WAR Question:

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nat

It's not an account of value (although some people certainly use it as a proxy for that). What it measures is how many additional games an arbitrary team would expect to win if the player in question were to join that team. This is a very difficult thing to measure.

WAR is completely unrelated to wins. That is why Bill James doesn't like WAR. It is just a theoretical number that has very little value on its own. The example of Trout vs. Betts is the perfect example. Trout is one of the worst centerfielders in MLB, while Betts is one of the best rightfielders. However, since someone decided that a CF is more "valuable" than a RF, Trout has a higher WAR.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by rats60

WAR is completely unrelated to wins. That is why Bill James doesn't like WAR. It is just a theoretical number that has very little value on its own. The example of Trout vs. Betts is the perfect example. Trout is one of the worst centerfielders in MLB, while Betts is one of the best rightfielders. However, since someone decided that a CF is more "valuable" than a RF, Trout has a higher WAR.

WOW! Now, that's a statement!

[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.

[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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by rats60

WAR is completely unrelated to wins. That is why Bill James doesn't like WAR. It is just a theoretical number that has very little value on its own. The example of Trout vs. Betts is the perfect example. Trout is one of the worst centerfielders in MLB, while Betts is one of the best rightfielders. However, since someone decided that a CF is more "valuable" than a RF, Trout has a higher WAR.

Pretty much everyone believes that CF is more valuable than RF. ALso I'd have to investigate but I've never heard that he was a bad CF.

Also James might not like WAR but he loves Grich. It's a solid measuring stick of relative value. Yes BR and FG have differences in how they compile WAR, but relatively speaking they feel Grich belongs in the same company

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

WAR is completely unrelated to wins. That is why Bill James doesn't like WAR. It is just a theoretical number that has very little value on its own. The example of Trout vs. Betts is the perfect example. Trout is one of the worst centerfielders in MLB, while Betts is one of the best rightfielders. However, since someone decided that a CF is more "valuable" than a RF, Trout has a higher WAR.

Fangraphs has Trout's UZR/150 at 14.5 for 2018, and Betts' at 15.8. Maybe I am not a Sabermetrics expert yet, but those numbers don't suggest Trout is one of the worst anything when compared to Betts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Good analysis on Grich, but the disparity between the sabremetric numbers and the voters' perception is pretty staggering. Can you be a great player and nobody knows it? I guess.

As for walk vs. hit that line is specious. Consider the dramatic difference with a runner on second. A hit likely scores a run, a walk just makes it first and second. The only time they are the same is with bases empty.

[clydepepper]

Bill- While I have great respect for your extensive research, you make my brain hurt.

[nat]

"As for walk vs. hit that line is specious. Consider the dramatic difference with a runner on second. A hit likely scores a run, a walk just makes it first and second. The only time they are the same is with bases empty."

That's why you also have to look at slugging percentage. Grich does well there too. (I mean, of course he does, he led the league in HRs!)

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Bill- While I have great respect for your extensive research, you make my brain hurt.

Thanks, Raymond. And sorry.

Just wait until I have a better command of Sabermetrics. Then I'll make your head explode.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Good analysis on Grich, but the disparity between the sabremetric numbers and the voters' perception is pretty staggering. Can you be a great player and nobody knows it? I guess.

As for walk vs. hit that line is specious. Consider the dramatic difference with a runner on second. A hit likely scores a run, a walk just makes it first and second. The only time they are the same is with bases empty.

Oh, I agree, Peter. The single and walk are only the same where OBP are considered. But if a guy gets a hit with a runner on, he gets the benefit of an RBI. If he gets a single, his SLG increases.

I don't know why there's a disparity between how voters that watched Grich play valued him, and how modern metrics value him. Is it possible that the baseball writers from that era were too focused on the Triple Crown stats? .300, 25 HR, 100 RBI sounds great, and better than a guy that hits .280, 17 HR 80 RBI. But if the .300 hitter has 25 doubles, 3 triples and 43 walks, while the .280 hitter has 40 doubles, 7 triples and 72 walks, obviously the Triple Crown stats don't tell the whole story.

I think this is a prime example of why the Veteran's Committee exists. Baseball thinking changes over time. Evaluation methodology evolves, and guys that didn't get a fair shake can get another look. I think guys like Ted Simmons, Dave Parker and Bobby Grich will ultimately benefit from this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Oh, I agree, Peter. The single and walk are only the same where OBP are considered. But if a guy gets a hit with a runner on, he gets the benefit of an RBI. If he gets a single, his SLG increases.

I don't know why there's a disparity between how voters that watched Grich play valued him, and how modern metrics value him. Is it possible that the baseball writers from that era were too focused on the Triple Crown stats? .300, 25 HR, 100 RBI sounds great, and better than a guy that hits .280, 17 HR 80 RBI. But if the .300 hitter has 25 doubles, 3 triples and 43 walks, while the .280 hitter has 40 doubles, 7 triples and 72 walks, obviously the Triple Crown stats don't tell the whole story.

I think this is a prime example of why the Veteran's Committee exists. Baseball thinking changes over time. Evaluation methodology evolves, and guys that didn't get a fair shake can get another look. I think guys like Ted Simmons, Dave Parker and Bobby Grich will ultimately benefit from this.

Parker doesn't do so well on the sabremetrics as I recall.