1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Murray Chass on those newfangled numbers

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by KnuteRockne, Mar 24, 2007.

  1. jagtrader

    jagtrader Active Member

    He's not merely expressing an opinion. He's insulting others and professing to have such a vast knowledge of the game that the only way to look at it is HIS way. At the same time he's revealing his own ignorance, which is never a wise course of action for a reporter.
     
  2. casty33

    casty33 Active Member

    One more time, then I'll go back and crawl under my rock ... DON'T READ HIM. I'm sure you can find someone else to write what you'd rather read.

    Then, if it is your wont, call the NY Times sports editors and ask them to get rid of Murray. See how far that gets you.
     
  3. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    That's fair but it's still a shame that The Times cannot offer its readers a better national baseball report. The editor's are really missing the beat here.
     
  4. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    Apparently you don't watch much football on TV. The passer rating is prominently displayed among a QB's stats almost anytime a graphic is shown. And yet the passer rating says that last year J.P. Losman was better than Chad Pennington, David Carr was better than Matt Hasselbeck, Tony Romo was better than Tom Brady, and everybody was better than Vince Young.

    The passer rating is a VORP-like statistic in that no one knows how it is calculated. And plenty of people question the validity of the passer rating because it does not incorporate a QB's running ability. It is merely a PASSER rating. Yet it is accepted as gospel by the average fan simply because of the way it is presented.
     
  5. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    I have a obsessive compulsive disorder that requires me to read everything that is written in a paper or magazine that I pick up.

    Hence even if I rarely find myself engaged by some writers I have to read them.

    I have to imagine that in a baseball crazy town like NY the Times has a lot of readers that will soak up any written on topic. In today's competititve enviroment whether they realize it or not they are driving readers to other places to get their national baseball fix.

    I am not suggesting they dump mr Chass but I am suggesting that they find another national baseball writer. I think Jack Curry would do a spectatular job.
     
  6. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    The replacement level player is a constant. It's basically what you can expect from the most average player at the minimum price. So if your third baseman is A-Rod and he's hurt and you need to find another option, presumably the third baseman you call up from AAA to play for a couple weeks is just an average guy. In theory, that's who you'd replace A-Rod with because that's what's available. Sure, you could trade for someone, or maybe you have a rising star in the minors or a good backup in the bigs, but generally you're just going to pick up the average guy to replace someone. VORP tries to figure the value A-Rod provides over the average guy that you can pull off the scrap heap.

    Really, you would use VORP to compare A-Rod to Scott Rolen to Aramis Ramirez rather than each of those players to Joe Average who would replace them. You'd expect Joe Average to provide the replacement level play. He might do better, but you're measuring the expectation. Then you look at how much better than Joe Average you expect A-Rod to be, or you expect Rolen to be, or you expect Aramis Ramirez to be, and you see if you really should expect them to provide a value in relation to what you're going to pay them.

    According to BP, last year, A-Rod's VORP was 51.6. Ramirez's was 44.5. Rolen's was 36.6. The VORP is the number of runs you can expect each of those player's to produce over what Joe Average would give you. It is generally considered that 10 additional runs created equals one more win, so playing A-Rod every day over Joe Average would give the Yankees five more wins over the course of the season. Or what you're really comparing is A-Rod vs. Rolen, so you could say A-Rod last year gave the Yanks 1.5 more wins than Rolen would have. Doesn't sound like a lot? Well, they do say baseball is a game of inches ...

    One drawback is that VORP does not measure defense.
     
  7. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    TSP: I believe football fans have the passer rating doped out pretty well. They see it as a rough guide to a quarterback's performance and worth, but no more than that.
    Seeing fans as blind consumers of what's put in front of them is neither accurate nor good business.
     
  8. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    TSP, what the "average fan" accepts as gospel is irrelevant.
    Once upon a time, passer rating was an esoteric season-long statistic. Now, because TV needs to fill the screen with useles numbers and graphics, we get passer ratings by quarter.
    That's like saying a pitcher's ERA today is 0.00 after his pitches 2 scoreless innings to start a game.
    Because TV overloads people with stupid, meaningless, useless graphics and stats doesn't mean those stats are worthwhile.
    Example (not baseball related): On its NCAA wrapup show last night, previewing UNC-G'town game, ESPN flashed a stat that G'town is 6-0 in neutral site games this season. Duh! That would be 3-0 in the Big East tourney and 3-0 in the NCAA tourney.
    TOTALLY USELESS PIECE OF SHIT STAT!

    And your explanation of VORP, while interesting, proves that it, too, is TOTAL BULL SHIT!
     
  9. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    Hey, I'm not in love w/VORP. And I would hope that no one uses it as an exclusive way to figure out the worth of players, just like they wouldn't use batting average or HRs or RBI or ERA.

    And no matter how passer rating is presented, the facts are these:

    CAREER PASSER RATING LEADERS ENTERING 2006
    ------------------------------------------------
    1 Steve Young * 96.8
    2 KURT WARNER 94.1
    3 PEYTON MANNING 93.5
    4 Joe Montana * 92.3
    5 DAUNTE CULPEPPER 91.5
    6 MARC BULGER + 90.6
    7 TOM BRADY 88.5
    8 TRENT GREEN 88.3
    9 MATT HASSELBECK 86.64
    10 Otto Graham * # 86.63

    So Trent Green is better than Otto Graham? And Marc Bulger is better than Tom Brady? And Kurt Warner is better than Dan Marino and Brett Favre and ALL those guys are better than Jim Kelly and Troy Aikman and Dan Fouts and John Elway and everyone else not in the top 10?

    Michael Gee, the casual football fan should be seeing the passer rating for what it is -- a joke.
     
  10. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    So what you're saying is you can't measure the worth of players strictly by statistics.
    But what most sabergeeks are saying is everything can be measured by statistics.
    Thanks for making my argument for me.
     
  11. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    Actually, most sabergeeks aren't saying that. I think anyone who knows what they are talking about realizes that it is only a component of determining a player's value. It would be as wrong as thinking that the only way to determine a player is to simply watch them. You end up with a lot of Ryan Leafs and Stanley Jeffersons and Tony Mandariches that way. Gotta use all the evidence you can get your hands on.
     
  12. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Football stats of ANY kind cannot be used to compare players from different eras because the game has changed so much. The reason contemporary QBs have higher passer ratings is they have way higher completion percentages than the old-timers, due to all the short passes, multiple receiver sets, and sissification of pass defense rules. Otto Graham didn't pass as often as Joe Montana, and didn't bother with dumpoffs when he did. In 1952, passes were for scoring, not for moving the chains.
    Passer rating isn't a complete joke. It's a flawed stat. Assess a QBs yards per pass attempt number and his TD to INT ratio, and you know a lot more about his relative merit.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page