Most overrated baseball stats????

[sycks22]

Pitching victories are the most overrated stat by far. King Felix had 13 wins a couple years back an a 2.23 era while last year Colby Lewis had 17 wins with a 4.46 era. Wins are dependent on so many things (quality of their offense, opposing pitcher, bullpen, defense, weather, etc).

[the 'stache]

Yup.

Originally Posted by sycks22

Pitching victories are the most overrated stat by far. King Felix had 13 wins a couple years back an a 2.23 era while last year Colby Lewis had 17 wins with a 4.46 era. Wins are dependent on so many things (quality of their offense, opposing pitcher, bullpen, defense, weather, etc).

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Pitching victories are the most overrated stat by far. King Felix had 13 wins a couple years back an a 2.23 era while last year Colby Lewis had 17 wins with a 4.46 era. Wins are dependent on so many things (quality of their offense, opposing pitcher, bullpen, defense, weather, etc).

Completely disagree. Pitching controls the game. Great pitching will put their team in a position to win every time. Bad pitching, regardless of the team, will never put their team in a position to win.

Sure, other factors come into play, but it all comes down to the ability of the one on the mound.

[Touch'EmAll]

A lot of folks pick Pitching wins as overrated. Nolan Ryan played on a sub-.500 team most of his career - especially with the Angels in the 1970's. How many more wins would he have had if he played on the Orioles like Palmer, the A's like Catfish, or on the Big Red Machine? His wins totals would be a heckuva lot better, way way better!

[nat]

You can use WAR to compare players between eras. Now, it won't tell you how Babe Ruth would do in today's game. You'd need a time machine to answer that question. But given what it took to win games in Ruth's time, it'll tell you how many victories above a replacement player he added to his teams. And given what it took to win games in today's game, it'll tell you how many wins above replacement ARod contributed to his teams, and those two figures can be compared.

And it's meaningful to compare them. Wins have value in the context in which they're produced - in particular, in the particular seasons in which they are produced. So WAR can help you figure out how much value Ruth produced for his teams, and how much value ARod produced for his. (N.B.: WAR doesn't actually measure value, but it can help with figuring it out.) Even if it's the case that if you put Ruth in a time machine he would only put up 7.5 WAR seasons in today's game, he still generated more value for his teams than ARod did for his.

And yeah, Trout is really really good.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by nat

You can use WAR to compare players between eras. Now, it won't tell you how Babe Ruth would do in today's game. You'd need a time machine to answer that question. But given what it took to win games in Ruth's time, it'll tell you how many victories above a replacement player he added to his teams. And given what it took to win games in today's game, it'll tell you how many wins above replacement ARod contributed to his teams, and those two figures can be compared.

And it's meaningful to compare them. Wins have value in the context in which they're produced - in particular, in the particular seasons in which they are produced. So WAR can help you figure out how much value Ruth produced for his teams, and how much value ARod produced for his. (N.B.: WAR doesn't actually measure value, but it can help with figuring it out.) Even if it's the case that if you put Ruth in a time machine he would only put up 7.5 WAR seasons in today's game, he still generated more value for his teams than ARod did for his.

And yeah, Trout is really really good.

I agree with this to an extent. The one issue just comes down to defensive production and our ability to quantify it has improved a ton over the last 10 years.

The more back in time you go the less reliable defensive numbers are, so we might not have a very accurate picture of the value of some of these old timers.

That being said, WAR is still a great "thimbnail" number to use to compare players. It's not perfect, but few things are. It does a well enough job for casual comparison.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I like Mike Trout, but it is very very very hard for me to believe that on a per plate appearance basis he is at this point the second best hitter of all time or anywhere close. What is driving his WAR to be so high, he has some nice counting numbers but they don't seem particularly overwhelming? Maybe a small part of it is that he hasn't yet obviously had the usual end of career decline, but that doesn't seem enough to explain it.

[nat]

"Maybe a small part of it is that he hasn't yet obviously had the usual end of career decline,"

That's a lot of it. It also helps that Trout is good at everything. He's a great hitter, a great base runner, and, well, an average-ish fielder.

Trout has been in the big league for four full seasons.

Year All-time WAR rank (position players only)
2012 22nd
2013 100th
2014 292nd
2015 87th
2016 212th (so far)

If he keeps up his current pace his 2016 season will be worth 9.8 WAR, tied with Ty Cobb (1909), Nap Lajoie (1910), Ron Santo (1967), Larry Walker 1997), and George Sisler (1920), for 63rd best position player season of all time. That's really, really impressive.

This will be fun. Some hall of famers and where their best season ranks all-time among position players:

Ruth 1
Yastrzemski 3
Hornsby 5
Gehrig 7
Ripken 11 (tie)
Wagner 11 (tie)
Cobb 14 (tie)
Mantle 14 (tie)
Mays 16
Musial 18
Morgan 19
Williams 21

That's all of the hall of fame position players who have had a season better than Trout's best. The only non-HOF player with a season better than Trout is Bonds. Let's keep the list going a bit (and add non-HOF players).

Collins 30
Foxx 30
Yount 30
Boudreau 37
ARod 37
Sosa 41
Banks 44
Rosen 48
Speaker 48
Petrocelli 52
Harper 56
Henderson 56

Trout's best season is better than any season Jimmie Foxx, or anybody else on this list, ever put up. Let's skip down a few spots.

Carew 68
Griffey 68
Pujols 68
J. Robinson 68
Schmidt 68
Jackson 76
Beltre 82

If Trout keeps up his current pace for the rest of the year he'll have two seasons worth more WAR than these guys.

Aaron 87
Biggio 87
Brett 87
Turner 87

As it stands he's already got two seasons better than any season these guys put together. It'll be three if keeps up his present pace for the rest of the year.

Baker 100
Heilmann 100
Snider 100
Cash 107
Frisch 107
Giambi 107
Rolen 107
Vaughn 107

He's already got three seasons as good or better than these guys' best. It'll be four if he keeps up his present pace. And remember after this season he'll only have five full years in the big leagues.

And that one season from Trout that's not turning up on these lists? That's the year that he won the MVP award.

He hasn't had his decline phase yet, and that will pull his rates down. But Trout is really super historically good. He is often compared to Mantle, but by WAR Trout leads Mantle in age 20, 21, and 22. They were basically tied at age 23. It's not until Mantle's age 24 season that he posted a WAR more than marginally higher than Trout will at the same age (this is Trout's age 24 season).

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I like Mike Trout, but it is very very very hard for me to believe that on a per plate appearance basis he is at this point the second best hitter of all time or anywhere close. What is driving his WAR to be so high, he has some nice counting numbers but they don't seem particularly overwhelming? Maybe a small part of it is that he hasn't yet obviously had the usual end of career decline, but that doesn't seem enough to explain it.

Well, first off, his WAR says he is the 2nd best OVERALL PLAYER of all time, not just hitter. His elite baserunning and above avg defense combine with his elite bat to make him such a great player. Just hitting alone (using wRC+) he is 7th all time. But, as you said, much of this is because he hasn't hit his decline phase yet. If he stayed capable enough to play until say age 38-40, his overall wRC+ and other batting metrics would be expected to decline. (I'm guessing into the high teens all time, which is still damn good)