klvrdude wrote:That's kinda my point.
For example if Team A scores an average of 2 runs a game. And let's say one player on Team A is typically responsible for driving in one of those runs and possibly scoring one those runs.
Then there is Team B who typically score 10 runs a game. And let's say that there is one player on Team B who drives in an average of two runs a game and scores around one run a game.
Assuming the same BA and SB totals, the stud player on Team A is more "valuable" to his team and probably has a higher VORP, no? But in a fantasy sense, the player on Team B is probably the better fantasy player.
No, VORP completely ignores things like R and RBIs, as those are dependent on a players surrounding line-up. And the only team adjustment made for VORP is based on playing time, so that it isn't just an average. It has nothing to do with the strength of a player's line-up, and represents which players are the most productive offensively. If a player had the same number of singles, doubles, triples, homeruns, walks, hit by pitches, strike-outs, sacrifices, grounded into double plays, stolen bases, caught stealing, ect., played the same position in the same league, and had the same percentage of his teams plate apperances as another player, they would have the same VORP, regarless of which team had the better supporting cast.
looptid wrote:Find me a fantasy league last season where Podsednik and Davanon were of nearly equal value, even though they were in real life.
I don't get it. Did they have similar VORP's?
Yup, 19.4 each. But Podsednik's 70 steals make him a lot more valuable than what Davanon would have contributed to a fantasy squad last season.