As of today, Mike Leake has a 1.0 "Batting/Fielding" WAR.
How has he arrived at that point?
Scott Rolen has a 0.9 WAR for perspective.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...8&rost=0&age=0
As of today, Mike Leake has a 1.0 "Batting/Fielding" WAR.
How has he arrived at that point?
Scott Rolen has a 0.9 WAR for perspective.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...8&rost=0&age=0
Isn't it broke down by position? "Decent" is subjective by position. If you get a .200 OBP from a pitcher, that'd be pretty good; a first baseman, not so much.Originally Posted by kaldaniels
‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Matthew 25:40
That's one win over the replacement value of a pitcher. I'd imagine the replacement line for a pitcher is very, very low.
Of course....Cueto was at a -0.1. So does this just assume that if Leake and Cueto had the same pitching line over 28 starts or so, the Reds record in games Leake started would be one game better than Cueto? I could come around to that fact I suppose.
It's interesting how "little" production it takes from a pitcher at the plate/field to drastically increase the odds of the team winning.
Good find.. To me, it pretty much proves that WAR is useless for comparing players that play different positions.
It is more useful for comparing people that play same positions, but still flawed.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
You really should look a little harder.
"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
I have.. there was one season (2010 or 2011) when Heisey had a higher WAR in a part time role than almost the entire bullpen.
Then there's the case where Adam Dunn had a 927 OPS in 2009 and had a 1.1 WAR (to put into context, so far this year, Stubbs has a 1.3 WAR)
Then the next year, Dunn OPSed 892, yet had a WAR of 3.5 because he turned into a 1b.
Dunn was obviously the same guy both years.
I'm not a big fan of Dunn's LF defense, but I'm pretty sure he was more valuable in LF in 2009 than Stubbs is this year for the Reds.
It's flawed.
I am using fangraphs WAR for Dunn and Stubbs.. I can't remember which WAR I used for Hiesey vs the entire Reds bullpen.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
I'm not sure who the "replacement" is. Mike Costanza? Biff Pocoroba?
That's a good question.
I know the theory is that the replacement guy is like Mike Constanza.. someone that could be easily claimed off waivers, for free.. In theory, a guy like him is a zero WAR player. But he's been rated at -0.6 on baseball reference.. That seems to imply the Reds could easily get a guy better than him.. not sure that's necessarily true (the "easily" part) . Yes, the Reds did ultimately upgrade him with Xaiver Paul (0.4 WAR) but whether guys like that are "readily available" at all times is debatable.
I wanted to do an exercise to see what the record would be for a team full of zero WAR players. I would take the number of wins by a team, subtract the team WAR, then average them all out. (someone has probably already done this).
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
The Reds pen was ranked 26th in the majors by xFIP that season, a fact not missed by Walt who promptly went out and made several major moves to dramatically upgrade it (including not turing Chapman into a starter). Heisey meanwhile was an above average bat and a roughly neutral defender. It's not a shocker that such a position player might post a higher WAR than a near worst in the league pen that got significant innings from the Ondruseks, Arrendos, and Horsts of the world
Dunn's 2009 has been discussed in terms of WAR ad naseum on redszone. He logged significant innings in right and at first for the first time in his career. he was hideous and no one who watched him would dispute this. Nonetheless, his UZR is based upon small samples because it's distributed across three positions so while he was undeniably hideous, that is a year where one would have to be skeptical of his overall UZR. In 2010, he rated much better as a fulltime first baseman with a year under his belt and a year's worth of sample size to judge him. But lets not forget that Dunn is now a DH. This isn't a fatal flaw in WAR. It points to a flaw in the analysis using WAR that fails to recognize the limitations of the data set that is being referenced. So again, Dunn's 2009 really isn't the smoking gun that indicates WAR needs to be ignored.
First, no Dunn wasn't the same guy both years.
Second, concerning Dunn's 2009 and Stubbs' 2012, while we don't really know what Dunn's true value was due to the reasons state above, we do know that Dunn played the three positions to the farthest right on the defensive spectrum very, very poorly in 2009 while Stubbs has played one of the hardest positions on the field as a slightly plus defender. While Dunn probably was more valuable in 2009 than Stubbs has been in 2012 because of the disparity in their offense, the difference isn't likely as great as many assume.
Concerning WAR, these examples are pointing more to a flaw in analysis than a flaw in WAR.
Last edited by jojo; 09-04-2012 at 02:44 PM.
"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
ok so in 2010, Heisey had a 1.6 WAR per fangraphs.
I am switching to fangraphs, because I was told this was a better system.
I think I incorrectly said my 2010 Heisey arguement was baseball reference earlier.
The same year, per fangraphs, our best relievers per WAR were Masset (1.0) and Rhodes (0.9), and Chapman (0.7).. First point.. Chapman only pitched 13 innings that year! WAR is supposed to be a cumulative stat. How can 13 innings of relief pitching, no matter how good, be considered that valuable in relative comparison to the heavier load that Masset and Rhodes did?
Not to mention, Heisey was almost as valuable as the Reds two best relievers that season, who were pretty good.
Neither of those pass the smell test.
I realize I said 2011 or 2010 in my earlier point, and that's what you were responding to earlier.
I mean, he's the same person.. He actually had a worse offensive seasonDunn's 2009 has been discussed in terms of WAR ad naseum on redszone. He logged significant innings in right and at first for the first time in his career. he was hideous and no one who watched him would dispute this. Nonetheless, his UZR is based upon small samples because it's distributed across three positions so while he was undeniably hideous, that is a year where one would have to be skeptical of his overall UZR. In 2010, he rated much better as a fulltime first baseman with a year under his belt and a year's worth of sample size to judge him. But lets not forget that Dunn is now a DH. This isn't a fatal flaw in WAR. It points to a flaw in the analysis using WAR that fails to recognize the limitations of the data set that is being referenced. So again, Dunn's 2009 really isn't the smoking gun that indicates WAR needs to be ignored.
First, no Dunn wasn't the same guy both years.
in 2010, but was rewarded by WAR because he played 1b.
Likewise Stubbs is rewarded for playing CF.
If WAR rewards people for playing more difficult positions, doesn't that kind of make comparing different position players almost impossible?
If you were drafting a team from scratch, no need to worry about money..
It's your pick.. You can chose either 2012 Stubbs or 2009 Dunn as your first pick.. You want to pick the best available player.. Would you pick Dunn or Stubbs? WAR says you should pick Stubbs.
I thought WAR was supposed to be a number to compare a player's relative contribution to the team.. I guess I don't see how it is a flaw in analysis to say that a higher WAR player should be more valuable.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
For a purported "one-stop-stat", I'd argue that it is.
If the standard is that a stat must allow an indisputable conclusion without the need to think about the limitations the stat imposes upon the "answer", then yes, I guess it is fatally flawed because all stats are likewise fatally flawed.
"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
Agreed. It's only as strong as its weakest component, and the variation on UZR as a metric is still too unpredictable to make war infallible. It's the best overall summation of a player we have for the time being, but being the best doesn't mean it should be the bottom line.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
I guess I question the need for a "best overall summation".
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. |
Reply With Quote