Last week, during the seventh installment of this series, we discussed WAR (wins above replacement level) and how it generally relates to player evaluation. Today, I would like to side step a bit and discuss a similar statistic called VORP (value over replacement player, which may also be expressed as RAR on certain websites). The main differences between WAR and VORP is that VORP is expressed in runs (as opposed to wins) and VORP does not factor in a player’s defensive contributions, or lack thereof.
When dealing with VORP (developed by Keith Woolner, by the way) it is helpful to consider the following paragraph;
“A player or team consumes outs to create runs, and at the simplest level, runs and outs are the only truly meaningful stats in baseball. Outs are calculated by simply taking at-bats and subtracting hits, then adding in various outs that don't count toward at-bats like sacrifice hits, sacrifice flies, caught stealing, and grounded into double-play (runs may be estimated by one of many run-approximation methods in the calculation of VORP). Armed with runs and outs (for the player and that player's league), one can calculate VORP.”
If you really think about it, as long as a team does not make an out, they will score an infinite amount of runs and would never be defeated. In that vein, outs or not doing anything to contribute to the making of an out, should be the most important endeavor for a specific player or team (which is why the “sabermetric crowd” has never been overly fond of the sacrifice bunt, for example).
So, getting back to VORP, it would make sense that the more things a player does to contribute to runs scored, the more desirable the player is and the higher the VORP rating. That is true, but VORP can also be used to evaluate a pitcher’s performance and/or impact on a specific team.
A pitcher’s job is the opposite of the batters’ job, meaning getting outs is the goal, while preventing anything that would contribute to runs scored. Once again, to shed more light on the topic, consider the following paragraph;
“VORP can also be calculated for pitchers, as a measurement of the number of runs he has prevented from scoring that a replacement-level pitcher would have allowed. The concept is essentially the same as it was for hitters; using the player's playing time (in a pitcher's case it is expressed as innings pitched), determine how many runs a theoretical "replacement" would have given up in that playing time (at the most basic level, the replacement level is equal to 1 plus the league's average runs per game), and subtract from that number the amount actually allowed by the pitcher to arrive at VORP (Run Average is used as a measure of pitcher quality rather then ERA, since ERA is heavily dependent on the concept of the error, which is a scorer's opinion). VORP is expressed in units of runs, so a calculation that uses earned runs is not of very much use in this instance.”
Simple enough! Actually, not so much. Again, the point of these articles is not to create an army of Mets fans who carry calculators around with them and who can produce any statistic you want, on demand. Instead, by knowing the basic process, you can find the desired statistical result and understand what it is attempting to measure.
You may have picked up on the fact that VORP is related to the mythical “replacement” level player. As we discussed last week, that figure is vague to say the least (in some circles, replacement value is approximately 75 to 80 percent of the calculated league average, depending on the position played). On a simpler note, one could accept “replacement level” to be what is obtainable from a AAA call up, or from a fringe player collected from the “scrap heap” (a mid season free agent pick up). Not as scientific, but more of a general concept that is pretty easy to visualize.
In a very basic sense, a player’s VORP is determined by calculating that player’s runs created (or runs saved for a pitcher) over a fixed period of time and subtracting the runs created (or saved) that a mythical “replacement level” player “would have” contributed over the same time frame. Hence, a measure of how much more valuable the player in question would be, as compared to a Mets player (OK, that was a cheap shot).
VORP is also a cumulative statistic, or counting statistic. Meaning, a player’s VORP value will rise or fall throughout the season and can therefore, be used to measure a player’s value at any point along a fixed period of time. It is also helpful to remember that runs scored can vary greatly from one season to the next, or even one era to the next (so some care should be exercised when comparing different players from different seasons).
With that said, most fans like to look back at a season’s worth of numbers, in an effort to see how a player performed (above or below expectations), to try and see how the player will do in the future and to measure that player’s worth (especially if the player is a potential new member of your team, such as a free agent acquisition or trade target).
Since the 2011 season just concluded, let’s look at a couple of the VORP leaders (which again can also be expressed as RAR, or runs over replacement), to see how the statistic works. In 2011, the MLB leader in VORP was Jacoby Ellsbury with an astounding 89.3 runs created over replacement level. That means if the Red Sox had replaced Ellsbury at the start of 2011 with a replacement level player, the team would have scored almost 90 fewer runs for the season. Conversely, Roy Halladay’s VORP for 2011 was 67.1 runs saved over replacement level, which led all pitchers for the season.
Since it is a hot topic with Mets’ fans, Jose Reyes’ VORP for 2011 was 58.5 in 586 plate appearances, while Reuben Tejada’s VORP for 2011 was 16.9 in 376 plate appearances. If you do some basic math, Reuben’s VORP would have been approximately 26.3 for the same playing time that Jose had in 2011. Quite a drop off and not unexpected considering where the two players are in their respective career arcs. However, I expect Rueben to improve (since he is still very young), while Jose will be fortunate to duplicate those numbers going forward, in my opinion.
In conclusion, runs are the currency of baseball. The more runs created by offensive players, or runs saved by pitchers, the better the teams’ chances of winning ballgames. VORP is one method of seeing the individual contributions a player makes towards that goal (albeit without measuring defensive contributions).
Random Thoughts
Can someone explain to me how the Mets “suck” for “letting Jose go”, yet the Cardinals are “media darlings” because they “wisely” let Albert Pujols go the Angels? Jose is an excellent player and one could argue whether he is worth the money the Marlins gave him. However, Albert is possibly the best player of our generation, a Cardinal icon and he helped that franchise to multiple World Series titles. Yet, they stopped bidding on him over an additional year on the contract and some additional money? Hmm.
On the Jose topic, do you really think he felt jilted? If he was so in love with the Mets and he wanted to stay, why not try to negotiate during the season? No, Jose is in love with Jose and with the highest bidder. His little “sob story” in the press conference was self serving and an attempt to cover that fact up. I am not buying it and I don’t see any fault on Sandy’s part. Hell, I take Sandy’s follow up comment about the box of chocolates as an appropriate retort to Jose’s antics.
Can we, as Mets’ fans, get a hold of ourselves? I know it sucks, but we are in a rebuilding/transitional/down cycle. There is no way around it, really. Omar “went for it” financially in the 2000’s and we came close to winning a championship. However, in the process he mortgaged the future and now the bills are coming due in the form of payroll reductions, restricted player movement and the lack of upper level prospects. Sandy was given a “shit storm” to deal with and it will take time to rebuild the franchise.
BUT......it is now being done the right way. If you want proof, look at the Tampa Bay Rays ascent that took place around the same time as our demise. Accept the fact that we will be mediocre for the next season or two. I think Sandy will do enough in the short term to try and be competitive (not the Astros, for example), but not at the expense of the future (which by all accounts should be around the 2014 season). Knowing the plan makes the short term moves understandable and it is much less frustrating.
No comments:
Post a Comment