What does VORP really tell you?

[third eye]

I've read a good amount of discussion on this board about DLee's impact on the team. There was alot of criticism about Dusty's assessment of DLee making a difference of 10+ wins to this team, and a number of people argued that his VORP, or some other measure (maybe win share?) was much lower. However, I would argue that this does not take into account anything about the psychology of the team around him. Particularly, there were many long losing streaks this year that stemmed from our inability to score runs. I would argue that extended periods of losing like we saw have a much greater impact on individual performances than we give credit for. Our stats with RISP in clutch situations might be a reflection of of this fact. Particularly during the first long losing streak, when we couldnt score at all (4 game sweep in SD), I think a couple of big at-bats by a player of DLee's caliber could have made for a 4-3 streak rather than a losing streak of 7 or more games. That is the kind of thing that puts pressure on players like Pierre and ARam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is anything in VORP that takes this into account.

 

The reason I bring this up is looking at what it would take to make a 66 win team into a 90+ win team. And I would offer 97-98, 00-01 and 02-03 as examples. I dont think we added the kind of VORP (or win shares) that added 20+ wins in those off-seasons. Similarly, I think having DLee would in fact have made this a 75-80 win team (9-14 games better), because we would not have suffered the types of losing streaks we saw. I'm putting this out there as more of a question to the stat-masters than an outright claim. But for those who, like myself, have used multi-variate regressions to understand seemingly non-quantifiable data, this seems like a case of lacking the right variables in a statistical measure. Flame away!

[Fred Hornkohl]

This doesn't really address your question about VORP, but it should provide some interesting background for the answer you are seeking.

 

Derrek Lee started 44 games for the CUBS this year, or approx 27% of their schedule. The teams' record was as follows........

 

             W   L     Pct     RS     RA
with Lee    21   23   0.477   4.95   4.89
w/o Lee     45   73   0.381   4.22   5.25

 

Further, the offenive production breaks down like this.......

 

04/03 - 10/01      AB    R    H   2b   3b   HR   TB  RBI   BB   SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
CUBS w/Lee       1518  218  421   76   13   42  649  202  123  285  0.277  0.332  0.428  0.759
CUBS w/o Lee     4069  498 1076  195   33  124 1709  475  272  643  0.264  0.314  0.420  0.734

 

Interestingly, the pitching line breaks down this way..........

 

04/03 - 10/01        IP    H    R   ER   BB    K   HR  BB/9   K/9  HR/9  WHIP   ERA
CUBS w/Lee        390.0  355  215  189  176  347   61  4.06  8.01  1.41  1.36  4.36
CUBS w/o Lee     1040.7 1041  619  571  511  903  149  4.42  7.81  1.29  1.49  4.94

 

Aother thing that caught my eye...... with Lee in the lineup 88% of RA were earned, while 92% of RA were earned when Lee was out.

 

I'm not sure I have a conclusion to draw from all this. I just started looking at it when I saw your post. Lee's VORP will certainly account for most of the dropoff in production displayed above. But I don't think it will provide any insight into the very significant dropoff in pitching production.

 

Love to hear anyone's comments and thoughts.

[CubColtPacer]

This doesn't really address your question about VORP, but it should provide some interesting background for the answer you are seeking.

 

Derrek Lee started 44 games for the CUBS this year, or approx 27% of their schedule. The teams' record was as follows........

 

             W   L     Pct     RS     RA
with Lee    21   23   0.477   4.95   4.89
w/o Lee     45   73   0.381   4.22   5.25

 

Further, the offenive production breaks down like this.......

 

04/03 - 10/01      AB    R    H   2b   3b   HR   TB  RBI   BB   SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
CUBS w/Lee       1518  218  421   76   13   42  649  202  123  285  0.277  0.332  0.428  0.759
CUBS w/o Lee     4069  498 1076  195   33  124 1709  475  272  643  0.264  0.314  0.420  0.734

 

Interestingly, the pitching line breaks down this way..........

 

04/03 - 10/01        IP    H    R   ER   BB    K   HR  BB/9   K/9  HR/9  WHIP   ERA
CUBS w/Lee        390.0  355  215  189  176  347   61  4.06  8.01  1.41  1.36  4.36
CUBS w/o Lee     1040.7 1041  619  571  511  903  149  4.42  7.81  1.29  1.49  4.94

 

Aother thing that caught my eye...... with Lee in the lineup 88% of RA were earned, while 92% of RA were earned when Lee was out.

 

I'm not sure I have a conclusion to draw from all this. I just started looking at it when I saw your post. Lee's VORP will certainly account for most of the dropoff in production displayed above. But I don't think it will provide any insight into the very significant dropoff in pitching production.

 

Love to hear anyone's comments and thoughts.

 

Fred, I love these stats so much, and maybe you can't do this-but is there any way you can sort out the games where Lee came back in the middle of the season? As we know, Lee was never himself at all in that stretch, and so that could possibly affect the numbers pretty drastically. If you can't, that will be fine-I'm grateful just for this. I just wondered if you could easily do that.

[Fred Hornkohl]

 

Fred, I love these stats so much, and maybe you can't do this-but is there any way you can sort out the games where Lee came back in the middle of the season? As we know, Lee was never himself at all in that stretch, and so that could possibly affect the numbers pretty drastically. If you can't, that will be fine-I'm grateful just for this. I just wondered if you could easily do that.

 

CUBS w/Lee         AB    R    H   2b   3b   HR   TB  RBI   BB   SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
04/01 - 04/19     480   76  134   23    4   14  207   68   35   85  0.279  0.326  0.431  0.758
06/26 - 07/23     614   76  171   37    7   17  273   73   49  122  0.279  0.332  0.445  0.777
08/28 - 09/14     424   66  116   16    2   11  169   61   39   78  0.274  0.338  0.399  0.736

 

It seems that when Derrek came back in late June and really struggled, the team sure did pick him up !!

[Lefty]

I've read a good amount of discussion on this board about DLee's impact on the team. I would argue that this does not take into account anything about the psychology of the team around him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is anything in VORP that takes this into account.

 

But if Ramirez, for example, doesn't hit when Lee is out, why give him a pass? The stats show everybody's contributions. If someone is affected by Lee's absence, I think we should chalk that up as a debit on the affected player.

 

Lee's absence cost the Cubs about 50 runs assuming he hit like he did this year and 2004 and 2003. Not because of VORP but because of the actual stiffs who took his ABs (Perez and Mabry the two biggest offenders). That's five wins. You want to add a win for his D, maybe. A 72 win team with Barrett missing serious time and a terrrible starting rotation. I think the statistical approach is more than fair.

[Fred Hornkohl]

I've read a good amount of discussion on this board about DLee's impact on the team. I would argue that this does not take into account anything about the psychology of the team around him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is anything in VORP that takes this into account.

 

But if Ramirez, for example, doesn't hit when Lee is out, why give him a pass? The stats show everybody's contributions. If someone is affected by Lee's absence, I think we should chalk that up as a debit on the affected player.

 

Lee's absence cost the Cubs about 50 runs assuming he hit like he did this year and 2004 and 2003. Not because of VORP but because of the actual stiffs who took his ABs (Perez and Mabry the two biggest offenders). That's five wins. You want to add a win for his D, maybe. A 72 win team with Barrett missing serious time and a terrrible starting rotation. I think the statistical approach is more than fair.

 

For what it's worth........

 

Team record by starting first baseman

CUBS are 21-23 when Lee starts at 1b
CUBS are 10-25 when Walker starts at 1b
CUBS are 2-4 when Blanco starts at 1b
CUBS are 15-23 when Mabry starts at 1b
CUBS are 16-17 when Nevin starts at 1b
CUBS are 2-4 when Moore starts at 1b

[Backtobanks]

I do think certain players bring more to a team than just statistics. In Lee's case, it changes the dynamics of the lineup with your 3rd hitter out of the lineup. If you move someone up to bat third, you nake a hole somewhere else. Another perfect example is in a bullpen, where some pitchers can be set up men but not closers and vice versa. Also, there are some players who cannot be "the man" (ARAM?), but are outstanding players as the 2nd or 3rd best hitters on a team. I do believe in stats, but there are some "intangibles" that affect a team's play too.

[Lefty]

 

For what it's worth........

 

Team record by starting first baseman

CUBS are 21-23 when Lee starts at 1b
CUBS are 10-25 when Walker starts at 1b
CUBS are 2-4 when Blanco starts at 1b
CUBS are 15-23 when Mabry starts at 1b
CUBS are 16-17 when Nevin starts at 1b
CUBS are 2-4 when Moore starts at 1b

 

Sample size alert! Maddux' hot start is in Lee's column (the first 4 I believe). Who were we playing in Lee's starts? How many of Prior's and Wood's starts was Lee privileged to attend? Perez was playing second when Walker was at first. Walker and Theriot were playing second for Lee. Is that fair? Based on this data, is Nevin a better player than Lee?

 

Five or six wins. It doesn't really matter if the Cubs would have won 72 or 77 games with a healthy Lee. What matters is planning for next year. And penciling in more than 5 or 6 wins with a healthy Lee is a recipe for heartbreak. And there is plenty of potential for more of that anyway.

[Outshined_One]

The other problem is that a number of people (not everyone in this thread, mind you) are assuming that Lee was going to be able to reproduce, or at the very least come close to reproducing, his 2005 season. This is not a given by any stretch of the imagination; I don't care if you're a believer in statistics, psychology, shamanism, or Thor's influence in baseball. Everyone knew he was having a career year with those eye-popping numbers.

 

I truly think it's unfair to place so much of this team's burden on Lee's shoulders. When he was out, a large number of people said this team's lack of offensive output was due to his absence. While there is plenty of credence in that statement, there are much better arguments regarding this team's lack of offensive success, even with Lee out of the lineup.

 

How much better (offensively speaking) would this team be if they didn't have one of the worst hitters of this generation (Neifi) getting significant playing time? How about the terrible offensive output from Mabry, Cedeno, and Izturis? What about Pierre's and A-Ram's miserable slumps to start the season?

 

Even if you give this team an extra ten wins with a healthy Lee, they would still have finished the season under .500 and out of the playoffs.

 

I really hope Jim Hendry looks at this lineup and realizes that it needs some significant upgrades rather than keeping it intact, hoping they will eventually gel. Unless your starting pitching is eye-poppingly good (which our current rotation is not), the following lineup will not get your team above .500:

 

Juan Pierre

Cesar Izturis

Derrek Lee

Aramis Ramirez

Jacque Jones

Michael Barrett

Matt Murton

Ronnie Cedeno

Pitcher

 

Heck, I'd be skeptical of that lineup's output even with some one like Andruw Jones, Carlos Lee, or Alfonso Soriano in it. Getting two of those guys in there would help matters out quite a bit, though.

[Fred Hornkohl]

 

For what it's worth........

 

Team record by starting first baseman

CUBS are 21-23 when Lee starts at 1b
CUBS are 10-25 when Walker starts at 1b
CUBS are 2-4 when Blanco starts at 1b
CUBS are 15-23 when Mabry starts at 1b
CUBS are 16-17 when Nevin starts at 1b
CUBS are 2-4 when Moore starts at 1b

 

Sample size alert! Maddux' hot start is in Lee's column (the first 4 I believe). Who were we playing in Lee's starts? How many of Prior's and Wood's starts was Lee privileged to attend? Perez was playing second when Walker was at first. Walker and Theriot were playing second for Lee. Is that fair? Based on this data, is Nevin a better player than Lee?

 

Five or six wins. It doesn't really matter if the Cubs would have won 72 or 77 games with a healthy Lee. What matters is planning for next year. And penciling in more than 5 or 6 wins with a healthy Lee is a recipe for heartbreak. And there is plenty of potential for more of that anyway.

 

Sample size only becomes an issue when one is attempting to draw a statisical inference from the data. Just so we're clear, there is no statistical inference being drawn here.

 

And since you asked, here are the games that DLee started.......

 

Gm#    Date       Opponent         Score  Starter
 1  Mon 04/03  @ Cincinnati       16- 7  Zambrano      
 2  Wed 04/05  @ Cincinnati        6- 8  Rusch        
 3  Fri 04/07    St. Louis         5- 1  Maddux        
 4  Sat 04/08    St. Louis         3- 2  Zambrano      
 5  Sun 04/09    St. Louis     N   8- 4  Marshall      
 6  Tue 04/11    Cincinnati        2- 9  Rusch        
 7  Wed 04/12    Cincinnati        4- 1  Maddux        
 8  Thu 04/13    Cincinnati        3- 8  Zambrano      
 9  Fri 04/14  @ Pittsburgh    N  11- 6  Marshall      
10  Sat 04/15  @ Pittsburgh    N   1- 2  Williams      
11  Sun 04/16  @ Pittsburgh        7- 3  Rusch        
12  Mon 04/17  @ Los Angeles   N   4- 1  Maddux        
13  Tue 04/18  @ Los Angeles   N   1- 2  Zambrano      
14  Wed 04/19  @ Los Angeles   N   5- 4  Marshall      

75  Mon 06/26    Milwaukee     N   0- 6  Maddux        
76  Tue 06/27    Milwaukee     N   5- 8  Zambrano      
77  Wed 06/28    Milwaukee         6- 3  Marmol        
78  Thu 06/29    Milwaukee         4- 5  Prior        
79  Fri 06/30    Chicago (AL)      2- 6  Marshall      
80  Sat 07/01    Chicago (AL)      6- 8  Maddux        
81  Sun 07/02    Chicago (AL)     15-11  Zambrano      
82  Mon 07/03  @ Houston       N   2- 7  Marmol        
83  Tue 07/04  @ Houston           2- 7  Prior        
84  Wed 07/05  @ Houston       N   1- 0  Marshall      
85  Thu 07/06  @ Milwaukee     N   0- 2  Maddux        
87  Sat 07/08  @ Milwaukee     N   3- 1  Marmol        
88  Sun 07/09  @ Milwaukee        11- 4  Rusch        
89  Fri 07/14    New York          3- 6  Maddux        
90  Sat 07/15    New York          9- 2  Zambrano      
92  Tue 07/18    Houston       N   4- 2  Marmol        
93  Wed 07/19    Houston       N   2- 4  Maddux        
97  Sun 07/23  @ Washington        1- 7  Marmol        

131  Mon 08/28  @ Pittsburgh    N   6-11  Guzman        
132  Tue 08/29  @ Pittsburgh    N   6- 7  Zambrano      
134  Fri 09/01    San Francisco     6- 2  Hill        
135  Sat 09/02    San Francisco     2- 4  Marshall      
137  Mon 09/04    Pittsburgh        4- 5  Zambrano      
138  Tue 09/05    Pittsburgh    N   5- 6  Mateo        
139  Wed 09/06    Pittsburgh    N   7- 2  Hill        
141  Fri 09/08  @ Atlanta       N   4- 8  Guzman        
142  Sat 09/09  @ Atlanta       N   3- 7  Miller        
144  Mon 09/11  @ Atlanta       N   8- 3  Hill        
145  Tue 09/12    Los Angeles   N   9- 8  Marshall      
147  Thu 09/14    Los Angeles       6- 5  Miller        

[Guest]

the important thing to remember is that VORP tracks exactly what happened and that VORP is Value over replacement player. that means Lee's value above a readily available replacement. Without looking it up, I think there is a decent chance Perez and Mabry performed below replacement level for a 1b.

 

The second point I would make here is that the psychological effect is measurable. If other players performed worse because Lee was out, that would be reflected in their performance relative to career norms.

[Mark Priors Calves]

I sure hope Hendry and Co. aren't counting on Lee to put up 2005-like numbers in 2007. Its going to be nearly impossible for him to repeat them. All the more reason why the OF needs to be improved tremendously.

[Guest]

The reason I bring this up is looking at what it would take to make a 66 win team into a 90+ win team.

It would take run differential swing of about 250 runs. It wouldn't be feasible for the offense alone to make up that difference, and it's unlikely that a few pitching improvements would have made a big difference, either.

 

There are many, many reasons the 2006 Cubs were as bad as they were. Losing Lee is certainly one of them -- and a significant one at that -- but even if we'd had him the entire season I doubt this team finishes better than 20 games under .500.

[ToupeeOnFire]

What I find amazing is that the Cubs actually scored 10 more runs this year than last. Think about that for a second...Derrek Lee had one of the greatest seasons by a Cub firstbaseman ever in 2005, yet they still scored 10 runs less than this year's feable squad.

 

Cub first baseman last year (mainly Lee) created 158 runs, this year's Cub first baseman (Blanco/Moore/Hairston/Lee/Mabry/Walker/Nevin) created only 86 runs, that's a difference of 72 runs! And that's not counting the ripple effect of weakening second base by moving Walker to first and playing Neifi at second. Nor does it account for any psychological effect, which is unmeasurable.

 

This only underscores what a waste it was to surround Lee with such a pathetic offense last year (batting Patterson and Neifi 1 & 2? thank you Dusty!). It also leads you to wonder what might have been. Lee probably wasn't going to duplicate 2005, but even a typical Lee season would give the Cubs a 20 run advantage; and if his 2005 season was a sign of real improvement, the run advantage would have been quite a bit more. That wouldn't have turned the Cubs into automatic contenders, but who knows how a healthy Lee might have affected the chain of events that eventually led to a 96 loss season. Oh well, can't cry over spilt milk at this stage. And there was no way of knowing that it would take a .500 record to compete for the division, so I don't think things would have changed all that much in terms of player acquisitions.

[CuseCubFan69]

How many average runs did the 2006 Cubs score while Perez was on the team and how many did they score when he left? It may be my imagination but it seemed the Cubs scored more when they had Theriot in the linup, especially once Perez was dealt.

[hardcorecubfan]

 

For what it's worth........

 

Team record by starting first baseman

CUBS are 21-23 when Lee starts at 1b
CUBS are 10-25 when Walker starts at 1b
CUBS are 2-4 when Blanco starts at 1b
CUBS are 15-23 when Mabry starts at 1b
CUBS are 16-17 when Nevin starts at 1b
CUBS are 2-4 when Moore starts at 1b

 

Sample size alert! Maddux' hot start is in Lee's column (the first 4 I believe). Who were we playing in Lee's starts? How many of Prior's and Wood's starts was Lee privileged to attend? Perez was playing second when Walker was at first. Walker and Theriot were playing second for Lee. Is that fair? Based on this data, is Nevin a better player than Lee?

 

Five or six wins. It doesn't really matter if the Cubs would have won 72 or 77 games with a healthy Lee. What matters is planning for next year. And penciling in more than 5 or 6 wins with a healthy Lee is a recipe for heartbreak. And there is plenty of potential for more of that anyway.

 

All have done great research in this thread, great way to start the off season =D>

 

But I thought VORP was where Mork came from on Mork and Mindy?

[SouthSideRyan]

The reason I might actually buy that Lee's presence cost the team 10 wins this season is because of the culture Dusty created in the clubhouse. I think once Lee went down the excuse making began, and he started telling anybody who'd listen that he couldn't win without his horses. I'm usually not much of a clubhouse chemistry guy, but when your own manager is telling you you can't win, I think it has an effect.

[bhogg]

Mork is from Ork. Mindy is from Earth.