iortiz

Facts are uncomfortable at times lol

I answered the question. I tried to translate average in their chart since the term doesn't explicitly appear, but could be translated as Solid. Good to MVP levels are not average in their chart so the Solid Level should be the level for average/mediocre RPs. Thing is not much are in that category. You just refuse to understand how it does actually work. Most relievers are replacement/rol/scrub players by definition. 1/3 of them are not average/mediocre/solid as you want to rate them in your 3-level chart.

i.e. If you want to apply a rigid average definition here, it won't make sense because several role and maybe some scrub RPs will be in that category —which will not make sense because it is not how it works. The way I see it, FG does not care calling more than the half of the RPs per year, role/scrub RPs. If you suck you suck, it doesn't matter if a lot suck too. Maybe the later will help you to understand how it does actually work in order to give a RP a pedigree — which actually makes sense, because most of RPs are role/scrub/replacement players.

Lets make an example. Let's take 2019. Best WAR year for Barnes. Based on FG's chart only 1 RP is a MVP. Only 1 is a Super Star. Only 1 is an All AllStar. 8 are Good RPs. 30 are Solid players (included Barnes), and the rest are something between Role and Scrub. This portions make sense to me based on one year. Other years will be kind of similar. Answering your question, and based on FG's chart, Role and Scrub are bad RPs and Solid Players could be translated as average/mediocre. Thing is that FG does make a 7-level chart and its thresholds are singular based on their large samples. You wanted to apply a 3-level chart and rate Barnes as a top tier RP. Again, it does not work that way because it doesn't make sense as well. What I've been trying to do is to translate the average/mediocre term in this chart. Since the Solid Level is below the Good Level, then is fair to say that average/mediocre is what FG calls you Solid which makes sense.

Exactly, very few belong from Good to MVP level. Barnes does not belong there. Average/Mediocre is what FG calls you Solid, yes. It is between 1.75 and 1.1. Barnes only has 2 seasons before 2021 in that level. All-in-all and not cherry picking, Matt Barnes, averages something around 0.88 through five complete seasons (2015-2019). That number by definition locates you at the Role Player level based on FG's chart which is not good.

I think you just forgot the debate we had in the other thread. You have to re-scale the chart otherwise it wouldn't be fair for relievers. I just did it for you. As I said in the other thread, Solid players could be translated as mediocre or average and considering that it is the fifth level of the chart. Matt Barnes' best WAR year does not even make what FG calls you Good Player, so if you are below good, then you are something between solid (average or mediocre) which is not a bad thing. OTOH MAtt Barnes has had 5 seasons below 1 and 2 of those 5 seasons below 0.5. In those years which is most of his career he's been nothing but role to scrub player. These charts are provided for the source who actually created the stat, so there's a large evidence and sample to believe that this rule-of-thumb shown in the chart is certain. 1.0 WAR/season relievers are Role Players based on FG's chart whether you like it or not.

I'm not disputing this "Kershaw, himself has large sample sizes of very different results, not just the playoff one" Once again, PO is a different situation.

You have to normalize them. 3.5+ WAR for relievers is a fair number for the MVP level. The chart for relievers would be like this: 3.5 or higher WAR MVP 3.5 to 3.3 WAR Super Stars 3.3 to 2.3 WAR All Star 2.3 to 1.75 WAR Good Player 1.75 to 1.1 WAR Solid Player 1.1 to 0.5 WAR Role Player Below 0.5 WAR Scrub https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/

What other poor samples you are talking about?

Seems like the video replay thing is not working lately.

It was a Matzusaka act.

BP should be ready. Pivetta is trash tonight.

Very cheap inning.

1.0 fWAR by a RPer is not average. If it was about half the RPers would have more and half less. That’s what average means. Sorry, but that’s just common sense. It could sound like common sense but it is not when you look at FG's chart —because it is not like it works moon. You refuse to look at the chart lol Players go 189 IP with wildly differing numbers. Just because one sample size is 189 innings does not prove the reason for being good or bad. Sorry, that has nothing to do with common sense. Kershaw, himself has large sample sizes of very different results, not just the playoff one. Sure and no one is disputing the later paragraph.

Agreed!

Did they name him as a the new closer moving forward?

...or Shwarber at LF and Arroyo at 1B. You would move Verdugo at CF and Kike at 2B. Both, Arroyo and Schwarber could get hurt playing at 1B, but who would you risk more of these two? my guess Schwarber has more chances to get hurt at 1B.

1.3, his best fWAR year is mediocre based on FG's WAR chart. Moon, you keep using your own flawed chart and methodology in order to rate Barnes and give him a pedigree as a RP. For the Nth time, look at FG's WAR chart and normalize it for relievers. His pedigree is at the 5th level out of 7th. That's mediocre in may book. Again, It's not my rate. It's FG's. On clutch, when you look at fair career clutch sample situations like POs, it is not random. OTOH, sure, you can make a case based on high leverage situations in regular season through his career but that's another completely different clutch situation for the discussion. Those situations are not the same (High Leverage Situation in Regular Season vs POs). Apples with Oranges. PO is a completely different instance. You face the cream of the cream in a very special environment. It's a live or die situation. While high leverage situations in regular season imply high pressure, it is not the same animal. It is not a live or die situation to start off. Once again, it is common sense. If you can't see that, then you don't feel baseball moon and your common sense here is uncommon lol. Sorry.

In my fantasy team Barlow has given me a lot of BS because they often send him in the eighth when the set up does not make the job and leave the game with RISP and cero outs, but yeah it is still rare situation in large samples. As I said, Baseball is unfair at times.

oh yeah, Closers are brought most of the times in the 9th with bases loaded. I was only extending my opinion based on moon's post. Agreed on career stats. They are legit.

oh yeah, Mo is the greatest but Pap is a member of the cream of the cream group as a closer.

I want to see Arroyo in the lineup but I guess Travis is hot right now.

Thing is that I have different impression specially in the 9th. My impression could be wrong, but I think most of the times they don't bring the closers in tie games in the 9th, but again, I could be wrong. The 10th is more likely to bring a closer, yes, mostly before the new extra innings rule.

So, you imply those who disagree don't share your good common sense. In some aspects, unfortunately yes. For example if you want to compare a starter with a closer as you did, it does not make sense at all. BTW, how do you define the term mediocre? Mediocre in my book is kind of average tending to bad. Something between average and below average.

My chart only includes RP'ers in the years and time frames chosen. Your original chart has only 3 levels in order to differentiate pedigrees. FG's? seven. There's where the root of your flaw analysis begins What are you talking about "normalizing?" FG's player charts are not the same for Relievers in their scale so you have to normalize them. You chose fWAR, not me. It's not my stat of choice. Most of the times fWAR is a good metric in order to rate value. It's the choice, not mine. The stats I use actually shows Barnes worse than fWAR. I'm not trying to claim he's top 20% or even 25%. I'm just showing your stat of choice, this time, shows he was better than his peers, which means better than mediocre by definition. (I go by Webster not fangraphs normalization charts or whatever you claim when determining what mediocre means). Again, he is not. Look at FG's WAR chart. Not your bizarre chart IMO, he was above average by enough to place him out of the mediocre tier from 2017-2020. It's not by a lot, but he's not mediocre, and your stat, fWAR, shows he was not mediocre. Now, you're trying to claim he's in the 5th lowest tier out of 7? Based on FG's WAR chart (not my opinion) he was below average regardless how you want to slice it. The goalposts never stop moving. Not sure what does this mean lol