary or something?

You're grasping at straws trying to defend this stat.

You're trying to disprove the validity of a stat by whining about what it's named, and by saying that it's just like every other stat in that it doesn't account for team-specific strategies...and I'm the one grasping at straws?

[HoustonGM]

That's pretty much the consensus of the forum, yes.

Heh, you're the forum now?

I could argue against VORP better than you've been, because I at least know the issues that it does have, and I'm not going to waste time nitpicking it's name.

[ohms_law]

Their not making arguments against the stat, though. That seems obvious to me.

[HoustonGM]

Heh, true.