Best Red Sox SS of All Time

[mvp 78]

Geez, you act like baseball statistics don't constitute hard data. To make a claim that qualitative determines quantitative would be like saying what sometimes constitutes a strike or a ball is based on a base ump's perception of a check swing, or that a hit or an error is often determined by an official scorer's opinion.

 

Ah, but have you heard that in very rare cases they can find a missing RBI under someone's pillow!?!?

[notin]

Ah, but have you heard that in very rare cases they can find a missing RBI under someone's pillow!?!?

 

That’s how Hack Wilson got to 191…

[notin]

I'm not sure I'm the one who missed the point.

 

Right. Your point was fWAR has too much flux and therefore is less concrete than the collective opinions of the BBWAA. You know, the people who thought Pedro Martinez was less valuable than Pudge Rodriguez, because Pudge had a .931 OPS and a Gold Glove.

 

In that same year, Mike Lieberthal of the Phillies had a .931 OPS and a Gold Glove and didn’t get a single MVP vote. So the transitive property tells us in the NL, Pedro was practically worthless that year.

 

 

As I said before, fWAR should NEVER be used for compensation. But that doesn’t mean any other completely random system like awards is better…

[mvp 78]

As I said before, fWAR should NEVER be used for compensation. But that doesn’t mean any other completely random system like awards is better…

 

Sure it does.

[moonslav59]

Can anyone defend another stat or metric?

[notin]

Can anyone defend another stat or metric?

 

Might as well make it alphabetical.

 

I think we can all agree that Tim Anderson should be paid more than Angel Zerpa. So clearly this system is perfect. Or at least as good as awards…

[moonslav59]

Might as well make it alphabetical.

 

I think we can all agree that Tim Anderson should be paid more than Angel Zerpa. So clearly this system is perfect. Or at least as good as awards…

 

I'd be fine, if someone came up with some sort of formula that beats the two WARs or is even comparable, but I'm waiting for someone to offer a better choice.

 

Crickets...

[notin]

I'd be fine, if someone came up with some sort of formula that beats the two WARs or is even comparable, but I'm waiting for someone to offer a better choice.

 

Crickets...

 

I don’t think it should be used, but I stand by it being better than awards or awards and OPS or whatever…

[mvp 78]

I'd be fine, if someone came up with some sort of formula that beats the two WARs or is even comparable, but I'm waiting for someone to offer a better choice.

 

Crickets...

 

I offered better choices, you just didn't like them.

[mvp 78]

I don’t think it should be used, but I stand by it being better than awards or awards and OPS or whatever…

 

Joke.

[notin]

I offered better choices, you just didn't like them.

 

You offered choices, and ones you never established as better….

[mvp 78]

You offered choices, and ones you never established as better….

 

Well, then at the very least moon can't claim he's only hearing from crickets.

[moonslav59]

I don’t think it should be used, but I stand by it being better than awards or awards and OPS or whatever…

 

If they are going to pay players on performance, is HRs or BA or OPS or DRS better?

[moonslav59]

I offered better choices, you just didn't like them.

 

Explain why they are better. That's how a discussion works.

[mvp 78]

Explain why they are better. That's how a discussion works.

 

I thought the stats spoke for themselves.

[cp176]

It should just be a reminder that solely using bWAR or fWAR isn't a way to judge players. You can't just rely on one stat, especially one that is so complicated that it is close to being convoluted. Remember that one of the things the owners were proposing was compensation based on WAR. Pretty scary that a guy can lose 10% of his WAR just because they wanted to adjust their calculation, which only goes back to 2016. There is no way to adjust any year prior to that.

 

You said a great deal in this statement that does unnerve me. If this calculation can be adjusted to suit the needs of one side or the other, can others be adjusted to do the same thing? Watching Bogaerts start this season off the way he has tends to make me say that yup he is the best overall shortstop that has been in a Red Sox uniform. it would be an absolute shame to watch him leave. I also understand that we have some very good middle infielders at the lower levels but it is going to take a while before they are ready. Much of what we see and interpret can be "in the eye of the beholder" I guess but I have seen data adjusted mathematically also which does assure me that the old eye test still plays a very big role in talent evaluation.

[moonslav59]

I thought the stats spoke for themselves.

 

You never said that, and no they don't.

 

The game scorer decides what's a hit.

Park dimensions often decide what's a homer.

OPS, one you mentioned as a choice, double counts some stats.

 

Just defend you statements with supporting details. That's something we teach in middle school.

[moonslav59]

I thought the stats spoke for themselves.

 

WAR speaks for itself, too. If you just read what it is.

[notin]

I thought the stats spoke for themselves.

 

They don’t. And they’re all very narrow…

[mvp 78]

You never said that, and no they don't.

 

The game scorer decides what's a hit.

Park dimensions often decide what's a homer.

OPS, one you mentioned as a choice, double counts some stats.

 

Just defend you statements with supporting details. That's something we teach in middle school.

 

Still waiting on your supporting details for hit or miss relievers then. I mean, it's something you teach in middle school. Just not math at your school though, right?

[moonslav59]

Still waiting on your supporting details for hit or miss relievers then. I mean, it's something you teach in middle school. Just not math at your school though, right?

 

You're the fantasy baseball king, You should know how badly these guys did.

[jad]

Can anyone defend another stat or metric?

 

Yes. Wins and losses. The team that has more wins is better than the team that has fewer of them.

The boxer that wins the fight is better than the one that loses. The team that wins the WS is better than the team they beat.

[moonslav59]

Yes. Wins and losses. The team that has more wins is better than the team that has fewer of them.

The boxer that wins the fight is better than the one that loses. The team that wins the WS is better than the team they beat.

 

So, then you are defending WAR, which is based on WINS above replacement level players.

 

How may wins does Bogey have? How do you pay him based on wins?

 

The debate is about what to use, if the league goes towards paying players based on performance and productivity.

Edited April 23, 2022 by moonslav59

[notin]

Yes. Wins and losses. The team that has more wins is better than the team that has fewer of them.

The boxer that wins the fight is better than the one that loses. The team that wins the WS is better than the team they beat.

 

True, but 100% irrelevant…

[notin]

You said a great deal in this statement that does unnerve me. If this calculation can be adjusted to suit the needs of one side or the other, can others be adjusted to do the same thing? Watching Bogaerts start this season off the way he has tends to make me say that yup he is the best overall shortstop that has been in a Red Sox uniform. it would be an absolute shame to watch him leave. I also understand that we have some very good middle infielders at the lower levels but it is going to take a while before they are ready. Much of what we see and interpret can be "in the eye of the beholder" I guess but I have seen data adjusted mathematically also which does assure me that the old eye test still plays a very big role in talent evaluation.

 

I think this is the reason stop my list on why WAR shouldn’t be used for compensation. What’s to stop Henry or some unscrupulous owner from buying up Fangraphs and having them modify WAR or to either save money or drive up rival costs?

 

If Fangraphs tweaks their formulas, fine. I don’t care. That kind of thing happens everywhere. And it doesn’t Deivi up or done anyone’s pay…

[Bellhorn04]

At the end of the day it's up to the players and owners to agree on the compensation for WAR thing. I'm sure most of them understand that it isn't perfect, and maybe some guys will benefit financially and others won't. But it's something that wasn't there at all before.

[Bellhorn04]

One thing I don't get is why they don't make WAR a little more transparent and event-based for the fans.

 

What I mean is, if a guy has a 4-hit game, or makes 2 great plays on defense, they should let us know what that translated to in runs calculated.

[moonslav59]

I think this is the reason stop my list on why WAR shouldn’t be used for compensation. What’s to stop Henry or some unscrupulous owner from buying up Fangraphs and having them modify WAR or to either save money or drive up rival costs?

 

 

Because a compensation package built around WAR would lock in the formula at whatever point they agreed to lock it in at.

 

It would be a transparent formula and likely not fWAR or bWAR but a league designed formula similar to either or both.

[jad]

One thing I don't get is why they don't make WAR a little more transparent and event-based for the fans.

 

What I mean is, if a guy has a 4-hit game, or makes 2 great plays on defense, they should let us know what that translated to in runs calculated.

 

Ha ha! In what field do scholars or experts promote transparency? You will never hire me as a consultant if I can do no more than a 10-year-old can do or understand. Nor will you have any reason to fire me if my theories are entirely self-validating and any evidence against me is ruled out of court. (note in this very thread that wins/losses are defined as 'irrelevant'.)

[Bellhorn04]

Ha ha! In what field do scholars or experts promote transparency? You will never hire me as a consultant if I can do no more than a 10-year-old can do or understand. Nor will you have any reason to fire me if my theories are entirely self-validating and any evidence against me is ruled out of court. (note in this very thread that wins/losses are defined as 'irrelevant'.)

 

notin didn't say, or mean, team wins and losses are irrelevant per se, but they're irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is individual performance.