A Realistic View at 2017 Part II

[moonslav59]

Any metric that tries to measure offense, defense and base running and put it all into one number is going to be dissected and criticized.

 

I think WAR has its flaws, but they do a pretty good job overall. Can anybody really argue convincingly, that they don't have this order right?

 

Best (everyday player) WAR since 2015:

 

19.3 Trout

16.8 Donaldson

15.3 Bryant

13.8 Harper

13.3 Machado

13.0 Betts

 

Pitching:

15.5 Kershaw

12.9 Scherzer

12.3 Sale

11.4 Arrieta

10.9 Price

10.7 Bumgarner

10.6 Syndergaard

10.6 Kluber

[Emp9]

WAR is okay. It's Projected WAR I have an issue with.

[jad]

Ha ha! Exactly. WAR is accurate and reliable. We know that. And we know that because the test of whether WAR is accurate is whether it conforms to "what we [think we] already know."

[Kimmi]

WAR is a very good descriptive stat. It correlates very well with actual team wins.

[Kimmi]

Nope, not buying that. If that were true then (oWAR0 + (dWAR) + (Positional Adjustment) = WAR, and that doesn't work either.

 

And BTW, if that were true then Mookie Betts would have a whopping WAR of 16.5 prior to the positional adjustment that's just because he plays right field. Now, I like Mookie but I seriously question whether his statistics are worth 16 1/2 wins/year.

 

Not even 10 seconds of common sense and basic math skills.

 

First off, WAR is in terms of Wins. The positional adjustment is in terms of Runs. Therefore, your math in getting Betts to a WAR of 16.5 before the positional adjustment is not correct.

 

The way BR does WAR, in short:

 

oWAR = batting + positional adjustment

 

dWAR = fielding + positional adjustment

 

WAR = batting + fielding + positional adjustment

 

If you just add oWAR and dWAR, you are counting the positional adjustment twice.

 

Also, the positional adjustment is based off of 150 games. The adjustment has to be prorated according to the number of innings played.

[Bellhorn04]

First off, WAR is in terms of Wins. The positional adjustment is in terms of Runs. Therefore, your math in getting Betts to a WAR of 16.5 before the positional adjustment is not correct.

 

The way BR does WAR, in short:

 

oWAR = batting + positional adjustment

 

dWAR = fielding + positional adjustment

 

WAR = batting + fielding + positional adjustment

 

If you just add oWAR and dWAR, you are counting the positional adjustment twice.

 

Also, the positional adjustment is based off of 150 games. The adjustment has to be prorated according to the number of innings played.

 

Thanks Kimmi, that was some really good clarification, seriously.

[S5Dewey]

First off, WAR is in terms of Wins. The positional adjustment is in terms of Runs.

::Giving my head a good hard shake::

 

Let me get this straight. BR calculates a Worth Above Replacement value for a player and then makes an adjustment using some other formula based on runs. Then they express it as WAR.

 

So if I have three apples and take away two baby carriages what do I have left?

[harmony]

::Giving my head a good hard shake::

 

Let me get this straight. BR calculates a Worth Above Replacement value for a player and then makes an adjustment using some other formula based on runs. Then they express it as WAR.

 

So if I have three apples and take away two baby carriages what do I have left?

A misunderstanding of baseball analytics.

[notin]

Ashamed? Not in the least. I'm in good company. Baseball is full of people who don't understand the mumbo-jumbo of WAR. But if there's anyone who posts here who thinks they can explain it to me in detail I'd love to listen. And while we're at it, let's tackle that federal budget too!

 

I find that a great rule of thumb in everything is that the more moving parts it has the greater the chance of its breaking down.

 

 

That doesn't mean it doesn't work better.

 

A car has more moving parts than a horse-drawn carriage, and I would agree it has a greater likelihood of breaking down. But it certainly is a better mode of transportation and I'm willing to bet of the two, you don't own a horse-drawn carriage...

[moonslav59]

MLBTR...

 

Red Sox righty Tyler Thornburg has yet to progress to the point that he’s able to take the mound, manager John Farrell said today (via Jen McCaffrey of MassLive.com, on Twitter). It’s not clear whether he’s making much progress, but it seems he is still long tossing in an effort to rebuild lost shoulder strength. At present, it seems as if there’s no clear timeline for the reliever to appear in the majors for the first time with his new team.

 

Meanwhile, the Red Sox seem to be slowing the rehab pace of lefty David Price, as Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe reports. It’s not believed to be related to any setbacks, but plans of letting Price face live hitters appear to be on hold for at least another week, per the report.

[jad]

That doesn't mean it doesn't work better.

 

A car has more moving parts than a horse-drawn carriage, and I would agree it has a greater likelihood of breaking down. But it certainly is a better mode of transportation and I'm willing to bet of the two, you don't own a horse-drawn carriage...

 

If that's representative of the logic supporting the always shifting permutations of WAR, I believe it perfectly states the skeptical case against it.

[S5Dewey]

A misunderstanding of baseball analytics.

 

There seems to be an assumption that the more complicated something is the better the chance that it has to be right. I simply don't buy into that. IMHO the more variables one puts into an equation the more variability there is in the result.

[Bellhorn04]

WAR is an attempt at coming up with a comprehensive measurement of a player's value. It's not perfect because there are in fact a lot of variables involved. Anyone who thinks they can do better is more than welcome to do so. Or you can stick with batting averages and fielding percentages.

[S5Dewey]

That doesn't mean it doesn't work better.

 

A car has more moving parts than a horse-drawn carriage, and I would agree it has a greater likelihood of breaking down. But it certainly is a better mode of transportation and I'm willing to bet of the two, you don't own a horse-drawn carriage...

 

That's a terrible analogy. I agree that the automobile is a better mode of transportation that the horse-drawn carriage, but not because of the number of moving parts. Both the horse-drawn carriage and the automobile get us where we want to go. The advent of the internal combustion engine just made travel quicker and easier even though the automobile had more moving parts. It's a trade-off.

 

While I do own vehicles with power windows & doors, a GPS system, an EGR system and fuel injection I long for the days when I could rebuild a carburetor or change a fuel pump beside the road (I've done both). Now when my car stops running I have to call the garage and open my wallet. Does that make the current version of the car "better"?

 

WAR is a lot like that GPS I spoke of, only with one exception. When my GPS fails to operate correctly it's immediately obvious but when WAR isn't operating properly some people tend to say, "Gee, it says that so it must be right". If we applied that to the GPS some people would occasionally end up in Albuquerque firmly believing they were in Boston (or wherever they wanted to go).

[Bellhorn04]

WAR is a lot like that GPS I spoke of, only with one exception. When my GPS fails to operate correctly it's immediately obvious but when WAR isn't operating properly some people tend to say, "Gee, it says that so it must be right". If we applied that to the GPS some people would occasionally end up in Albuquerque firmly believing they were in Boston (or wherever they wanted to go).

 

Oh, that's a much better analogy.

 

There are no consequences to you or I of WAR not 'operating properly', even if you could demonstrate that it's not 'operating properly', which you can't.

[S5Dewey]

Oh, that's a much better analogy.

 

There are no consequences to you or I of WAR not 'operating properly', even if you could demonstrate that it's not 'operating properly', which you can't.

 

Even B-R admits that it's not an exact science. It's simply a matter of how inaccurate we allow it to be and still believe it.

[Nick]

MLBTR...

 

Red Sox righty Tyler Thornburg has yet to progress to the point that he’s able to take the mound, manager John Farrell said today (via Jen McCaffrey of MassLive.com, on Twitter). It’s not clear whether he’s making much progress, but it seems he is still long tossing in an effort to rebuild lost shoulder strength. At present, it seems as if there’s no clear timeline for the reliever to appear in the majors for the first time with his new team.

 

Meanwhile, the Red Sox seem to be slowing the rehab pace of lefty David Price, as Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe reports. It’s not believed to be related to any setbacks, but plans of letting Price face live hitters appear to be on hold for at least another week, per the report.

 

 

I guess the real question is was Thornburg a damaged good when we got him? How is he injured? Did he sleep wrong? If not our throwing program, then what? Did we rush him thinking he had completed his prescribed Sox regiment over the winter?

 

I just don't get it.

[moonslav59]

There seems to be an assumption that the more complicated something is the better the chance that it has to be right. I simply don't buy into that. IMHO the more variables one puts into an equation the more variability there is in the result.

 

It's not the "more variables" put into the process, it's the more components that make it better than using any other single stat or most other metrics.

 

It's an attempt to quantify the value of offense, defense, base-running and positional differences into one number that gives comparative value between players.

 

It's easier than saying player A is better than player B, because he has a higher OBP and more HRs, but is worse on defense, running and slugging. Talk about confusing. The "old way" of comparing players has always been subjective. WAR tries to objectify the subjective. It's not perfect. I disagree with some of their positional values, but at least they have data and research to support why they value each component a certain way compared to others.

 

The end result is that when I look at the top 10 or 20 lists by WAR, they look pretty damn close to what I think the order should be. It's closer than ordering players by OPS, wRC+, UZR150, HRs, BA, etc... One thing WAR does not do is to credit a great player who has missed time due to injury or lack of playing time. Player A may be "better than" player B, but was out hurt for a while. WAR just captures the value of what you have given in a certain time period.

 

To me, WAR is just a tool to try and reduce the whole of a player's skill level to one number. It's pretty darn accurate, but it's not the be-all-end-all and can be improved upon. There's still room for argument and discussion using old school stats and observations, but WAR gives a very nice guideline or framework for any discussion.

 

To me, the onus is on the person claiming player A is better than player B despite WAR showing otherwise.

[moonslav59]

I guess the real question is was Thornburg a damaged good when we got him? How is he injured? Did he sleep wrong? If not our throwing program, then what? Did we rush him thinking he had completed his prescribed Sox regiment over the winter?

 

I just don't get it.

 

Word is he misunderstood the workout routine the Sox put him on and over extended himself.

[moonslav59]

Yup. JBJ has mad skills that most do not even notice let alone appreciate.

 

Not only is JBJ a much better defender than Bogey, he has hit better since 2015:

 

.862 Betts

.833 JBJ

.802 Pedey

.797 Ramirez

.788 Bogey

 

I hear talk of consistency, and no doubt JBJ has been streaky, but have a look at the final numbers:

 

JBJ

.531 2014

.832 2015

.835 2016

.782 2017 (small sample)

 

Bogey

.660 2014

.776 2015

.802 2016

.747 2017 (small sample)

 

I guess if you count 2014 as being reflective of who JBJ or Bogey are today, you can say both are about equally consistent in their final numbers, but I think more weight should be placed on these young players' most recent 2-3 years.

[Bellhorn04]

Even B-R admits that it's not an exact science. It's simply a matter of how inaccurate we allow it to be and still believe it.

 

No, it's not an exact science, and it can never be an exact science, you just have to accept that. But you have nothing better and you have no way of showing exactly how or by how much WAR is inaccurate, so you're not bringing much to the table.

[moonslav59]

No, it's not an exact science, and it can never be an exact science, you just have to accept that. But you have nothing better and you have no way of showing exactly how or by how much WAR is inaccurate, so you're not bringing much to the table.

 

Yes, and what other single stat or metric does a better job of comparing values of differing players.

 

It's obvious that WAR is much better than any single old school stat.

[Nick]

Not only is JBJ a much better defender than Bogey, he has hit better since 2015:

 

.862 Betts

.833 JBJ

.802 Pedey

.797 Ramirez

.788 Bogey

 

I hear talk of consistency, and no doubt JBJ has been streaky, but have a look at the final numbers:

 

JBJ

.531 2014

.832 2015

.835 2016

.782 2017 (small sample)

 

Bogey

.660 2014

.776 2015

.802 2016

.747 2017 (small sample)

 

I guess if you count 2014 as being reflective of who JBJ or Bogey are today, you can say both are about equally consistent in their final numbers, but I think more weight should be placed on these young players' most recent 2-3 years.

 

JBJ is an elite defender, as is Betts. Beni will be a good defensive OF, not elite. He simply does not have the athleticism of JBJ and Betts, and athleticism matters in outfield, assuming you have strong arm to go with it. Xander will never be an elite defensive SS.

 

Beni will be a great outfielder for us but his projected ceiling is not much higher than where he is today. JBJ has a way to go to get to his ceiling, if he gets there at all.

[mvp 78]

Even B-R admits that it's not an exact science. It's simply a matter of how inaccurate we allow it to be and still believe it.

 

All baseball stats have some sort of measure that can be skewed. RBI's are a function of runners on base and opportunities. HR's can be a function of the park you play in. Fielding % is based on the whims of a score keeper. There are issues with the way WAR is calculated (especially since there isn't only one calculation for WAR).

 

There is no one true stat that determines a player's value. You need to look at everything.

 

Now that Topps puts WAR on the back of baseball cards, maybe it shouldn't be treated like a bogeyman anymore. It's just another stat that you can choose to value or disregard.

[mvp 78]

JBJ is an elite defender, as is Betts. Beni will be a good defensive OF, not elite. He simply does not have the athleticism of JBJ and Betts, and athleticism matters in outfield, assuming you have strong arm to go with it. Xander will never be an elite defensive SS.

 

Beni will be a great outfielder for us but his projected ceiling is not much higher than where he is today. JBJ has a way to go to get to his ceiling, if he gets there at all.

 

I don't believe this statement is accurate. Beni looks strong as hell and still growing into his body. Betts has even stated that he is slower than Beni.

[moonslav59]

I don't believe this statement is accurate. Beni looks strong as hell and still growing into his body. Betts has even stated that he is slower than Beni.

 

I was going to say the same thing.

 

I do think Beni seems to lack the instincts on defense and base running, but that can be improved upon.

 

He reminds me of Ellsbury who started out his defensive career by making some mistakes, some of which he could overcome by having plus speed.

[Maxbialystock]

I don't believe this statement is accurate. Beni looks strong as hell and still growing into his body. Betts has even stated that he is slower than Beni.

 

I believe JBJ and Betts both have stronger arms than Benintendi. We can be pretty sure that, while JBJ is slower than either of the other two, he has fantastic instincts to go where the ball is hit.

 

All in all, a pretty darn good outfield because all three can also hit.

[mvp 78]

If Beni puts the work in, he can be a great defender.

[S5Dewey]

No, it's not an exact science, and it can never be an exact science, you just have to accept that. But you have nothing better and you have no way of showing exactly how or by how much WAR is inaccurate, so you're not bringing much to the table.

Look, I don't want to sound snarky about this but WAR is a lot like the federal budget. It's so big and so convoluted that it's virtually impossible for laypeople to understand and if one can't understand it they can't find specifically what's wrong with it. Therefore we just have to assume that it's right.

 

My bigger and global problem with WAR is that regardless of how much lip service people want to give to the fact that it's not the be-all, end-all they treat it like it is when they're in a debate. For some reason saying that Player A's WAR is better than Player B's War makes Player A a better player - and that is the defining moment in the discussion.

 

I'll have a lot more faith in WAR when B-R (or someone else) qualifies WAR values by saying that the Margin of Error is 'x.xx" rather than saying "Welllll..... it might not be perfect... but it's close!" In my mind when someone assigns a numerical value to something without specifying a margin of error they're saying that the numerical value is what it is - and not somewhere close to it.

[sk7326]

As in many other areas of scholarship, if you cannot explain a theory and its supporting evidence clearly and concisely, in plain language, to intelligent people with an interest in this area, then most likely your theory is b.s.

 

WAR is the normalized sum of every measurable thing a baseball player does. See? That wasn't hard.

 

Now there are differences between fangraphs and b-ref based on how that stuff gets normalized - and how pitching and defense are measured. But that's okay - measurement in those areas is HARD (because you are decomposing run prevention - a team accomplishment) - and it is useful to have a range of answers based on different views of that problem.

Edited April 20, 2017 by sk7326