Value of Defensive Prowess

[sk7326]

The issue is not whether WAR grossly underrates or overrates a player. My gripe with it is that when two sites try to calculate the same thing and get different results it brings the entire process into question. And the issue isn't on the offensive side. Anyone with a calculator and a rudimentary knowledge of baseball can calculate BA, OBP, SLG, OPS, etc. The error is entirely on the defensive side of the WAR equation, which magnifies the error.

 

it's not an error - it is a perspective ...

[Hugh2]

The issue is not whether WAR grossly underrates or overrates a player. My gripe with it is that when two sites try to calculate the same thing and get different results it brings the entire process into question. And the issue isn't on the offensive side. Anyone with a calculator and a rudimentary knowledge of baseball can calculate BA, OBP, SLG, OPS, etc. The error is entirely on the defensive side of the WAR equation, which magnifies the error.

 

No it's only an error if you use two different types of WAR interchangeably. It would be like two different sites arguing on whether or not reaching on an error should be weighed into OBP. If you used just ONE you're still weighing every player against each other on an equal basis.

 

So again I ask you, name a specific time FWar or Bwar got it grossly wrong. If your argument is strong, you should be able to give me at least ONE example if not many.

[mvp 78]

Which WAR is on the back of baseball cards: Baseball Reference or Fangraphs?

 

It's Baseball Reference.

[sk7326]

No it's only an error if you use two different types of WAR interchangeably. It would be like two different sites arguing on whether or not reaching on an error should be weighed into OBP. If you used just ONE you're still weighing every player against each other on an equal basis.

 

So again I ask you, name a specific time FWar or Bwar got it grossly wrong. If your argument is strong, you should be able to give me at least ONE example if not many.

 

I'll give one - I am not sure I agree, but it is the best choice for this topic ... Jason Heyward

 

He has had flashes of tremendous offensive output - but for the most part he has been noteworthy for good on-base skills, but maddening inconsistency in terms of delivering power or stuff that makes the highlights. But he has registered consistently as one of the league's best outfielders - and most of it has been built on superb defense in RF. Your view on defensive measurement will significantly influence whether WAR is delivering the mail there. Victorino in 2013 being a legitimate downballot MVP is another.

[sk7326]

Which WAR is on the back of baseball cards: Baseball Reference or Fangraphs?

 

It's Baseball Reference.

 

well that is marketing and partnering with card manufacturers and I think baseball reference has had a significant first mover advantage (as the site which basically rendered the baseball encyclopedia obsolete).

[S5Dewey]

 

You are right to a certain degree about offense vs defense. Chicks dig the longball - so people will always talk about homers and hitting and such - there is an inherent bias there. At the same time, defensive measurement IS much flimsier than offensive measurement. So yes, if I see two players with close WAR and one builds it with defensive value (see Victorino in 2013), it would move them down the rankings for me a little bit. But the defensive value is there - and it is nice that we can at least bound the contribution. When Bradley stunk at the plate, we DID hear about his defensive brilliance - because we knew that the equation could work if he hit enough. But he was so dreadful offensively, that no defense could overcome it. Outfield assists are a great extra parlor trick Bradley has - uncommonly good for a CF - but outfield assists are generally fairly random and a function of opportunity. And in a sense, your best bet to get outfield assists is to have an above average arm, but not a great one (because then nobody would run on you).

 

Thanks. Great reply, especially in the first four paragraphs, which I've snipped.

Being a disciple of defense, I'm not sure I'd refer to outfield assists as a parlor trick. The assist itself is nice but in the bigger picture the assist impacts situations later in that game and in later games. Does JBJ get 'extra credit" in calculating WAR when a player doesn't score from 2B or go from 1st to 3rd on an OF hit three games 'down the road'?

 

IMHO we're getting too wrapped up in trying to quantify everything, to the point where we're 1) taking away from the enjoyment of the game (not to be confused with the enjoyment of analyzing the game, post-game), and 2) we're getting so many numbers thrown at us that many of them serve to only muddy the waters.

 

But... JMO!

[Hugh2]

I'll give one - I am not sure I agree, but it is the best choice for this topic ... Jason Heyward

 

He has had flashes of tremendous offensive output - but for the most part he has been noteworthy for good on-base skills, but maddening inconsistency in terms of delivering power or stuff that makes the highlights. But he has registered consistently as one of the league's best outfielders - and most of it has been built on superb defense in RF. Your view on defensive measurement will significantly influence whether WAR is delivering the mail there. Victorino in 2013 being a legitimate downballot MVP is another.

 

What year are we talking about?

[moonslav59]

I don't think it will matter, if a player has to run 20 yards to get to a ball he has to run 20 yards.

 

Well, UZR/150 counts the zone, not where the player is stationed.

[mvp 78]

well that is marketing and partnering with card manufacturers and I think baseball reference has had a significant first mover advantage (as the site which basically rendered the baseball encyclopedia obsolete).

 

Sometimes the sequel is better than the original, but sometimes it is not.

[Hugh2]

Heyward is regarded as one of the best fielders in the league and he's only really had 2 great seasons and 2 good even if you look at WAR. And in 2013 Victorino put up a plus .800 OPS with clutch hitting and gold glove defense. If anything your examples show that WAR is doing exactly what it's suppose to do and value defense.

[Hugh2]

If you take defense out of the equation Heyward is a 2.4 WAR player...that seems about spot on to me.

[sk7326]

Heyward is regarded as one of the best fielders in the league and he's only really had 2 great seasons and 2 good even if you look at WAR. And in 2013 Victorino put up a plus .800 OPS with clutch hitting and gold glove defense. If anything your examples show that WAR is doing exactly what it's suppose to do and value defense.

 

I am in agreement on their quality mostly ... Heyward has had four seasons of >5.8 bWAR or more ... that is an elite profile (a number which puts you firmly in the Top 10 of the NL). His combination has been superb defense and getting on base frequently (the most important offensive skill).

 

Now I think you can fairly ask whether the scale is correct (the offense: defense weights). Is his excellent fielding really saving enough runs to equate to 3 wins?

 

I tend to lean towards offense with two players of similar WAR, only because I think the defensive component (doesn't matter which flavor) has a much higher ranger of uncertainty (in terms of its contribution to run prevention) than the offensive stuff.

[FredLynn]

If you had 10 "trained observers" calculating dWAR for a given player all season I wonder what the variance would be in the results-since its a subjective score. If a player has a dWAR of 4 for the season, for example, I would have much more respect for this assessment if each of the 10 observers scored it as a 4 and less respect if half of the observers scored it as a 0 and half scored it as an 8 (extreme example, but you get the point).

[moonslav59]

If you had 10 "trained observers" calculating dWAR for a given player all season I wonder what the variance would be in the results-since its a subjective score. If a player has a dWAR of 4 for the season, for example, I would have much more respect for this assessment if each of the 10 observers scored it as a 4 and less respect if half of the observers scored it as a 0 and half scored it as an 8 (extreme example, but you get the point).

 

Good point, but my guess is these guys went to some sort of calibration training whereby they were all scoring the same observation and then compared notes and adjusted accordingly until they were all pretty similar by the end of the training.

[Kimmi]

Thanks. Great reply, especially in the first four paragraphs, which I've snipped.

Being a disciple of defense, I'm not sure I'd refer to outfield assists as a parlor trick. The assist itself is nice but in the bigger picture the assist impacts situations later in that game and in later games. Does JBJ get 'extra credit" in calculating WAR when a player doesn't score from 2B or go from 1st to 3rd on an OF hit three games 'down the road'?

 

IMHO we're getting too wrapped up in trying to quantify everything, to the point where we're 1) taking away from the enjoyment of the game (not to be confused with the enjoyment of analyzing the game, post-game), and 2) we're getting so many numbers thrown at us that many of them serve to only muddy the waters.

 

But... JMO!

 

1. Yes, JBJ does get extra credit for deterring a baserunner from advancing an extra base.

2. For me, quantifying things that happen in baseball is all about analyzing players and the game after the game. It actually makes baseball more enjoyable, not less.

3. I think you might be surprised at the painstaking lengths these data collectors, namely Baseball Info Solutions, go through to obtain the most accurate, objective, and unbiased data possible.

4. As much criticism as WAR gets, the bottom line is that it works. It is a very good descriptive measure of what has taken place on the field. That is true of all versions of WAR, including Baseball Prospectus' WARP, despite their differences.

[Kimmi]

If you had 10 "trained observers" calculating dWAR for a given player all season I wonder what the variance would be in the results-since its a subjective score. If a player has a dWAR of 4 for the season, for example, I would have much more respect for this assessment if each of the 10 observers scored it as a 4 and less respect if half of the observers scored it as a 0 and half scored it as an 8 (extreme example, but you get the point).

 

The 'trained observers' are knowledgeable and passionate baseball people, not random Joes off the street. Many of them are former players, managers, scouts, etc. They have to pass a difficult test, which includes things like charting pitches, before they will even be considered to be a video scout. Then they go through intense training and practice. I imagine that anyone whose scoring is out of line with the others would be eliminated. Also, the 'trained observers' are rotated regularly to avoid bias.

[S5Dewey]

The 'trained observers' are knowledgeable and passionate baseball people, not random Joes off the street. Many of them are former players, managers, scouts, etc. They have to pass a difficult test, which includes things like charting pitches, before they will even be considered to be a video scout. Then they go through intense training and practice. I imagine that anyone whose scoring is out of line with the others would be eliminated. Also, the 'trained observers' are rotated regularly to avoid bias.

 

Ok. I get that there are qualified people ranking every play that's made and translating that into numbers for us. But here's my problem with it - and I'm saying this with a semi-straight face:

What these trained observers are doing is using statistics to tell us what to expect from a player based on their prior performance, and apparently some people think it's very close to dead-nuts on. So at what point do we not even bother to play the games? Let's just plug all the data for each team into the computer and it will tell us who wins.

For me all of this uber-information is sucking all the fun out of the game. It's a game and it's made to be played by people. Instead, as Bill James' character said in one episode of The Simpsons, "I've made baseball about as much fun as doing your taxes".

[moonslav59]

Ok. I get that there are qualified people ranking every play that's made and translating that into numbers for us. But here's my problem with it - and I'm saying this with a semi-straight face:

What these trained observers are doing is using statistics to tell us what to expect from a player based on their prior performance, and apparently some people think it's very close to dead-nuts on. So at what point do we not even bother to play the games? Let's just plug all the data for each team into the computer and it will tell us who wins.

For me all of this uber-information is sucking all the fun out of the game. It's a game and it's made to be played by people. Instead, as Bill James' character said in one episode of The Simpsons, "I've made baseball about as much fun as doing your taxes".

 

WAR is not a projector of what is to come: it's an evaluation of what a player has already done.

 

Past performance does give some indication of what to expect after factoring in age, experience and recent trends, but WAR does not try to be a tool for determining what is to come.

 

It is used to try and evaluate the whole player in the context of his peers.

[sk7326]

Ok. I get that there are qualified people ranking every play that's made and translating that into numbers for us. But here's my problem with it - and I'm saying this with a semi-straight face:

What these trained observers are doing is using statistics to tell us what to expect from a player based on their prior performance, and apparently some people think it's very close to dead-nuts on. So at what point do we not even bother to play the games? Let's just plug all the data for each team into the computer and it will tell us who wins.

For me all of this uber-information is sucking all the fun out of the game. It's a game and it's made to be played by people. Instead, as Bill James' character said in one episode of The Simpsons, "I've made baseball about as much fun as doing your taxes".

 

Here is the thing - the analytics people love baseball ... I mean you love baseball - not exactly good enough to play yourself, but want to get in the sport. One of my favorite defenses was something John Hollinger said about NBA analytics: "guys who love basketball so much they want to do math and computer programming to study it"

 

All the observers are doing is measuring what happened - that's it. UZR requires enormous samples (like multi-season ones) to draw any meaningful conclusions about players. But UZR is accurate about what actually happened - the same way that a .300 hitter can go for 0 for 10 ... the 0 for 10 says nothing about the dude's ability to hit, but clearly that stretch was not good.

 

For me - stats are output ... measuring what happened. The stuff you talk about, the watching the games stuff - that is all input ... the thing which causes players to do or to not do stuff. Personally, the information out there now are just tools to give better information about what players are doing - information which has a more realistic basis than RBIs and pitcher wins (let alone saves).