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 umassgrad2005 on Aug 7, 2018 10:11:03 GMT -5
One big glaring issue with only looking at exit velocity and angle is not looking at weather conditions. I'd also wonder about spin rate on a ball. We've all seen hits with a crazy spin take weird bounces that can turn a single into a double or tripple. There is a ton of crap besides exit velocity and launch angle.
This seems like the beginning of the debate on BAbip that anything over or under .300 was luck. Overtime we came to know that isn't true, samething here.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 7, 2018 10:12:08 GMT -5
Luck isn't a factor in exit velocity. It's that exit velocity and getting to first base just aren't perfectly correlated, AND that the difference in correlation seems to not be random, indicating that there are intervening variables at play that xwOBA doesn't measure. Optimizing exit velocity and launch angle is a skill--probably the most important skill--but it is not THE skill. And if isolating it at the expense of other skills ends up being less predictive than NOT isolating it then that's counterproductive. In fact, right now I'm most interested in the players with the biggest gap between wOBA and xwOBA. Like you said, the best hitters will be atop the xwOBA leaderboard, sure - but they were already atop the wOBA leaderboard. Where the lists don't line up is the interesting part.
As defensive positioning becomes more and more sophisticated, second-tier players who have bat control and an approach to use the whole field will become more valuable. Again, it won't make a difference at the top: Ted Williams and Mike Trout are going to beat any defense and remain the best players. But a second-tier guy with a good xwOBA who routinely can be shifted on will be less valuable than one who doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 7, 2018 10:15:01 GMT -5
There's this perception that being able to isolate exit velocity and launch angle removes a significant portion of luck from the equation. That's not really how that works. Especially in smaller samples, players can have lucky or unlucky exit velocities/launch angles in the same way that players have lucky/unlucky walk rates or strikeout rates (which stabilize a lot more quickly than any batted ball statistic). It's more sophisticated than the old expected BABIP-type analysis that we used to do, but only by a little bit and not by leaps and bounds, and there is still a lot of mostly-random noise, especially in smaller samples. I just don't see how luck is a factor in exit velocity. If it is, I don't think it would be significant. It's not like Brock Holt is ever going to luck into a 120 mph 480 foot home run. And how is it unlucky for any batter to hit a weak ground ball? The best hitters will always be near the top of the xwOBA leaderboard. What xwOBA doesn't do is account for shifting and that's the most significant issue with it IMO. I am tired of the exit velocity stuff. It seems like a made-for-tv thing to create oohs and aaahhs for X-games generations. But in the classic phrase: they all look like line drives in the box score. If these stats are not predictive, then isolating factors or looking at velocities seems besides the point. Is a guy who hits the ball hard every time more likely to get hits going foreard? Maybe, but that is predictive. Is there a reason to analyze velocities of balls when the outcome is known? I don’t see it. Cheapy home run around the Pesky pole and a bomb are worth the same amount Or: hit ‘em where they ain’t. Youcan say, yes, but that cheap shot isn’t a homerun elsewhere. But the batter isn’t hitting elsewhere. Who knows how the pitcher would pitch or the batter would swing in a different park? Benintendi’s avg exit velocity is below MLB average on the season, and yet he has good power, good contact, etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 7, 2018 10:21:48 GMT -5
One big glaring issue with only looking at exit velocity and angle is not looking at weather conditions. I'd also wonder about spin rate on a ball. We've all seen hits with a crazy spin take weird bounces that can turn a single into a double or tripple. There is a ton of crap besides exit velocity and launch angle. This seems like the beginning of the debate on BAbip that anything over or under .300 was luck. Overtime we came to know that isn't true, samething here. Wind should absolutely be a factor that is incorporated.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 7, 2018 11:39:21 GMT -5
I think there is some confusion here, there absolutely is evidence that xwOBA is predictive for hitters. Of course it’s not perfect and there is a lot more it could take into account, but it’s far more predictive for a hitter of their future wOBA than their current wOBA is. I’m not sure exactly what study Law is referring to, but I’ve seen ones showing that for pitchers it’s no more predictive than their DRA or FIP for their future wOBA, but even then still somewhat more predictive than their current wOBA, and with more room for improvement. Just wanted to clear this up.
Oh and Benintendi’s wOBA is almost exactly his xwOBA.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 7, 2018 11:42:41 GMT -5
There's this perception that being able to isolate exit velocity and launch angle removes a significant portion of luck from the equation. That's not really how that works. Especially in smaller samples, players can have lucky or unlucky exit velocities/launch angles in the same way that players have lucky/unlucky walk rates or strikeout rates (which stabilize a lot more quickly than any batted ball statistic). It's more sophisticated than the old expected BABIP-type analysis that we used to do, but only by a little bit and not by leaps and bounds, and there is still a lot of mostly-random noise, especially in smaller samples. I just don't see how luck is a factor in exit velocity. If it is, I don't think it would be significant. It's not like Brock Holt is ever going to luck into a 120 mph 480 foot home run. And how is it unlucky for any batter to hit a weak ground ball? The best hitters will always be near the top of the xwOBA leaderboard. What xwOBA doesn't do is account for shifting and that's the most significant issue with it IMO. What's so hard to understand about it? We're talking about a game of inches and miliseconds. The difference between a weak ground ball and a ringing line drive are exceedingly small. The same player can take the same swing against the same pitch, and you're going to have a wide spectrum of possible outcomes, not the same outcome every time. That's not to mention standard sampling error. Flip a coin a hundred times and you might get 50 heads or you might get 70 heads. Especially in this era of increased strikeouts and walks, even over a full season, three or four hundred batted balls still leaves you with a substantial margin of error.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 7, 2018 11:52:45 GMT -5
I just don't see how luck is a factor in exit velocity. If it is, I don't think it would be significant. It's not like Brock Holt is ever going to luck into a 120 mph 480 foot home run. And how is it unlucky for any batter to hit a weak ground ball? The best hitters will always be near the top of the xwOBA leaderboard. What xwOBA doesn't do is account for shifting and that's the most significant issue with it IMO. What's so hard to understand about it? We're talking about a game of inches and miliseconds. The difference between a weak ground ball and a ringing line drive are exceedingly small. The same player can take the same swing against the same pitch, and you're going to have a wide spectrum of possible outcomes, not the same outcome every time. That's not to mention standard sampling error. Flip a coin a hundred times and you might get 50 heads or you might get 70 heads. Especially in this era of increased strikeouts and walks, even over a full season, three or four hundred batted balls still leaves you with a substantial margin of error. Better hitters barrel the ball more than worse hitters so how is that luck? Just saying it's luck doesn't make it luck. Stronger batters with faster swings can hit the ball harder than weaker hitters on average. That isn't luck either. A bad hitter might luck into barrelling the ball once in awhile, but that doesn't mean he can hit it 110+ mph even once in his career.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 7, 2018 11:53:11 GMT -5
“Luck” is subjective. When a fighter gets knocked out by one punch, people can say lucky punch or the right punch at the right time. Kirk Gibson’s homer off Eck might have been luck — a pitch hitting the bat of a guy with huge arm strength and crippled legs —or a great hitter adjusting to his injury. On and on.
ESPN has a story on Pujols today looking at how the shift has impacted his average. Is he unlucky, unable to adjust, etc. etc. These seem like somewhat subjective descriptions of objective outcomes.
I don’t mean they ought not be discussed — they are what make sports fun — grousing about how Dent and Boone just got lucky.
Edit: obviously, on a larger scale, there is no such thing as luck any more than touching the first base line will hurt your performance.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 7, 2018 12:42:10 GMT -5
What's so hard to understand about it? We're talking about a game of inches and miliseconds. The difference between a weak ground ball and a ringing line drive are exceedingly small. The same player can take the same swing against the same pitch, and you're going to have a wide spectrum of possible outcomes, not the same outcome every time. That's not to mention standard sampling error. Flip a coin a hundred times and you might get 50 heads or you might get 70 heads. Especially in this era of increased strikeouts and walks, even over a full season, three or four hundred batted balls still leaves you with a substantial margin of error. Better hitters barrel the ball more than worse hitters so how is that luck? Just saying it's luck doesn't make it luck. Stronger batters with faster swings can hit the ball harder than weaker hitters on average. That isn't luck either. A bad hitter might luck into barrelling the ball once in awhile, but that doesn't mean he can hit it 110+ mph even once in his career. If you're getting caught up in the verbiage, let's call it variance instead of luck. A player who has hit for a certain exit velo/launch angle in in the past will likely not maintain that exact same exit velo/launch angle going forward. Sometimes players have short stretches of unsustainably good or bad performance.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 7, 2018 13:10:28 GMT -5
xwOBA convinced me to trade for Matt Carpenter in a bunch of my fantasy leagues when he was hitting .180 early this season, so as far as I'm concerned it's the best stat ever created.
On a more serious note, the thing about xwOBA is that people want to use it as a projection system for obvious reasons, but it's not quite that, nor is it a a record of actual production, which raises the question of what it's actually for. My guess is that it will probably fall out of favor over the next few years as public projections systems start incorporating more statcast data, giving people the thing they actually want.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 7, 2018 14:18:41 GMT -5
xwOBA convinced me to trade for Matt Carpenter in a bunch of my fantasy leagues when he was hitting .180 early this season, so as far as I'm concerned it's the best stat ever created. That's exactly what I think it's useful for. It's like BABIP with a ton more meaning attached to it.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 19, 2018 9:30:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 19, 2018 9:33:55 GMT -5
It's like Babe Ruth playing on a little league team. They'd probably lose every single game, but Babe Ruth would still be a 10+ win player. WAR is not literal wins.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 19, 2018 9:55:21 GMT -5
It's like Babe Ruth playing on a little league team. They'd probably lose every single game, but Babe Ruth would still be a 10+ win player. WAR is not literal wins. It doesn’t seem to be literal anything. This is not meant to denigrate Degrom, who is being historically victimized by his team, but if the wins are not literal (but serious?) and the replacement player is a kind of abstraction (ideal team and field), it is tough to see what the number measures in the real world of grass and dirt.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 19, 2018 11:13:59 GMT -5
It's like Babe Ruth playing on a little league team. They'd probably lose every single game, but Babe Ruth would still be a 10+ win player. WAR is not literal wins. It doesn’t seem to be literal anything. This is not meant to denigrate Degrom, who is being historically victimized by his team, but if the wins are not literal (but serious?) and the replacement player is a kind of abstraction (ideal team and field), it is tough to see what the number measures in the real world of grass and dirt. Haha, that's pretty good - we should take WAR seriously but not literally. It does seem to be a little bit in an uncanny valley between absolute value (how good a player is) and contextual value (what a player adds to a team). You might agree with what Bill James has to say about it. I agree to some extent. An example I've used of how WAR is a little too abstract is how Mookie Betts gets dinged for a worse positional adjustment playing RF than he gets for playing at 2B, on the grounds that 2B is an inherently more valuable defensive position. But the reason that he plays RF rather than 2B is that he had more value for the Red Sox playing RF, as they already had a decent defender at 2B. I think the best use for WAR is as a quick-and-dirty estimate of overall value, which a lot of times is all you want. Don't treat it as the be-all-end-all, and you've got a useful tool.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 19, 2018 11:16:30 GMT -5
Looking at his game log and swapping him out for a replacement level guy, they'd be 6-19. If you sort his starts by RA/IP, the Mets have scored 6 runs or more in just 1 of his best 13 starts, but they've done it 6 times in his lesser 12 starts. In one stretch (May 2 to June 13) he had a 1.13 ERA over 8 starts, the Mets scored a total of 11 runs and went 1-7.
The Mets' tendency to score more runs when he's at his least brilliant is pure luck, and accounts for 2 of the missing 3 wins: an 8-2 victory on April 5 and a 12-2 victory on June 18. You could have won those games with a replacement level starter, but if you randomize the Mets' offense across his starts, they're losses.
He also appears to have had a negative ability to "pitch to the score", which accounts for the 3rd win, but that's likely because they're leaving him in longer than they would if they had an average bullpen. The Mets rank 28th in MLB in bullpen Win Probability Added.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 19, 2018 11:37:37 GMT -5
Looking at his game log and swapping him out for a replacement level guy, they'd be 6-19. If you sort his starts by RA/IP, the Mets have scored 6 runs or more in just 1 of his best 13 starts, but they've done it 6 times in his lesser 12 starts. In one stretch (May 2 to June 13) he had a 1.13 ERA over 8 starts, the Mets scored a total of 11 runs and went 1-7.
The Mets' tendency to score more runs when he's at his least brilliant is pure luck, and accounts for 2 of the missing 3 wins: an 8-2 victory on April 5 and a 12-2 victory on June 18. You could have won those games with a replacement level starter, but if you randomize the Mets' offense across his starts, they're losses.
He also appears to have had a negative ability to "pitch to the score", which accounts for the 3rd win, but that's likely because they're leaving him in longer than they would if they had an average bullpen. The Mets rank 28th in MLB in bullpen Win Probability Added.
Then should his WAR be 5?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 19, 2018 11:46:01 GMT -5
It doesn’t seem to be literal anything. This is not meant to denigrate Degrom, who is being historically victimized by his team, but if the wins are not literal (but serious?) and the replacement player is a kind of abstraction (ideal team and field), it is tough to see what the number measures in the real world of grass and dirt. Haha, that's pretty good - we should take WAR seriously but not literally. It does seem to be a little bit in an uncanny valley between absolute value (how good a player is) and contextual value (what a player adds to a team). You might agree with what Bill James has to say about it. I agree to some extent. An example I've used of how WAR is a little too abstract is how Mookie Betts gets dinged for a worse positional adjustment playing RF than he gets for playing at 2B, on the grounds that 2B is an inherently more valuable defensive position. But the reason that he plays RF rather than 2B is that he had more value for the Red Sox playing RF, as they already had a decent defender at 2B. I think the best use for WAR is as a quick-and-dirty estimate of overall value, which a lot of times is all you want. Don't treat it as the be-all-end-all, and you've got a useful tool. That is a great article... thanks! I agree with it completely. James’s riff on luck is huge for me... why do we adjust for things that were as they were? To me this why stuff like FIP are parlor games, cute but ultimately of almost no importance.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 19, 2018 14:44:54 GMT -5
Looking at his game log and swapping him out for a replacement level guy, they'd be 6-19. If you sort his starts by RA/IP, the Mets have scored 6 runs or more in just 1 of his best 13 starts, but they've done it 6 times in his lesser 12 starts. In one stretch (May 2 to June 13) he had a 1.13 ERA over 8 starts, the Mets scored a total of 11 runs and went 1-7.
The Mets' tendency to score more runs when he's at his least brilliant is pure luck, and accounts for 2 of the missing 3 wins: an 8-2 victory on April 5 and a 12-2 victory on June 18. You could have won those games with a replacement level starter, but if you randomize the Mets' offense across his starts, they're losses.
He also appears to have had a negative ability to "pitch to the score", which accounts for the 3rd win, but that's likely because they're leaving him in longer than they would if they had an average bullpen. The Mets rank 28th in MLB in bullpen Win Probability Added.
Then should his WAR be 5? No. It's not literal wins. Should a player who hits 2 HRs per game be worth 0 WAR on a 0-162 team? Should that same player who hits 2 HRs per game on a team that never gives up more than 1 run per game be worth 162 WAR? Should that same player who hits 2 HR per game be worth 0 WAR on a team that wins by 10 runs every game? They performed identically so they should have the same WAR. WAR is used to compare players on different teams, in different leagues and in different seasons.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 19, 2018 15:02:27 GMT -5
Then should his WAR be 5? No. It's not literal wins. Should a player who hits 2 HRs per game be worth 0 WAR on a 0-162 team? Should that same player who hits 2 HRs per game on a team that never gives up more than 1 run per game be worth 162 WAR? Should that same player who hits 2 HR per game be worth 0 WAR on a team that wins by 10 runs every game? They performed identically so they should have the same WAR. WAR is used to compare players on different teams, in different leagues and in different seasons. If it means what it says, a player on an 0-162 team should have a 0 WAR, yes. Any player — no matter how bad — in his place would produce the same results. If it registers something else, it should be called something else not having to do with wins. It also does NOT compare different leagues or seasons, since it is pegged to a teplacement player calculated by league by season. So a 5 WAR catcher in the NL might be better than a 5 WAR catcher in the AL depending on how league catchers are. Just as a 5 WAR leftfielder might be better than a 5 WAR shortstop or a 5 WAR SS in a good season for SSs might be better than a 5 WAR SS in a bad season for SSs.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 19, 2018 16:30:40 GMT -5
No. It's not literal wins. Should a player who hits 2 HRs per game be worth 0 WAR on a 0-162 team? Should that same player who hits 2 HRs per game on a team that never gives up more than 1 run per game be worth 162 WAR? Should that same player who hits 2 HR per game be worth 0 WAR on a team that wins by 10 runs every game? They performed identically so they should have the same WAR. WAR is used to compare players on different teams, in different leagues and in different seasons. If it means what it says, a player on an 0-162 team should have a 0 WAR, yes. Any player — no matter how bad — in his place would produce the same results. If it registers something else, it should be called something else not having to do with wins. It also does NOT compare different leagues or seasons, since it is pegged to a teplacement player calculated by league by season. So a 5 WAR catcher in the NL might be better than a 5 WAR catcher in the AL depending on how league catchers are. Just as a 5 WAR leftfielder might be better than a 5 WAR shortstop or a 5 WAR SS in a good season for SSs might be better than a 5 WAR SS in a bad season for SSs. Nope. www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/ WAR is context, league, and park neutral. This means you can use WAR to compare players between years, leagues, and teams. I really have to stop talking to people who refuse to see any usefulness whatsoever in WAR. Go use whatever you use to figure out that Jacob deGrom is almost worthless because the Mets can't score runs.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 19, 2018 16:47:58 GMT -5
If it means what it says, a player on an 0-162 team should have a 0 WAR, yes. Any player — no matter how bad — in his place would produce the same results. If it registers something else, it should be called something else not having to do with wins. It also does NOT compare different leagues or seasons, since it is pegged to a teplacement player calculated by league by season. So a 5 WAR catcher in the NL might be better than a 5 WAR catcher in the AL depending on how league catchers are. Just as a 5 WAR leftfielder might be better than a 5 WAR shortstop or a 5 WAR SS in a good season for SSs might be better than a 5 WAR SS in a bad season for SSs. Nope. www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/ WAR is context, league, and park neutral. This means you can use WAR to compare players between years, leagues, and teams. I really have to stop talking to people who refuse to see any usefulness whatsoever in WAR. Go use whatever you use to figure out that Jacob deGrom is almost worthless because the Mets can't score runs. Read that link: “add in a positional adjustment, a snall adjustment for their league...” etc. For pitchers: “FIP... adjusted for park, scaled to how many innings the pitcher threw.” That is not context free. Obviously Degrom is great. But the WAR number seems meaningless in any real sense. Even you wrote it isn’t “literally” wins... so what are they? Metaphors? Symbols? On the other hand, Degrom may be WASTED — so “worthless” in that sense... in that another pitcher of far less talent might do no worse. If Bartolo Colon took his starts, could the Mets still be 11-14? Well, it is about their overall winning percentage, so... maybe. So on a strictly literal sense, it seems illogical to suggest the Mets see 8 wins of value from Degrom. If it means a different team would, well, who knows? He’d probably have a great record on the Sox. Maybe worse on the Padres. Again, your link: “WAR is trying to answer the time-honored question: how valuable is each player TO HIS TEAM.” (My caps). So is DeGrom worth 8 extra wins to his team? Certainly not in any literal way. Then.... how? That is a different question from how great is he.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,666
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 19, 2018 17:13:15 GMT -5
Nope. www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/ WAR is context, league, and park neutral. This means you can use WAR to compare players between years, leagues, and teams. I really have to stop talking to people who refuse to see any usefulness whatsoever in WAR. Go use whatever you use to figure out that Jacob deGrom is almost worthless because the Mets can't score runs. Read that link: “add in a positional adjustment, a snall adjustment for their league...” etc. For pitchers: “FIP... adjusted for park, scaled to how many innings the pitcher threw.” That is not context free. Obviously Degrom is great. But the WAR number seems meaningless in any real sense. Even you wrote it isn’t “literally” wins... so what are they? Metaphors? Symbols? On the other hand, Degrom may be WASTED — so “worthless” in that sense... in that another pitcher of far less talent might do no worse. If Bartolo Colon took his starts, could the Mets still be 11-14? Well, it is about their overall winning percentage, so... maybe. So on a strictly literal sense, it seems illogical to suggest the Mets see 8 wins of value from Degrom. If it means a different team would, well, who knows? He’d probably have a great record on the Sox. Maybe worse on the Padres. Again, your link: “WAR is trying to answer the time-honored question: how valuable is each player TO HIS TEAM.” (My caps). So is DeGrom worth 8 extra wins to his team? Certainly not in any literal way. Then.... how? That is a different question from how great is he. I'm not the biggest fan of WAR, but I don't see how this makes sense. Take the game the Sox lost to Toronto 8-5 when Mookie hit for the cycle. Should get get 0 value (WAR or otherwise) because the Sox found a way to lose despite how awesome he was? I think DeGrom can have a high WAR or whatever value you measure while his teammates have such a low WAR or negative WAR or whatever value you use that when it nets out as a team it's still a crappy figure to mirror the team. I just don't think you can punish the player when the team stinks. Likewise you wouldn't want a high WAR for a pitcher who's lucky as hell. I think one year some Rangers pitcher got the crap kicked out of him but lucked his way into 20 wins. Was it Rick Helling or Roger Pavlik or somebody like that? You can't tell me because the guy happened to be the recipient of those wins that he should get some high value. I understand the need to scale it down to real life. That makes sense and I think that's what Bill James is saying, but I think you to truly evaluate a player you have to strip out the team stuff as much as you can in the individual evaluation without going all the way with it. Certain things a player controls, like hitting with men on base, etc, but a pitcher cannot control his run support whatsoever unless he's Rick Porcello and bashing doubles all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 19, 2018 17:13:17 GMT -5
A closer blows a 4-3 lead in the top of the 9th and gives up 4 ER. His team rallies in the bottom of the 9th to score 5 runs and walk off with the win. The closer who gave up 4 ER in his one inning now gets credited with the "win". The win literally happened, and he gets the credit, but in reality he was the least valuable player to play within the game on either side. This records a real life event, but doesn't give you any idea of the player's value.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 19, 2018 17:19:26 GMT -5
Nope. www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/ WAR is context, league, and park neutral. This means you can use WAR to compare players between years, leagues, and teams. I really have to stop talking to people who refuse to see any usefulness whatsoever in WAR. Go use whatever you use to figure out that Jacob deGrom is almost worthless because the Mets can't score runs. Read that link: “add in a positional adjustment, a snall adjustment for their league...” etc. For pitchers: “FIP... adjusted for park, scaled to how many innings the pitcher threw.” That is not context free. Obviously Degrom is great. But the WAR number seems meaningless in any real sense. Even you wrote it isn’t “literally” wins... so what are they? Metaphors? Symbols? On the other hand, Degrom may be WASTED — so “worthless” in that sense... in that another pitcher of far less talent might do no worse. If Bartolo Colon took his starts, could the Mets still be 11-14? Well, it is about their overall winning percentage, so... maybe. So on a strictly literal sense, it seems illogical to suggest the Mets see 8 wins of value from Degrom. If it means a different team would, well, who knows? He’d probably have a great record on the Sox. Maybe worse on the Padres. Again, your link: “WAR is trying to answer the time-honored question: how valuable is each player TO HIS TEAM.” (My caps). So is DeGrom worth 8 extra wins to his team? Certainly not in any literal way. Then.... how? That is a different question from how great is he. But is this just a semantic issue, then? I'm partially with you, if the issue is just that "Wins Above Replacement" seems to promise a little more than the stat actually delivers. But that doesn't mean the stat itself is useless. But what if it were called "Goodness Units" - a measure of how good a player has been, calculated the exact same way as WAR but without the misleading implications regarding wins. "Right now, Mookie Betts has 7.8 fGU, 0.4 behind league leader Jose Ramirez at 8.2." It seems like that would answer all your criticisms, no?
|
|
|