Murray Chass on those newfangled numbers

[KnuteRockne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/sports/baseball/27chass.html?ex=1174881600&en=b1501fceb38b6eb2&ei=5070

This is embarrassing (under the heading of things Murray doesn't want to hear about any more):

Statistics mongers promoting VORP and other new-age baseball statistics.

I receive a daily e-mail message from Baseball Prospectus, an electronic publication filled with articles and information about statistics, mostly statistics that only stats mongers can love.

To me, VORP epitomized the new-age nonsense. For the longest time, I had no idea what VORP meant and didn’t care enough to go to any great lengths to find out. I asked some colleagues whose work I respect, and they didn’t know what it meant either.

Finally, not long ago, I came across VORP spelled out. It stands for value over replacement player. How thrilling. How absurd. Value over replacement player. Don’t ask what it means. I don’t know.

I suppose that if stats mongers want to sit at their computers and play with these things all day long, that’s their prerogative. But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein.

People play baseball. Numbers don’t.

 

[KnuteRockne]

And the response:

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2007/02/this-is-why-this-site-exists.html

 

[spnited]

A few things Knute:

Nothing like dragging up a month-old notebook and finding one thing to pick at.

VORP is nothing but mathematical masturbation, as so much sabermetrics is.

Sabermatricians deal in many good and useful stats, and a whole lot of bull**** like VORP, R-27 (I think that's what it's called), win shares, range factor and any stat that's got a + on it because it's adjusted to make all conditions equal when we know conditions are never equal.

I'll take the Murray Chasses of the world, you can have the Rob Neyers -- and I'll learn more about what's really happening in MLB.

 

[sportschick]

I think Chass is right on. Those ****ing creators of stupid, ridiculous stats that nobody understands are among the (many) reasons I quit following baseball.

 

[KnuteRockne]

There is a case to be made about sabermetrics going overboard, but Murray doesn't make it here. He comes off as a threatened, proudly uninformed curmudgeon, particularly when he brags about not taking the time to look up what these things mean.

Baseball front offices ARE paying attention to these numbers. Unlike the obsessed saber-nerds, it's only part of the equation for them, as it should be. But for Chass to brag that he has neither the time or inclination to keep up with what the front offices he covers are doing is, and I stand by the use of the word, embarrassing.

 

[spnited]

And you would be wrong, Knute. If you read Chass regularly, you'd know he uses many stats that the saber-nerds so love.
In this case, he is saying VORP is one of those bull**** numbers that some saber-nerd invented that has no true meaning so who gives a **** what it is.

 

[PHINJ]

Why does value over replacement have no true meaning?

 

[spnited]

How does one arrive at value over replacement?
What does it have to do with how a player actually performs on the field?
Show me the specific value of this so-called statistic.

 

[jagtrader]

I think Chass is right on. Those ****ing creators of stupid, ridiculous stats that nobody understands are among the (many) reasons I quit following baseball.

This is what I don't get. Who cares about why/how someone else enjoys the game? Why should it affect the way YOU enjoy the game?

Fear of complex statistics appears to be a baseball-only phobia. If you want to ignore them, fine. If you want to discredit them, go for it. If you want to whine about how they "ruin" something, that's just stupid.

 

[dooley_womack1]

I always wondered what D_B's alternate ID was.

And VORP doesn't have much value, unless you can come up with a daily VORP, based on whether one player is hung over one day while the other isn't, whether one player is having gal problems, whether one player has a nagging injury, whether one player has a .111 lifetime average against a pitcher but is 3-for-4 against the pitcher in recent games, whether one player is a clubhouse leader while the other is a clubhouse cancer, and I could go on all day.

So yeah, VORP doesn't have much value.

 

[PHINJ]

How does one arrive at value over replacement?
What does it have to do with how a player actually performs on the field?
Show me the specific value of this so-called statistic.

You determine a player's value and compare it to replacement level. (I assume you know that the true value of offensive events -- hits, homers, steals, walks -- can be quite accurately measured. Defense is somewhat murkier but it can be done.)

The value in it is the same as any other statistic -- it enables you to measure what players do on the field. The difference is that it does a better job of measuring it.

 

[dooley_womack1]

But what is "value"? Some teams value a huge slugger at third, for instance, and will give up some defense. Another team may have power at other positions and can afford to value a third baseman that's more into defense and leadership. "Value" is not a mathematical average; it's relative to a team's needs.

 

[cake in the rain]

Ridiculous column from Chass. But it represents the views of many baseball writers -- not to mention a (thankfully shrinking) number of baseball people.

 

[spnited]

Amen to what dooley said!

VORP is useless bull****.

 

[MertWindu]

The "but the owners and GMs use numbers!" argument is meaningless. Those people are ultimately out to make as much money as possible, which is another number. When the value of their product can be quantified, it makes that process easier to understand. But it has nothing to do with the game itself. There are certainly important numbers in baseball, and while most of them are the 5X5 that we've grown to love, there are some newer statistics that help to understand the value of a player. However, If I want to understand the game of baseball better, I'm absolutely asking a beat writer, a Chass-type, someone who watches the game every day and understands the inner workings of players and managers. I'm not asking a stat freak who's going to spit 14 different numbers at me. Baseball is not a game, like basketball or football, that can be broken down into a series of numbers. There's so much more to it than that.

Oh, and I really don't understand VORP at all.

 

[KnuteRockne]

Well, first of all baseball, more than any other game, actually CAN be broken down into a series of numbers. That's because of the structure of the game. It's not as fluid as, say, basketball or football and hockey. There are a series of very measurable events and results.

The reason that saber people - along with front-office people - are digging inside the numbers is to get any inside edge they can on how the game functions. Sure, things like hangovers and the common cold can affect the day-to-day value of a player. But that's a very circular argument here - the same could be said about batting average, home runs, doubles, walks, strikeouts, etc., etc., etc. What these stats are intended to do is gauge not a single game on a single day, but the odds of player performance over 162 games, the longest season in sports and therefore the most predictable because it yields the most data.

But back to my original point - it is inexcusable for Chass, a Hall of Fame baseball writer for the nation's paper of record, to dismiss something front offices (and Sports Illustrated, by the way) are using simply because he thinks it sounds funny.

Is he employed to cover the game or protect it from perceived threats? That's the problem with long-time beat writers in any sport - they get too close to the game.

 

[MertWindu]

Well, first of all baseball, more than any other game, actually CAN be broken down into a series of numbers. That's because of the structure of the game. It's not as fluid as, say, basketball or football and hockey. There are a series of very measurable events and results.

The reason that saber people - along with front-office people - are digging inside the numbers is to get any inside edge they can on how the game functions. Sure, things like hangovers and the common cold can affect the day-to-day value of a player. But that's a very circular argument here - the same could be said about batting average, home runs, doubles, walks, strikeouts, etc., etc., etc. What these stats are intended to do is gauge not a single game on a single day, but the odds of player performance over 162 games, the longest season in sports and therefore the most predictable because it yields the most data.

But back to my original point - it is inexcusable for Chass, a Hall of Fame baseball writer for the nation's paper of record, to dismiss something front offices (and Sports Illustrated, by the way) are using simply because he thinks it sounds funny.

Is he employed to cover the game or protect it from perceived threats? That's the problem with long-time beat writers in any sport - they get too close to the game.

You're right, baseball can be broken down into a series of numbers. I misspoke. What I meant to say is that using complicated statistics doesn't actually explain much of anything to the outside observer. Why did Jeter get a double against the pitcher he's had little past success against? Not because of some ridiculous calculation, but because the idiot threw a waist-high fastball and Jeter was feeling pretty good that day. That's what baseball is all about. A matchup between two human beings, who over the course of the history of time have shown to be anything BUT calculable. I have no problem with you, Knute, or your Neyer-reading ilk enjoying the game via averages and ratios and whatnot. But your general attitude that anyone who doesn't bow at the altar of numbers is clearly an idiot, ignorant, or just a fuddy-duddy is just as pompous and wrong as you say Chass' opinion is.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Teams do not look at an average value of all stats when deciding if they want a player. They value specific things (like power or defense), and take a player based on that, as long as the team doesn't mind a dropoff in another area. And let's face it: On almost all teams, 6-7 of the lineup spots are set in stone. Other spots on the roster depend on filling roles, not picking players with a good average of values. So whether VORP is a solid calculation or not matters little; it's not one that is truly impactful in the real world.

And again, the thought that sabermetrics values Scott Hatteberg makes me take some of that stuff with a grain of salt.

 

[PHINJ]

But what is "value"? Some teams value a huge slugger at third, for instance, and will give up some defense. Another team may have power at other positions and can afford to value a third baseman that's more into defense and leadership. "Value" is not a mathematical average; it's relative to a team's needs.

Every team's "needs" are the same: To score runs and to prevent runs. A huge slugger who is a defensive liability at third base could well have the same value in scoring and preventing runs as a guy who hits less and fields more. Just because the team prefers a slugger doesn't mean he is contributing more runs.

 

[MertWindu]

But what is "value"? Some teams value a huge slugger at third, for instance, and will give up some defense. Another team may have power at other positions and can afford to value a third baseman that's more into defense and leadership. "Value" is not a mathematical average; it's relative to a team's needs.

Every team's "needs" are the same: To score runs and to prevent runs. A huge slugger who is a defensive liability at third base could well have the same value in scoring and preventing runs as a guy who hits less and fields more. Just because the team prefers a slugger doesn't mean he is contributing more runs.

Wow, none of that made any sense.