SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
WAR and More (...what is it good for)
|
Post by manfred on Aug 20, 2018 8:16:16 GMT -5
That is crazy to say Kendall brings more wins to his team than player X. He is significantly worse almost entirely across the board. That one is a left fielder might mean you could get a different slugger to fill his position, but so what? My point is: X may be worth 4ish wins more (who knows) than another LF, and Kendall may be worth more than another catcher... but if leftfielders are — on average — worth more than catchers, then X ought to be assigned a different value from Kendall. Is he docked for opportunity cost? Well I don't know who this X is, but you haven't given us his baserunning and defensive stats, so there's that. Also one thread of your argument seems to be "WAR is not perfect at assessing a player's value," which every reasonable person agrees with. And while I am on record as being somewhat skeptical of the positional adjustments WAR makes, the basic intuition is reasonable isn't it? Not that many people can catch, and even fewer catchers can hit. If you get a catcher that can hit really well, you're getting a lot of value out of a position other teams don't get value from. Compare that to left fielders, which are a relative dime a dozen. If what you're trying to measure is the value that a player adds, then the WAR approach seems like a decent approximation. If what you're trying to measure is something else, then... use a different stat. But don't blame WAR for not measuring that other thing. EDIT: Well I went and figured it out - Player X is Chipper Jones. He had, per fangraphs, a defensive rating of -13.5. His UZR was -6.8, meaning he was just a lousy fielder (if you believe UZR). Which raises a point: I notice in your counterarguments you only look at offensive stats, but shouldn't defense and baserunning count too? WAR thinks so! How would you incorporate those other aspects of the game into your evaluation of a player? Jones’s bWAR defense was only marginally bad. It didn’t have a huge impact on the difference between him and Kendall. Besides, he was playing out of position... maybe the Braves (who won 101 games that year) viewed that as maximizing his value? They squeezed 22 HRs and ok D from Vinny Castilla at 3B for the year. I get the position argument.... it is a luxury to have a good hitting catcher. My point is that given that these things ate graded on a curve, a good hiting catcher is often only an ok hitting left fielder — or even a sub par one. So in an instance like this, Kendall gys extra points because other NL teams have bad catchers — but Jones, who had the vastly superior offensive season gets dinged because other guys did too? As for defense, set it aside a second: looking just at oWar, Jones is 4.4, Kendall 4.0. So bWAR has them neck-and-neck. Kendall was 8-15 in steals, so his baserunning glory days were behind him. This was post ankle injury. I’ll end it on this: WAR is used often as a shorthand for abstract value. This guy shouldn’t have won MVP, because he had x WAR, but that guy had y. Or — don’t be deceived by surface stays, that guy has a low WAR etc. But WAR is no less deceiving: it doesn’t make good cross-position comps, for example, and the number it appears to peg to real outcomes (WINS) is actually — and a few people have said this — not to be taken literally. Would you have considered Kendall for Jones just for their 2003 seasons an even trade?
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 20, 2018 8:29:13 GMT -5
Well I don't know who this X is, but you haven't given us his baserunning and defensive stats, so there's that. Also one thread of your argument seems to be "WAR is not perfect at assessing a player's value," which every reasonable person agrees with. And while I am on record as being somewhat skeptical of the positional adjustments WAR makes, the basic intuition is reasonable isn't it? Not that many people can catch, and even fewer catchers can hit. If you get a catcher that can hit really well, you're getting a lot of value out of a position other teams don't get value from. Compare that to left fielders, which are a relative dime a dozen. If what you're trying to measure is the value that a player adds, then the WAR approach seems like a decent approximation. If what you're trying to measure is something else, then... use a different stat. But don't blame WAR for not measuring that other thing. EDIT: Well I went and figured it out - Player X is Chipper Jones. He had, per fangraphs, a defensive rating of -13.5. His UZR was -6.8, meaning he was just a lousy fielder (if you believe UZR). Which raises a point: I notice in your counterarguments you only look at offensive stats, but shouldn't defense and baserunning count too? WAR thinks so! How would you incorporate those other aspects of the game into your evaluation of a player? Jones’s bWAR defense was only marginally bad. It didn’t have a huge impact on the difference between him and Kendall. Besides, he was playing out of position... maybe the Braves (who won 101 games that year) viewed that as maximizing his value? They squeezed 22 HRs and ok D from Vinny Castilla at 3B for the year. I get the position argument.... it is a luxury to have a good hitting catcher. My point is that given that these things ate graded on a curve, a good hiting catcher is often only an ok hitting left fielder — or even a sub par one. So in an instance like this, Kendall gys extra points because other NL teams have bad catchers — but Jones, who had the vastly superior offensive season gets dinged because other guys did too? As for defense, set it aside a second: looking just at oWar, Jones is 4.4, Kendall 4.0. So bWAR has them neck-and-neck. Kendall was 8-15 in steals, so his baserunning glory days were behind him. This was post ankle injury. I’ll end it on this: WAR is used often as a shorthand for abstract value. This guy shouldn’t have won MVP, because he had x WAR, but that guy had y. Or — don’t be deceived by surface stays, that guy has a low WAR etc. But WAR is no less deceiving: it doesn’t make good cross-position comps, for example, and the number it appears to peg to real outcomes (WINS) is actually — and a few people have said this — not to be taken literally. Would you have considered Kendall for Jones just for their 2003 seasons an even trade? On the positional comparisons point. The whole point of the adjustments is so that you can compare them, because it shows you if you replaced this player with the standard replacement level player at his position this is how much worse the team would be. That is why with equal offensive statistics a catcher is more valuable than a left fielder, because it's much harder to find another guy who could player catcher with that level of production. Now, I'm not sure if the actual values are exactly correct, and I do agree there is something to be said for Jones moving off position because of the actual options available to his team, but that's another argument and one of the reasons no one is saying to just look at WAR alone. The hangup you have with the name of the statistic I suppose I understand, but if you want to know exactly how many wins the player added to his team given the context of everything you need to look at a different stat, it's just not what WAR is trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 20, 2018 8:39:11 GMT -5
Right, only in the vacuum, which is what WAR is attempting to do. What is your confusion then? If you want to look at how much a guy actually impacted win probability then look at a statistic which does that. For example your point was Degrom is maybe worth closer to 5 wins given the actual game logs? Well, WPA shows that he has been worth exactly 5.11 wins to the Mets so far, in a much more literal sense. If this is what you are interested in, I urge you to consider reading into WPA. EDIT: I don't know why the quote isn't showing up but here is what I'm referring to: "I think you are misunderstanding me: my point is that talent and success are two different things. the mediocre pitcher who has great success is still mediocre in ability. I have low expectations for next year etc. We all know guys can just have those years. At the same time, a statistic that says someone else would have helped a team win more.... seems dubious if the team is already maxing out. In other words DeGrom is great. The Mets wins and losses in his starts are about their average in all their pitchers’ starts. So it doesn’t seem like he is making any real difference on that team. If the idea is he’s win more elsewhere, I’d say duh. If the idea is he’s worth more wins to the Mets, I’d say — only in that vacuum you mention."
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 20, 2018 8:52:51 GMT -5
Right, only in the vacuum, which is what WAR is attempting to do. What is your confusion then? If you want to look at how much a guy actually impacted win probability then look at a statistic which does that. For example your point was Degrom is maybe worth closer to 5 wins given the actual game logs? Well, WPA shows that he has been worth exactly 5.11 wins to the Mets so far, in a much more literal sense. If this is what you are interested in, I urge you to consider reading into WPA. EDIT: I don't know why the quote isn't showing up but here is what I'm referring to: "I think you are misunderstanding me: my point is that talent and success are two different things. the mediocre pitcher who has great success is still mediocre in ability. I have low expectations for next year etc. We all know guys can just have those years. At the same time, a statistic that says someone else would have helped a team win more.... seems dubious if the team is already maxing out. In other words DeGrom is great. The Mets wins and losses in his starts are about their average in all their pitchers’ starts. So it doesn’t seem like he is making any real difference on that team. If the idea is he’s win more elsewhere, I’d say duh. If the idea is he’s worth more wins to the Mets, I’d say — only in that vacuum you mention." Actually, I am saying you cannot really show DeGrom as “adding” wins at all. His teams wins his games at about the same rate they win games overall. I’m also saying that this is separate from his talent, which is being wasted. But the indicators of his talent come in his neanderthal stats. With hitters, my point is that just because a position is strong, it makes little sense punishing a great player. Similarly, being relatively strong at a weak position doesn’t make you more valuable than a stud at a stud position. You get a good catcher, it is a bonus assuming you have the good leftfielder. A team with Chipper Jones in left and a mediocre catcher is better than a team with Kendall at catcher and a mediocre leftfielder.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 20, 2018 9:30:20 GMT -5
Well I don't know who this X is, but you haven't given us his baserunning and defensive stats, so there's that. Also one thread of your argument seems to be "WAR is not perfect at assessing a player's value," which every reasonable person agrees with. And while I am on record as being somewhat skeptical of the positional adjustments WAR makes, the basic intuition is reasonable isn't it? Not that many people can catch, and even fewer catchers can hit. If you get a catcher that can hit really well, you're getting a lot of value out of a position other teams don't get value from. Compare that to left fielders, which are a relative dime a dozen. If what you're trying to measure is the value that a player adds, then the WAR approach seems like a decent approximation. If what you're trying to measure is something else, then... use a different stat. But don't blame WAR for not measuring that other thing. EDIT: Well I went and figured it out - Player X is Chipper Jones. He had, per fangraphs, a defensive rating of -13.5. His UZR was -6.8, meaning he was just a lousy fielder (if you believe UZR). Which raises a point: I notice in your counterarguments you only look at offensive stats, but shouldn't defense and baserunning count too? WAR thinks so! How would you incorporate those other aspects of the game into your evaluation of a player? Jones’s bWAR defense was only marginally bad. It didn’t have a huge impact on the difference between him and Kendall. Besides, he was playing out of position... maybe the Braves (who won 101 games that year) viewed that as maximizing his value? They squeezed 22 HRs and ok D from Vinny Castilla at 3B for the year. I get the position argument.... it is a luxury to have a good hitting catcher. My point is that given that these things ate graded on a curve, a good hiting catcher is often only an ok hitting left fielder — or even a sub par one. So in an instance like this, Kendall gys extra points because other NL teams have bad catchers — but Jones, who had the vastly superior offensive season gets dinged because other guys did too? As for defense, set it aside a second: looking just at oWar, Jones is 4.4, Kendall 4.0. So bWAR has them neck-and-neck. Kendall was 8-15 in steals, so his baserunning glory days were behind him. This was post ankle injury. I’ll end it on this: WAR is used often as a shorthand for abstract value. This guy shouldn’t have won MVP, because he had x WAR, but that guy had y. Or — don’t be deceived by surface stays, that guy has a low WAR etc. But WAR is no less deceiving: it doesn’t make good cross-position comps, for example, and the number it appears to peg to real outcomes (WINS) is actually — and a few people have said this — not to be taken literally. Would you have considered Kendall for Jones just for their 2003 seasons an even trade? Maybe it would help if you viewed WAR as an indicator of what a guy should be paid (theoretically as a free agent, and then adjust for age, health, etc). For instance, you'd be insane to pay the guy with a 5 ERA who won every game much money because you can find any pitcher in the majors to perform just as well. You seem to have a hard time comparing different positions, but it's done that way because of the scarcity of that position. No one could play catcher well other than catchers. Literally every position player could learn how to play 1B pretty quickly. That's why catchers are worth so much more relatively. Surely you could see why a catcher who hits like a decent 1B is worth more than a decent 1B who hits the same. Because decent 1B are a dime a dozen and catchers who hit like a decent 1B are almost unheard of.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 20, 2018 9:40:06 GMT -5
Right, only in the vacuum, which is what WAR is attempting to do. What is your confusion then? If you want to look at how much a guy actually impacted win probability then look at a statistic which does that. For example your point was Degrom is maybe worth closer to 5 wins given the actual game logs? Well, WPA shows that he has been worth exactly 5.11 wins to the Mets so far, in a much more literal sense. If this is what you are interested in, I urge you to consider reading into WPA. EDIT: I don't know why the quote isn't showing up but here is what I'm referring to: "I think you are misunderstanding me: my point is that talent and success are two different things. the mediocre pitcher who has great success is still mediocre in ability. I have low expectations for next year etc. We all know guys can just have those years. At the same time, a statistic that says someone else would have helped a team win more.... seems dubious if the team is already maxing out. In other words DeGrom is great. The Mets wins and losses in his starts are about their average in all their pitchers’ starts. So it doesn’t seem like he is making any real difference on that team. If the idea is he’s win more elsewhere, I’d say duh. If the idea is he’s worth more wins to the Mets, I’d say — only in that vacuum you mention." Actually, I am saying you cannot really show DeGrom as “adding” wins at all. His teams wins his games at about the same rate they win games overall. I’m also saying that this is separate from his talent, which is being wasted. But the indicators of his talent come in his neanderthal stats. With hitters, my point is that just because a position is strong, it makes little sense punishing a great player. Similarly, being relatively strong at a weak position doesn’t make you more valuable than a stud at a stud position. You get a good catcher, it is a bonus assuming you have the good leftfielder. A team with Chipper Jones in left and a mediocre catcher is better than a team with Kendall at catcher and a mediocre leftfielder. The team with Kendall at catcher would be far easier to improve because it's so much easier to find a better leftfielder than a catcher like Kendall. deGrom isn't adding wins to the Mets. He's adding theoretical wins on a team where deGrom replaced a replacement level pitcher, regardless of whether the Mets won those games or not. I mean how many wins would deGrom be worth to the Yankees if he pitched the same and he replaced their worst starter? It's not the players' fault if they're on crappy teams. Individuals can only be accountable for their own performance. They cannot be held accountable for their lousy GM and owner or bad performances of their teammates. You can come up with 1000 different holes to poke in WAR and so could I, but that's completely pointless because you seem to want to go back to ancient meaningless stats instead and ignore defense and baserunning and position scarcity. I could come up with a million holes in those stats instead of just 1000. If you just want to continue to guess how good someone is, just ignore WAR and stop arguing with everyone unless you can come up with something better. You have zero suggestions on what would be a better judge of value for a player when deciding how much to offer a free agent.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 20, 2018 9:41:23 GMT -5
Jones’s bWAR defense was only marginally bad. It didn’t have a huge impact on the difference between him and Kendall. Besides, he was playing out of position... maybe the Braves (who won 101 games that year) viewed that as maximizing his value? They squeezed 22 HRs and ok D from Vinny Castilla at 3B for the year. I get the position argument.... it is a luxury to have a good hitting catcher. My point is that given that these things ate graded on a curve, a good hiting catcher is often only an ok hitting left fielder — or even a sub par one. So in an instance like this, Kendall gys extra points because other NL teams have bad catchers — but Jones, who had the vastly superior offensive season gets dinged because other guys did too? As for defense, set it aside a second: looking just at oWar, Jones is 4.4, Kendall 4.0. So bWAR has them neck-and-neck. Kendall was 8-15 in steals, so his baserunning glory days were behind him. This was post ankle injury. I’ll end it on this: WAR is used often as a shorthand for abstract value. This guy shouldn’t have won MVP, because he had x WAR, but that guy had y. Or — don’t be deceived by surface stays, that guy has a low WAR etc. But WAR is no less deceiving: it doesn’t make good cross-position comps, for example, and the number it appears to peg to real outcomes (WINS) is actually — and a few people have said this — not to be taken literally. Would you have considered Kendall for Jones just for their 2003 seasons an even trade? Maybe it would help if you viewed WAR as an indicator of what a guy should be paid (theoretically as a free agent, and then adjust for age, health, etc). For instance, you'd be insane to pay the guy with a 5 ERA who won every game much money because you can find any pitcher in the majors to perform just as well. You seem to have a hard time comparing different positions, but it's done that way because of the scarcity of that position. No one could play catcher well other than catchers. Literally every position player could learn how to play 1B pretty quickly. That's why catchers are worth so much more relatively. Surely you could see why a catcher who hits like a decent 1B is worth more than a decent 1B who hits the same. Because decent 1B are a dime a dozen and catchers who hit like a decent 1B are almost unheard of. Perhaps. But a “decent” first baseman might —if taken as relative — be pretty awesome. Put differently: if most of the top hitters in baseball are OFs or 1B, you would still want one more than a relatively strong catcher who doesn’t compare to those guys. A catcher who hits like a decent 1B is uncommon. A catcher who hits like a good first baseman is very rare. The counter is: since everyone has poor offense at catcher, you can too. But you better have a strong LFer and 1B. I accept the pay thing — except, again... would you sink the same pay into Kendall as Jones for 2003? I certainly wouldn’t. A team with Jones as its star is going to be better than the team with Kendall as its star. Yet WAR doesn’t make that distinction. I wrote long ago I’d be far more satisfied if WAR were positional. So Kendall might be a 4-ish C-WAR and Jones a 4-ish LF-WAR — but those numbers are not for cross reference, because the average catcher is not as good as the average left fielder. It’s like a big remedial student and an honors student both graduating with 4.0 GPAs. They have the same grades, but they don’t have the same scale.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 20, 2018 9:51:38 GMT -5
EDIT: this is a response to JimEd, but the quoting got beeped up. Sorry.
Jim: The team with Kendall at catcher would be far easier to improve because it's so much easier to find a better leftfielder than a catcher like Kendall.
Me:This is not an argument for his value so much as his low opportunity cost. It still assumes you end up with the good leftfielder. But if WAR represents equivalents, we aren’t talking about additions: by its scale, Kendall and Jones are equally good.
You can say I am arguing against holes, etc., but people keep changing what WAR represents. It says wins, but they aren’t really wins. It measures goodness, but it is for salary? It is a universal form of exchange, but it is also about opportunity afforded in specific contexts...
Jim: deGrom isn't adding wins to the Mets. He's adding theoretical wins on a team where deGrom replaced a replacement level pitcher, regardless of whether the Mets won those games or not. I mean how many wins would deGrom be worth to the Yankees if he pitched the same and he replaced their worst starter?
Me: Is the answer supposed to be almost 8? How many wins has Yu Darvish been worth this year? How did Ed Whitson do with the Yankees? I don’t know. I know he is awesome and wasted on the Mets.
Jim: If you just want to continue to guess how good someone is, just ignore WAR and stop arguing with everyone unless you can come up with something better. You have zero suggestions on what would be a better judge of value for a player when deciding how much to offer a free agent.[/quote]
Me: Given in my last post. Don’t use WAR as a universal number. Tag it to position, acknowledging that it has no uniform scale.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 20, 2018 9:55:20 GMT -5
Right, only in the vacuum, which is what WAR is attempting to do. What is your confusion then? If you want to look at how much a guy actually impacted win probability then look at a statistic which does that. For example your point was Degrom is maybe worth closer to 5 wins given the actual game logs? Well, WPA shows that he has been worth exactly 5.11 wins to the Mets so far, in a much more literal sense. If this is what you are interested in, I urge you to consider reading into WPA. EDIT: I don't know why the quote isn't showing up but here is what I'm referring to: "I think you are misunderstanding me: my point is that talent and success are two different things. the mediocre pitcher who has great success is still mediocre in ability. I have low expectations for next year etc. We all know guys can just have those years. At the same time, a statistic that says someone else would have helped a team win more.... seems dubious if the team is already maxing out. In other words DeGrom is great. The Mets wins and losses in his starts are about their average in all their pitchers’ starts. So it doesn’t seem like he is making any real difference on that team. If the idea is he’s win more elsewhere, I’d say duh. If the idea is he’s worth more wins to the Mets, I’d say — only in that vacuum you mention." Actually, I am saying you cannot really show DeGrom as “adding” wins at all. His teams wins his games at about the same rate they win games overall. I’m also saying that this is separate from his talent, which is being wasted. But the indicators of his talent come in his neanderthal stats. With hitters, my point is that just because a position is strong, it makes little sense punishing a great player. Similarly, being relatively strong at a weak position doesn’t make you more valuable than a stud at a stud position. You get a good catcher, it is a bonus assuming you have the good leftfielder. A team with Chipper Jones in left and a mediocre catcher is better than a team with Kendall at catcher and a mediocre leftfielder. You quite literally can show DeGrom adding wins. Win Probability Added simply adds up the change in win expectancy from one plate appearance to the next and shows you how much the player's action impacted his team's win expectancy. That's it. It is showing you EXACTLY how many wins DeGrom's actions added specifically to the Mets in games he pitched this year, with no statement about what any other pitcher would have done in those circumstances, and no comment about lucky or unlucky things like BABIP. As far as hitters go, you are wrong. Assuming WAR's positional adjustments are accurate for a moment (and that WAR could adequately capture catcher defense, or defense at all), if Jones and Kendall have equal WAR a team with Jones and a replacement level catcher and a team with Kendall and a replacement level left fielder, all else being the same, would be exactly equal. That is what WAR shows you. If you disagree with that I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 20, 2018 10:04:38 GMT -5
Also, nobody has said WAR represents actual team "wins." Literally nobody. It represents the number of runs a player is expected to be worth over how many runs a replacement-level player is worth at that position, and it condenses that into the number of wins a team would be expected to gain by adding or preventing that many runs.
You've made it super-abundantly clear that WAR doesn't do what you would like it to do - add up to actual wins - and that's fine, and you're free not to use it. I don't use fWAR for pitchers because I find it far less helpful than the stats that underly it individually. But to say it doesn't have a uniform scale - it DOES have a uniform scale, you just disagree with how it's scaled. Nobody is changing what WAR represents - you just keep bringing up individual scenarios where WAR doesn't measure players in a way you agree with, and people keep explaining why there's a discrepancy, and the reasons are often different: the reasons for bWAR prefering Jason Kendall to Chipper Jones in one specific season are entirely different than the reasons bWAR prefers Dwight Evans' career value to that of Jim Rice, which are entirely different to why it's worth measuring how good Jacob deGrom only having allowed 31 runs this season is relative to his peers.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 20, 2018 10:06:07 GMT -5
EDIT: this is a response to JimEd, but the quoting got beeped up. Sorry. Jim: The team with Kendall at catcher would be far easier to improve because it's so much easier to find a better leftfielder than a catcher like Kendall. Me:This is not an argument for his value so much as his low opportunity cost. It still assumes you end up with the good leftfielder. But if WAR represents equivalents, we aren’t talking about additions: by its scale, Kendall and Jones are equally good. You can say I am arguing against holes, etc., but people keep changing what WAR represents. It says wins, but they aren’t really wins. It measures goodness, but it is for salary? It is a universal form of exchange, but it is also about opportunity afforded in specific contexts... Jim: deGrom isn't adding wins to the Mets. He's adding theoretical wins on a team where deGrom replaced a replacement level pitcher, regardless of whether the Mets won those games or not. I mean how many wins would deGrom be worth to the Yankees if he pitched the same and he replaced their worst starter? Me: Is the answer supposed to be almost 8? How many wins has Yu Darvish been worth this year? How did Ed Whitson do with the Yankees? I don’t know. I know he is awesome and wasted on the Mets. Jim: If you just want to continue to guess how good someone is, just ignore WAR and stop arguing with everyone unless you can come up with something better. You have zero suggestions on what would be a better judge of value for a player when deciding how much to offer a free agent. Me: Given in my last post. Don’t use WAR as a universal number. Tag it to position, acknowledging that it has no uniform scale. So if there are 30 4 win 1B and 1 4 win C, they all deserve the same contract? Or are you going to adjust the contract the same way WAR is already adjusted? I will use WAR as a universal but not perfect number. But thanks for the suggestion on how to understand baseball value less than I already do.
|
|
|
Post by 07redsox on Aug 20, 2018 10:14:13 GMT -5
Right, only in the vacuum, which is what WAR is attempting to do. What is your confusion then? If you want to look at how much a guy actually impacted win probability then look at a statistic which does that. For example your point was Degrom is maybe worth closer to 5 wins given the actual game logs? Well, WPA shows that he has been worth exactly 5.11 wins to the Mets so far, in a much more literal sense. If this is what you are interested in, I urge you to consider reading into WPA. EDIT: I don't know why the quote isn't showing up but here is what I'm referring to: "I think you are misunderstanding me: my point is that talent and success are two different things. the mediocre pitcher who has great success is still mediocre in ability. I have low expectations for next year etc. We all know guys can just have those years. At the same time, a statistic that says someone else would have helped a team win more.... seems dubious if the team is already maxing out. In other words DeGrom is great. The Mets wins and losses in his starts are about their average in all their pitchers’ starts. So it doesn’t seem like he is making any real difference on that team. If the idea is he’s win more elsewhere, I’d say duh. If the idea is he’s worth more wins to the Mets, I’d say — only in that vacuum you mention." Actually, I am saying you cannot really show DeGrom as “adding” wins at all. His teams wins his games at about the same rate they win games overall. I’m also saying that this is separate from his talent, which is being wasted. But the indicators of his talent come in his neanderthal stats. With hitters, my point is that just because a position is strong, it makes little sense punishing a great player. Similarly, being relatively strong at a weak position doesn’t make you more valuable than a stud at a stud position. You get a good catcher, it is a bonus assuming you have the good leftfielder. A team with Chipper Jones in left and a mediocre catcher is better than a team with Kendall at catcher and a mediocre leftfielder. Being relatively strong at a weak position does make you more valuable to the team compared to a stud at a stud position. That is exactly what WAR is trying to show, as it is showing wins above replacement for that position. For eample, the average 3B in all of MLB (extreme examples coming) is hitting .300/.400/.500, but you have a 3B who is hitting .320/.420/.520. Obviously your 3B is a great player (lets ignore defense and baserunning right now) and better than the average player. However, the average 3B is hitting .300/.400/.500, so compared to a replacement level player at another position he may not be adding a ton more if you did replace him with someone else. No one is punishing a great player as you stated. Your 3B is obviously a great player, but WAR is showing you that he doesn't add as much to the team as any other 3B that you could put at the position. A catcher (league average .225/.325/.425), however, hitting the same as your 3B (.320/.420/.520) is obviously having just as good of a year numbers wise as your 3B. However, the catchers WAR is obviously going to be much higher because his replacement would frankly suck compared to him. Once again, no one is punishing the 3B because the catcher is going to have a higher WAR. However, comparing the two positions the catcher is obviously the more valuable player to the team. While their performance value may overall be the same if you don't look at position, the value added to the team by having a catcher who is far and away better than any other teams catcher pushes him over the edge.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 20, 2018 10:29:29 GMT -5
. For example, the average 3B in all of MLB (extreme examples coming) is hitting .300/.400/.500, but you have a 3B who is hitting .320/.420/.520. Obviously your 3B is a great player (lets ignore defense and baserunning right now) and better than the average player. However, the average 3B is hitting .300/.400/.500, so compared to a replacement level player at another position he may not be adding a ton more if you did replace him with someone else. No one is punishing a great player as you stated. Your 3B is obviously a great player, but WAR is showing you that he doesn't add as much to the team as any other 3B that you could put at the position. A catcher (league average .225/.325/.425), however, hitting the same as your 3B (.320/.420/.520) is obviously having just as good of a year numbers wise as your 3B. However, the catchers WAR is obviously going to be much higher because his replacement would frankly suck compared to him.
Ok... that’s fine. But... if that catcher is .250/..330/.435, he is above replacement catcher but well below that 3B. Is that marginal improvement worth the same 1:1? Think prime Matt Weiters (2012, same WAR as Josh Hamilton, for example), not prime Joe Mauer.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 20, 2018 11:10:55 GMT -5
Your point about positional adjustment regarding Kendall vs. Jones is something I actually agree with: it may be that Jones had more value to the Braves playing in left field than 3B that year, just as Mookie Betts arguably has more value to the Sox playing in RF rather than 2B. So the positional adjustment is flawed in that respect. But that doesn't change the fact that Jones' defense was lousy in LF in a way that compromised his value. (I'm taking it on faith that the defensive metrics were accurate; I have no opinion about Jones' 2003 outfield defense.)
But look. Let's step back for a second. Don't you think catcher is just a harder position to play than LF? All the pitch-calling, the strategizing, the multiple and diverse defensive actions (blocking pitches, throwing out runners). All that squatting. It's hard! So why do you want to do nothing to credit the catcher for being able to do that stuff?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Aug 20, 2018 11:20:23 GMT -5
. For example, the average 3B in all of MLB (extreme examples coming) is hitting .300/.400/.500, but you have a 3B who is hitting .320/.420/.520. Obviously your 3B is a great player (lets ignore defense and baserunning right now) and better than the average player. However, the average 3B is hitting .300/.400/.500, so compared to a replacement level player at another position he may not be adding a ton more if you did replace him with someone else. No one is punishing a great player as you stated. Your 3B is obviously a great player, but WAR is showing you that he doesn't add as much to the team as any other 3B that you could put at the position. A catcher (league average .225/.325/.425), however, hitting the same as your 3B (.320/.420/.520) is obviously having just as good of a year numbers wise as your 3B. However, the catchers WAR is obviously going to be much higher because his replacement would frankly suck compared to him. Ok... that’s fine. But... if that catcher is .250/..330/.435, he is above replacement catcher but well below that 3B. Is that marginal improvement worth the same 1:1? Think prime Matt Weiters (2012, same WAR as Josh Hamilton, for example), not prime Joe Mauer. Yeah, pretty much. Why is that so difficult to believe? Lots more people have the capacity to play a decent third base then catcher, so it's going to be much easier to find a good hitting third basemen. The average third basemen isn't a better player than the average catcher; sure, he's a better hitter, but the catcher provides way more defensive value by playing the more difficult position. You have to give the catcher credit for that - it's not chance that he's a catcher and the third baseman is a third baseman but a very real difference in skill. Your arguments seem to be pretty circular: WAR says Jason Kendall was as good as Chipper Jones, but OF COURSE Chipper Jones was better than Jason Kendall, so WAR must be wrong. I just don't understand this attitude. My favorite part of learning about advanced stats is when things that I'm SURE are true turn out to be false. How are you supposed to get a deeper understanding of the game if you refuse to challenge your own positions? At least make a good faith effort to understand the metrics before you start trying to tear them apart.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 20, 2018 11:22:36 GMT -5
Your point about positional adjustment regarding Kendall vs. Jones is something I actually agree with: it may be that Jones had more value to the Braves playing in left field than 3B that year, just as Mookie Betts arguably has more value to the Sox playing in RF rather than 2B. So the positional adjustment is flawed in that respect. But that doesn't change the fact that Jones' defense was lousy in LF in a way that compromised his value. (I'm taking it on faith that the defensive metrics were accurate; I have no opinion about Jones' 2003 outfield defense.) But look. Let's step back for a second. Don't you think catcher is just a harder position to play than LF? All the pitch-calling, the strategizing, the multiple and diverse defensive actions (blocking pitches, throwing out runners). All that squatting. It's hard! So why do you want to do nothing to credit the catcher for being able to do that stuff? Of course catcher is hard... there is a reason little leagues stick their most hopeless players in left field, too. I’m not disputing that. I also think a guy like Leon provides enormous value even if he is a relatively lousy hitter. Not necessarily lousy as a catcher, but nightmarish at most positions. I just think trying to quantify many of the most important elements of catching (pitch calling, for example) borders on hubristic. And I am not convinced that a below-average defensive left fielder costs you that many runs relative to potential output. I do think a great defensive catcher can save/prevent what have you runs at a rate that makes up for offensive deficiencies... but in a way that would be almost impossible to put a number to (a guy like Varitek didn’t stand out for his arm or other basics, but I suspect his field leadership was really important). In the case of Kendall vs. Jones, for example: Kendall was not a great defensive catcher, and I can’t imagine Jones’s defense (esp. with an all-time great CFer next to him) significantly diminished his worth.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 20, 2018 11:31:37 GMT -5
. For example, the average 3B in all of MLB (extreme examples coming) is hitting .300/.400/.500, but you have a 3B who is hitting .320/.420/.520. Obviously your 3B is a great player (lets ignore defense and baserunning right now) and better than the average player. However, the average 3B is hitting .300/.400/.500, so compared to a replacement level player at another position he may not be adding a ton more if you did replace him with someone else. No one is punishing a great player as you stated. Your 3B is obviously a great player, but WAR is showing you that he doesn't add as much to the team as any other 3B that you could put at the position. A catcher (league average .225/.325/.425), however, hitting the same as your 3B (.320/.420/.520) is obviously having just as good of a year numbers wise as your 3B. However, the catchers WAR is obviously going to be much higher because his replacement would frankly suck compared to him. Ok... that’s fine. But... if that catcher is .250/..330/.435, he is above replacement catcher but well below that 3B. Is that marginal improvement worth the same 1:1? Think prime Matt Weiters (2012, same WAR as Josh Hamilton, for example), not prime Joe Mauer. Yeah, pretty much. Why is that so difficult to believe? Lots more people have the capacity to play a decent third base then catcher, so it's going to be much easier to find a good hitting third basemen. The average third basemen isn't a better player than the average catcher; sure, he's a better hitter, but the catcher provides way more defensive value by playing the more difficult position. You have to give the catcher credit for that - it's not chance that he's a catcher and the third baseman is a third baseman but a very real difference in skill. Your arguments seem to be pretty circular: WAR says Jason Kendall was as good as Chipper Jones, but OF COURSE Chipper Jones was better than Jason Kendall, so WAR must be wrong. I just don't understand this attitude. My favorite part of learning about advanced stats is when things that I'm SURE are true turn out to be false. How are you supposed to get a deeper understanding of the game if you refuse to challenge your own positions? At least make a good faith effort to understand the metrics before you start trying to tear them apart. It is apples and oranges, though: if you are building a team, scarcity is a huge factor, (though I would be very surprised if people built their team around Kendall over Jones or Weiters over Hamilton). But saying, for example, that somehow JDM’s performance is worth less because other teams have good DHs too doesn’t make sense in terms of actual day-to-day value. I’m fine with analytics for a number of uses, and if I were cutting checks, I’d use them for sure. But I don’t think they work well for cross-comparisons — cross position or cross-season. So I would not credit WAR much for MVP voting or necessarily the HOF (the Bobby Grich argument).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 20, 2018 11:49:29 GMT -5
You are getting so hung up on Degrom and his win total, while completely overlooking the fact that wins are a horrible way of judging a pitcher. Instead of looking at just wins, look how he's pitched and things he can't control like run support. That is what war is doing. You sound like old school guys 20 years ago that only wins matter and those guys get the Cy Youngs, while totally overlooking things a pitcher can't control. Put Degrom on a good team he'd have a lot more wins, its rather simple. The whole concept is based on replacement level for a given position. The bar is higher at a corner OF position and much lower at catcher. Just go look at the corner OF players and the catchers as a group. Its rather easy to see. The top corner OF will almost always out hit the top catcher. Yet there are ton of very good corner OF and only a few good catchers. Making a top catcher that can hit and play D incredibly valuable. Do to the averages a replacement level corner OF will out hit a replacement level catcher by a ton. So who's more valuable the couple elite catchers or the large group of corner OFs? I’m not talking about his win total. I’m talking about the team’s record in games he pitches. It’s different. And... a replacement would have his team. So you can’t factor that out. I have no beef with “elite” catchers, except that what makes an elite catcher is far less than other positions. Hence, for example, Swihart being exciting as a catching prospect but not as an outfielder. Because catchers can give less and be good catchers. Again, it is apples and oranges. But it means that 5 WAR means different things by position. You are talking about wins when Degrom starts, like he's the only variable for a team. Eric broke the numbers down how the offense and bullpen failed him. Again you can't seem to get past results, everything for you seems to be about results. Look at Degrom, look at his WHIP, what batters bat off of him, his walk to strikeout ratio,the amount of runs he allows. By most stats he's a great pitcher and if he played for the Red Sox his team record would be great. War is adjusting everything so you can compare players and I really don't get your issue with Degrom. You are looking at this all wrong, compare Degrom to other top pitchers, does everything else match up besides wins and losses? Like when I had a problem with Moncada being rated as a GG defender, yet he had a crazy low fielding percentage and a crap load of errors I compared him to GG defenders. War was wrong about Moncada in a limited sample size, but adjusted and fixed the error in a bigger sample size. If you have an issue with Degroms war total, look at the numbers that go into to see if there's an error. I'm going to bet there is no error in his war number. Just you can't seem to comprehend how he can be so good without more wins. That is on you! Its not apples and oranges not even close! You just don't get how replacement level is determined and thus you are rather clueless. I've walked you through the basics yet you still argue the same exact thing. Have you even looked at the Red Sox war total? To win a 115 games or whatever they are close to, you would need a team bwar total of around 72 bwar. The Red Sox last I looked were at around 55 bwar while at 88 wins, well on there way to getting very close to what the war system says they will need to reach those wins. If the system is crap that wouldn't happen my friend!
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 20, 2018 12:02:32 GMT -5
Both players are equal in how much better they are from replacement level and both would add the same amount of wins to a team. Player X is playing at a position where the replacement level bar is very high. That is crazy to say Kendall brings more wins to his team than player X. He is significantly worse almost entirely across the board. That one is a left fielder might mean you could get a different slugger to fill his position, but so what? My point is: X may be worth 4ish wins more (who knows) than another LF, and Kendall may be worth more than another catcher... but if leftfielders are — on average — worth more than catchers, then X ought to be assigned a different value from Kendall. Is he docked for opportunity cost? Umm you need to look at replacement level. Just to make up a number lets say catchers are worth 1 war and left fielders are 3 war based on replacement level. The catcher is 3.5 war above replacement level, the left fielder is worth only 1.5 worth replacement level. In this case they are both about 4.5 war, because the replacement level of a catcher is crazy low. Don't buy it? Just go look at the catchers in this league compared to left fielders. Why does it matter? You can easily find upgrades for left field. Heck trading for a 4.5 war left fielder is easy. Now you need a catcher, go try and find a 4.5 war catcher. Good luck with that. Remember this is a team sport were the whole lineup gets you wins, not just a single player. Having a very good hitting catcher is crazy valuable because very few teams have one. It lengthens your lineup, gets more people on pass, and gives other hitters more chances with runners on base.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 20, 2018 12:15:01 GMT -5
I’m not talking about his win total. I’m talking about the team’s record in games he pitches. It’s different. And... a replacement would have his team. So you can’t factor that out. I have no beef with “elite” catchers, except that what makes an elite catcher is far less than other positions. Hence, for example, Swihart being exciting as a catching prospect but not as an outfielder. Because catchers can give less and be good catchers. Again, it is apples and oranges. But it means that 5 WAR means different things by position. You are talking about wins when Degrom starts, like he's the only variable for a team. Eric broke the numbers down how the offense and bullpen failed him. Again you can't seem to get past results, everything for you seems to be about results. Look at Degrom, look at his WHIP, what batters bat off of him, his walk to strikeout ratio,the amount of runs he allows. By most stats he's a great pitcher and if he played for the Red Sox his team record would be great. War is adjusting everything so you can compare players and I really don't get your issue with Degrom. You are looking at this all wrong, compare Degrom to other top pitchers, does everything else match up besides wins and losses? Like when I had a problem with Moncada being rated as a GG defender, yet he had a crazy low fielding percentage and a crap load of errors I compared him to GG defenders. War was wrong about Moncada in a limited sample size, but adjusted and fixed the error in a bigger sample size. If you have an issue with Degroms war total, look at the numbers that go into to see if there's an error. I'm going to bet there is no error in his war number. Just you can't seem to comprehend how he can be so good without more wins. That is on you! Its not apples and oranges not even close! You just don't get how replacement level is determined and thus you are rather clueless. I've walked you through the basics yet you still argue the same exact thing. Have you even looked at the Red Sox war total? To win a 115 games or whatever they are close to, you would need a team bwar total of around 72 bwar. The Red Sox last I looked were at around 55 bwar while at 88 wins, well on there way to getting very close to what the war system says they will need to reach those wins. If the system is crap that wouldn't happen my friend! I don’t need an algorithm to tell me a) deGrom is great and b) he’d have a better record on another team. A child can see that. How much better? Well, hell, who knows? What does it tell us to guess? Would a penant race get in his head? Would the Green Monster cost him? Blah blah blah. If people want to have hypothetical measures, have at it. But the FACT is — on the field — the Mets have not won any more with deGrom than without. He might be more spectacular than other guys but losing 1-0 and losing 10-0 is the same in the standings. So I accept in theory he’d be better on another team (... what a merry Christmas it would be!), but the idea that he is worth 8 more wins to the Mets seems demonstrably untrue. Not his fault, but seasons are not made of fault or adjusting for the Wilpons. He hasn’t gained the Mets 8 wins, and I don’t think anyone can say what he’d do elsewhere (what was Darvish’s projection?).
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 20, 2018 12:20:04 GMT -5
Your point about positional adjustment regarding Kendall vs. Jones is something I actually agree with: it may be that Jones had more value to the Braves playing in left field than 3B that year, just as Mookie Betts arguably has more value to the Sox playing in RF rather than 2B. So the positional adjustment is flawed in that respect. But that doesn't change the fact that Jones' defense was lousy in LF in a way that compromised his value. (I'm taking it on faith that the defensive metrics were accurate; I have no opinion about Jones' 2003 outfield defense.) But look. Let's step back for a second. Don't you think catcher is just a harder position to play than LF? All the pitch-calling, the strategizing, the multiple and diverse defensive actions (blocking pitches, throwing out runners). All that squatting. It's hard! So why do you want to do nothing to credit the catcher for being able to do that stuff? Of course catcher is hard... there is a reason little leagues stick their most hopeless players in left field, too. I’m not disputing that. I also think a guy like Leon provides enormous value even if he is a relatively lousy hitter. Not necessarily lousy as a catcher, but nightmarish at most positions. I just think trying to quantify many of the most important elements of catching (pitch calling, for example) borders on hubristic. And I am not convinced that a below-average defensive left fielder costs you that many runs relative to potential output. I do think a great defensive catcher can save/prevent what have you runs at a rate that makes up for offensive deficiencies... but in a way that would be almost impossible to put a number to (a guy like Varitek didn’t stand out for his arm or other basics, but I suspect his field leadership was really important). In the case of Kendall vs. Jones, for example: Kendall was not a great defensive catcher, and I can’t imagine Jones’s defense (esp. with an all-time great CFer next to him) significantly diminished his worth. But you're wanting to compare Kendall and Jones straight up, which is to say, without taking the difficulty of playing the catcher position into account at all! Maybe it's "hubristic" to try to quantify something so difficult, but 1) WAR isn't trying to do that with the positional adjustment; all it's doing is saying: catchers tend to put up worse offensive numbers than other positional players (and we can infer, because we are humans with brains, that that's because of the many demands on catchers beyond offensive production), therefore a given amount of offensive production at C is worth relatively more. And 2) even if those other catcher skills can't be quantified, do you really want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Surely we should make some effort to account for catching ability, no? You seem to be relying on the argument that " Obviously 2003 Jones was better than 2003 Kendall," but I don't even share that intuition! I remember Kendall being regarded as a megastar in the making, even if his star had dimmed a bit by 2003. And part of what made him so highly regarded is that he played catcher! People recognized how rare and valuable a strong offensive catcher is!
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 20, 2018 12:23:42 GMT -5
That is crazy to say Kendall brings more wins to his team than player X. He is significantly worse almost entirely across the board. That one is a left fielder might mean you could get a different slugger to fill his position, but so what? My point is: X may be worth 4ish wins more (who knows) than another LF, and Kendall may be worth more than another catcher... but if leftfielders are — on average — worth more than catchers, then X ought to be assigned a different value from Kendall. Is he docked for opportunity cost? Umm you need to look at replacement level. Just to make up a number lets say catchers are worth 1 war and left fielders are 3 war based on replacement level. The catcher is 3.5 war above replacement level, the left fielder is worth only 1.5 worth replacement level. In this case they are both about 4.5 war, because the replacement level of a catcher is crazy low. Don't buy it? Just go look at the catchers in this league compared to left fielders. Why does it matter? You can easily find upgrades for left field. Heck trading for a 4.5 war left fielder is easy. Now you need a catcher, go try and find a 4.5 war catcher. Good luck with that. Remember this is a team sport were the whole lineup gets you wins, not just a single player. Having a very good hitting catcher is crazy valuable because very few teams have one. It lengthens your lineup, gets more people on pass, and gives other hitters more chances with runners on base. So then, if I’m getting this, Andrew Benentendi (bWAR 4.1) for Whit Merrifield (bWAR 3.8) is pretty close to an even trade? Presumably 2B is harder to fill than LF.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 20, 2018 12:26:52 GMT -5
You are talking about wins when Degrom starts, like he's the only variable for a team. Eric broke the numbers down how the offense and bullpen failed him. Again you can't seem to get past results, everything for you seems to be about results. Look at Degrom, look at his WHIP, what batters bat off of him, his walk to strikeout ratio,the amount of runs he allows. By most stats he's a great pitcher and if he played for the Red Sox his team record would be great. War is adjusting everything so you can compare players and I really don't get your issue with Degrom. You are looking at this all wrong, compare Degrom to other top pitchers, does everything else match up besides wins and losses? Like when I had a problem with Moncada being rated as a GG defender, yet he had a crazy low fielding percentage and a crap load of errors I compared him to GG defenders. War was wrong about Moncada in a limited sample size, but adjusted and fixed the error in a bigger sample size. If you have an issue with Degroms war total, look at the numbers that go into to see if there's an error. I'm going to bet there is no error in his war number. Just you can't seem to comprehend how he can be so good without more wins. That is on you! Its not apples and oranges not even close! You just don't get how replacement level is determined and thus you are rather clueless. I've walked you through the basics yet you still argue the same exact thing. Have you even looked at the Red Sox war total? To win a 115 games or whatever they are close to, you would need a team bwar total of around 72 bwar. The Red Sox last I looked were at around 55 bwar while at 88 wins, well on there way to getting very close to what the war system says they will need to reach those wins. If the system is crap that wouldn't happen my friend! I don’t need an algorithm to tell me a) deGrom is great and b) he’d have a better record on another team. A child can see that. How much better? Well, hell, who knows? What does it tell us to guess? Would a penant race get in his head? Would the Green Monster cost him? Blah blah blah. If people want to have hypothetical measures, have at it. But the FACT is — on the field — the Mets have not won any more with deGrom than without. He might be more spectacular than other guys but losing 1-0 and losing 10-0 is the same in the standings. So I accept in theory he’d be better on another team (... what a merry Christmas it would be!), but the idea that he is worth 8 more wins to the Mets seems demonstrably untrue. Not his fault, but seasons are not made of fault or adjusting for the Wilpons. He hasn’t gained the Mets 8 wins, and I don’t think anyone can say what he’d do elsewhere (what was Darvish’s projection?). You keep harping on this straw man argument, not one person is saying he has gained the Mets 8 wins. That is not the purpose of the statistic. As far as your other point which seems to be that most first basemen are intrinsically more valuable than most catchers, because they tend to hit better, I don't get why you seem to not believe that quality of replacement matters. The reason offense from a catcher is more significant is because if you took a great hitting catcher away from the team, your replacement would probably be terrible. If you took an equally great hitting left fielder away from the team your replacement would probably be average. You don't see the value in having a harder to replace guy? This discussion is starting to go in a loop so I don't want to continue this any further, but if you are genuinely interested in the stat you are clearly not listening to what any poster here is saying so just read up on it on Fangraphs, B-ref, you might be more accepting of those explanations.
|
|
|
Post by 07redsox on Aug 20, 2018 12:31:09 GMT -5
. For example, the average 3B in all of MLB (extreme examples coming) is hitting .300/.400/.500, but you have a 3B who is hitting .320/.420/.520. Obviously your 3B is a great player (lets ignore defense and baserunning right now) and better than the average player. However, the average 3B is hitting .300/.400/.500, so compared to a replacement level player at another position he may not be adding a ton more if you did replace him with someone else. No one is punishing a great player as you stated. Your 3B is obviously a great player, but WAR is showing you that he doesn't add as much to the team as any other 3B that you could put at the position. A catcher (league average .225/.325/.425), however, hitting the same as your 3B (.320/.420/.520) is obviously having just as good of a year numbers wise as your 3B. However, the catchers WAR is obviously going to be much higher because his replacement would frankly suck compared to him. Ok... that’s fine. But... if that catcher is .250/..330/.435, he is above replacement catcher but well below that 3B. Is that marginal improvement worth the same 1:1? Think prime Matt Weiters (2012, same WAR as Josh Hamilton, for example), not prime Joe Mauer. Comparing Wieters and Hamilton in 2012: Wieters has 3.9 fWAR and Hamilton 4.8. Is your problem that Wieters has a WAR that is too close to Hamilton even though Hamilton was obviously the far superior hitter? As I know you are aware, other areas like defense go into calculating WAR. Hamilton in 2012 spent more of his time in CF than LF. He was a very poor/well-below average defensive CF, but around average in LF. The 60% of the season he spent in CF playing bad defense is going to make his WAR value drop. If your point is that their WAR is too similar in 2012 even though Hamilton provided much better offensive numbers, then I guess you are forgetting the "above replacement level" portion of WAR (catcher almost always has a very low level of offensive talent that would be considered replacement level year after year. LF, as well as 1B, have typically been the big hitters with defensive problems position, so reaching replacement level year after year is going to be more difficult from those positions compared to catcher). I am in no way an expert in advanced statistics, especially compared to those here. However, I have always viewed WAR as a way of seeing the advantage that a team has compared to all the other teams in the league. Having Mookie Betts in RF is amazing, but if every single team had the exact same Mookie Betters playing RF, then the Red Sox don't have much of an advantage (or any) in terms of the production from that position. From reading through previous posts, it looks like you are looking for WAR to do something that it isn't mean to do (tell you how many literal wins a player added to a team, which a stat like WPA is going to be something to look at for this isntead), and have more of a semantics issue with the name. Is it part of your issues with WAR that it is used at times for people to make their point for why someone is the better player or the MVP candidate in a given year?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Aug 20, 2018 12:32:58 GMT -5
Umm you need to look at replacement level. Just to make up a number lets say catchers are worth 1 war and left fielders are 3 war based on replacement level. The catcher is 3.5 war above replacement level, the left fielder is worth only 1.5 worth replacement level. In this case they are both about 4.5 war, because the replacement level of a catcher is crazy low. Don't buy it? Just go look at the catchers in this league compared to left fielders. Why does it matter? You can easily find upgrades for left field. Heck trading for a 4.5 war left fielder is easy. Now you need a catcher, go try and find a 4.5 war catcher. Good luck with that. Remember this is a team sport were the whole lineup gets you wins, not just a single player. Having a very good hitting catcher is crazy valuable because very few teams have one. It lengthens your lineup, gets more people on pass, and gives other hitters more chances with runners on base. So then, if I’m getting this, Andrew Benentendi (bWAR 4.1) for Whit Merrifield (bWAR 3.8) is pretty close to an even trade? Presumably 2B is harder to fill than LF. No, because Benintendi is much younger and has a better pedigree with more upside. But if you're asking if Merrifield has been about as good as Benintendi this year - well, yeah. Again, why is that so hard to believe? Merrifield has been good, and if the Red Sox had him they wouldn't have had to play Nunez and Holt all year.
|
|
|