Value Over Replacement Player.

Jon Heyman sets sports analysis back twenty years, and seems quite proud of himself:

"And the day I consider VORP is the day I get out of the business."

VORP is just a concept with a mathematical formula attached to it. I think VORP is an excellent way to determine the MVP.

"Of all the 2007 players in this league, how easily could I replace so-and-so?"

Which isn't VORP precisely, but it's close. VORP is basically judging a player vs. an average player. But you don't need a mathematical formula to compare, say, all the outfielders in the AL.

Which is one reason Jose Reyes's MVP candidacy is hurt by the mere existence of Hanley Ramirez, J.J. Hardy, Jimmy Rollins, etc.

Now, the mathematical formula is simply an attempt to fuse many aspects of the game, including the difficulty of the fielding position. It's not really that big of a deal. In fact, I can guarantee that the VORP rankings correspond very closely to any MVP ranking.

Why would a sportswriter disavow a potentially insightful measurement?


"The idea of the MVP is to honor the player who has had the biggest positive impact on the pennant races."

Says you.

I say it's to honor the best player in the league.


"There goes that VORP again. When the standings are determined by VORP, I think I will take it more seriously. But as you know, they still go by wins and losses."

Duh.

Obviously, standings are indirectly determined by VORP.


"Like I said, I am an admirer of Bedard's. I had him second. Why don't you send your insults to Jim Leyland, who didn't even pick him for the All-Star team?"

So, you're a hypocrite. Bedard has not played under pressure or had any impact on the pennant race. Using your own reasoning, Wakefield should be ahead of Bedard.

Bedard just happens to be a better pitcher.


Let's make this easier, huh?

Vote for the players who are good.