Jackie Bradley

[S5Dewey]

RF/9 just shows how many plays were made per 9 innings- not how many could/should have been made.

 

It's a huge difference.

 

Yes, we all agree that JBJ's UZR and dWAR have been negatively impacted by Betts being in RF and the big wall in left-center that takes away possible outs in other parks, but in my opinion, there are are other CF'ers who play great defense.

 

Then... with Benintendi's playing LF and the short (but tall) wall there impacting his DWAR, JBJ's playing CF and his DWAR being impacted by his playing beside Mookie, and Mookie's playing RF and his DWAR being impacted bythe fact that he's playing beside JBJ + the size and odd angles in RF in Fenway park..... at what point to these player's DWAR's become essentially meaningless?

[moonslav59]

Then... with Benintendi's playing LF and the short (but tall) wall there impacting his DWAR, JBJ's playing CF and his DWAR being impacted by his playing beside Mookie, and Mookie's playing RF and his DWAR being impacted bythe fact that he's playing beside JBJ + the size and odd angles in RF in Fenway park..... at what point to these player's DWAR's become essentially meaningless?

 

Look, you obviously think they're meaningless.

 

I don't. I don't take them as gospel, but they do have some meaning. Just because there are flaws does not mean they have no value.

 

I don't watch enough games of other teams to judge, and these metrics show me more than I can know by myself.

[notin]

Then... with Benintendi's playing LF and the short (but tall) wall there impacting his DWAR, JBJ's playing CF and his DWAR being impacted by his playing beside Mookie, and Mookie's playing RF and his DWAR being impacted bythe fact that he's playing beside JBJ + the size and odd angles in RF in Fenway park..... at what point to these player's DWAR's become essentially meaningless?

 

If you believe in lineup protection, does that make BA meaningless?

[S5Dewey]

If you believe in lineup protection, does that make BA meaningless?

 

Don't answer a question with a question.

[Kimmi]

So is Benintendi with his 1.7 WAR a better or worse player than JBJ with his 2.0 WAR ? Or can't we say because they play different positions?

 

It's because oWAR and dWAR both include the positional adjustment. Therefore, when you add oWAR + dWAR you are adding the positional adjustment twice.

[notin]

Don't answer a question with a question.

 

 

And certainly never answer one with a command.

 

Actually I think answering a question with a question is a good thing. It’s better to teach people to think than just recite rote facts...

[notin]

It's because oWAR and dWAR both include the positional adjustment. Therefore, when you add oWAR + dWAR you are adding the positional adjustment twice.

 

My bad. I had the formula backwards...

[S5Dewey]

And certainly never answer one with a command.

 

That's a cop-out. If you're not comfortable enlightening me just say so.

[Swiharts Ghost]

JBJ Thankyou for the incredible memories .I don't think anyone will ever play CF the way you have .Your bat has always killed the Goodwill but you are a huge part of the 2018 championship story .Boston is your home always will be .Thankyou

[moonslav59]

JBJ Thankyou for the incredible memories .I don't think anyone will ever play CF the way you have .Your bat has always killed the Goodwill but you are a huge part of the 2018 championship story .Boston is your home always will be .Thankyou

 

You have a short memory, of "always" means something different to you.

 

The guy was over .830 two years in a row.

 

He was at .846 over the last 109 games this year. That's a much much longer stretch than his 38 game slump.

 

He was at .793 the last 106 games of 2018. That's better than the 38 game slump again.

 

His .756 OPS in his last 116 games of 2017 wasn't bad after a 17 games slump.

 

The guy was decent with the bat way more than he was slumping. WAY MORE!

[jacksonianmarch]

You have a short memory, of "always" means something different to you.

 

The guy was over .830 two years in a row.

 

He was at .846 over the last 109 games this year. That's a much much longer stretch than his 38 game slump.

 

He was at .793 the last 106 games of 2018. That's better than the 38 game slump again.

 

His .756 OPS in his last 116 games of 2017 wasn't bad after a 17 games slump.

 

The guy was decent with the bat way more than he was slumping. WAY MORE!

 

You can parse out stats if there is an injury, but hard to parse out slumps and hot streaks and try to paint anything more than the total season paints. What you're saying is that JBJ was an absolute team killer for 38 games then was good for the rest of the year. That doesn't constitute being a good player. He is what he is. A player with immense, Arctic level cold spells, then he rebounds and is good for the rest of the year. Well, he is a team killer during the cold spells

[moonslav59]

You can parse out stats if there is an injury, but hard to parse out slumps and hot streaks and try to paint anything more than the total season paints. What you're saying is that JBJ was an absolute team killer for 38 games then was good for the rest of the year. That doesn't constitute being a good player. He is what he is. A player with immense, Arctic level cold spells, then he rebounds and is good for the rest of the year. Well, he is a team killer during the cold spells

 

True, but he was not always bad. His two seasons over .830 prove that.

 

Plus, it's not like .720 to .750 is bad. It's not good, but it's not bad either.

 

Most players have slumps, but they spread them out into mini slumps.

 

It's weird how JBJ's last 3 seasons all started with massive slumps. Maybe we should have sat him more in April and the first half of May.

 

.765 since 2015 is not awful all the time.

[S5Dewey]

You can parse out stats if there is an injury, but hard to parse out slumps and hot streaks and try to paint anything more than the total season paints. What you're saying is that JBJ was an absolute team killer for 38 games then was good for the rest of the year. That doesn't constitute being a good player. He is what he is. A player with immense, Arctic level cold spells, then he rebounds and is good for the rest of the year. Well, he is a team killer during the cold spells

 

A team killer? Is he now getting the blame for the 2019 season? If you're going to do that are you also prepared to give him the same amount of "blame" for 2018?

 

There are two ways for a team to outscore another team. They can do it by scoring a lot of runs or they can do it by preventing the other team from scoring a lot of runs. JBJ was very adept at keeping the opponent from scoring a lot of runs but some people want to forget that aspect of winning because he's streaky with his bat.

[notin]

You can parse out stats if there is an injury, but hard to parse out slumps and hot streaks and try to paint anything more than the total season paints. What you're saying is that JBJ was an absolute team killer for 38 games then was good for the rest of the year. That doesn't constitute being a good player. He is what he is. A player with immense, Arctic level cold spells, then he rebounds and is good for the rest of the year. Well, he is a team killer during the cold spells

 

Yeah the Sox were brought done by a slump from the ninth spot hitter. No team should have to deal with such horror...

[notin]

And certainly never answer one with a command.

 

That's a cop-out. If you're not comfortable enlightening me just say so.

 

I was drawing a parallel and trying to elicit thoughts.

 

So do you believe in lineup protection and that it impacts batting average?

[Slasher9]

Thanks JBj for all the good memories and helping bring us a parade.

i had a blast for the 4 seasons i tracked you daily vs your NYY CF counterpart.

best of luck to you and your beautiful family wherever you end up next season. i will always be a fan and root for you to keep doing you.

the kids in the Boston area hospitals will miss your frequent visits and the streets around the Fens will miss your scooter.

Stay Humble.

[S5Dewey]

 

I was drawing a parallel and trying to elicit thoughts.

 

So do you believe in lineup protection and that it impacts batting average?

 

Since I asked first you should answer first....

 

Is there a point where all the 'flaws' in WAR significantly diminish its value?

[moonslav59]

 

Since I asked first you should answer first....

 

Is there a point where all the 'flaws' in WAR significantly diminish its value?

 

Nobody has claimed WAR is perfect. We realize there are flaws. Some of these flaws diminish its value, but that is different than saying it is meaningless or near meaningless.

 

To me, I just about never watch any MLB game not involving the Sox. There's no way I can tell who is better than someone else or better or worse than someone on the Sox. I use OPS, OBP, UZR/150, DRS, WAR and other numbers to try and place value or ranking by value on players. WAR is one tool I use. It's not the be-all-end-all, but I respect it while knowing its limitations and flaws. BA, OPS, Fldg%, RF/9 and all the other traditional value setter have flaws, too, and trying to determine which one is worth more than the others and by how much is something personal bias commands.

 

WAR has tried to scientifically place value on everything players do based on tons of data.

 

I look at it this way, when I know I don't know jack or close to jack about 29 out of every 30 players in MLB, and I'm trying to determine if JBJ or anyone else is better than someone else, I'm not using my personal observations as the number one tool. WAR is a good tool, but it is not all I use, either.

 

My observations of other team's players involves watching 162 games of whoever the Sox are playing. That's 1/32 of all games. I never see some teams play for 2 years. I see some for 3 games. Using data and other people's opinions (like the fielding bible) is the only way I can know.

 

[moonslav59]

A team killer? Is he now getting the blame for the 2019 season? If you're going to do that are you also prepared to give him the same amount of "blame" for 2018?

 

There are two ways for a team to outscore another team. They can do it by scoring a lot of runs or they can do it by preventing the other team from scoring a lot of runs. JBJ was very adept at keeping the opponent from scoring a lot of runs but some people want to forget that aspect of winning because he's streaky with his bat.

 

Well said! BTW, JBJ had a +1.4 fWAR.

 

 

 

[notin]

 

Since I asked first you should answer first....

 

Is there a point where all the 'flaws' in WAR significantly diminish its value?

 

I'm not sure. But why is WAR the only stat you think that is a flaw in?

[moonslav59]

 

I'm not sure. But why is WAR the only stat you think that is a flaw in?

 

The old water cooler arguments used to pit BA vs HRs, RBIs vs Fldg%, Slg% vs OBP, etc...

 

This guy was better at this, but that guy was better at that. Consensus was rarely reached.

 

WAR attempts to put them all together. It weighs each skill based on data. It assigns a value and totals it all up.

 

It is flawed, for sure, but I trust it more than my own flawed and biased way of placing total overall value or ranking players by total value hardly ever see play in sort of reasonable order.

[notin]

 

The old water cooler arguments used to pit BA vs HRs, RBIs vs Fldg%, Slg% vs OBP, etc...

 

This guy was better at this, but that guy was better at that. Consensus was rarely reached.

 

WAR attempts to put them all together. It weighs each skill based on data. It assigns a value and totals it all up.

 

It is flawed, for sure, but I trust it more than my own flawed and biased way of placing total overall value or ranking players by total value hardly ever see play in sort of reasonable order.

 

WAR is not perfect, but it is neutral. That alone gives it a leg up on anything else to compare players...

[moonslav59]

 

WAR is not perfect, but it is neutral. That alone gives it a leg up on anything else to compare players...

 

That's how I see it- flaws and all.

 

I've never used it as a "discussion ender," and I actually use OPS and UZR/150 more than WAR in my posts.

[Slasher9]

 

WAR is not perfect, but it is neutral. That alone gives it a leg up on anything else to compare players...

 

is it neutral?

besides Harmony, who on here lists games played when throwing around WAR stats willy-nilly???

 

(not sure what is going on with the website but this was a Notin quote i was replying to and not a moonslav59 quote)....

[moonslav59]

 

is it neutral?

besides Harmony, who on here lists games played when throwing around WAR stats willy-nilly???

 

(not sure what is going on with the website but this was a Notin quote i was replying to and not a moonslav59 quote)....

 

More agmes played does add value. WAR is not meant to judge who is the best when they play, although you can get that number by dividing by games played. It is meant to measure how much value a player produced over a period of time.

 

If Trout misses 40 games, he might still be the best player when playing, but he might not have had the as much value as someone who played 158 games at near Trout value.

[S5Dewey]

 

I'm not sure. But why is WAR the only stat you think that is a flaw in?

 

Where did I say that?

 

I don't think WAR is the only stat that has flaws. In fact, I think one can find flaws in nearly every stat if they want to dig deeply enough and be picky enough. I just happen to think that 1) They're more egregious in WAR, and 2) Fans put too much stock in WAR, possibly because they think anything that all-encompassing MUST be right.

[moonslav59]

 

Where did I say that?

 

I don't think WAR is the only stat that has flaws. In fact, I think one can find flaws in nearly every stat if they want to dig deeply enough and be picky enough. I just happen to think that 1) They're more egregious in WAR, and 2) Fans put too much stock in WAR, possibly because they think anything that all-encompassing MUST be right.

 

You keep saying we think it's "right" when everyone says it has flaws.

 

We do think an all encompassing stat says more about a player's full value than a any other one dimensional stat by itself.

 

Maybe a few posters present it like an argument ender, but it shouldn't be- same as anyone saying I see what I see and this guy is better than that guy based on my observations.

[S5Dewey]

 

The old water cooler arguments used to pit BA vs HRs, RBIs vs Fldg%, Slg% vs OBP, etc...

 

This guy was better at this, but that guy was better at that. Consensus was rarely reached.

 

WAR attempts to put them all together. It weighs each skill based on data. It assigns a value and totals it all up.

 

It is flawed, for sure, but I trust it more than my own flawed and biased way of placing total overall value or ranking players by total value hardly ever see play in sort of reasonable order.

 

I can appreciate wanting some all-encompassing number that quantifies every player. I just think it's too ambitious and there are too many variables to do it accurately.

 

I found in my playing/coaching that different players bring different strengths to the team. I don't think it's fair to say that Player A is "better" (a/k/a has a higher WAR) than Player B just because Player A hit for a higher average even though Player B hit more HR's.

[S5Dewey]

 

You keep saying we think it's "right" when everyone says it has flaws.

 

We do think an all encompassing stat says more about a player's full value than a any other one dimensional stat by itself.

 

Maybe a few posters present it like an argument ender, but it shouldn't be- same as anyone saying I see what I see and this guy is better than that guy based on my observations.

 

Ah! But the rub here is that we've been conditioned to believe NUMBERS when we see them. We've been told that 2>1 so when we see a 2 we automatically assume that its value is greater than something (or someone) with a value of 1. Notin has talked a lot about bias and there is a strong numbers bias to assume that a player with a WAR of 6 is more valuable than another player with a value of 5. (And I use 6 & 5 because Fangraphs has said that a player with a WAR of 6 may be no better or worse than a player of 5).

 

And that doesn't begin to get into one of my pet peeves that there is more than one entity calculating WAR - and they come up with a different result! [i know. They use different formulas. So how do different entities use different formulas and then each of the pass their results off as being "right" by using the same term???

There's only one way to calculate BA, OPS, SLG, WHIP, ERA, etc., etc. and it's accepted. But for some reason WAR is different. They can calculate it any way they want to and say it's a player's WAR. Which one are we supposed to have faith in???

[moonslav59]

 

I can appreciate wanting some all-encompassing number that quantifies every player. I just think it's too ambitious and there are too many variables to do it accurately.

 

I found in my playing/coaching that different players bring different strengths to the team. I don't think it's fair to say that Player A is "better" (a/k/a has a higher WAR) than Player B just because Player A hit for a higher average even though Player B hit more HR's.

 

It's not totally accurate.

 

They do a hell of a lot of research to find which stats have the what value. OBP > BA and OBP > SLG. SLG>BA and so on...

 

We at the water coolers try and juggle 10 different stats in our heads and come up with an opinion on who is the best or better than someone else.

 

I'm fine with that, but I think the people who come up with WAR (fWAR and bWAR) know more than I do about the value of each measurable thing a player does on the field. I don't take that number as the be-all-end-all, and I know it's a cumulative metric. It's not meant to say a 6 WAR player is better than a 5 WAR player. It just says that in the selected time period, player A was more valuable than player B- maybe because he played more often.

 

Knowing what it calculates and is meant to measure helps in understanding it. I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs, and maybe I'm wrong for trusting some stat geeks using science to determine total value produced, but I think their numbers are meaningful.

 

I respect anyone who thinks differently or doesn't see the purpose of trying to reduce everything done on the filed to one number.