Author Topic: One RF thread to rule them all (Read 23057 times)

Potomac Cannons · « **Reply #300 on:** May 03, 2010, 09:37:10 pm »

Seattle isn't doing something that stupid with their new GM. They'll go for Crawford first anyways as he's younger, a LF, and still won't get 100m over 5. Werth is going to get 12m a year, 15m if everything breaks right for him.

If Seattle did go get him he would fit nicely into their 4 spot in the lineup.

tomterp · « **Reply #301 on:** May 03, 2010, 10:04:31 pm »

Quote from: JCA-CrystalCity on May 03, 2010, 06:06:15 pm

League average? I thought the replacement player was an player who could be picked up quickly andinserted in the line up with no cost other than MLB minimum. An average player is better than that.

That is correct. A minimum wage, experienced minor leaguer or waiver wire pickup is the player that comes to mind. Taveres, perhaps Corey Patterson would be in the realm of replacement level, generally.

NatsDad14 · « **Reply #302 on:** May 03, 2010, 10:16:10 pm »

Werth is going to want a deal like Jason Bay. I'm not sure he is worth that.

tomterp · « **Reply #303 on:** May 03, 2010, 10:20:48 pm »

Quote from: Potomac Cannons on May 03, 2010, 06:14:36 pm

Could have sworn it was league average.

Looked at Woolner's article on it and it says:

"We define a replacement level player as one who hits as far below the league positional average as the league backups do relative to league average, who plays average defense for the position, and is a breakeven base-stealer and baserunner."

So, defense and running are average, batting is well below and it is based on the minimum salary fill in player.

EDIT: Read a little more and it is apparently .070 lower than league average OPS with fielding and running treated as average.

Here's an old article by Wooley, responding to a Q&A on VORP, which explains some of the aspects of the stat:

Quote

1. Are VORPs additive? In other words, is it appropriate to say that one player with a VORP of 10 is equally valuable to two players with VORPs of 5 each?

2. Can you only compare players of the same position, or is it appropriate to say that (for example) a catcher with a VORP of 10 is more valuable than a pitcher with a VORP of 9?

3. Is it possible to calculate an average VORP per team that can be compared to other teams' average VORPs?

4. In the definition of VORP, what is meant by 'a replacement-level player'? Is this some sort of 'average' player? For example, if your VORP is 10, does that mean you contribute 10 more runs beyond what the AVERAGE player at your position contributes?

5. What is the time-frame for the contribution of runs? For example, if your VORP is 10, does that mean you contribute 10 more runs per SEASON, or some other length of time?

6. How do they determine a player's 'position' when that player plays MULTIPLE positions?

7. How and why does VORP apply to pitchers if the definition of VORP includes 'runs contributed'?

--M.S.
Hi Mark,

Strictly speaking, VORP is not additive, because the model of offense it uses is nonlinear. I've explained this elsewhere in more detail, but basically going from a .380 to .390 OBP generates more marginal runs than going from a .300 to a .310 OBP does--even though it's the same 10 point OBP difference. VORP measures the effect of one player on an otherwise average team. If you replace two players on the team, then the effect is compounded.

That being said, it's darn close, and much more convenient to add VORPs together, and you will see this commonly done.

One of the strengths of VORP is that is can be used to compare players at different positions, or to compare position players to pitchers. So in that way you could say that a VORP of 10 is more valuable than a VORP of 9--although since VORP is measured in runs, a one run difference is not very large. Also, it depends on exactly what you mean by "valuable"--what having the larger VORP literally means is that the player contributed more runs above replacement level in the playing time he had than the other player did in the playing time the other player had. If their playing times were not equivalent, one could have a much higher *rate* of production, even if the total value was less than another player's.

You don't really want an average team VORP, but a cumulative team VORP. If you average the VORPs of the players on the team, and if one team has 15 position players, and another uses 23, the latter will have a lower average VORP, just because it's divided across more players. However, since all teams in a league field the same set of position players, just looking at the team's park-adjusted offensive stats (or run totals), gives you the same answer as VORP would, at least for position players. For pitching VORP, all teams end up with roughly the same innings pitched totals, so the number of runs over/under the league average runs allowed, adjusted for park is basically the answer you'd get as with VORP.

No, that is one of the most important distinctions in VORP versus metrics like Total Baseball's Batting Runs or Linear Weights. A replacement-level player is one who is "easily available" to any team--a AAA journeyman or end of the bench player. There's a research article I wrote explaining replacement level in gory detail in Baseball Prospectus 2002. Replacement level is significantly below average--about 80% of average for the position. If you think of it in OPS terms, roughly 70 points of OPS below the average for the position is replacement level.

VORP is a cumulative stat, not a rate stat, so the length of time question doesn't really apply. Similarly, if a player hits 100 home runs, he hit *100 home runs* whether it took him 2 seasons or 20. VORP encompasses how much playing time the player in question got, and is a number of runs contributed over replacement level *given that amount of playing time.* There is a rate stat version of VORP--"VORPr" (VORP-rate), that might be more what you are looking for. It expresses a player's rate of production in runs per game above replacement level. e.g. a player with a .500 VORPr contributes half-a-run above replacement level per game (which is outstanding, BTW). VORPr (and VORP) can be less than zero, meaning that a player was below replacement level over that stretch of plate appearances.

I weight the positions the player actually appears at in determining his own unique "positional average"--a player with 60% of his PA as a shortstop, and 40% as a second baseman will have a positional average in between those of SS and 2B, slightly closer to the SS average.

Pitchers "contribute" runs by preventing them from scoring. If replacement level is a 6.00 RA, and our star pitcher has a 3.50 RA over 180 innings:

RepLvl pitcher: 180 IP * 6.00 RA / 9 = 120 runs allowed

Star pitcher: 180 IP * 3.50 RA / 9 = 70 runs allowed

------------------

Compared to RepLvl, Star pitcher prevented 50 runs from scoring

Thus, his VORP is 50.0

--K.W.

imref · « **Reply #304 on:** May 03, 2010, 10:45:08 pm »

the Royals just put alex gordon in the OF. Hmmm.....

Potomac Cannons · « **Reply #305 on:** May 03, 2010, 10:50:41 pm »

The OMAHA Royals at that. That .783 OPS as a 24 year old in his second year seems to be a highwater mark if he can't get healthy.

imref · « **Reply #306 on:** May 03, 2010, 10:54:59 pm »

Quote from: Potomac Cannons on May 03, 2010, 10:50:41 pm

The OMAHA Royals at that. That .783 OPS as a 24 year old in his second year seems to be a highwater mark if he can't get healthy.

You have to feel for the guy, apparently all the talent in the world but he can't put it together for any consistent stretch.

Potomac Cannons · « **Reply #307 on:** May 03, 2010, 10:59:01 pm »

Quote from: imref on May 03, 2010, 10:54:59 pm

You have to feel for the guy, apparently all the talent in the world but he can't put it together for any consistent stretch.

Seems like a good kid who works hard and can't stay healthy. If I remember correctly he had a few injuries in the minors as well. Hope he puts it together as I would like to see the Royals find their way back to prominence.

NatsDad14 · « **Reply #308 on:** May 03, 2010, 11:01:27 pm »

Just imagine if they passed on him for Zimmerman and we were stuck with him. I bet no one here would feel like this team had any hope left. At least now, we have the best 3B in the business and a top 6 Starting pitcher.

JCA-CrystalCity · « **Reply #309 on:** May 04, 2010, 08:45:58 am »

didn't we have kind of a sabermetric / new fangled stat thread a while back? some of this VORP stuff, as well as some of the UZR and WAR explanations, probably ought to be moved there so that people who see it pop up in a post can understand it, if they want to.

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #310 on:** May 04, 2010, 09:01:06 am »

Quote from: JCA-CrystalCity on May 03, 2010, 08:22:10 pm

Thanks. That what I'm doing in a couple of weeks. My Dad is turning 90, so I'm going to hang out with him for a week. Also a first communion for my great niece. Also hope to visit my Mom's grave that week - would have been her birthday. And eat good pizza.

Please don't take the stats I wrote up too seriously. They are just a small sample size. Truthfully, I think you need more of a track record to figure out what to do out there than saying some basic number crunching will yield a "eureka" like a mad alchemist. It's just a lot of the "RF options stink" line cites a few stats, ones I don't have much faith in, based on a SSS, so I just wanted to point out that the same performance in the same games can show that at least part of the platoon has done its job.

Yes, I'd prefer Werth, and I might overpay for him. But I don't see Werth on roster this year, and I don't see any one approaching average performance as a full time player.

JCA - I wasn't talking about you. I've always appreciated your analysis which comes laced with thoughtful explanation and insight as opposed to insults and all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

My point is, if you are giving me either Willie Harris or Bernadina or a platoon of the two, I'd take Harris as the everyday player, leave Bernadina on the bench because IMO platoons don't really work well. Baseball is a 162 game season and players need to have consistency in the roles they play.

Though also, IMO, in an ideal world, we wouldn't be worried about this because we'd have a real RFer in our system SOMEWHERE. It sucks that Maxwell hasn't panned out because he may actually be our best option.

PANatsFan · « **Reply #311 on:** May 04, 2010, 09:03:14 am »

Quote from: Minty Fresh on May 04, 2010, 09:01:06 am

It sucks that Maxwell hasn't panned out because he may actually be our best option.

From what I've been reading from Lopapason and the gang, the team is pretty pleased with him and he'll be sticking around.

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #312 on:** May 04, 2010, 09:05:02 am »

Quote from: PANatsFan on May 04, 2010, 09:03:14 am

From what I've been reading from Lopapason and the gang, the team is pretty pleased with him and he'll be sticking around.

Sure, why not? You can't give up on him just yet; but the point is, we need him to be ready NOW since the debate is Harris v. Bernadina v. platoon.

JCA-CrystalCity · « **Reply #313 on:** May 04, 2010, 09:22:11 am »

Minty - wasn't taking it personal. I'm just really looking forward to all those events.

I've seen platoons work (Mullinicks /Iorg, Lowenstein / Roenicke), so I think they can be viable for a season or two, but there are problems too (tieing up roster slots if you go with a 7 man bullpen, loss of skill if you become too specialized and not used to seeing same handed pitchers, personality). I think for this team in this situation it is viable for a year, I would want the situation addressed in the off season, and for J-Max's sake, we can hope he works his way into a full time slot by succeeding in some opportunities v. RHP.

By the way, my guess is Willie gets traded near the deadline to a team that wants to add bench depth, so I expect J-Max will eventually get the full time slot this year.

blue911 · « **Reply #314 on:** May 04, 2010, 09:37:45 am »

In the early '80's, Weaver pretty much platooned the entire outfield.

tomterp · « **Reply #315 on:** May 04, 2010, 09:39:40 am »

Quote from: blue911 on May 04, 2010, 09:37:45 am

In the early '80's, Weaver pretty much platooned the entire outfield.

The Lowenstein / Dwyer (or Roenicke) platoons were incredible.

NatsDad14 · « **Reply #316 on:** May 04, 2010, 12:37:22 pm »

I remember that the Phillies had an effective CF platoon in 2005 with Kenny Lofton and Jason Michaels. They combined for a .322 average and .394 OBP which both lead the league.