Silver on the Rays

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 2, 2008 12:42 PM EDT Comment 13 comments

Baseball and political projections guru Nate Silver has a subscriber only piece on the Rays, here's a taste:

Addition by Subtraction: In contrast to last year, the Rays have just six players who have compiled a negative VORP in any amount of playing time, and all but Jason Bartlett have played sparingly. The combined negative VORP accumulated by those Rays has been just 12.8 this year, as opposed to their 157.9 figure from a year ago.

Quite telling, one of the other large topics covered in the article was the defensive upgrades, including Jason Bartlett.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Lower VORP is good, right?

Like golf, except with shattering maple bats and tight pants?

B Rad the Ray Fan
9=8

by B Ray on Jul 2, 2008 12:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

While VORP does take into consideration what position one plays (thus giving more value to shortstop than first base), it doesn’t take into consideration how well the player plays that positions (thus not giving more value to Jason Bartlett than Michael Young, even though Bartlett is a tremendously better shortstop).

by Peter Bendix on Jul 2, 2008 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think he was being sarcastic.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 2, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, I was in fact being studious.

I couldn’t tell by the definition if lower VORP was good or not.

B Rad the Ray Fan
9=8

by B Ray on Jul 2, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry about that :)

by Peter Bendix on Jul 2, 2008 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No need to appologize, I was being serious.

I think I get it now.

Let me put it into dollar terms – I’m an economist; it makes it easier for me. This year, the opportunity cost of not getting a better player cost us $12.80. Last year, we lost $157.90. Am I on target?

B Rad the Ray Fan
9=8

by B Ray on Jul 2, 2008 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs