Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, June 16, 2008

Sabernomics: Bradbury: VORP Shmorp

Hab SoSlI’ Quch!

My point isn’t that VORP is an awful or useless stat. To the contrary, there is clearly useful information contained in it. And those who prefer to hold discussions based on this metric should continue to do so. But there is no need for someone who does not speak the language to learn the ins an outs of a new metric, as Sheinin suggests. I can talk about all its components without dropping the V-bomb. If you want to talk hitting, we can use OBP and SLG. Then you can bring in stolen bases and defense to capture other effects. For pitching, we can use strikeouts, walks, and homers. The big advantage of these is that I can have these conversations with people other than die-hard stat-heads. I can also explain the advantages of these metrics over traditional triple-crown stats, and that is a huge benefit.

I view VORP as an insider language, and by using it you can signal that you are insider. It’s like speaking Klingon at a Star Trek convention. I can signal to others who speak the language that I am one of you. But, the danger of VORP is that once you bring it up the discussion goes down the wrong path as the uninitiated have reason to feel they are being told they are not as smart as the person making the argument. It’s like constantly bringing up the fact that you only listen to NPR or watch the BBC news at dinner parties. The response is likely going to be the same, “well #### you too, you pretentious #######!”

Repoz Posted: June 16, 2008 at 07:52 PM | 22 comment(s)
  Related News: GeneralSabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages
   1. PASTE is not impressed by Albert Pujols (Zeth)  Posted: June 16, 2008 at 07:01 PM (#2821764)
The man has a point.
   2. Chris Dial  Posted: June 16, 2008 at 07:20 PM (#2821787)
I view VORP as an insider language, and by using it you can signal that you are insider. It’s like speaking Klingon at a Star Trek convention. I can signal to others who speak the language that I am one of you. But, the danger of VORP is that once you bring it up the discussion goes down the wrong path as the uninitiated have reason to feel they are being told they are not as smart as the person making the argument. It’s like constantly bringing up the fact that you only listen to NPR or watch the BBC news at dinner parties. The response is likely going to be the same, “well #### you too, you pretentious #######!”
You are "bringing it up" wrong. Explain it to them. More want to learn than do not.
   3. PASTE is not impressed by Albert Pujols (Zeth)  Posted: June 16, 2008 at 07:39 PM (#2821817)
I find it's better to ease the conversation into things like "yeah, you know, it's a lot easier to hit at Coors than at Petco..." and "well, his ERA's high, but the Reds' defense is god-awful" and stuff like that... and then get toward a point where you say "you know, there are a couple really good stats that actually take all this stuff into account. Ever heard of VORP?"
   4. Voros  Posted: June 16, 2008 at 07:45 PM (#2821826)
Conceptually I think replacement value is a very important concept, even if how it precisely is numerically defined can be a minefield.

I think VORP as a number that must be obeyed is far less interesting (and informative) than the ideas behind the stat which are very useful in player evaluation.

That said, explaining those ideas can be daunting. For example I can't imagine the difficulty I'd have trying to explain DIPS to (picking a former player completely at random) say Mark Grace. I'm sure I'd fail at the task, particularly if, hypothetically, I had a few beers in me. :)
   5. vortex of dissipation  Posted: June 16, 2008 at 07:52 PM (#2821840)
You are "bringing it up" wrong. Explain it to them. More want to learn than do not.


Exactly. I've been reading this site for years, and I still don't understand what VORP is or how to use it. Please don't say that I'm a Luddite - I'm not rejecting it at all. In fact it's the opposite. I really would like to learn. But I'd just like to be able to have a nice, simple layman's definition of what it is, and what types of information go into computing it, and how to use it, without including advanced mathmatical formulas that would go over my head. In other words, I don't need to know how repair the car, but I'd like to be able to drive it.

Oh, and I only watch the BBC news, but then, I'm British.
   6. Pops Freshenmeyer  Posted: June 16, 2008 at 08:02 PM (#2821867)
The best way to think of VORP is: the difference between player's Equivalent Average [BPro's uber rate stat for offense] and replacement level Equivalent Average for that position; the difference is then multiplied by playing time [the exact conversion isn't publicized] to come up with an approximate number of runs above the replacement level the player has contributed.

Replacement level is 80% of average for position players and 85% of average for pitchers - at least since last I knew. These levels are approximations but were arrived at through some empirical process.

That's an incomplete explanation but I hope it's useful to some degree.

Oh, and I only watch the BBC news, but then, I'm British.

But that only bolsters the point...
   7. Crashburn Alley  Posted: June 16, 2008 at 11:51 PM (#2822297)
It’s like constantly bringing up the fact that you only listen to NPR or watch the BBC news at dinner parties.


If this is referring to the U.S. of A., my response to someone who said that would be, "Balderdash!" (humor me here, people).

I find it hard to imagine how one could intentionally block themselves off from the mainstream American media. And is the BBC even on American television? It's not on my list (300+ channels) with Comcast digital cable.
   8. NTNgod  Posted: June 16, 2008 at 11:57 PM (#2822306)
BBC America has pretty good market penetration; it's one of the eight zillion channels controlled by the Discovery Channel people.
   9. Tango  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 12:30 AM (#2822339)
Wins Above Replacement
x Dollars Per Win
x Years of Service Adjustment
equals Salary

Wins Above Average times Dollars Per Win
+
Constant Dollars Per Playing Time Unit times Playing Time Unit
, all times Years of Service Adjustment
equals Salary

It's all about where to put that "constant". But, it works out to the exact same thing.
   10. Miss Remember  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 12:43 AM (#2822344)
This is a stupid article. You can compare players by OPS+ or whatever and get comparable results strictly in those comparisons yes...the issue is how much better is say a 115 OPS+ vs a 100 OPS+. Please tell me.

The answer is of course 15%. 15% of what? 15% of the league average OPS. Well what is a point of OPS worth? Ummm, well, it's basically a point of SLG or OBP. How much is a point of one of those worth??? Etc etc etc. Tell me what the difference on the team level of a 115 OPS+ vs a 100 OPS+. 15% doesn't quite say anything now does it.

VORP puts it in actual runs, which have an actual meaning for a baseball game. I fail to see how it is complicated how "X number of runs over a shitty player" is better than "15% better than league average".
   11. Ben V-L  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 02:34 AM (#2822367)
It's easy to avoid exposure to mainstream American media.

It starts with the decision to save $360+ annually by not subscribing to cable. Add a low tolerance for advertising, which is 30% of broadcast television. Add a busy day job and raising young kids, which leaves little time for gathering info, so sources have to be high density (which is related to the low tolerance for advertising). Since even NPR doesn't qualify as high density, this combination left people SOL in the past, but thankfully now one has the freedom to identify good information sources on the internet.

Can't say I've missed broadcast or cable TV in the slightest, nor the traditional media rags. Many of the people I know who have kids have done the same.
   12. Crashburn Alley  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 03:23 AM (#2822383)
I guess it's a matter of priorities, and I am too lazy to avoid the MSM.
   13. PreservedFish  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 03:25 AM (#2822385)
VORP puts it in actual runs, which have an actual meaning for a baseball game.

And then when you say "When you add 9 or 10 runs, on average you're adding one win," you get stared at again.

I agree with #3 very much. Almost everything that statheadism has taught me that is worth knowing can be explained simply without resorting to numbers or jargon. When you have to reach for the Klingon-equivalent jargon, or get out your calculator, the point is frequently so fine that you might as well just shut up.
   14. Greg Pope  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 07:28 AM (#2822471)
When you have to reach for the Klingon-equivalent jargon, or get out your calculator, the point is frequently so fine that you might as well just shut up.

This is a good point. When you're talking with people who are interested in debating the extremely fine points, then the advanced metrics are fine. When you're talking about general park effects, general defensive effects, etc. then simpler stats are fine.

I still don't have an adequate explanation of why Quarterback Ranking is so completely accepted by everyone from the MSM down to the guy at the bar, while things like VORP are ridiculed. I mean, nobody understands how the data works in QB Rating. They understand that it takes important things like yards, TD's, and INT's into account, but they don't know how. And it has its flaws as well, since there's such thing as a "perfect rating" even if you went 20-24 with 3 TD's. What would your rating have been if you completed those other 4 passes, 3 of them for TD's? Oh, the same.
   15. Danny  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 07:38 AM (#2822484)
The best way to think of VORP is: the difference between player's Equivalent Average [BPro's uber rate stat for offense] and replacement level Equivalent Average for that position; the difference is then multiplied by playing time [the exact conversion isn't publicized] to come up with an approximate number of runs above the replacement level the player has contributed.

I think that describes RARP, while VORP is based on MLV.
   16. Superunknown Gary Geiger Counter  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 07:41 AM (#2822490)
QB Rating is NFL-sanctioned, IIRC. My first exposure to VORP, OTOH, was in one of the BPro books around the turn of the century. That was back when half the player comments were ######## than Mr. Blackwell, so I can see that being offputting to some even if Woolner wasn't the one writing the comments.
   17. Bob Dernier Cri  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 07:53 AM (#2822502)
I am one of the more stat-challenged folk who post here, but I have never found VORP to be a difficult concept. Basically I'd agree with both Voros in #4 and JC in the FA on many points. VORP tells you something, as do many other metrics; what's interesting, perhaps, is when it diverges from some other metrics and insists that something's going on that you can't tell from, say, OPS+ or the other common metrics on B-Ref.

VORP (and its cousins the WARPs) are clearly not numbers that "must be obeyed" as Voros puts it. For one thing, I think that they are numbers with one foot in the fantasy-baseball realm. I know these are very simple observations that have been made often, but: starters are not uniformly replaced by "replacement-level" talent except in fantasy; they are often replaced by top bench guys or top prospects. Nor (except in fantasy) are players locked into positions. Catchers are, and maybe some left-handed first basemen; veterans often get highly acclimated to one position; but usually players are much more mobile across positions than VORP and WARP would indicate. Take somebody like Mark DeRosa, who is perhaps an extreme example but not an unusual type. What "position" does he play?
   18. villageidiom  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 08:06 AM (#2822522)
VORP puts it in actual runs, which have an actual meaning for a baseball game. I fail to see how it is complicated how "X number of runs over a shitty player" is better than "15% better than league average".
To the uninitiated, saying Player A is 20 runs better than Player B isn't much better than someone saying Albert Pujols saves two runs per game on defense. Anyone claiming the latter will be asked to defend it, to quantify it in terms one can understand. Is that relative to having no first baseman there? Relative to Jason Giambi? Relative to Chris Duncan? And exactly how many errors does he have to prevent in order to save two runs a game? If we look at the best first basemen of all time, how many runs per game did they save on defense - is two runs freakishly large? Freakishly small? Average? Really good? How much of his success depends on his teammates? And so on.

IOW, in order to judge whether the claim has merit, you have to understand how the claim is supported. To the uninitiated, VORP is no different. If you want to speak in VORP, either you need to find someone who speaks VORP, teach someone how to understand VORP, or find a language your audience understands.
   19. Greg Pope  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 08:06 AM (#2822523)
QB Rating is NFL-sanctioned, IIRC.

I guess that's a big part. I guess if VORP (or EqA, or whatever) was routinely shown on TV and talked about then it would gain some acceptance.

starters are not uniformly replaced by "replacement-level" talent

I think this is a big part, as well, at least for any "replacement-level" stats. It's actually kind of dehumanizing to talk about players in terms of how much better (or worse) they are than "some random guy", even if that guy is an AAAA player.
   20. Kyle S at work  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 08:09 AM (#2822524)
Perhaps VORP would be better accepted if it didn't have such an awkward name. What about "replacement runs" or something.
   21. Bob Dernier Cri  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 08:19 AM (#2822534)
It's actually kind of dehumanizing to talk about players in terms of how much better (or worse) they are than "some random guy", even if that guy is an AAAA player

Yes. And I realize that "replacement level" is just an abstract benchmark, no different in kind from league-average, but chosen for specific alternative good reasons. Within the logical system of the replacement-level-based metrics, things hang together; but they don't reflect baseball realities in many ways. Nor does any single metric, obviously.
   22. Evil Tom  Posted: June 17, 2008 at 07:01 PM (#2823358)
The NFL Passer Rating is accepted because it's been a widely used stat for at least 35 years. Not many people know how to calculate it but they know that less than 70 is bad and over 90 is good. VORP isn't a league sanctioned stat, hasn't been in use that long and not many people know what's a good number and what's a bad number.
Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

<< Back to main

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
tshipman
for his generous support.

My Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets.

We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy concert tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule

Baseball Bats

JustGreatTickets.com provides the best value for Chicago Cubs Tickets, MLB tickets including Red Sox Tickets, Yankees Tickets, SF Giants Tickets, LA Dodgers Tickets, Cleveland Indians Tickets. Get the best concert tickets like Jonas Brothers tickets and more Chicago Tickets.

Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers

Major League Baseball: All Star Game, New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, LA Angels, Washington Nationals, Chicago White Sox, and the Chicago Cubs.

Find terrific deals on Yankees tickets for the new home, Cubs tickets for classic Wrigley, or Red Sox tickets for Fenway with OnlineSeats. We have seats for every baseball game, including Dodgers tickets.

Page rendered in 0.6409 seconds
82 querie(s) executed