Most overrated baseball stats????

[nat]

WAR is a framework that can be developed in many different ways. Baseball-Reference and Fangraphs have the two that are best-known (bWAR and fWAR, respectively). If you want to object to it you can do so in two ways: you can object to the framework as such, or to a specific implementation of it.

If you are going to object to the framework as such you need to argue that there isn't a way to do what it's trying to do, namely, determine how many more wins a player would produce for a random team, beyond what a scrub from AAA could produce. I wouldn't recommend this kind of objection.

On the other hand, if you are concerned with specific implementations, the thing to do is to figure out what it is that B-R or Fangraphs (or whomever) does wrong.

Consider this. From 2010-2015 on average a team scored 0.481 runs from the start of an inning. If the lead off hitter singles, on average they scored 0.859 runs. (Data from Fangraphs.) So the expected value of a zero-out single is 0.859-0.481 runs. (=0.378 runs) You do a similar calculation for one outs and two outs, runner on first, runner on second, etc., and every possible combination of those. Take the average, and you have the 2010-2015 "linear weight value" of a single. These values are the building-blocks of WAR. So Pete Rose gets credit for (3215 * linear weight value of a single) when calculating his WAR. (Although obviously you don't use 2010-2015 data for Rose.) So if you want to criticize a particular implementation of WAR you can argue that it's got the linear weights wrong - maybe something beyond the event (single, in this case), number of outs, and position of base runners, matters to how many wins a player would generate above a AAA scrub.

Or, Baseball-Reference assumes that a team of replacement players would have a .294 winning percentage (= about 47 wins over a 162 game season). You could argue that this is too high or too low. Replacement level players are the kind of guys who play in AAA, but sometimes get called up to the big leagues, but then get sent back down again. Not the top prospects in AAA, but the guys who are just a bit too good for the minor leagues but not quite good enough for the majors. You could criticize setting replacement level at .294 if you could show that these guys actually play at a level above that. Maybe if you took all of the last-guys-on-the-bench and made a team out of them they would win more than 47 games.

That's all fair game, although of course you need to have a reason for thinking that they've got something wrong. I happen to think that they do: whether a run is scored in the first inning or the ninth inning doesn't matter to the outcome of a game, but when calculating WAR for pitchers, we weight the ninth inning run more heavily (all else being equal) than the first inning run. That's something that we do when calculating WAR, and a reason to think that we shouldn't do it. So, if you think that there's something wrong with WAR: what's wrong with it? Answering this question will require digging through the formulas used to calculate it, but that's what's required to pose a serious objection to it. (And they're pretty interesting anyway.)

Last thing, on player comparisons:

Henderson and Mantle. Rickey had about 3400 more plate appearances than Mantle - a much longer career. That's what accounts for the difference. Their WAR totals are almost identical. If they had basically the same WAR, but Rickey's career was much longer, it means that Mantle was a much more talented player. WAR is a counting stat, so it's saying that Rickey produced more wins (above a AAA/25th man player) than Mantle did over the course of his career. But, for each game that they played, Mantle did more to help his team win than Rickey did.

Basically the same thing is going on with Yaz and Griffey. Yaz had more than 14000 plate appearances. About 3000 more than Griffey. That's, like, four extra seasons of full-time play. (Remember, Griffey got hurt a LOT.) Yaz has a lead of about 13 WAR over Griffey. 13/4=3.25. A player who produces 3 WAR in a season is above average, but not, like, a star. Since Yaz played the equivalent of four more seasons than Griffey, as long as you think that Yaz could produce at a level that's above average but not really a star, the difference between Yaz and Griffey is reasonable.

Niekro. Same deal. The man pitched 5400 innings. If you are any good at all and pitch 5400 innings you are going to win a lot of games for your teams. Gibson pitched only about 70% of the innings that Niekro did. But he has more than 90% of Niekro's WAR. What it's saying is that Gibson was a better pitcher than Niekro, but Niekro won more games for his teams because he pitched so many more innings. Ditto with Martinez. Ryan is a different story. He pitched almost exactly the same number of innings as Niekro. Now, Niekro really was slightly better at preventing runs from scoring (once we account for the parks that the two guys played in). And remember that, while Ryan struck out lots of guys, he also walked everybody and their brother. That makes a difference.

[EvilKing00]

Ok just one more example:

Tris speaker better than A Rod?


Speaker - 10,195 ab, 117 hr, 1531 rbi, 345 ba, 428 obp, 500 slg

A rod - 10,556 ab, 696 hr, 2086 rbi, 295 ba, 380 obp, 550 slg

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

Ok just one more example:

Tris speaker better than A Rod?


Speaker - 10,195 ab, 117 hr, 1531 rbi, 345 ba, 428 obp, 500 slg

A rod - 10,556 ab, 696 hr, 2086 rbi, 295 ba, 380 obp, 550 slg

Yes, Speaker was "better" than A-rod!

Speaker wRC+ career= 157, fWAR 130.6

Arod wRC+ career= 141 fWAR 113.0

It's not some huge margin, they both played around 20 years so it's less than a win a season avg, but Speaker was the better hitter. (his .428 career OBP being the difference)

[bnorth]

I will honestly say I do not understand WAR. I will say stats can be used to make any case you want. The baseball-reference page linked to earlier shows Ted Williams at 14. Anything that does not show Mr Williams as the best ever is flawed IMHO.

EDIT: To add I think saves is the most over rated stat.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I will honestly say I do not understand WAR. I will say stats can be used to make any case you want. The baseball-reference page linked to earlier shows Ted Williams at 14. Anything that does not show Mr Williams as the best ever is flawed IMHO.

EDIT: To add I think saves is the most over rated stat.

WAR is cumulative, so Ted is hurt by losing nearly 5 prime seasons to military service. If he had played those years, he'd be in the top two or 3 with Ruth and Cobb.

Here is a link to fangraphs where they explain how they formulate their version of WAR and all the stats that are included :

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/


ETA: older players may not be getting the full credit (or discredit) for their defense as the stats available back then are not nearly as good as the newer, more accurate one's, so take that into consideration as well.

[nat]

So, what bravos said, and:

WAR measures all aspects of a player's game, not just hitting. Ted was a god of a hitter, but an indifferent to poor fielder. Lots of the guys above him on the WAR list were good fielders, which means that Ted may have been a better hitter than they were, even if he wasn't as good all around.

FWIW, Ted is second all-time in wOBA. It's a very different stat than WAR, but if you want an answer to the question "who was the greatest hitter of all time", it's better to look at wOBA than at WAR. wOBA only measures offense, and it's a rate stat, so your wOBA won't go up just because you played a long time. (In both of these respects it is different than WAR.) The only batter in front of Ted in wOBA is Ruth. And while I'm open to the suggestion that Ted was the greatest pure hitter of all time, that it's actually Babe Ruth is a pretty reasonable position to take.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by nat

So, what bravos said, and:

WAR measures all aspects of a player's game, not just hitting. Ted was a god of a hitter, but an indifferent to poor fielder. Lots of the guys above him on the WAR list were good fielders, which means that Ted may have been a better hitter than they were, even if he wasn't as good all around.

FWIW, Ted is second all-time in wOBA. It's a very different stat than WAR, but if you want an answer to the question "who was the greatest hitter of all time", it's better to look at wOBA than at WAR. wOBA only measures offense, and it's a rate stat, so your wOBA won't go up just because you played a long time. (In both of these respects it is different than WAR.) The only batter in front of Ted in wOBA is Ruth. And while I'm open to the suggestion that Ted was the greatest pure hitter of all time, that it's actually Babe Ruth is a pretty reasonable position to take.

A good argument can be made for both, and I don't think anyone would kick either off their all time team!! I prefer Ted as a hitter because he faced tougher pitching and that .482 career OBP can't be ignored. But really, it's the Hope Diamond or the Star of India , either way you are doing just fine.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Yes, Speaker was "better" than A-rod!

Speaker wRC+ career= 157, fWAR 130.6

Arod wRC+ career= 141 fWAR 113.0

It's not some huge margin, they both played around 20 years so it's less than a win a season avg, but Speaker was the better hitter. (his .428 career OBP being the difference)

Actually it is his .345 BA compared to .295 for AROD. They both walked about the same rate.

[BearBailey]

Other. Strikeouts. Pitchers strikeouts mean nothing, outs regardless of how they are gotten are important. I'd take a groundout pitcher over a fly ball pitcher or strike out pitcher any day. 1 pitch 1 out is better than 3 pitches for an out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BearBailey

Other. Strikeouts. Pitchers strikeouts mean nothing, outs regardless of how they are gotten are important. I'd take a groundout pitcher over a fly ball pitcher or strike out pitcher any day. 1 pitch 1 out is better than 3 pitches for an out.

Disagree. Nobody moves up on a strikeout, runners advance all the time on groundouts and of course can score on a sac fly. The flip side I guess is that strikeouts don't result in double plays but I would bet that runners advancing outweighs that. There is a reason the great strikeout pitchers are almost always great pitchers.

[KCRfan1]

I agree Pete. Give me a great arm any day on the mound.

That said, great pitching will always put a team in a position to win a game. Pitching is what controls the game.

Great pitching can win on any team, however bad pitching will never win regardless of the team the pitcher is on.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Disagree. Nobody moves up on a strikeout, runners advance all the time on groundouts and of course can score on a sac fly. The flip side I guess is that strikeouts don't result in double plays but I would bet that runners advancing outweighs that. There is a reason the great strikeout pitchers are almost always great pitchers.

this times a million!

a K is the best result a pitcher can generate in and of himself, any other out is contingent on BABIP and the quality of his defense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Batting average is overrated.
Can vastly overstate worth of guys who hit high but not for power and/or who don't get on base via walks, and the opposite.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Batting average is overrated.
Can vastly overstate worth of guys who hit high but not for power and/or who don't get on base via walks, and the opposite.

I couldn't disagree more. Walks often don't advance runners and rarely score runners. The goal of the game is to score runners not get on base. I agree that power is important, but average is also very important.

OBP is the most misused stat. If you are arguing for a lead off guy like Tim Raines, I think it is a good metric. However, throwing it out for Ted Williams, to me that is a huge negative. Williams career with RISP BA .333 OBP .518, almost a 200 point gap. As the "best player" on his team, his job is to drive in runs, not get on base. Maybe I am being harsh, but maybe if Williams had sacrificed for his team by expanding his strike zone instead of enhancing his personal stats, he would have more than ZERO World Series rings.

[howard38]

Ted Williams's job was to create runs whether he scored them, drove them in or arvanced a runner who eventually scored.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by rats60

I couldn't disagree more. Walks often don't advance runners and rarely score runners. The goal of the game is to score runners not get on base. I agree that power is important, but average is also very important.

OBP is the most misused stat. If you are arguing for a lead off guy like Tim Raines, I think it is a good metric. However, throwing it out for Ted Williams, to me that is a huge negative. Williams career with RISP BA .333 OBP .518, almost a 200 point gap. As the "best player" on his team, his job is to drive in runs, not get on base. Maybe I am being harsh, but maybe if Williams had sacrificed for his team by expanding his strike zone instead of enhancing his personal stats, he would have more than ZERO World Series rings.

Or............

Some of that OBP is intentional walks, some of it essentially undeclared intentional walks where the pitcher throws a bunch of poor pitches and takes a chance on the umpire rather than the hitter. Some of it is probably also walks either leading off or with the bases empty which are genuinely just as good as a hit.

If he'd expanded his strike zone and swung at a lot of bad pitches, a few things would have happened. He might have a few more hits, but would also hit into a few more doubleplays, fielders choices etc. Whether we like it or not, a players reputation has some effect on the strike calling, if a player is known to swing at nearly anything he doesn't get that little benefit of the doubt on a close pitch. Someone with a good eye and discipline often does.
So still fewer walks.

And with all that, perhaps he doesn't even get a chance at a WS.

As far as I know there's no stat that looks at things more broadly. Most try to isolate performance, but nothing in the game happens in a vacuum.

Williams faced "better" pitching than Ruth. But I'd have to ask if that pitching was better on its own, or was better because it didn't have to pitch against a better group of hitters. (Just read an article about how the Pats play in a weak AFC east. Perhaps, or are the teams weak because they have to play the pats twice a year? Just like one point during the early 2000s when the AL east was called weak, but the teams got to play the Yankees and Red Sox more than other teams. )

Steve B

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

I couldn't disagree more. Walks often don't advance runners and rarely score runners. The goal of the game is to score runners not get on base. I agree that power is important, but average is also very important.

OBP is the most misused stat. If you are arguing for a lead off guy like Tim Raines, I think it is a good metric. However, throwing it out for Ted Williams, to me that is a huge negative. Williams career with RISP BA .333 OBP .518, almost a 200 point gap. As the "best player" on his team, his job is to drive in runs, not get on base. Maybe I am being harsh, but maybe if Williams had sacrificed for his team by expanding his strike zone instead of enhancing his personal stats, he would have more than ZERO World Series rings.

Batting avg is seriously flawed. It only tells us hits per at bat. It doesn't tell us the type of hits, it doesn't tell us how many times they were walked or hit by a pitch, it doesn't tell us much of anything.

OBP has been PROVEN to relate directly to wins more than any other single stat. The object of a batter is to not make an out and generate bases. A single and a walk are worth nearly the same as the majority of plate appearances take place with nobody on base. Stuff like RISP is worthless because there is no skill of "clutch" it's just confirmation bias. Good hitters tend to hit good and bad hitters tend to hit bad (and not every RISP situation has the same amount of leverage).

Seriously, go look from year to year at RISP numbers for players, they vary wildly. A .300 avg hitter might have a RISP of one year of .360 then the next of .240 then .430 .....etc Generally the larger the sample size the more it will move toward the mean of their career numbers in all situations, but no evidence exists to show that it is a repeatable skill.

The job of Ted Williams was to hit the ball hard. That's it. He was there to get on base, (home plate if that was possible with one swing) and not make outs. He has no control over any baserunners that may or may not have gotten on in front of him,(which is why RBI's is such a silly stat for an individual) All he can do is get on base and hit for power. These are the things he can control.


Would you really rather have Ben Revere, who in his best years hit .300 with a .335 OBP and .340 slugging, over Jim Thome ,who in his best years hit .270 with a .402 OBP and .580 slugging?

defense and base running aside, a team of Thomes blows a team of Reveres out of the water. They get on base more, and they hit for more power these are the two fundamental virtues of a quality hitter. average? it is irrelevant. It's major use is as a describing stat for HOW player accomplished their OBP (along with BB%)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

I couldn't disagree more. Walks often don't advance runners and rarely score runners. The goal of the game is to score runners not get on base. I agree that power is important, but average is also very important.

OBP is the most misused stat. If you are arguing for a lead off guy like Tim Raines, I think it is a good metric. However, throwing it out for Ted Williams, to me that is a huge negative. Williams career with RISP BA .333 OBP .518, almost a 200 point gap. As the "best player" on his team, his job is to drive in runs, not get on base. Maybe I am being harsh, but maybe if Williams had sacrificed for his team by expanding his strike zone instead of enhancing his personal stats, he would have more than ZERO World Series rings.

Straw man argument, nobody has ever claimed a walk is as good as a hit, but it is a hell of a lot better than an out and BA just doesn't capture it. I stand by my opinion that BA tends to overstate (or understate) the worth of a lot of players. I would take Joe Morgan over Rod Carew for example despite a much lower BA, and so would almost everyone who has made rankings of players.

[egri]

Originally Posted by rats60

Maybe I am being harsh, but maybe if Williams had sacrificed for his team by expanding his strike zone instead of enhancing his personal stats, he would have more than ZERO World Series rings.

The Red Sox needed pitching to have a shot at winning the World Series, and Tom Yawkey needed to integrate the team earlier than he did. During Williams's career, the three years that they came the closest to winning the pennant without actually winning it were 1948, 1949 and 1950. In 1948, the only two pitchers of note were rookie Mel Parnell, and talented but erratic Ellis Kinder. The rest of the pitching staff was kids and old men. That staff wasn't going to make it past Spahn, Sain, Bickford and Voiselle. The next year, Kinder and Parnell both had breakout seasons, but they would have had to carry the team against Robinson, Campanella, Snider, Hodges, Furillo, and Reese. Then in 1950, Williams smashed his elbow in the All Star game and played in only 89 games. That year, Boston had only one pitcher with an ERA under 4.00 (Parnell, 3.61).

Apart from those three years, the Red Sox finished at least 10 games out every year. Maybe Williams could have gotten them a tad closer, but he couldn't have made up 10+ games in one season.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

I couldn't disagree more. Walks often don't advance runners and rarely score runners. The goal of the game is to score runners not get on base. I agree that power is important, but average is also very important.

OBP is the most misused stat. If you are arguing for a lead off guy like Tim Raines, I think it is a good metric. However, throwing it out for Ted Williams, to me that is a huge negative. Williams career with RISP BA .333 OBP .518, almost a 200 point gap. As the "best player" on his team, his job is to drive in runs, not get on base. Maybe I am being harsh, but maybe if Williams had sacrificed for his team by expanding his strike zone instead of enhancing his personal stats, he would have more than ZERO World Series rings.

That is about as speculative as one can get. Not to mention that it is never good hitting to swing at bad pitches. All those walks undoubtedly helped his team a great deal.

Bill James in his 2003 book ran a computer model that, if I recall the details, put Babe Ruth from 1927 on one of the KC Royals teams, then put a guy who just drew a walk every at bat, and the team with the guy who walked did better.