2022 Spring Training

[Bellhorn04]

Oh I admit I don’t understand all aspects of WAR and DRS and numerous other metrics, but that doesn’t mean I think they should be invalid or whatever. I also don’t understand how my cell phone works, but I can accept that it does…

 

Yes, sometimes it's not such a bad thing to accept that others have done all the work for you...

[Old Red]

A forgettable day for the Red Sox at the pre-season ball yard.

 

At least Diekman pitched good for once.

[moonslav59]

Yes, sometimes it's not such a bad thing to accept that others have done all the work for you...

 

Exactly, and though not perfect, I think it works pretty well.

 

If you had to order the top 10 players over the last 5 years, which list looks closer to the right one?

 

Best overall players since 2017 (1500+ PAs):

 

List A

1. Brantley

2. Freeman

3. Blackmon

4. Trout

5. Altuve

6. LeMahieu

7. Soto

8. Rendon

9. J Turner

10. T Turner/JD Martinez

 

 

List B

1. Trout

2. Betts

3. Jose Ramirez

4. Judge

5. Rendon

6. Lindor

7. Arenado

8. Bregman

9. Yelich

10. Bogaerts

 

List C

1. Trout

2. Soto

3. Judge

4. Harper

5. Freeman

6. JD

7. Acuna Jr.

8. Rendon

9. Betts

10. Yelich

 

List D

1. Betts

2. H Bader

3. Simmons

4. Kiermayer

5. Buxton

6. Judge

7. M Taylor

8. Chapman

9. B Hamilton

10. Gordon

 

(A is BA, B is fWAR, C is OPS & wRC+ and D is UZR/150)

________________________

 

How about the best pitchers?

 

(500+ IP since 2017)

 

List A

1. deGrom

2. Scherzer

3. Cole

4. Nola

5. Wheeler

6. Sale

7. Morton

8. Verlander

9. Greinke

10. Lynn

 

List B

1. deGrom

2. Scherzer

3. Kershaw

4. Verlander

5. Buehler

6. Kluber

7. Sale

8. Ryu

9. Cole

10. Strasburg

 

List C

1. Sale

2. deGrom

3. Bieber

4. Cole

5. Kershaw

6. Scherzer

7. Kluber

8. Carrasco

9. Strasburg

10. Nola

 

List D

1. Verlander

2. deGrom

3. Scherzer

4. Kershaw

5. Sale

6. Buehler

7. Kluber

8. Cole

9. Greinke

10. Strasburg

 

The pitching lists are harder to rate.

 

(A= fWAR, B= ERA, C=xFIP, D= WHIP)

 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by moonslav59

[jad]

Yes, sometimes it's not such a bad thing to accept that others have done all the work for you...

 

But of course a cell-phone is different from a statistic. You can test a cell phone to see if it works. How do you test a new mysterious statistic? Self-validation is not enough. (I believe I recall such a test from Moneyball for why OPS was preferable to, say, BA). But have we studied those tests? (Some are simple--I remember mathematical demonstrations in the 60s as to why bunts were not useful--of course, MLB managers paid not attentioin). One does not need to understand, say, dWAR to 'use' it. But one is required, I think, to demonstrate (or to describe such a demonstration) of why it is preferable to other stats.

[moonslav59]

But of course a cell-phone is different from a statistic. You can test a cell phone to see if it works. How do you test a new mysterious statistic? Self-validation is not enough. (I believe I recall such a test from Moneyball for why OPS was preferable to, say, BA). But have we studied those tests? (Some are simple--I remember mathematical demonstrations in the 60s as to why bunts were not useful--of course, MLB managers paid not attentioin). One does not need to understand, say, dWAR to 'use' it. But one is required, I think, to demonstrate (or to describe such a demonstration) of why it is preferable to other stats.

 

You know it when you see it.

 

Look at my 4 lists for batters...

 

To me, the WAR list looks most accurate.

[jad]

You know it when you see it.

 

Look at my 4 lists for batters...

 

To me, the WAR list looks most accurate.

 

If you're judging on the eye-test, which is what you are saying here, why bother with stats?

[moonslav59]

If you're judging on the eye-test, which is what you are saying here, why bother with stats?

 

My eyes look at batting, fielding and running- not just one hitting stat. Which list represents that?

[S5Dewey]

My eyes look at batting, fielding and running- not just one hitting stat. Which list represents that?

 

Wouldn't that be WAR? I'm not sure whether it's bWAR, fWAR, or xyzWAR, all of which are calculated differently, but it's definitely WAR.

 

Since the eye test is unreliable because we don't see every player make every play in every game AND we all have biases we need something... anything.. to tell us that our eyes are unreliable and our years of experience is worthless.

 

That's WAR...or is it fWAR? /s/

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

You know it when you see it.

 

Look at my 4 lists for batters...

 

To me, the WAR list looks most accurate.

 

Agreed, for the position players.

 

For the pitcher lists, the B and D columns -- ERA and WHIP ratings -- maybe best represent the past half decade. I say this because as Sox fan I can't claim Sale has been the #1 guy in any league the past two or three years (as in C, the FIP). Also, Nola and Wheeler aren't top 5 in any lists but A; WAR for pitchers always seems a bit unreliable, compared to position players... maybe because it undervalues relievers who succeed in just as many high lev situations (just not as many IP).

[notin]

But of course a cell-phone is different from a statistic. You can test a cell phone to see if it works. How do you test a new mysterious statistic? Self-validation is not enough. (I believe I recall such a test from Moneyball for why OPS was preferable to, say, BA). But have we studied those tests? (Some are simple--I remember mathematical demonstrations in the 60s as to why bunts were not useful--of course, MLB managers paid not attentioin). One does not need to understand, say, dWAR to 'use' it. But one is required, I think, to demonstrate (or to describe such a demonstration) of why it is preferable to other stats.

 

 

Did you read any of Bill James’ books?

[moonslav59]

Wouldn't that be WAR? I'm not sure whether it's bWAR, fWAR, or xyzWAR, all of which are calculated differently, but it's definitely WAR.

 

Since the eye test is unreliable because we don't see every player make every play in every game AND we all have biases we need something... anything.. to tell us that our eyes are unreliable and our years of experience is worthless.

 

That's WAR...or is it fWAR? /s/

 

Yes. My whole point was that looking at the list of the best all around players by WAR vs any other list based on just singular stats, you see that WAR seems more accurate.

 

(Pitching is a little more iffy.)

[moonslav59]

Agreed, for the position players.

 

For the pitcher lists, the B and D columns -- ERA and WHIP ratings -- maybe best represent the past half decade. I say this because as Sox fan I can't claim Sale has been the #1 guy in any league the past two or three years (as in C, the FIP). Also, Nola and Wheeler aren't top 5 in any lists but A; WAR for pitchers always seems a bit unreliable, compared to position players... maybe because it undervalues relievers who succeed in just as many high lev situations (just not as many IP).

 

I would add that ERA- or ERA+ is better than just plain old ERA. Park affects and strength of opponents matter a lot. (Also, I arbitrarily set the innings limit at 500 over 5 years, so that eliminated many RP'ers from consideration.)

 

Consider this...

 

ERA Leaders 2017-2021 (500+IP)

1. deGrom

2. Scherzer

3. Kershaw

4. Verlander

5. Buehler

6. Kluber

7. Sale

8. Ryu

9. Cole

10. Strasburg

 

ERA- Leaders

1. deGrom

2. Scherzer

3. Verlander

4. Sale

5. Kluber

6. Kershaw

7. Buehler

8. Ryu

9. Bieber

10. Bauer

 

Now, with 250+ IP ERA-

1. Hader

2. deGrom

3. Scherzer

4. Jansen

5. R Iglesias

6. Verlander

7. L Hendricks

8. Clevinger

9. Treinen

10. Sale

 

WHIP (250+ IP)

1. Hader

2. Verlander

3. C Green

4. deGrom

5. Scherzer

6. Y Petit

7. Jansen

8 Hendricks

9, Kershaw

10. Sale

 

 

[notin]

But of course a cell-phone is different from a statistic. You can test a cell phone to see if it works. How do you test a new mysterious statistic? Self-validation is not enough. (I believe I recall such a test from Moneyball for why OPS was preferable to, say, BA). But have we studied those tests? (Some are simple--I remember mathematical demonstrations in the 60s as to why bunts were not useful--of course, MLB managers paid not attentioin). One does not need to understand, say, dWAR to 'use' it. But one is required, I think, to demonstrate (or to describe such a demonstration) of why it is preferable to other stats.

 

This is all not a new concept.

 

One of the most basic formulas in physics is F=ma. I am willing to bet you learned it but have never seen it proven. Does this mean all of Newtonian physics should be doubted?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I would add that ERA- or ERA+ is better than just plain old ERA. Park affects and strength of opponents matter a lot. (Also, I arbitrarily set the innings limit at 500 over 5 years, so that eliminated many RP'ers from consideration.)

 

Consider this...

 

ERA Leaders 2017-2021 (500+IP)

1. deGrom

2. Scherzer

3. Kershaw

4. Verlander

5. Buehler

6. Kluber

7. Sale

8. Ryu

9. Cole

10. Strasburg

 

ERA- Leaders

1. deGrom

2. Scherzer

3. Verlander

4. Sale

5. Kluber

6. Kershaw

7. Buehler

8. Ryu

9. Bieber

10. Bauer

 

Now, with 250+ IP ERA-

1. Hader

2. deGrom

3. Scherzer

4. Jansen

5. R Iglesias

6. Verlander

7. L Hendricks

8. Clevinger

9. Treinen

10. Sale

 

WHIP (250+ IP)

1. Hader

2. Verlander

3. C Green

4. deGrom

5. Scherzer

6. Y Petit

7. Jansen

8 Hendricks

9, Kershaw

10. Sale

 

 

 

Those charts are really helpful, and show the success if not value of top relievers. Maybe GMs and front officers still refrain from acquiring some veteran bullpen guys because of the actual high leverage mileage on certain arms (combined with veteran salaries, of course).

 

We're can be sure Bloom and Co. have all the sufficient data they need to decide; Dombro, probably does, too, but ignores it!

[jad]

"WAR!" (da BOOM da). "Good Gawd, y'all!" "What is it GOOD for?" "Absolutely nothing!" "Say it again ..."

[Bellhorn04]

"WAR!" (da BOOM da). "Good Gawd, y'all!" "What is it GOOD for?" "Absolutely nothing!" "Say it again ..."

 

And the intended message of that song, of course, is a fine one, that falls apart quickly on analysis. Isn't it saying that fighting back against an oppressor or invader is wrong? Whoops!

[Nick]

Dodgers' luxury tax payroll now up to $297M after Kimbrel trade. That's AFTER deduction for $16M relief from Red Sox for Price. They don't have any issues spending money.

[Bellhorn04]

Dodgers' luxury tax payroll now up to $297M after Kimbrel trade. That's AFTER deduction for $16M relief from Red Sox for Price. They don't have any issues spending money.

 

And this is after paying 32.65 million in tax for 2021 on a payroll for tax purposes of 285.6 million.

 

Crazy stuff.

[Bellhorn04]

According to Cot's, Trevor Bauer is still on the Dodgers' tax books at $34 million...

[Nick]

And this is after paying 32.65 million in tax for 2021 on a payroll for tax purposes of 285.6 million.

 

Crazy stuff.

 

In 2014, Dodgers signed a 25 year, $8.35B TV deal. It's estimated that Dodgers earn annual, local TV revenue of $204M per fangraphs. Red Sox comes in fourth at $80M, behind Angels' $118M and Yankees' $98M. Poor Rays at $20M.

 

Yep, life is not fair.

[Bellhorn04]

In 2014, Dodgers signed a 25 year, $8.35B TV deal.

 

That definitely helps make ends meet!

[jad]

And the intended message of that song, of course, is a fine one, that falls apart quickly on analysis. Isn't it saying that fighting back against an oppressor or invader is wrong? Whoops!

 

Well, yes. But in the US in the '60s, it was intended as a criticism of 'war' as imperialist aggression (i.e., US in Vietnam, and now, by extension, Russia in Ukraine). (And I suppose one could argue--I probably would not--that passive resistance is in the long run better than military resistance. Eventually the military-backed empire will collapse of its own weight, as it did with the USSR, leaving eastern Europe (incl. Ukraine) behind in much better shape than they would have been had they tried to resist militarily. But we'll see what that argument looks like in a few months).

[dgalehouse]

A top ten list in anything is strictly a matter of opinion. WAR is just a formula that some guy came up with to try and calculate a player's value. It has it's flaws , just like any other system you might use. People like it because it gives one simple numerical rating to each player. Personally, I am satisfied with just watching the games and looking at the traditional stats. You shouldn't need much help to recognize the ability of guys like Trout , Betts , DeGrom , Scherzer and such.

[Old Red]

A top ten list in anything is strictly a matter of opinion. WAR is just a formula that some guy came up with to try and calculate a player's value. It has it's flaws , just like any other system you might use. People like it because it gives one simple numerical rating to each player. Personally, I am satisfied with just watching the games and looking at the traditional stats. You shouldn't need much help to recognize the ability of guys like Trout , Betts , DeGrom , Scherzer and such.

 

I’ve said since metrics have become such a big thing in baseball that it has not made the game better, and in my opinion it’s made it worse. To some metrics is just like a cellphone that they can’t do without it now. I can do without, and I do.

[notin]

A top ten list in anything is strictly a matter of opinion. WAR is just a formula that some guy came up with to try and calculate a player's value. It has it's flaws , just like any other system you might use. People like it because it gives one simple numerical rating to each player. Personally, I am satisfied with just watching the games and looking at the traditional stats. You shouldn't need much help to recognize the ability of guys like Trout , Betts , DeGrom , Scherzer and such.

 

 

You might not need metrics to know guys who lead the league in multiple offensive categories are great, but they sure do highlight the impact of a player like Andrelton Simmons, despite his .265 BA and 7 HRs per year.

 

And they help make it way to see why the Red Sox do think Jackie Bradley is an upgrade over Renfroe, despite the disparity in RBIs…

Edited April 2, 2022 by notin

[dgalehouse]

You might not need metrics to know guys who lead the league in multiple offensive categories are great, but they sure do highlight the impact of a player like Andrelton Simmons, despite his .265 BA and 7 HRs per year.

 

And they help make it way to see why the Red Sox do think Jackie Bradley is an upgrade over Renfroe, despite the disparity in RBIs…

 

Certainly, defense is important. Just how much weight you give to defense vs offense is open to debate. And the defensive metrics they are using are certainly debatable. It's always good to have players who can do it all.

[notin]

Certainly, defense is important. Just how much weight you give to defense vs offense is open to debate. And the defensive metrics they are using are certainly debatable. It's always good to have players who can do it all.

 

It is open to debate, but for a long time especially among fans, it was largely ignored. Unless the player made a highlight reel catch. But even then, it was rarely asked “was that effort necessary? Would another player have made that same play more easily?” Even early defensive metrics like Range Factor didn’t consider this. (Unless the players in question were teammates.)

[jad]

Wow. Letting Nate go six almost cost us JBJ. Do either of them need to push it like that in ST? (I guess there's really no such thing in pro sports as playing at half-speed!)

[Old Red]

Wow. Letting Nate go six almost cost us JBJ. Do either of them need to push it like that in ST? (I guess there's really no such thing in pro sports as playing at half-speed!)

 

I think they were just getting the pitch count up for Nate.

[moonslav59]

Wow. Letting Nate go six almost cost us JBJ. Do either of them need to push it like that in ST? (I guess there's really no such thing in pro sports as playing at half-speed!)

 

Playing at half speed might be more dangerous.