We weren’t expecting that

Bill Simmons fields and answers a VORP question in his mailbag. Even ends it with a VORP joke that isn’t designed to make fun of VORP. Sure, he needed an assist from BP’s Joe Sheehan to do it, but let’s give him and the ESPN-Baseball Prospectus marriage some points for positively exploiting corporate synergy.

Well, it’s less a marriage than it is a shacking-up, but still.

Print Friendly
 Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone
« Previous: Bye-bye Gary
Next: Fred Haney Would Not Be Amused »


  1. Jon said...

    Simmons didn’t have to make fun of VORP – the guy asking the question already did.  He didn’t even bother to think about what it stands for.  Unless your replacement player is ALWAYS Tony Pena, someone has to be negative.

  2. Richard in Dallas said...

    Tongue out of cheek….  Thank you both.  I think I knew that , but passed some gas out of my cranial chapeau…

  3. Colin Wyers said...

    It would, of course, be nice if Joe Sheehan’s explanation of VORP was correct. Or if VORP was.

  4. Jake said...

    I can kinda understand the mainstream fascination with VORP and several similar “all-encompassing” stats … VORP, WARP, win shares – none of them have are easy to explain. 

    Stats like OBP and OPS are very straight-forward – if you understand batting average, you can learn those two in no time… ERA+ and OPS+, while hardly anyone can quote the normalization formulas offhand, also are intuitive.

    What’s the difference between VORP, WARP, and win shares again, and why are all three necessary?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>