WAR Question:

[nat]

WAR would be completely unrelated to wins if its components didn't correlate with wins, but they do. You can take its components and run a regression analysis to see how closely they correlate (and the people who developed WAR did just this).

The positional adjustment is in there because some positions are harder to play than others. Trout may be a poor CF, but center fielders need to cover more ground than do right fielders. If he was a right fielder he'd catch a higher percentage of the balls that are his responsibility than he does now. (Likewise Betts would catch a lower percentage of balls if he played CF.)

Defensive stats are subject to enough noise, though, that you should really use a range of years of performance when evaluating a player, and you should certainly be doing that this early in the season. So far this season Trout has a 5-run advantage over Betts on defense (that includes the positional adjustment). That's not much, and it will probably be gone by the end of the year. Trout is a roughly average CF and Betts is a really good RF, by the end of the season Betts will almost certainly catch enough extra balls to he'll come out ahead in the defensive component of WAR. (In fact, WAR says that for his career Betts has save far more runs than Trout has, even though Trout has been in the league longer.)

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by nat

WAR would be completely unrelated to wins if its components didn't correlate with wins, but they do. You can take its components and run a regression analysis to see how closely they correlate (and the people who developed WAR did just this).

The positional adjustment is in there because some positions are harder to play than others. Trout may be a poor CF, but center fielders need to cover more ground than do right fielders. If he was a right fielder he'd catch a higher percentage of the balls that are his responsibility than he does now. (Likewise Betts would catch a lower percentage of balls if he played CF.)

Defensive stats are subject to enough noise, though, that you should really use a range of years of performance when evaluating a player, and you should certainly be doing that this early in the season. So far this season Trout has a 5-run advantage over Betts on defense (that includes the positional adjustment). That's not much, and it will probably be gone by the end of the year. Trout is a roughly average CF and Betts is a really good RF, by the end of the season Betts will almost certainly catch enough extra balls to he'll come out ahead in the defensive component of WAR. (In fact, WAR says that for his career Betts has save far more runs than Trout has, even though Trout has been in the league longer.)

There's another one.

[parker1b2]

Blyleven, Gaylord Perry and Phil Niekro all have higher lifetime WARs then Pedro Martinez & Bob Gibson... Really?? Some one please explain that to me

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parker1b2

Blyleven, Gaylord Perry and Phil Niekro all have higher lifetime WARs then Pedro Martinez... Really??

Longer careers, by a lot. The JAWS scores might be more meaningful, they are an average of career WAR and WAR7 meaning WAR for the best 7 year stretch.

[parker1b2]

So by WAR standard Blyleven was a better pitcher then Bob Gibson cause he played longer??

And again the old Mattingly debate, maybe one of the best defensive 1B in the 80s and early 90s and has a negative defensive WAR.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parker1b2

So by WAR standard Blyleven was a better pitcher then Bob Gibson cause he played longer??

And again the old Mattingly debate, maybe one of the best defensive 1B in the 80s and early 90s and has a negative defensive WAR.

As I said, on Baseball Reference I would compare the JAWS metric.

[parker1b2]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I said, on Baseball Reference I would compare the JAWS metric.

Just checked. All 3 are still higher then Pedro Martinez... makes no sense

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Longer careers, by a lot. The JAWS scores might be more meaningful, they are an average of career WAR and WAR7 meaning WAR for the best 7 year stretch.

I think Pedro's probably the best starting pitcher of my lifetime. I don't know how it's possible that he won 20 games in a season only twice. Between 1997 and 2003, he had a composite 213 ERA +. That's filthy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think Pedro's probably the best starting pitcher of my lifetime. I don't know how it's possible that he won 20 games in a season only twice. Between 1997 and 2003, he had a composite 213 ERA +. That's filthy.

At his peak of a few years, I would agree. But I'm not sure that makes him the "best" pitcher. I would value the overall career more, and take Clemens, Maddux and Randy Johnson over Pedro.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At his peak of a few years, I would agree. But I'm not sure that makes him the "best" pitcher. I would value the overall career more, and take Clemens, Maddux and Randy Johnson over Pedro.

Between 1997 and 2003, seven seasons and 199 games started, Martinez was 118-36 (.766 winning pct) with a 2.20 ERA. In 1,408 innings pitched, he struck out 1,761 batters against 315 walks. 93 home runs given up in 5,542 batters faced. Led the league in ERA five times, ERA +, FIP and WHIP five times each.

His 162 game averages: 21-7, 2.20 ERA, 240 IP, 300 SO, 54 BB.

Dwight Gooden's 1985 season is often mentioned as one of the best of the modern era. His ERA + was 229.
Roger Clemens had three individual seasons over 200 with a high of 226.
Sandy Koufax's career best ERA + was 190.
Bob Gibson, on the tall mound, had a 258 ERA + in 1968. Never over 200 before or after.

Pedro had a 213 ERA + over the course of seven seasons.

The best career ERA + in history belongs to Mariano Rivera (205).
The second best, and best by a starter, is Clayton Kershaw's 160.
Pedro is third with a 154 ERA +, but he's started over 111 more games.

In that seven seasons, Pedro won three Cy Youngs, was runner up twice, and finished third once. He didn't place in the voting in 2001 because he only started 18 games.

His 2000 season, by ERA +, is the second greatest in history. Only Tim Keefe's 293 (in 1880!) bests Pedro's 291.

In 2000, Pedro was 18-8 with a 1.74 ERA (league average was 4.92) across 217 innings. He struck out 284, walked 32, and only gave up 128 hits. He led the league in ERA, shutouts (4), strike outs, FIP (2.17), WHIP (0.737), hits/9 IP (5.3), HR/9 IP (0.7), strikeouts/9 IP (11.8) and K:BB (8.88).

Oh, and by the way. The second best ERA in the American League in 2000? Roger Clemens at 3.70. Pedro's 1.74 was almost 2 full runs better than any other pitcher in the league.

For sheer dominance over that period of time, Pedro was absolutely spectacular.