VORP SHMORP?

JC Bradbury is an economist that writes about baseball. He really likes the Braves. And really hates VORP.

VORP which stands for Value Over Replacement Player, is defined by Baseball Prospectus as “the number of [offensive] runs contributed beyond what a replacement-level player at the same position would contribute if given the same percentage of team plate appearances.” So, a player with a VORP of 10 has contributed 10 more runs than a freely available player who could be called up from the minors would have produced. VORP is adjusted for many variables such as year, park, and league effects.

In his blog, Bradbury writes that VORP is nothing more than “insider language,” and compares using the statistic to “speaking Klingon at a Star Trek convention.” He argues that VORP does not provide any advantages over other statistics such as ERA+ and OPS+ which also include adjustments for park and league effects. Additionally, Bradbury believes that the replacement level is arbitrary and no more useful than using the average level. Bradbury also notes that VORP is misused in evaluating player salaries because “player value is determined by opportunity cost as determined by marginal revenue product (MRP),” not VORP.

In many respects, Bradbury is correct. Park, league, and year adjustments can be made to almost any statistic, the replacement level is somewhat arbitrary, and player value is more closely aligned with MRP than VORP (although VORP can be used as a quick and dirty way to get an idea of a player's marginal value). None of these points lead to the logical conclusion that VORP does not have a place in baseball discussions. Batting average does not explain run production as well as OPS, but it is still a somewhat interesting stat to examine. Likewise, RBI is partly a function of opportunity, but it is still neat to note the number of runs a batter has actually driven in, regardless of whether that batter is likely to repeat that effort. Like many other statistics, VORP is interesting to examine, and leads to some pretty funny observations like the fact that as of June 15, “if you exclude the resurgent Cristian Guzmán (VORP: 21.5), the Washington Nationals' offense has a negative VORP -- which, in essence, means if you released every last one of their position players (except Guzmán) and replaced them with cheap, waiver-wire scrubs, the team would be better off” (David Sheinin-Washington Post). Now, would it be smart to actually release every member of the National’s lineup and replace them with replacement level talent? Of course not. Many of those players true ability is above replacement level, but the stat provided a nice laugh and starting point for further discussion.

Bradbury himself seems to hedge, by stating: “My point isn’t that VORP is an awful or useless stat. To the contrary, there is clearly useful information contained in it.” If there is useful information contained in VORP, and it is not an “awful or useless stat,” why does Bradbury get so worked up over its use? My guess is that he is deliberately trying to ruffle some feathers, and potentially drive up publicity for himself, his blog, and his book. Or maybe, he just really hates VORP.