Best Red Sox SS of All Time

[notin]

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'.)

 

The entire debate was around what metric is best used for player compensation. The owners had proposed using WAR. I don’t like that idea, but tell me how team wins should determine player compensation…

[jad]

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.

 

I know. But I find the whole enterprise a snipe hunt. The purpose of WAR (as I understand it) is to provide a way of translating a player's performance into potential 'wins' by a team. You could use any statistic on that basis (e.g., do the teams with the highest BA win the most games? Is there a correlation between team ERA and w/l. You're looking for a stat that has the highest correlation with actual team performance). By the difficulty of doing that is shown perfectly by the claim above that real "win/losses" are irrelevant. No they're not. They are fundamental. (They don't have to be, of course: it would be perfectly legitimate to use stats to determine something else of equal importance: "how does a player salary or performance translate into greater revenue from ticket sales and gear sales?" In this case, yes, wins/losses are irrelevant.)

[Bellhorn04]

I know. But I find the whole enterprise a snipe hunt. The purpose of WAR (as I understand it) is to provide a way of translating a player's performance into potential 'wins' by a team. You could use any statistic on that basis (e.g., do the teams with the highest BA win the most games? Is there a correlation between team ERA and w/l. You're looking for a stat that has the highest correlation with actual team performance). By the difficulty of doing that is shown perfectly by the claim above that real "win/losses" are irrelevant. No they're not. They are fundamental. (They don't have to be, of course: it would be perfectly legitimate to use stats to determine something else of equal importance: "how does a player salary or performance translate into greater revenue from ticket sales and gear sales?" In this case, yes, wins/losses are irrelevant.)

 

The concept behind WAR is quite logical. Positive plays and negative plays are translated into runs. Every 10 runs is estimated to be worth 1 win.

 

It's just an estimate of a player's total contributions.

[notin]

The concept behind WAR is quite logical. Positive plays and negative plays are translated into runs. Every 10 runs is estimated to be worth 1 win.

 

It's just an estimate of a player's total contributions.

 

 

It’s logical.

 

What it’s not is simple.

 

However, that is probably largely (if not wholly) because it incorporates defense. Defense is just tough to evaluate in baseball…

[notin]

I know. But I find the whole enterprise a snipe hunt. The purpose of WAR (as I understand it) is to provide a way of translating a player's performance into potential 'wins' by a team. You could use any statistic on that basis (e.g., do the teams with the highest BA win the most games? Is there a correlation between team ERA and w/l. You're looking for a stat that has the highest correlation with actual team performance). By the difficulty of doing that is shown perfectly by the claim above that real "win/losses" are irrelevant. No they're not. They are fundamental. (They don't have to be, of course: it would be perfectly legitimate to use stats to determine something else of equal importance: "how does a player salary or performance translate into greater revenue from ticket sales and gear sales?" In this case, yes, wins/losses are irrelevant.)

 

Any stat into wins?

 

How does one translate defense into wins? There is more to baseball than pitching and hitting…

[Bellhorn04]

It’s logical.

 

What it’s not is simple.

 

However, that is probably largely (if not wholly) because it incorporates defense. Defense is just tough to evaluate in baseball…

 

Right, and it also does tricky things like try to weed out luck factors, correct?

[jad]

Any stat into wins?

 

How does one translate defense into wins? There is more to baseball than pitching and hitting…

 

You don't. That's my point.

[notin]

You don't. That's my point.

 

You keep hanging up on this “wins are irrelevant” comment that literally no one said. Now I did say your comment was irrelevant, which it was, because the discussion centered around the owners’ proposal of using fWAR to determine pay (in lieu of arbitration, I believe). In this car, wins are not a useful stat. Unless players only on winning teams get greater compensation, but NO ONE should like that system.

 

It is a ridiculous idea, but the alternate proposals like OPS and awards were even sillier.

 

The odd thing was no one mentioned what the compensation would be for a player with a negative fWAR. Would he owe money?

[Bellhorn04]

You keep hanging up on this “wins are irrelevant” comment that literally no one said. Now I did say your comment was irrelevant, which it was, because the discussion centered around the owners’ proposal of using fWAR to determine pay (in lieu of arbitration, I believe). In this car, wins are not a useful stat. Unless players only on winning teams get greater compensation, but NO ONE should like that system.

 

It is a ridiculous idea, but the alternate proposals like OPS and awards were even sillier.

 

The odd thing was no one mentioned what the compensation would be for a player with a negative fWAR. Would he owe money?

 

I think he would probably just get the Jeopardy treatment and be absent when the cheques are handed out.

[jad]

You keep hanging up on this “wins are irrelevant” comment that literally no one said. Now I did say your comment was irrelevant, which it was, because the discussion centered around the owners’ proposal of using fWAR to determine pay (in lieu of arbitration, I believe). In this car, wins are not a useful stat. Unless players only on winning teams get greater compensation, but NO ONE should like that system.

 

It is a ridiculous idea, but the alternate proposals like OPS and awards were even sillier.

 

The odd thing was no one mentioned what the compensation would be for a player with a negative fWAR. Would he owe money?

 

OK. So your response "100% irrelevant" refers not to the invocation of wins in the statement that 'wins are irrelevant' ? rather what is irrelevant is "the statement that wins are relevant"? This is a nuanced distinction that may not be within my mental abilities to unpack. In any case, my point is that you've already baked in 'wins' as a primary factor in computing a player's value (isn't that what the W stands for?). "Wins" (real or imagined) is what it's all about. What I'm saying (on the matter of retaining players or letting them go) is that for an owner (and for a lot of fans), wins is NOT what it's all about. (Take an example from a team I despise: the Lakers in 2021-22. Ownership hardly gives a crap about LeBron's WAR [if basketball has such a thing]; nor do they care what Westbrook's shooting percentage is. The 'value' of these players is that they pack the Staples Center each and every night. Fans may pretend to care about ownership finances, but they only care about that as it is reflected in team success. Owners likely care about a number of other things, including the popularity of their team and how much income individual players can be imagined to contribute to that.)

Edited April 23, 2022 by jad

[moonslav59]

You don't. That's my point.

 

You can, but it will always be more subjective than valuing HRs, BBs and hits.

[notin]

OK. So your response "100% irrelevant" refers not to the invocation of wins in the statement that 'wins are irrelevant' ? rather what is irrelevant is "the statement that wins are relevant"? This is a nuanced distinction that may not be within my mental abilities to unpack.

 

In the context of a discussion about player stats for compensation, I said team wins were not relevant. I’ve opened the door for you to offer up a way they should be.

 

In any case, my point is that you've already baked in 'wins' as a primary factor in computing a player's value (isn't that what the W stands for?). "Wins" (real or imagined) is what it's all about. What I'm saying (on the matter of retaining players or letting them go) is that for an owner (and for a lot of fans), wins is NOT what it's all about. (Take an example from a team I despise: the Lakers in 2021-22. Ownership hardly gives a crap about LeBron's WAR [if basketball has such a thing]; nor do they care what Westbrook's shooting percentage is. The 'value' of these players is that they pack the Staples Center each and every night. Fans may pretend to care about ownership finances, but they only care about that as it is reflected in team success. Owners likely care about a number of other things, including the popularity of their team and how much income individual players can be imagined to contribute to that.)

 

NBA owner’s aside, MLB owners actually did propose using fWAR to determine salary. This was all part of the CBA negotiations.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/11/mlb-proposes-replacing-arbitration-with-salaries-based-off-player-war-totals.html

 

 

 

Also, I think you’d be surprised what NBA owners are concerned with. NBA teams got on board with analytics to a much greater extent than MLB teams…

[dgalehouse]

I think the owners would like to use WAR as a means to control spending. Doubt the players will go along with that.

[notin]

I think the owners would like to use WAR as a means to control spending. Doubt the players will go along with that.

 

 

I would imagine every direction by the owners is, was, and will always be meant to control spending.

 

It was a dumb suggestion that didn’t get very far. But if any stat was to be used that way, WAR seems like the best one…

[Bellhorn04]

I think the owners would like to use WAR as a means to control spending. Doubt the players will go along with that.

 

I would imagine every direction by the owners is, was, and will always be meant to control spending.

 

It was a dumb suggestion that didn’t get very far. But if any stat was to be used that way, WAR seems like the best one…

 

But the WAR thing is only in connection with the bonus pool for pre-arb players, which is NEW spending, no?

[jad]

You can, but it will always be more subjective than valuing HRs, BBs and hits.

 

Right! (I knew in the end we basically agree.)

[notin]

But the WAR thing is only in connection with the bonus pool for pre-arb players, which is NEW spending, no?

 

I’m sure that “give” would have had an accompanying “take.” Very possibly in arbitration.

 

I guess that part of the debate doesn’t matter much as it got shot down…

[notin]

Right, and it also does tricky things like try to weed out luck factors, correct?

 

I don’t know if (or how) it weeds out luck, but it does level the playing field for parks and leagues…

[notin]

I think he would probably just get the Jeopardy treatment and be absent when the cheques are handed out.

 

That’s not how Jeopardy went down for Marge Simpson.

 

[Swiharts Ghost]

Bogey got lowballed.

[mvp 78]

@RawlingsSports

2022 Rawlings Gold Glove Award Finalists - Shortstop - AL: Xander Bogaerts, Carlos Correa, Jeremy Peña

[moonslav59]

It wouldn't be as bad as Jeter winning not one, not two, not three, but 4 Gold Gloves.

[mvp 78]

It wouldn't be as bad as Jeter winning not one, not two, not three, but 4 Gold Gloves.

 

Juan Soto is a finalist this season. That is much worse than Xander being on the ballot. -14 OAA

[moonslav59]

Juan Soto is a finalist this season. That is much worse than Xander being on the ballot. -14 OAA

 

To me, the GG votes have been the most absurd of all. It's mostly a popularity contest.

[redsoxrules]

XB deserves to be nominated though this year. He was pretty good on D this year

[moonslav59]

XB deserves to be nominated though this year. He was pretty good on D this year

 

Pretty good= GG?

 

Was he really top 3?

 

He's 8th in UZR/150 at 4.7

 

DRS has never been his friend, but he was a +4, this year. Thatw as 14th and 10 runs below the top 3.

 

Don't get me wrong: I was thrilled to see him have his best defensive year,ever, but I don't see him as being top 3.

 

[redsoxrules]

Fangraph has him 3 in UZR and 4th UZR150 and overall 3rd in AL

[notin]

Fangraph has him 3 in UZR and 4th UZR150 and overall 3rd in AL

 

Jorge Mateo was better in every metric and got completely ignored…

[moonslav59]

Fangraph has him 3 in UZR and 4th UZR150 and overall 3rd in AL

 

Only 12 qualified on that list.

 

He is 6th out of 12 in DRS.

 

If you increase the sample size to 15 (one for each AL Team), Bogey placed:

 

5th in UZR/150

 

7th in DRS

 

By far, his best season, but not top 3.

[redsoxrules]

Only 12 qualified on that list.

 

He is 6th out of 12 in DRS.

 

If you increase the sample size to 15 (one for each AL Team), Bogey placed:

 

5th in UZR/150

 

7th in DRS

 

By far, his best season, but not top 3.

 

Well that's what go by. The people who qualified. You don't give the batting champion to a batter who doesn't have the AB.