Quote:
Originally Posted by One Red Seat
Do you realize what you are saying by stating that each successive point of VORP is "harder" to get than the previous? VORP is a counting stat, meaning it is playing time dependent. Suppose you have a 60 VORP player who is extremely consistent month in month out. Guess when he'll be at 10 VORP? The end of April. He'll pick up his last 10 VORP in September. For it to be "harder" then his performance in September would have to be better than his performance in April to pick up those same 10 runs. No, what I'm confident you are thinking about is "unlikely" given the normal distribution of VORP, ie improving from being an 80 VORP player to a 90 VORP player is "harder" than the jump from 70 to 80. Yes, you can add them. There are 162 games where you need a CF. If player A and player B play those games, then their collective VORP is what the team got from that position.
What you are trying to say is that player B (Ellsbury) played other positions and I need to account for that. I did, sort of. When player B wasn't in CF, he was in LF, and the normal LF was at DH when the DH was hurt. It works in this example because those are the positions where Damon played most often (all games except 1 at 1B ). It's not perfect, like I said, but I went conservative in accounting for the performance the Sox got. I threw away all contribution from Ellsbury in '07 and anyone who contributed at DH or LF other than Ortiz, Manny, Bay, and Ellsbury. The bias in the analysis was all tilted toward Damon.
|
You are writing somewhat apologetically, even though you have nothing to be sorry for. You understand how to use VORP, I think I understand too. Gom keeps talking as if he knows, but I'm waiting to see if he does.
You did everything you could do ORS, but it's kind of moot.