Murray Chass on those newfangled numbers

Speaking of value, what use is a statistic if it requires such a complex breakdown for readers to (maybe) grasp? My readers understand batting average, on-base percentage and runs, and a few more things.

VCR, or whatever it's called? How often are you going to use that in a story? I mean, c'mon.

 

The first conversation I hear among NFL fans that brings that up in an in-depth way, or the first story I see that discusses quarterbacks' relative merits based on the number, will be the first.

And J_D, we know how you are with VCRs. I wouldn't send you the Sopranos, either.

 

I have it on DVsomething or other now, so it's all good.

 

While the Baseball Prospectus numbers (and the alphabet soup they use to identify them) can be mind-numbing, if you read BP what you learn is the arguments they make are very simple and sound.

I'm two-thirds through the latest BP and I'm still not 100 precent sure the difference between VORP and WARP. And you don't have to to appreciate the fact that the Pirates suck because they sign players like Sean Casey, Joe Randa and Jeromy Burnitz and trade a guy like Craig Wilson, only after they've done all they can to devalue him.

I don't need to fully understand VORP to understand that Nook Logan is the second-coming of Brandon Watson and the solution to the Nationals' outfield situation is to play both Chris Snelling and Ryan Church and make Logan a defensive replacement and pinch-runner.

So to mock the funky BP stats or debate how meaningful they are is to miss the point. The BP guys provide tremendous analysis and make valid point after valid point. I don't need to understand every calculation to get the punch lines.

 

Different teams have different needs to fill...so what? It doesn't change the evaluation of Boyer vs. Killebrew.

 

The point is that the passer rating, which uses a formula that not a single person can recite, is accepted as gospel in determining the worth of NFL QBs -- at least by the general public.

Want to see the formula?

A = (comp. % - 30) / 20
B = (avg. gain - 3) / 4
C = TD% / 5
D = (9.5 - Int %) / 4
QB rating = ((A+B+C+D) / 6)*100

And people want to complain about VORP??

 

Well, that's a situational need that has no bearing on the evaluation of the two players. I mean, come on...how many times is Killebrew going to hit a three-run homer when his team is down two or three runs? Once a year maybe? When the team is up a run, I daresay it values the fielder.

 

As I said the problem with passer rating is that it's arbitrary. No doubt, completing passes, gaining more yards per attempt and throwing touchdowns are good and throwing interceptions is bad. But why are they weighted in this particular way? There's no compelling argument for it.

It does do something that is close to what VORP does (to be more accurate, what WARP or Win Shares does) in that it creates a nice singular number to explain all the things the player does. But in VORP, WARP or Win Shares, there is a direct and provable relationship to runs and wins that doesn't exist with QB rating.

 

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22passer%20rating%22%20NFL&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn

 

TSP, totally disagree about that. Maybe your circle of friends does, tho, I dunno. But I think you'd be incorrect to generalize that.

And PHINJ, funny you mention defense, since a lotta saberheads don't think that's quantifiable. And any system that could theoretically value a team without any power hitters, defensive standouts or fast players, but with players who walk a lot, has a lotta 'splaining to do. And let's be real: This saber stuff has grown into cult status because teams that won't spend need a rationale for having players who aren't as good as others. If Billy Beane was allowed enough money, he'd try to sign A-Rod. But he can't, so he has to find a way to justify having Hatteberg around, and a rationale for not having stars around once they're out of budgetary range.

 

Those are anecdotal mentions, the writer being complete. In discussions around the bar, Unitas and Montana and Young are not compared first and foremost, or even 10th and 10thmost, by passer rating.

 

Dooley, I don't know where you get these ideas from because every sabermetrician you can shake a stick at has some sort of system for measuring defense. BP's defensive numbers are roundly criticized but the guys at BP certainly believe defense is quantifiable. Bill James has probably the best system for measuring defensive performances of the past. Pete Palmer had a system to try to quantify defense 20 years ago. Tom Tango and Mitch Lichtman (formerly of the Cardinals) have come up with their own system of play-by-play analysis; Chris Dial has another. John Dewan publishes the Fielding Bible. That's pretty much the most well-respected members in the field doing a hell of a lot of quantifying.

You'd have to go back to Branch Rickey and Allan Roth to find sabermetricians who didn't think you could quantify defense.

As for your comment about Beane, that makes no sense. The Angels don't need to rationalize having Gary Matthews around; why do the A's need to rationalize Scott Hatteberg?

It may give you pause that some people value Scott Hatteberg (not sure that there's some sort of Hatteberg cult, but ok) but maybe it should give you pause that sportswriters more aligned with Chass somehow valued Justin Morneau more than any player in the AL when he wasn't more valuable than two of his teammates.