Carlos Gomez No. 1. Andrelton Simmons No. 7. Starling Marte No. 8.
WTMcF?
Shirley (sic) you can't be serious, WAR.
Carlos Gomez No. 1. Andrelton Simmons No. 7. Starling Marte No. 8.
WTMcF?
Shirley (sic) you can't be serious, WAR.
Rounding third and heading for home...
Fangraphs has the following 2013 NL leaders: McCutchen, Gomez, Votto, CarGo, Goldschmidt. Baseball Reference has Gomez, McCutchen, Wright, Votto and Goldschmidt. Seems pretty fair to me on both counts. Why do you have a problem with any of the three you mention? Simmons may seem absurd but he is a wizard with the glove and better offensively than many at his position.
What are you to make of NL WAR? Some of your biases and erroneous preconceived notions about player valuation have been exposed?
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Just as a public service announcement for those with low post counts, trolling and masked profanity are both against board rules.Originally Posted by BluegrassRedleg
Carlos Gomez No. 1. Andrelton Simmons No. 7. Starling Marte No. 8.
WTMcF?
Shirley (sic) you can't be serious, WAR.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Wow, you're pretty smug. You act like that with people in real life?
Brutus (08-10-2013),DocRed (08-10-2013),Fil3232 (08-10-2013),jimbo (08-11-2013),junkhead (08-10-2013),Larkin Fan (08-10-2013),New York Red (08-10-2013),Norm Chortleton (08-12-2013),OnBaseMachine (08-10-2013),Red in Chicago (08-10-2013),RedsfaninMT (08-10-2013),westofyou (08-10-2013)
I was shocked by the OP too.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
These things have been discussed ad naseum and the stated concerns have been demonstrated to not be valid reasons to reject the metric multiple times. Read the archives, they are loaded with great discussion on these issues.
Last edited by jojo; 08-10-2013 at 09:36 AM.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
RedEye (08-10-2013)
Those numbers place him in the top half of shortstops offensively, and a lot of those other players have much lesser defense. I'm not saying WAR is the greatest stat on Earth because I believe it has flaws. But Simmons is an extremely valuable player that provides a massive upgrade over a readily available replacement at his position.
Defense counts. Really, really good defense up the middle counts for a lot.
While defensive stats might be less reliable than offensive ones, I'm really tired of having them discounted simply because they disagree with out gut instincts of what they should be. For example, people still treat defensive stats like they're a measure of talent that should be extremely consistent year-to-year instead of as performance with a healthy range of variability.
(yes, I understand people's doubt comes in part due to how systems measure defensive performance and I don't want to debate this yet again)
Last edited by RedsManRick; 08-10-2013 at 09:42 AM.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
For the record, ESPN is using baseball-reference's WAR calculation, which, if I remember correctly, has been pretty consistently discounted for using poor fielding metrics in its calculation. Using Fangraphs' WAR leaderboard, I don't see Andrelton Simmons on the front page (Trout is #1 largely due to being 7 runs better on the bases; he is more than 2 wins better than Chris Davis, who has similar defense and wRC), and there aren't really any head-scratchers on the list.
And also, doesn't WAR carry more weight as a career-cumulative statistic than a season statistic because of the nature of defensive stats needing to settle?
But the real problem with WAR is case-study analysis that can leave even an educated fan scratching their head, such as this:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/89...placement-statWho would you rather have had as your shortstop last year -- Derek Jeter (the All-Star Game starter and future Hall of Famer) or the Mariners' Brendan Ryan (who hit .194 with a .555 OPS)? Yes, this is a trick question. Because while any sane fan will pick Jeter (even with his ankle in a cast) over Ryan, baseball-reference gave Ryan a WAR of 3.3 last season and Jeter a WAR of 2.1, probably because Ryan is the superior fielder. FanGraphs' spread is just the opposite: Jeter at 3.2 and Ryan at 1.7.
The article here (which isn't super compelling as a whole, but brings up a couple good points about using WAR as a be-all-end-all stat) has a couple other less compelling examples than this as well, such as Ricky Nolasco's 2009 season where he had a 5.06 ERA and a WAR over 4 (disclaimer- I looked up Nolasco's statistics and don't think this is a great example in this article; the season was actually a good one except for, well, actual results).
From the same article:
As I wrote at the beginning, WAR can be a valuable measure. The problem is when it is used as the DEFINITIVE measure. Such as, "Mike Trout had a 10.7 WAR and Miguel Cabrera had a 6.9 WAR, so anyone who thinks Cabrera deserved to be the American League MVP should be strip-searched, tied to an anthill and forced to rely on dial-up for his Internet connection for the remainder of his pathetic life."
Look, all stats have their limitations. If a player has a .329 batting average, that probably means he's pretty good. But for an accurate measure of the player, we need more information. How many extra-base hits does he have? How many times does he walk? How many stolen bases? How many runs, how many RBIs? How many double plays has he hit into? The same is true for a player with 40 home runs. Does he have a .300 average to go with them, or a .230 average? Does he strike out a lot? How often does he walk?
The same approach should apply to WAR. We need to look at many stats to assess players, and one of them should be WAR. But it shouldn't be the only stat we look at or cite.
BlackPete Ibold (08-10-2013)
Did you read the post before explaining that is on baseball-reference and not fangraphs?
WAR is unreliable if it is used as an absolute measure. It is very useful as a rough indicator of a player's value. Whether you are into new stats, or prefer the more traditional ones, ALL stats are interlocked - they can't be used independently of other stats to form judgements. That is where WAR gets in trouble, imo. Too many fans misunderstand it and assume it is the ultimate measure of a player and they can ignore other stats. What's his WAR? Most fans on Redszone are more astute than that. WAR is just another number and formula to use in evaluation. If you depend on it as THE stat, then you'll get in dutch. As for the defensive metrics, they are vastly improved over what they were just 5 years ago - as they are harder to quantify, it stands to reason there are going to be some problems but computers and cameras are making it better and better - the eye meets the numbers so to speak.
One thing about Frazier/Bruce and WAR for instance - I don't like to measure WAR numbers of players at different positions - it's apples to oranges. RF comped to RFer, 3B to 3B, SS to SS. For instance in fangraphs calculation of WAR the difference in Runs is a swing of 10 in favor of the third baseman - which when you compare a third baseman to a RFer means that the solid 3rd base defender gets a fair boost in his WAR via defense which the RFer doesn't (the RFer is actually dunned -7.5 Runs). SS to RF has an even higher run value difference. If you don't understand this valuation by position you are bound to make erroneous judgements looking at WAR.
1) Fangraphs is generally regarded as being more accurate because UZR is a more reliable measure than Runs Saved, although neither is really that accurate in a single season. This was pretty clear in the article that I linked.
2) Frazier is +9 in fielding according to Fangraphs while Bruce is -1. Frazier also has accrued more runs on the basepads than Bruce has, 1.2 to -0.3. There's your difference. It's pretty clear to see in the far right 4 columns on Fangraphs that the differences in player value are there.
Right fielders in the NL are pretty good as a whole and 3rd baseman in the NL are not strong this year at all.
Bruce is not a good base runner (but too much weight on base running).....and somehow he doesn't grade well in RF.
I wouldn't use BR.com's WAR.Carlos Gomez No. 1. Andrelton Simmons No. 7. Starling Marte No. 8.
WTMcF?
Shirley (sic) you can't be serious, WAR.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
