This is why WAR confuses me...

[atoaz12]

Look at Altuve, Freeman and Belt

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/sort/WARBR

Freeman is superior in nearly every number and yet they all have a WAR of 2.6

Great players and great seasons, but it seems clear it's Freeman, Belt, then Altuve

So confusing

*If anyone could copy and paste stat columns, you're smarter than me. And probably understand WAR better :D

[Stech36]

The difference is Defense and position. Belt has been a slightly better defender than freeman, and a slightly worse hitter. It evens out. Altuve is a second baseman, so he gets bonus points essentially for being at a premium position.. it’s not a perfect system, but that’s the gist of it.

[Ottomatic]

Poor Brandon Belt always underrated because he plays in a tough park. Belt and Freeman are hitting very similar overall, both play first. Altuve is hitting slightly worse, but runs the bases better and plays a tougher position. Pretty easy to see all three of those guys are having pretty darn similar seasons with or without WAR.

[bwalter1]

The difference is Defense and position. Belt has been a slightly better defender than freeman, and a slightly worse hitter. It evens out. Altuve is a second baseman, so he gets bonus points essentially for being at a premium position.. it’s not a perfect system, but that’s the gist of it.

What are the other "premium" positions or are there? Where does 3b rate to SS? Essentially would Machado's war be higher with same stats at 3b or at SS?

[rman112]

What are the other "premium" positions or are there? Where does 3b rate to SS? Essentially would Machado's war be higher with same stats at 3b or at SS?

C, SS, CF most important.

[rwperu34]

What are the other "premium" positions or are there? Where does 3b rate to SS? Essentially would Machado's war be higher with same stats at 3b or at SS?

C +12.5
SS +7.5
2b/3b/cf +2.5
lf/rf -7.5
1b -12.5

Roughly.

[RaceDog]

I am not a big fan of WAR yet...yet.

They haven't perfected the data for defense and they also place too heavy a weight on what they do calculate for defense. When they score a slap hitting .280 above average defensive SS #9 hitter equally with a offensive stud corner OF that is average defensively, there is a problem.

[mfw13]

You also have to account for the fact that WAR factors in park effects....so Belt gets a boost since he plays in a tough hitters park.

[hairysasquatch]

WAR, what is it good for?

[atoaz12]

I was a dummy was reading it as offensive war

[Bader]

WAR, what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing!

[hairysasquatch]

Absolutely nothing!

Say it again!

[Bader]

Say it again!

Ya”ll huh, WAR!....what is it good for...absolutely nothing

[Chrisyork33]

I am not a big fan of WAR yet...yet.

They haven't perfected the data for defense and they also place too heavy a weight on what they do calculate for defense. When they score a slap hitting .280 above average defensive SS #9 hitter equally with a offensive stud corner OF that is average defensively, there is a problem.

I'm feel the same. The concept I like, but the defensive metrics still need some tweaking IMO. I think that will happen though. For now, its the best we have to measure a player's total value, while considering a multitude of factors.

[hornedfrog1985]

I'm feel the same. The concept I like, but the defensive metrics still need some tweaking IMO. I think that will happen though. For now, its the best we have to measure a player's total value, while considering a multitude of factors.

Agreed.... i see some pretty bad defense by some of these guys and they still get a boost simply for playing a premium position.

[chezball]

WAR, what is it good for?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/EdwinStarr.jpg

[dhendrix1303]

War is old men talking and young men dying

[dodgerfanjohn]

I am not a big fan of WAR yet...yet.

They haven't perfected the data for defense and they also place too heavy a weight on what they do calculate for defense. When they score a slap hitting .280 above average defensive SS #9 hitter equally with a offensive stud corner OF that is average defensively, there is a problem.

If you are referring to Simmons, he hit 14 hr and 38 doubles last year and to my recollection never batted 9th.

And he is considered in competition for best defensive short stop ever.

FWIW he is batting over .330 so far this year.

[SethMurphy]

If you are referring to Simmons, he hit 14 hr and 38 doubles last year and to my recollection never batted 9th.

And he is considered in competition for best defensive short stop ever.

FWIW he is batting over .330 so far this year.

You are correct

Games by batting position in 2017

1st - 9
2nd - 6
3rd - 2
4th - 3
5th - 72
6th - 56
7th - 10

and actually only has 35 games batting 9th in his entire career (from which he has hit .307 in 124 PA)

[StlScott]

Each team has their own version of WAR. That is how they decide how much they pay their players and who they look for in trades etc.

[rats60]

C +12.5
SS +7.5
2b/3b/cf +2.5
lf/rf -7.5
1b -12.5

Roughly.

This is stupid and the whole reason why WAR is worthless to compare players at different positions. Defensive value is the plays you make or not, not being a statue at a particular position. 2nd base is not a more difficult position to play than right field. This is what happens when people who never played the game decide to opine on those who play at the highest level.

[tkraft24]

2nd base is not a more difficult position to play than right field.

So we can throw right fielders at 2B and there fielding percentage would remain constant? WAR argument aside, middle infield positions are clearly more demanding positions and require more skill than corner outfielders.

[tribefan26]

2nd base is not a more difficult position to play than right field.

:doh::doh::doh:

[dodgerfanjohn]

This is stupid and the whole reason why WAR is worthless to compare players at different positions. Defensive value is the plays you make or not, not being a statue at a particular position. 2nd base is not a more difficult position to play than right field. This is what happens when people who never played the game decide to opine on those who play at the highest level.

Aside of being incorrect, simple game knowledge would tell you that 2nd basemen have more fielding chances and also many more "difficult" or "advanced" plays to make(ie the ball comes at them faster and from a shorter distance, requiring quicker reaction time).

[Peties Army]

Aside of being incorrect, simple game knowledge would tell you that 2nd basemen have more fielding chances and also many more "difficult" or "advanced" plays to make(ie the ball comes at them faster and from a shorter distance, requiring quicker reaction time).

100%.

All add probably the most important thing that makes 2B harder, having to turn a DP. Runner coming up your back side and you can’t see.

Second is harder the RF. Don’t be silly.

[tribefan26]

100%.

All add probably the most important thing that makes 2B harder, having to turn a DP. Runner coming up your back side and you can’t see.

Second is harder the RF. Don’t be silly.

I follow SABRmetrics, but I'm not a SABRmetrician. With the focus these days on launch angles and more fly balls, has OF become even less important? Seems there could be measurable difference in harder to field line drives and less opportunities for assists in the OF.

I may go google searching.

[rwperu34]

I am not a big fan of WAR yet...yet.

They haven't perfected the data for defense and they also place too heavy a weight on what they do calculate for defense. When they score a slap hitting .280 above average defensive SS #9 hitter equally with a offensive stud corner OF that is average defensively, there is a problem.

You should play Stratomatic. It happens far more often than you think.

Agreed.... i see some pretty bad defense by some of these guys and they still get a boost simply for playing a premium position.

This is stupid and the whole reason why WAR is worthless to compare players at different positions. Defensive value is the plays you make or not, not being a statue at a particular position. 2nd base is not a more difficult position to play than right field. This is what happens when people who never played the game decide to opine on those who play at the highest level.

It is all about making plays. Typically the best defenders play the toughest positions (hence the positional adjustment), but not always. For example, Jason Heyward has provided more defensive value than an average 2b over his career...by a lot. If you want to know who the best defenders are, add position and defensive runs saved. That's your true defensive value right there.

I follow SABRmetrics, but I'm not a SABRmetrician. With the focus these days on launch angles and more fly balls, has OF become even less important? Seems there could be measurable difference in harder to field line drives and less opportunities for assists in the OF.

I may go google searching.

I'd think the opposite. With more balls going in the air, that's more opportunities for OF to make plays.

[rman112]

Heyward should seek out and shake every WAR enthusiast's hand. It's what got him all that money.

He's also become a case of, for other teams, "don't do what they did..".

[kyleuk21]

This is stupid and the whole reason why WAR is worthless to compare players at different positions. Defensive value is the plays you make or not, not being a statue at a particular position. 2nd base is not a more difficult position to play than right field. This is what happens when people who never played the game decide to opine on those who play at the highest level.

You’re kidding right? 2b is less tough than RF? LF/RF are the easiest spots in the field with 1B not far behind. That’s why other spots are viewed as a premium. Clearly you’re in the group who has never played the game but still makes an opinion about it.

[kyleuk21]

100%.

All add probably the most important thing that makes 2B harder, having to turn a DP. Runner coming up your back side and you can’t see.

Second is harder the RF. Don’t be silly.

Par for the course considering the source lol

[Chicharito]

A ball boy probably catches more balls than a LF/RF does in a game

[tedwilliamsfan]

WAR is only important to people who have investments in Mike Trout cards. Luckily I have a few Trout's, so go #WARmachine.

Seriously though it does help you compare players overall and through different era's. Not perfect, an assumption based off of assumptions, but the overall picture is clearer using WAR. Just my opinion, don't use WAR as gospel.

[Ottomatic]

Heyward should seek out and shake every WAR enthusiast's hand. It's what got him all that money.

He's also become a case of, for other teams, "don't do what they did..".

Think a lot had to also do with his age and hope he can get back to hitting. I don't think that changes the way teams evaluate players just because he forgot how to hit. WAR enthusiasts didn't get him money, every single team is using advanced analytics, analytics won. People on forums might debate stats, but to actual teams there is no debate, it's long been over.

[SaveMeTheGum]

I like how WAR is different depending on who is modeling the calculation for the "R". Fangraphs gives you one number. Baseball Reference gives a different number. I'm actually surprised that people who pride themselves on analytics cling so tightly to a number that is theoretical. Most of the rest of the stats are based on hard fact. Objective > Subjective in my opinion.

[rwperu34]

Think a lot had to also do with his age and hope he can get back to hitting. I don't think that changes the way teams evaluate players just because he forgot how to hit. WAR enthusiasts didn't get him money, every single team is using advanced analytics, analytics won. People on forums might debate stats, but to actual teams there is no debate, it's long been over.

Back to hitting? The dude had a career OPS+ of 114 over 3400 PA the day he signed that contract. The real question is, why did a solid hitter all of a sudden turn into crap in his age 26 season?


WAR is only important to people who have investments in Mike Trout cards. Luckily I have a few Trout's, so go #WARmachine.

Seriously though it does help you compare players overall and through different era's. Not perfect, an assumption based off of assumptions, but the overall picture is clearer using WAR. Just my opinion, don't use WAR as gospel.

WAR isn't what drives Troutmania (or anything) in the hobby. It's is AVG/HR/The fact that he's on Sportscenter every night (if that show still exists).

[Ray27Ray52]

I like how WAR is different depending on who is modeling the calculation for the "R". Fangraphs gives you one number. Baseball Reference gives a different number. I'm actually surprised that people who pride themselves on analytics cling so tightly to a number that is theoretical. Most of the rest of the stats are based on hard fact. Objective > Subjective in my opinion.

Stone cold locked down nailed it.

[rman112]

Think a lot had to also do with his age and hope he can get back to hitting. I don't think that changes the way teams evaluate players just because he forgot how to hit. WAR enthusiasts didn't get him money, every single team is using advanced analytics, analytics won. People on forums might debate stats, but to actual teams there is no debate, it's long been over.

More important than compiling numbers is the people looking at them and deciding what to do with them, ie what is and isn't valuable. Things change. The biggest example is the Astros scrapping the whole "being OK with strikeouts" philosophy.

With Heyward, his defense was simply overvalued. His hitting has stunk in Chicago, but he's also a career .262 hitter.

[rman112]

Analytics simply isn't one thing, idea, or philosophy. As of recent history, though, it has been.

[Stifle]

This is why WAR is flawed. One batter can come to the plate 4 times in a game with runners first and second each time. That batter can have 2 infield singles and 2 strikeouts and have a better WAR than a batter who comes to the plate 4 times in the same situation and hits a 3 run home run, then reaches base on a error that brings in a run and leaves runners on the corner. The next two trips that same batter hits two long fly outs that advance both runners to second and third base. The initial batter would have a higher WAR than the second batter. Not sure how two singles are valued higher than a home run or that a strike out is equal to a out that advances a runner or two. Data proves that a advanced runner has better odds of scoring but all outs are equal in WAR. Understand because I don't.

Not sure how a fielder who commits 12 errors but 11 meaningless errors that cost the team 1 win while another fielder commits 5 errors but costs the team 4 games is the better fielder.

RBI's are overrated because they are based on different factors, well 2 out RBI's with a runner in scoring position are not. Though that is a hidden fact in the Saber Metric world.

If all situations are equal then why do factors such as Leverages being utilized. WAR doesn't equate CLUTCH but high leverages, late and close and 2 out W/RISP are considered clutch situations?

[rats60]

You’re kidding right? 2b is less tough than RF? LF/RF are the easiest spots in the field with 1B not far behind. That’s why other spots are viewed as a premium. Clearly you’re in the group who has never played the game but still makes an opinion about it.

I can see a lot of people haven't played the game or at least 2b. From over 50 years of playing 2b is one of the easiest positions. Shortstop was my primary position and when I was moved to 2b it was like a day off. Now you are playing deep in the OF, so the ground balls are easy to field, you have short throws and you don't even have to field balls cleanly. 2b is slightly harder than 1b and LF. To play RF, you have to have the strongest OF arm. Most 2b couldn't play RF without being a liability.

The flaw of positional adjustment in WAR is exposed in Bobby Grich. He has a higher WAR than many Hofers, but only got 11 votes his 1st year on the ballot and fell of the ballot. Steve Garvey has half the WAR, yet he got over 40% of the votes. I grew up in LA in the 70s and if you would have suggested that Grich was better than Garvey, you would have been laughed at and called an idiot. There are serious flaws with WAR that need to be corrected if it is ever going to be accepted.

[Stifle]

I can see a lot of people haven't played the game or at least 2b. From over 50 years of playing 2b is one of the easiest positions. Shortstop was my primary position and when I was moved to 2b it was like a day off. Now you are playing deep in the OF, so the ground balls are easy to field, you have short throws and you don't even have to field balls cleanly. 2b is slightly harder than 1b and LF. To play RF, you have to have the strongest OF arm. Most 2b couldn't play RF without being a liability.

The flaw of positional adjustment in WAR is exposed in Bobby Grich. He has a higher WAR than many Hofers, but only got 11 votes his 1st year on the ballot and fell of the ballot. Steve Garvey has half the WAR, yet he got over 40% of the votes. I grew up in LA in the 70s and if you would have suggested that Grich was better than Garvey, you would have been laughed at and called an idiot. There are serious flaws with WAR that need to be corrected if it is ever going to be accepted.

WAR should listen to the many players who will talk about some of the best fielders who they ever seen who couldn't make the major leagues. Hitting is what propels a player.
The toughest skill in all sports is to hit a baseball, WAR should also take that into account but doesn't.

[lambeauleap87]

Oh good, another "Sabermetrics are evil" thread full of people that simultaneously hate them and have effectively no working understanding of them.

[Stifle]

Oh good, another "Sabermetrics are evil" thread full of people that simultaneously hate them and have effectively no working understanding of them.

My response to WAR was by example. I also included situations that WAR doesn't utilize in its attempt to equate value. I just wish that those who utilize WAR would at least debate the flaws that are mentioned instead of going the route of understanding. I don't understand why WAR believers shy away from critics that defy what WAR attempts to equate?
Are 2 singles that don't bring a base runner home valued higher than the 3 run home run in WAR? Please attempt to to answer why this is? If all situations are the same as WAR states. I've given a example but once again, there was zero attempt to break down what I critiqued. I gave multiple examples. This is debate.

Never stated that WAR in equating value is "Evil", just flawed.

Is hitting a baseball the toughest skill in all sports therefore hitting should receive a huge portion of equating value. My opinion.

[Chicharito]

This is why WAR is flawed. One batter can come to the plate 4 times in a game with runners first and second each time. That batter can have 2 infield singles and 2 strikeouts and have a better WAR than a batter who comes to the plate 4 times in the same situation and hits a 3 run home run, then reaches base on a error that brings in a run and leaves runners on the corner. The next two trips that same batter hits two long fly outs that advance both runners to second and third base. The initial batter would have a higher WAR than the second batter. Not sure how two singles are valued higher than a home run or that a strike out is equal to a out that advances a runner or two. Data proves that a advanced runner has better odds of scoring but all outs are equal in WAR. Understand because I don't.

Not sure how a fielder who commits 12 errors but 11 meaningless errors that cost the team 1 win while another fielder commits 5 errors but costs the team 4 games is the better fielder.

RBI's are overrated because they are based on different factors, well 2 out RBI's with a runner in scoring position are not. Though that is a hidden fact in the Saber Metric world.

If all situations are equal then why do factors such as Leverages being utilized. WAR doesn't equate CLUTCH but high leverages, late and close and 2 out W/RISP are considered clutch situations?

My response to WAR was by example. I also included situations that WAR doesn't utilize in its attempt to equate value. I just wish that those who utilize WAR would at least debate the flaws that are mentioned instead of going the route of understanding.
Are 2 singles that don't bring a base runner home valued higher than the 3 run home run in WAR? Please attempt to to answer why this is? If all situations are the same as WAR states. I've given a example but once again, there was zero attempt to break down why my example was untrue. I gave multiple examples. This is debate.

Never stated that WAR in equating value is "Evil", just flawed.

Is hitting a baseball the toughest skill in all sports therefore hitting should receive a huge portion of equating value. My opinion.

:confused: Are you confused avg vs. WAR???

WAR values runs created and XBHs more than hits if I am correct, so a palyer who hits a 3 run homer is more valuable in WAR than the palyer that hits 2 RBIless singles. So what is your argument exactly?

[lambeauleap87]

My response to WAR was by example. I also included situations that WAR doesn't utilize in its attempt to equate value. I just wish that those who utilize WAR would at least debate the flaws that are mentioned instead of going the route of understanding. I don't understand why WAR believers shy away from critics that defy what WAR attempts to equate?
Are 2 singles that don't bring a base runner home valued higher than the 3 run home run in WAR? Please attempt to to answer why this is? If all situations are the same as WAR states. I've given a example but once again, there was zero attempt to break down what I critiqued. I gave multiple examples. This is debate.

Never stated that WAR in equating value is "Evil", just flawed.

Is hitting a baseball the toughest skill in all sports therefore hitting should receive a huge portion of equating value. My opinion.

WAR is imperfect, and that's stated over and over by those that created it.

And, no, your example is incorrect, sorry. The main component of the Batting Runs Above Average (fWAR) is effectively wOBA (weighted on base average) adjusted to league/park factors. In wOBA, a home run carries a weight of 2.045. A base hit carries a value of 0.88.

One home run = 2.045
Two base hits = 1.76

WAR is context-free because it basically equates to a comparison in a vacuum.

[Stifle]

The last time I checked on WAR 2 singles were worth more than a home run but I'm glad I was incorrect there.

My other example - All outs are created equally. If a hitter bounces or flies out giving the runner a easy base to advance, Data proves that a advanced base runner has a greater odd of scoring. Shouldn't a strike out be more of a negative because the hitter isn't forcing a fielder to make a defensive play. I have asked this for years but no reply. Please reply because I've only waited years for this one.

I don't expect perfection but some say if a equation is flawed in the process then how can the outcome be accurate ?

[rwperu34]

Oh good, another "Sabermetrics are evil" thread full of people that simultaneously hate them and have effectively no working understanding of them.

Good lord you are correct. There is some serious nonsense going on in here since my last post. If I were going to add anything constructive to help them understand (which they probably don't want to anyways) it would be this;

A lot of the anti saber arguments are in regards to sequencing. To that I say, is the guy who hits a homerun after a walk any more talented than the guy who hits a homerun after a strikeout (or popout, or flyout, or groundout)?

[SaveMeTheGum]

Good lord you are correct. There is some serious nonsense going on in here since my last post. If I were going to add anything constructive to help them understand (which they probably don't want to anyways) it would be this;

A lot of the anti saber arguments are in regards to sequencing. To that I say, is the guy who hits a homerun after a walk any more talented than the guy who hits a homerun after a strikeout (or popout, or flyout, or groundout)?

Well, but that brings up an interesting question. Batters are pitched differently when there are runners on base than when the bases are empty. If one player hits most of their HR's with no one on vs. another player that hits a higher percentage of his HR's with people on base, it could be argued that the second hitter is more talented (or at least more valuable) than the first one -- similar to BA w/RISP. When dealing with highly complex modeling, such as the calculations that go into coming up with "replacement", no data is valueless data. All data gives different pieces of the whole story.

[rman112]

Good lord you are correct. There is some serious nonsense going on in here since my last post. If I were going to add anything constructive to help them understand (which they probably don't want to anyways) it would be this;

A lot of the anti saber arguments are in regards to sequencing. To that I say, is the guy who hits a homerun after a walk any more talented than the guy who hits a homerun after a strikeout (or popout, or flyout, or groundout)?

If it's a pattern of not hitting well with a runner or runners on, then yes.

[rman112]

Situations matter. It's one of the things modern hitters don't understand, and apparently something teams aren't valuing either. How many hitters simply swing for the downs, no matter the count? Combine that with being passive early in the count, and K's are sky high.

[bobthewondercat]

The last time I checked on WAR 2 singles were worth more than a home run but I'm glad I was incorrect there.

My other example - All outs are created equally. If a hitter bounces or flies out giving the runner a easy base to advance, Data proves that a advanced base runner has a greater odd of scoring. Shouldn't a strike out be more of a negative because the hitter isn't forcing a fielder to make a defensive play. I have asked this for years but no reply. Please reply because I've only waited years for this one.

I don't expect perfection but some say if a equation is flawed in the process then how can the outcome be accurate ?



Answering the question in your middle paragraph: no, strikeouts aren’t categorically less onerous than batted ball outs. It depends on the model of WAR, but generally speaking, it will compute appropriate run values for all types of outcomes based on a large body of data (with more recent data more heavily weighted, and adjustments for Park, weather, wind, defensive positioning etc) that finds the best calculable estimate of how often these events lead to winning games. Sometimes a strikeout is better, sometimes not.

[Stifle]

Answering the question in your middle paragraph: no, strikeouts aren’t categorically less onerous than batted ball outs. It depends on the model of WAR, but generally speaking, it will compute appropriate run values for all types of outcomes based on a large body of data (with more recent data more heavily weighted, and adjustments for Park, weather, wind, defensive positioning etc) that finds the best calculable estimate of how often these events lead to winning games. Sometimes a strikeout is better, sometimes not.

The last time I checked WAR was in 2012, have they tweaked with the formula?

If the stance on WAR is that "All outs are created equal" and it's a proven fact that data shows they are not isn't WAR utilizing a flawed process?

"All situations are created equally" ? That is false, 2 Out W/RISP RBI's should be critiqued differently due to the fact that a out isn't permitted before the runner can cross home plate and the batter reaches first base? This is entirely different then having nobody out or one out situations.

Clutch doesn't factor into WAR because all situations are equal, false. Why is it that if all situations are equal that hitting with 2 outs W/RISP has historically been the toughest situation for a hitter, when all situations should be fairly equal ? I believe since late 40's?

Once WAR attempts to analyze these issues then I will give it some credibility.

Baseball : Have more runners advance from the batters box to home plate than your opponent. Many players can advance many bases but very few steal home. There are more players who create opportunities than those who are able capitalize when the opportunities exist.

Mike Trout will have the best skill set over this current decade but is hitting only .252 in "Late & Close" situations with less power. 520 At Bats 644 Plate appearances. If all situations are equal then why such disparity between other situations? Over .50 in BA & even more so in SLG & OPS .844 OPS ?

[atoaz12]

I can see a lot of people haven't played the game or at least 2b. From over 50 years of playing 2b is one of the easiest positions. Shortstop was my primary position and when I was moved to 2b it was like a day off. Now you are playing deep in the OF, so the ground balls are easy to field, you have short throws and you don't even have to field balls cleanly. 2b is slightly harder than 1b and LF. To play RF, you have to have the strongest OF arm. Most 2b couldn't play RF without being a liability.

You played for 50 years (who are you, the ghost of Satchel Paige?) and still can't figure out that second base is more difficult than right field?

Hands, quickness, pivots, coverages (bunt and steal), range... my mind is blown

What right fielder can play 2B? Zobrist?
A huge majority of the second basemen could play right field.

You continue to rank at or near the top of my list of posters who I never agree with :D:)!

[Boo]

The last time I checked WAR was in 2012, have they tweaked with the formula?

If the stance on WAR is that "All outs are created equal" and it's a proven fact that data shows they are not isn't WAR utilizing a flawed process?

"All situations are created equally" ? That is false, 2 Out W/RISP RBI's should be critiqued differently due to the fact that a out isn't permitted before the runner can cross home plate and the batter reaches first base? This is entirely different then having nobody out or one out situations.

Clutch doesn't factor into WAR because all situations are equal, false. Why is it that if all situations are equal that hitting with 2 outs W/RISP has historically been the toughest situation for a hitter, when all situations should be fairly equal ? I believe since late 40's?

Once WAR attempts to analyze these issues then I will give it some credibility.

Baseball : Have more runners advance from the batters box to home plate than your opponent. Many players can advance many bases but very few steal home. There are more players who create opportunities than those who are able capitalize when the opportunities exist.

Joey Gallo thinks all outs are equal

[smapdi]

Get on the Win Shares truck already.

[WalterAZ31]

WAR tells me that Lorenzo Cain has essentially been the best player in NL this season thus far

thats cute

[Ray27Ray52]

WAR tells me that Lorenzo Cain has essentially been the best player in NL this season thus far

thats cute

But he's a beast!

7 HR's 17 RBI's .273 avg .385 OBP 1 Error in 127 chances

Absolutely mind boggling numbers. Hang it up Arenado, Bryant, and Harper. Scrubs.

[kyleuk21]

You played for 50 years (who are you, the ghost of Satchel Paige?) and still can't figure out that second base is more difficult than right field?

Hands, quickness, pivots, coverages (bunt and steal), range... my mind is blown

What right fielder can play 2B? Zobrist?
A huge majority of the second basemen could play right field.

You continue to rank at or near the top of my list of posters who I never agree with :D:)!
He’ll never figure it out regardless of simple logic and the fact that everyone else disagrees. Some people are in their own little world.

[PKIPP]

Have played every position. 2B a lot tougher than RF.

[Zauron]

WAR is a very good stat, but no, it is not the end all stat some people enforce.

Defensive WAR is highly unpredictable IMO, and some players benefit tremendously with this. Kevin Keirmair for one when he was top 10 in WAR with most of that coming from defense, I just don't believe that.

[rats60]

He’ll never figure it out regardless of simple logic and the fact that everyone else disagrees. Some people are in their own little world.

All you have is insults because you can't provide any facts. I will wait for you to tell me what is so hard about 2b. It is about as easy of a position in the game to play. Go ahead and continue to troll because that is all you have.

[kyleuk21]

All you have is insults because you can't provide any facts. I will wait for you to tell me what is so hard about 2b. It is about as easy of a position in the game to play. Go ahead and continue to troll because that is all you have.

Everyone else has already commented in opposition to you. Nothing for me to say. This isn’t the first time you’ve commented where everyone else totally disagrees.

[AUTaxMan]

Have played every position. 2B a lot tougher than RF.


No kidding.

[AUTaxMan]

WAR is a very good stat, but no, it is not the end all stat some people enforce.

Defensive WAR is highly unpredictable IMO, and some players benefit tremendously with this. Kevin Keirmair for one when he was top 10 in WAR with most of that coming from defense, I just don't believe that.

It’s the best thing we have right now, while imperfect, to compare players across positions. Again not perfect but it’s better than and other statistics that are commonly used.

[TonySpaghetti]

WAR tells me that Lorenzo Cain has essentially been the best player in NL this season thus far

thats cute

WAR is an estimate of value so what it's really telling you is that Lorenzo Cain has the most estimated value, measured in wins, over a replacement-level player at his position.

-----------------------------------

2018 Lorenzo Cain ranks:

(MLB) 3-Star catches: T-3rd
(MLB) 4-Star catches: T-6th
(MLB) 5-Star catches: T-2nd

(NL-CF) rARM - Arms Runs Saved: T-1st
(NL-CF) RngR - Range Runs: T-1st
(NL-CF) DRS - Total Defensive Runs Saved: T-2nd
(NL-CF) UZR - Ultimate Zone Rating: 1st

(NL-CF) OBP: 1st
(NL-CF) OPS: 5th
(NL-CF) BB/K: 1st

(MLB-All) wRC+: 47 of 160 Qualified Batters

The three NL-CFers who have a higher wRC+ than Cain (Blackmon, Pham, Herrera) range between average and terrible defensively.

2018 Lorenzo Cain is an elite CFer while having a decent/pretty good year at the plate.


-----------------------------------

WAR is not, and was never meant to be, an objective and exact statistic.

Fangraphs | What is WAR? (https://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/)

WAR is not meant to be a perfectly precise indicator of a player’s contribution, but rather an estimate of their value to date. Given the imperfections of some of the available data and the assumptions made to calculate other components, WAR works best as an approximation.

[Zauron]

It’s the best thing we have right now, while imperfect, to compare players across positions. Again not perfect but it’s better than and other statistics that are commonly used.

Yeah, I get that, and love the stat, just I have learned to be cautious with defensive value.

Like people bring up Ichiro's record single season hit season where he hit .372 and had 9.2 WAR and finished 7th in MVP voting. 2.5 of that was attributed to defensive WAR, by far his highest total ever in his career and 1.5 more than in 2003.

[Ottomatic]

Cain's team is also the best team in the NL no? Or at least up there. Also not like Cain has a crazy high WAR, NL stars are just way weaker this year.

[clocsta2323]

All you have is insults because you can't provide any facts. I will wait for you to tell me what is so hard about 2b. It is about as easy of a position in the game to play. Go ahead and continue to troll because that is all you have.

Whats more difficult about RF than 2B? Hitting a cutoff man is all you have to do. RF is where the scrubs who can't play an infield position go to play and where former infielders who age out go to die lol.

[rman112]

WAR is an estimate of value so what it's really telling you is that Lorenzo Cain has the most estimated value, measured in wins, over a replacement-level player at his position.

-----------------------------------

2018 Lorenzo Cain ranks:

(MLB) 3-Star catches: T-3rd
(MLB) 4-Star catches: T-6th
(MLB) 5-Star catches: T-2nd

(NL-CF) rARM - Arms Runs Saved: T-1st
(NL-CF) RngR - Range Runs: T-1st
(NL-CF) DRS - Total Defensive Runs Saved: T-2nd
(NL-CF) UZR - Ultimate Zone Rating: 1st

(NL-CF) OBP: 1st
(NL-CF) OPS: 5th
(NL-CF) BB/K: 1st

(MLB-All) wRC+: 47 of 160 Qualified Batters

The three NL-CFers who have a higher wRC+ than Cain (Blackmon, Pham, Herrera) range between average and terrible defensively.

2018 Lorenzo Cain is an elite CFer while having a decent/pretty good year at the plate.


-----------------------------------

WAR is not, and was never meant to be, an objective and exact statistic.

That's kinda the big problem. There is no replacement player.

[TonySpaghetti]

That's kinda the big problem. There is no replacement player.

There are replacement players everywhere.


https://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/replacement-level/
Replacement level is simply the level of production you could get from a player that would cost you nothing but the league minimum salary to acquire. Minor league free agents, quad-A players, you get the idea

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/unifying-replacement-level/
Replacement is defined very specifically for my purposes: it’s the talent level for which you would pay the minimum salary on the open market, or for which you can obtain at minimal cost in a trade.”

[rman112]

There are replacement players everywhere.



https://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/replacement-level/
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/unifying-replacement-level/

Yeah, but it's based off an idea.

[TonySpaghetti]

Yeah, but it's based off an idea.
Replacement-level is the baseline which WAR models act upon. It is an estimation but it is an educated estimation...

Dave Cameron did an analysis of "replacement-level" players in the MLB during the 2011 & 2012 seasons:
In the past two years, these 24 players have combined for over 10,000 plate appearances in the Major Leagues, and they’ve combined for -0.7 WAR. If you scale that back to a rate of per 600 plate appearances, that’s -0.04 WAR per full season. For a “theoretical” construct that supposedly doesn’t reflect reality, replacement level seems to do okay.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-recent-examples-of-a-replacement-level-player/

The replacement-level model nailed it.

[Athey49]

WAR is an estimate of value so what it's really telling you is that Lorenzo Cain has the most estimated value, measured in wins, over a replacement-level player at his position.

-----------------------------------

2018 Lorenzo Cain ranks:

(MLB) 3-Star catches: T-3rd
(MLB) 4-Star catches: T-6th
(MLB) 5-Star catches: T-2nd

(NL-CF) rARM - Arms Runs Saved: T-1st
(NL-CF) RngR - Range Runs: T-1st
(NL-CF) DRS - Total Defensive Runs Saved: T-2nd
(NL-CF) UZR - Ultimate Zone Rating: 1st

(NL-CF) OBP: 1st
(NL-CF) OPS: 5th
(NL-CF) BB/K: 1st

(MLB-All) wRC+: 47 of 160 Qualified Batters

The three NL-CFers who have a higher wRC+ than Cain (Blackmon, Pham, Herrera) range between average and terrible defensively.

2018 Lorenzo Cain is an elite CFer while having a decent/pretty good year at the plate.


-----------------------------------

WAR is not, and was never meant to be, an objective and exact statistic.

Way too many stats here that I never even knew existed

[rman112]

Replacement-level is the baseline which WAR models act upon. It is an estimation but it is an educated estimation...

Dave Cameron did an analysis of replacement-level players in the MLB during the 2011 & 2012 seasons:


The replacement-level model nailed it.

It would have to continually be tinkered with, yes?

[TonySpaghetti]

It would have to continually be tinkered with, yes?
Replacement-level is relative to league-average and fluctuates accordingly.

[rman112]

Replacement-level is relative to league-average and fluctuates accordingly.

Ah, OK. Because this year there seemed to be a bigger-than-usual number of notable guys signing minor league deals. I'm sure some ended up making more than minimum after cracking the roster, though.

[COEFOR]

Two Centerfielders, both the same age.

Player A Offensive Stats:
580 ABs / 123 R / 185 H / 18 2B / 13 3B / 51 HR / 127 RBI / 24 SB / 4 CS / 79 BB / 60 K
.319 AVG / .400 OBP / .659 SLG / 382 Total Bases

Player B Offensive Stats:
549 ABs / 123 R / 173 H / 32 2B / 5 3B / 29 HR / 100 RBI / 30 SB / 7 CS / 116 BB / 137 K
.315 AVG / .441 OBP / .550 SLG / 302 Total Bases

And for good measure:

Player A Defensive Stats:
7 Total Zone Runs Above Average, 23 Assists, 407 Putouts, 8 Errors, .982 Fielding %, 19% Above League Average Range Factor

Player B Defensive Stats:
-1 Total Zone Runs Above Average, 7 Assists, 360 Putouts, 4 Errors, .989 Fielding %, 5% Above League Average Range Factor

Player A: 9.1 WAR
Player B: 10.5 WAR

That's an issue I have with WAR. It's just one stat that should be used in conjunction with many others, but not as an end all be all.

[rwperu34]

Well, but that brings up an interesting question. Batters are pitched differently when there are runners on base than when the bases are empty. If one player hits most of their HR's with no one on vs. another player that hits a higher percentage of his HR's with people on base, it could be argued that the second hitter is more talented (or at least more valuable) than the first one -- similar to BA w/RISP. When dealing with highly complex modeling, such as the calculations that go into coming up with "replacement", no data is valueless data. All data gives different pieces of the whole story.

True about pitching guys differently, but they pitch all guys differently. If you argue for a guy who hits better in those situation relative to his normal batting, you are going to be arguing with a small sample size. Almost every single player will regress back to his normal batting stats (for any given situation) and the guys that don't are still well within the range of normal variance. Hitting HR with men on isn't a repeatable skill other than normal HR skill. BA w/RISP is the same.

Situations matter. It's one of the things modern hitters don't understand, and apparently something teams aren't valuing either. How many hitters simply swing for the downs, no matter the count? Combine that with being passive early in the count, and K's are sky high.

Situations do matter, but not as much as people think because they don't happen as often as they think. Obviously having a guy who can choke up and knock that guy in from 3b with less than two outs is better than a guy who can't, but that's not going to be worth knocking a guy that can spank 45 HR with above average OBP out of the lineup even if he whiffs 200 times. It's a tradeoff. Until recently teams had been making the wrong tradeoff. 2017 was the first year that low K hitters produced even with high K hitters.

But he's a beast!

7 HR's 17 RBI's .273 avg .385 OBP 1 Error in 127 chances

Absolutely mind boggling numbers. Hang it up Arenado, Bryant, and Harper. Scrubs.

If the point you're trying to make is there's more variance in defensive stats than offensive stats, job well done. If your point is that because Cain is tops in WAR on June 4 that WAR is bunk, that's kinda clownish. Scooter Gennett has a higher AVG and OPS+ than all those guys too, but I don't think anybody expects that to keep up.

[rwperu34]

Two Centerfielders, both the same age.

Player A Offensive Stats:
580 ABs / 123 R / 185 H / 18 2B / 13 3B / 51 HR / 127 RBI / 24 SB / 4 CS / 79 BB / 60 K
.319 AVG / .400 OBP / .659 SLG / 382 Total Bases

Player B Offensive Stats:
549 ABs / 123 R / 173 H / 32 2B / 5 3B / 29 HR / 100 RBI / 30 SB / 7 CS / 116 BB / 137 K
.315 AVG / .441 OBP / .550 SLG / 302 Total Bases

And for good measure:

Player A Defensive Stats:
7 Total Zone Runs Above Average, 23 Assists, 407 Putouts, 8 Errors, .982 Fielding %, 19% Above League Average Range Factor

Player B Defensive Stats:
-1 Total Zone Runs Above Average, 7 Assists, 360 Putouts, 4 Errors, .989 Fielding %, 5% Above League Average Range Factor

Player A: 9.1 WAR
Player B: 10.5 WAR

That's an issue I have with WAR. It's just one stat that should be used in conjunction with many others, but not as an end all be all.

The missing ingredient is park/league offensive factors. I assume those two are Mike Trout and Willie Mays?

[rman112]

There aren't many guys hitting 45 dingers. 3 last year. 2 more with 40+. And that's with these new baseballs.

I'm not sure what it's going to take to turn the game around, but it's becoming more and more of a braindead game. Pitchers - try and throw as hard as possible. Hitters - rarely adjust to situation, even more rare is adjusting to count. Just swing as hard as possible at all times. Managers more and more just do as they're told. That ain't baseball..

[clocsta2323]

See ball, hit ball. Field ball, throw ball. End of story.

[rwperu34]

There aren't many guys hitting 45 dingers. 3 last year. 2 more with 40+. And that's with these new baseballs.

I'm not sure what it's going to take to turn the game around, but it's becoming more and more of a braindead game. Pitchers - try and throw as hard as possible. Hitters - rarely adjust to situation, even more rare is adjusting to count. Just swing as hard as possible at all times. Managers more and more just do as they're told. That ain't baseball..

Baseball was played sub-optimally for a long time.

[KCfan1985]

I can see a lot of people haven't played the game or at least 2b. From over 50 years of playing 2b is one of the easiest positions. Shortstop was my primary position and when I was moved to 2b it was like a day off. Now you are playing deep in the OF, so the ground balls are easy to field, you have short throws and you don't even have to field balls cleanly. 2b is slightly harder than 1b and LF. To play RF, you have to have the strongest OF arm. Most 2b couldn't play RF without being a liability.



:doh:
Absolutely ridiculous

[rman112]

Baseball was played sub-optimally for a long time.

That's a large problem with new stat gurus; hubris. The "it's new, it's obviously better" line of thinking.

Today's game is getting closer and closer to screwing itself up. Something is going to have to eventually swing back in the other direction pretty hard.

[rman112]

I'm not against using data in and of itself. That'd be silly.

But the truth is, relying too heavily on numbers and trying to revolutionize the game with wunderkind wannabe front office execs has lead to some seriously bad baseball; in particular, hitting approach.

It's horrible. Strikeouts are sky high. Where are all the increases in runs or OPB? They're not there. Who knows how much of the HR are due to different balls? They fly through the air easier, and I'm not sure it's debateable at this point.

I've heard ideas such as "ban the shift" to fix some of these issues. It's ridiculous. Heaven forbid we ask the hitters to be better! Ya know, make a concerted effort to go the other way once in a while, or even worse.. bunt against the shift (looking at you, Chris Davis). Maybe don't take two strikes early and then try and launch one with a giant swing for strike 3.

If hitters don't adjust and they end up changing the baseballs again, it's going to get even worse.

[TonySpaghetti]

K/9 and HR/9 have been on a steady increase for 150 years. https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/bat.shtml

Also, an aspect that gets overlooked is that pitchers are better than ever. On average they throw harder, get more movement, are more specialized, and are more well-rested.

Ironically, Chris Davis has a higher wOBA against the shift than regular positioning https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/visuals/batter-positioning?playerId=448801&teamId=&opponent=&firstBase=0&shift=1&season=2018&attempts=25&batSide=L&gb=1&fb=0

[rman112]

K/9 and HR/9 have been on a steady increase for 150 years. https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/bat.shtml

Also, an aspect that gets overlooked is that pitchers are better than ever. On average they throw harder, get more movement, are more specialized, and are more well-rested.

Strikeouts are insane this year. To a ridiculous level, and one that's going to need to decline eventually. Does anyone think it's healthy for the game?

I used to think the pitchers were that much better, but not so much anymore. I don't think starters are any better. As a whole, velo is up. No doubt. But how many of these guys are really that good? I remember someone bringing up a really, really high blown save rate in another thread. Velocity alone does not a good pitcher make. Bullpens are deeper, but they're still not pitching the majority of the game, as a whole (I'm assuming).

We've seen shifts and some pitchers taking advantage of the free swingers. What we haven't seen, in a few years really, is hitters that are willing to adjust.. at all; all without, seemingly, teams negatively valuing all these K's.

[TonySpaghetti]

The difference in K/9 from 1998-2018 is nearly the same as the K/9 difference from 1978-1998. I'm sure people were complaining about it then too.

But why are strikeouts bad for the game? They're exciting.

And there's nothing enjoyable about bunts, weakly hit grounders, and infield pop-ups. And the extra home runs more than makes up for the 2 less singles per game.

[rman112]

The difference in K/9 from 1998-2018 is nearly the same as the K/9 difference from 1978-1998. I'm sure people were complaining about it then too.

But why are strikeouts bad for the game? They're exciting.

And there's nothing enjoyable about bunts, weakly hit grounders, and infield pop-ups. And the extra home runs more than makes up for the 2 less singles per game.

That's subjective, for sure.

For me, it's swung to a more boring, extremist game. And unless you believe the pitching is that much better, it's simply a poor approach to hitting to be swinging as hard as possible, no matter the count or situation. Personally, I don't think it jives with the spirit of the game.

Like I said, a lot of this stuff is a bit artificial, with the new baseballs. If Manfred is looking into a different ball (he's hard to trust), and it isn't flying, it's going to get to an even more unsustainable point.

[rman112]

If pitching was truly dominating hitters, I'd say that'd be exciting.

[rwperu34]

That's a large problem with new stat gurus; hubris. The "it's new, it's obviously better" line of thinking.

Today's game is getting closer and closer to screwing itself up. Something is going to have to eventually swing back in the other direction pretty hard.

If better is the path to winning, then yes, the game has gotten better. Any team that eschewed the approach would get crushed. The way the game got the way it is is front offices said "this is what the winning teams are doing."

I'm not against using data in and of itself. That'd be silly.

But the truth is, relying too heavily on numbers and trying to revolutionize the game with wunderkind wannabe front office execs has lead to some seriously bad baseball; in particular, hitting approach.

It's horrible. Strikeouts are sky high. Where are all the increases in runs or OPB? They're not there. Who knows how much of the HR are due to different balls? They fly through the air easier, and I'm not sure it's debateable at this point.

I've heard ideas such as "ban the shift" to fix some of these issues. It's ridiculous. Heaven forbid we ask the hitters to be better! Ya know, make a concerted effort to go the other way once in a while, or even worse.. bunt against the shift (looking at you, Chris Davis). Maybe don't take two strikes early and then try and launch one with a giant swing for strike 3.

If hitters don't adjust and they end up changing the baseballs again, it's going to get even worse.

Pitchers have changed their approach and gotten better too. I might even have argued the pitchers were winning a few years ago until this ridiculous spat of quality young batting talent came into the league.


Strikeouts are insane this year. To a ridiculous level, and one that's going to need to decline eventually. Does anyone think it's healthy for the game?

I used to think the pitchers were that much better, but not so much anymore. I don't think starters are any better. As a whole, velo is up. No doubt. But how many of these guys are really that good? I remember someone bringing up a really, really high blown save rate in another thread. Velocity alone does not a good pitcher make. Bullpens are deeper, but they're still not pitching the majority of the game, as a whole (I'm assuming).

We've seen shifts and some pitchers taking advantage of the free swingers. What we haven't seen, in a few years really, is hitters that are willing to adjust.. at all; all without, seemingly, teams negatively valuing all these K's.

Pitch to contact is a terrible strategy.

I do agree that especially the mediocre hitters need to start bunting into the shift more frequently. I saw a team play four outfielders against Justin Smoak and he couldn't get the bunt down! It was a pitiful attempt. I don't think he took it seriously. At some point some slugger will get over his ego and realize that if he can get a bunt down he'll get on base 60+100% of the time and that's more valuable than swinging away. Then people will copy and voila, that will be the end of the shift.

[TonySpaghetti]

Bunting is hard.

Here's an article about Jay Bruce from March 2016. He worked hard on his bunting all spring training so that he can "counter-punch" against the shift.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/mlb/reds/2016/03/09/reds-jay-bruce-joey-votto-working-bunting-spring/81545670/

Every day either before or after workouts, he’s been out on the Reds’ practice fields practicing bunting for hits — at least 100 bunts a day since spring training started. That’s somewhere in the area of 2,000 bunts.

-

Bruce is a fan of the numbers of the game, and he’s discussed bunting with Rob Coughlin, the team’s manager of video scouting. Bruce figures 10 bunt hits a year can turn into 20 total hits. The logic is that the ability to bunt could keep teams from shifting, opening holes for other hits. If Bruce had had 20 more hits last season, his .226 average would've been a .260 average.


Results?
2016: Bunt attempts (1) Bunt hits (0)
2017: Bunt attempts: (1) Bunt hits (1)
2018: Bunt attempts: (0) Bunt hits (0)

If you put on a defensive shift and make a hitter change his approach then you've already created an advantage.

It's going to take an entire generation to develop players who can both swing for power and bunt with effectiveness.

And even if a hitter can bunt effectively then defenses just need to leave the 3B at normal positioning. They can still shift the SS and 2B.

[rman112]

If better is the path to winning, then yes, the game has gotten better. Any team that eschewed the approach would get crushed. The way the game got the way it is is front offices said "this is what the winning teams are doing."


What teams are winning because they started hitting more homers, and striking out more? 2 out of the last 3 WS winners lead the league in FEWEST strikeouts. The other was the Cubs, who were 13th in HR and 9th in fewest strikeouts.

I've always thought the "copycat" strategy was dumb. Think about it. That team that others are trying to copy didn't do it by copying someone else.


Bunting is hard.

Here's an article about Jay Bruce from March 2016. He worked hard on his bunting all spring training so that he can "counter-punch" against the shift.

Results?
2016: Bunt attempts (1) Bunt hits (0)
2017: Bunt attempts: (1) Bunt hits (1)
2018: Bunt attempts: (0) Bunt hits (0)

If you put on a defensive shift and make a hitter change his approach then you've already created an advantage.

It's going to take an entire generation to develop players who can both swing for power and bunt with effectiveness.

And even if a hitter can bunt effectively then defenses just need to leave the 3B at normal positioning. They can still shift the SS and 2B.

The thing NL, and now AL, pitchers do on a regular basis?

I think the moral of this story is Jay Bruce wasted a lot of time in 2016 Spring Training. 2 attempts in almost 2 and a half years? Either stubbornness or fear of failure. Guy's hitting .222 this year.

[TonySpaghetti]

If you want to criticize Jay Bruce's ability and work ethic that's fine but I've yet to read anything that says bunting effectively is something MLB veterans can just easily learn.

But let's assume an hitter could learn to bunt effectively, there's nothing that says that would be more valuable, over a 162-game season, than learning to A) hit opposite field more often and/or B) pull balls with better launch angles to hit more home runs and balls into corners/gaps.

Bunting more often also doesn't address the fact that the SS and 2B are still completely free to shift.


Some data from FanGraphs:

--------

Offense against the shift, 2011 vs. 2018:

https://s15.postimg.cc/ynukrek2z/screenshot_351.png

This isn't conclusive but it at least demonstrates that learning to hit opposite field can potentially be more valuable than learning how to bunt.

--------

Offense with men on base, 2002 through 2018:

https://s15.postimg.cc/tcfo6znt7/screenshot_352.png

Declining bunt attempts, and ability, has not had a negative effect on scoring runners.

--------

[rman112]

Not work ethic. What you posted implies he worked hard on his bunting. Then tried in twice in 2+ years.

How do pitchers learn how to bunt?

Your point about going oppo is a good one, and part of the bigger picture. It's the idea that hitters aren't even trying to adjust that is so frustrating to watch. Baseball is a game of continual adjustments. When one side isn't even bothering, that's not good baseball.

As far as Bruce specifically, he's been brutal this year. Whatever he's doing.. it ain't working.

[TonySpaghetti]

The prevalence of the shift has no doubt hurt Jay Bruce's performance.

He's never been a bunter - he tried to learn in his age 29 season and failed. He's never been an opposite field hitter either.

He has 3 options to get success against the shift:
1) Learn to bunt effectively
2) Learn to hit opposite field effectively
3) Learn to hit with better contact and launch angles effectively

I don't have the answer but at least option #3 changes his approach and swing the least.

You also have to factor in bad luck. His soft-contact% is up a little bit but his BABIP is pretty low and LD%, FB%, and BB/K are at roughly career average or better. Also, last season he pretty much produced what you would expect from his age 30 season and he did despite shifts.

Long-story short: The shifts are here to stay in at least some form and I think, so far at least, that better launch angles and contact is a better solution than overhauling swings and approaches.

[rman112]

He didn't fail. He tried twice.

Look to make adjustments. Hell, even more than that.. TRY to adjust! That's leaguewide, not just Jay Bruce.

[rwperu34]

What teams are winning because they started hitting more homers, and striking out more? 2 out of the last 3 WS winners lead the league in FEWEST strikeouts. The other was the Cubs, who were 13th in HR and 9th in fewest strikeouts.



You make a fair point. My counter would be that the Astros still K'd more than an average team from 20 years ago, and only one team had more Ks 30 years ago. They also hit more HR than any team from 20 years ago and had 80 more homers than the most powerful team from 30 years ago! So to answer which team is winning by trading extra K for extra HR? The Astros.

Nobody is suggesting that players go up there and K on purpose. They're trading quantity for quality of contact. That has quite obviously happened.

Jay Bruce is 1 for 2 on bunt hit attempts. Not only is that not a failure, that's better production than even young, healthy, good Jay Bruce!

[clocsta2323]

You make a fair point. My counter would be that the Astros still K'd more than an average team from 20 years ago, and only one team had more Ks 30 years ago. They also hit more HR than any team from 20 years ago and had 80 more homers than the most powerful team from 30 years ago! So to answer which team is winning by trading extra K for extra HR? The Astros.


Your counter is one of the most brilliant troll jobs I have ever read lol. No one has ever spanned a century of total years of ball like you did. You are the man

[rman112]

You make a fair point. My counter would be that the Astros still K'd more than an average team from 20 years ago, and only one team had more Ks 30 years ago. They also hit more HR than any team from 20 years ago and had 80 more homers than the most powerful team from 30 years ago! So to answer which team is winning by trading extra K for extra HR? The Astros.


That's one hell of a spin job.

As for your quantity/quality point, it doesn't need to be SUCH an extreme. Swing out of your shoes 2-0? 3-1? No one will complain about that. 0-2 or in a situation where a sac fly, grounder, etc. will get the job done and instead it's a giant swinging K? That's the issue; no middle ground or change when the situation calls for it.

[TonySpaghetti]

Striking out a lot is bad but limiting strikeouts doesn't imply a good offense.

It's entirely possible to simultaneously be near the bottom in Ks and runs scored.

https://s33.postimg.cc/ms2embrjz/02-13-_Team-_Stats1-1024x696.png

--

The 2017 Astros had the lowest K% in in large part because every other team in the AL West had pitching staffs with below league-average K/9. Texas and Oakland were in the bottom 5.

[TonySpaghetti]

Can you show, with data, that current batter approaches in 0-2 and 1-2 counts are less effective and less valuable than they were 20 years ago?

I'm open to having my opinion changed but there is nothing I've seen that demonstrates it.

[rman112]

Can you show, with data, that current batter approaches in 0-2 and 1-2 counts are less effective and less valuable than they were 20 years ago?

I'm open to having my opinion changed but there is nothing I've seen that demonstrates it.

I'm not a numbers guy. I watch the games and go off that.

[rwperu34]

This is going to hurt.

In 2017 MLB K% was 21.6%.
In 1978 MLB K% was 12.6%.

K% with runner at 3b, less than two out;
2017, 18.2%
1978, 12.4%

So batters do a better job of adjusting today than they did 40 years ago!

Unfortunately BR doesn't have count stats back that far, but from checking against 1997, it looks like the production is definitely worse after a pitcher gets two strikes on a batter in 2017...by ~6 points of OPS...which is exactly the OPS+ difference between the two years (ie OPS is probably 6 points less for ALL situations).

Somebody ought to check a bunch of years and see if those trends hold up.

[rman112]

This is going to hurt.

In 2017 MLB K% was 21.6%.
In 1978 MLB K% was 12.6%.

K% with runner at 3b, less than two out;
2017, 18.2%
1978, 12.4%

So batters do a better job of adjusting today than they did 40 years ago!

Unfortunately BR doesn't have count stats back that far, but from checking against 1997, it looks like the production is definitely worse after a pitcher gets two strikes on a batter in 2017...by ~6 points of OPS...which is exactly the OPS+ difference between the two years (ie OPS is probably 6 points less for ALL situations).

Somebody ought to check a bunch of years and see if those trends hold up.

You're completely ignoring how big of a difference there is in total strikeouts.

[rwperu34]

You're completely ignoring how big of a difference there is in total strikeouts.

No, I'm not. In terms of adjusting to the situation, today's hitters are much better than those of 1978. Back then, they basically went up there and did the same thing they always did.

[rman112]

No, I'm not. In terms of adjusting to the situation, today's hitters are much better than those of 1978. Back then, they basically went up there and did the same thing they always did.

The idea about strikeouts is the lack of approach as a whole, not just a guy on 3rd w/ one or no outs. And certainly not just the differences in two singular seasons.

[rwperu34]

The idea about strikeouts is the lack of approach as a whole, not just a guy on 3rd w/ one or no outs. And certainly not just the differences in two singular seasons.

Are we going here again? Ks don't matter, production is what matters. JFC, it's like I'm arguing with my high school baseball coaches again.

Joe Panik lead MLB in K% at 9.4% last year. In 1978 the leader was Bob Bailor at 3.1%. There were 39 guys who struck out less than Joe Panik in that year. Now, maybe you feel like Joe Panik is out there swinging for the fences every single time he's up there?

A 6% swing in pitcher K talent for the league leader lines up perfectly with the runner on 3rd and less than two out situation as well. So based on this minimal research I've done, I'd hypothesize that pitcher talent/approach/usage is responsible for 6% of the rise in K%. The other 3% is batter approach.

[rwperu34]

The idea about strikeouts is the lack of approach as a whole, not just a guy on 3rd w/ one or no outs. And certainly not just the differences in two singular seasons.

I mean you specifically mentioned batters not adjusting with a runner on 3rd and less than two outs, and it turns out they adjust better now than in the past. So now you're going back to I wish guys made more weak contact because that's somehow better?

[rman112]

You picked 2 years out of the last 40+. "In the past" isn't a 5%+ sample size.

I think if you really want to make a point, it'd be 2013-on, or if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, post-2015 All Star Break on.. when the new balls supposedly came into play.

As for Panik, he's a pretty solid hitter. I think your point would be better made by citing a career .240 hitter, or so.

Until the production matches the great strides in offense that you seem to be implying, it just doesn't jive. 4.39 runs a game this year. Higher than that from 2009 going back every single season until 1992.

The only way to explain what you're trying to say is that the pitching is that much better. I really don't think so, but again, that's subjective. I look at a guy like Scherzer. Is his stuff all of the sudden that much better in the recent years? I don't think so, but his K numbers keep going up. He's taking advantage of/reaping the benefits of the free swinging modern player.

There's a natural eb and flow to the game, but I don't think this specific, Saber-infused brand of baseball is good for the game, or sustainable. It's obvious you disagree, and you're certainly free to do so. You could do it a little less emotionally, though.

[rman112]

I took a look at this year's team stats. Below is the teams with the most K's, in order.

Texas - tied for 13th in runs
San Diego - 17th
San Fran - 19th
Philly - 23rd
Arizona - 26th
Oakland - 11th
Baltimore - 29th
Toronto - 10th
Yankees - tied for 1st

I'd even argue that the Yankees are more than a bit of an anomaly. Their lineup is stacked.

[rman112]

Teams in order of most HR's hit, and like runs to the side above, to the side here is where they stand in team strikeouts:

Yankees - tied for 9th in strikeouts
Boston - 25th
Cleveland - 20th
Angels - 26th
Oakland - 6th
Washington - 22nd
Milwaukee - tied for 9th
Toronto - 8th
Houston - 13th
Colorado - 11th

Hitting home runs does not need to mean striking out too much.

[rman112]

Can you show, with data, that current batter approaches in 0-2 and 1-2 counts are less effective and less valuable than they were 20 years ago?

I'm open to having my opinion changed but there is nothing I've seen that demonstrates it.

Going back to this, when I said I'm not a numbers guy, I mean at the more in-depth level, like the stuff you've been posting. I wouldn't know where to look for the stuff you asked of me.

[Wade Mulroy]

That's a large problem with new stat gurus; hubris. The "it's new, it's obviously better" line of thinking.

Today's game is getting closer and closer to screwing itself up. Something is going to have to eventually swing back in the other direction pretty hard.

I'm not going to debate what style is better or worse, because what we each enjoy most about baseball is subjective to our own personal feelings. However, I agree with your sentiment that I simply enjoy watching a game that isn't so heavily tied to strikeouts and home runs. Personally, I get much more excited about stolen bases, hit and runs, squeeze plays, drag bunts, putting pressure on the defense, etc. Again, I'm not saying this style is "better" than any other, but I really enjoy this style of play and the strategies incorporated.

I think more than anything, baseball is a very cyclical game. Each method and strategy for style of play usually has weaknesses that can be exposed.

[Scottish Punk]

I'm not going to debate what style is better or worse, because what we each enjoy most about baseball is subjective to our own personal feelings. However, I agree with your sentiment that I simply enjoy watching a game that isn't so heavily tied to strikeouts and home runs. Personally, I get much more excited about stolen bases, hit and runs, squeeze plays, drag bunts, putting pressure on the defense, etc. Again, I'm not saying this style is "better" than any other, but I really enjoy this style of play and the strategies incorporated.

I think more than anything, baseball is a very cyclical game. Each method and strategy for style of play usually has weaknesses that can be exposed.

It is a more appealing game to the eye than a glorified softball game. There are a lot of Tigers fans enjoying this year's bad team just because of that. Previous years was trying to get the 1 and 2 batters on base and then wait for the 3-run homer.

[tkraft24]

I'm not going to debate what style is better or worse, because what we each enjoy most about baseball is subjective to our own personal feelings. However, I agree with your sentiment that I simply enjoy watching a game that isn't so heavily tied to strikeouts and home runs. Personally, I get much more excited about stolen bases, hit and runs, squeeze plays, drag bunts, putting pressure on the defense, etc. Again, I'm not saying this style is "better" than any other, but I really enjoy this style of play and the strategies incorporated.

I think more than anything, baseball is a very cyclical game. Each method and strategy for style of play usually has weaknesses that can be exposed.

I often wonder if extreme defensive shifts were put in check if that would help reverse the the trends in strikeouts, balls in play and pace of play (as a result of the latter 2). With all the stupid changes that have been made that effectively did nothing towards the reasons given for the changes, I wouldn’t mind defensive shifts being regulated a bit.

Is it really too radical to say a 1B and 2B belong right of second base and a SS and 3B belong left of second base? At least in the set position before a pitch is made that is.

[base set]

It is a more appealing game to the eye than a glorified softball game. There are a lot of Tigers fans enjoying this year's bad team just because of that. Previous years was trying to get the 1 and 2 batters on base and then wait for the 3-run homer.

Does any other team have a Walk-Off Bunt to win a game this year?

The Tigers could be punching above their weight, or at least their Statcast Wins projection. Their new, expanded with more analysts and custom in-house sodtware analytics dept. is only two years old though.

[rman112]

Some more 2018 team stats. Here's the runs leaders and where they rank in total strikeouts, from the bottom up (lower ranking better):

Yankees - tied for 10th
Boston -24th
Atlanta -25th
Houston -13th
Chicago -23rd
Cleveland - 20th
Angels -27th
Dodgers -16th
Oakland -6th
Pittsburgh -29th

[rman112]

Translation: K's matter, and they still suck.

[TonySpaghetti]

American League data (2002-2017/18) from FanGraphs that I turned into charts


https://i.imgur.com/fnhU4PW.png

https://i.imgur.com/jxrqHlY.png

https://i.imgur.com/hclfHs1.png

https://i.imgur.com/cUGTgwv.png

https://i.imgur.com/aoKv8D3.png

https://i.imgur.com/IB4wxCG.png

https://i.imgur.com/acEYyUb.png

https://i.imgur.com/hYtuQBE.png

https://i.imgur.com/aojJHQO.png

https://i.imgur.com/cQ1in7D.png

[rman112]

What are your takeaways?

[TonySpaghetti]

Not entirely sure. I'm just an amateur who likes data and charts more than anything.

There's definitely things I don't know that I don't know.

But I'd say:

Batter approaches have changed and sacrifices are dying but they haven't affected run scoring.

Batters are sitting fastball in the zone.

Pitches in the zone are declining (I didn't make that chart but I may later).

Declining starting pitcher IP may be an issue.

Defense may be better than it's ever been (easily accessible data doesn't go beyond 2002).

[rman112]

Not entirely sure. I'm just an amateur who likes data and charts more than anything.

There's definitely things I don't know that I don't know.

But I'd say:

Batter approaches have changed and sacrifices are dying but they haven't affected run scoring.

Batters are sitting fastball in the zone.

Pitches in the zone are declining (I didn't make that chart but I may later).

Declining starting pitcher IP may be an issue.

Defense may be better than it's ever been (easily accessible data doesn't go beyond 2002).

I went into chart fatigue after looking at the first few.. LOL.

Some of my thoughts on them, and on some of your comments:

I think bunts can increase to where it'd be beneficial, and also to where it's not to the point where it's looked at as transitioning back to "small ball". Need a little more balance.

When I look at the up arrows from 2014 to now, I can't help but think of the new baseball. If guys know it's flying and are taking advantage of it, I don't think it's a bad thing in itself. I also saw that MLB bought Rawlings because they want more control over the balls. Who knows how that ends up.

I'm curious on the strike zone thing. Not exactly 100% related, but MLB needs to fix the "what is, and what isn't" a strike issue.

[TonySpaghetti]

A few more charts if anyone is interested....

This thread is now completely off-course from its intention. Maybe i'll start a general statistics/analysis thread this weekend. I'm not even close to being an expert but it would be better than nothing.

-----------

Relatively steady first-pitch strike rate with simultaneous declining pitches in the zone.

https://i.imgur.com/2p4WjKV.png


-

More medium-hit balls are being turned into hard-hit balls.

https://i.imgur.com/d5251Q6.png


-

Hard-hit ball OPS dropping like a rock. Quality of defense and positioning certainly play a factor here. I have no idea how to guess how big of a factor though.

https://i.imgur.com/cQGzzZm.png

[WizardofOz1982]

The last time I checked on WAR 2 singles were worth more than a home run but I'm glad I was incorrect there.

My other example - All outs are created equally. If a hitter bounces or flies out giving the runner a easy base to advance, Data proves that a advanced base runner has a greater odd of scoring. Shouldn't a strike out be more of a negative because the hitter isn't forcing a fielder to make a defensive play. I have asked this for years but no reply. Please reply because I've only waited years for this one.

I don't expect perfection but some say if a equation is flawed in the process then how can the outcome be accurate ?

www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

Statistics don't show that actually. The link is a run expectancy matrix that covers all your questions. A runner on 2B for instance with zero outs has a higher chance of scoring than a runner on 3B with one out. The odds are almost twice as high actually. The concept of a productive out is flawed and always has been.

[Stifle]

www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

Statistics don't show that actually. The link is a run expectancy matrix that covers all your questions. A runner on 2B for instance with zero outs has a higher chance of scoring than a runner on 3B with one out. The odds are almost twice as high actually. The concept of a productive out is flawed and always has been.


Please read "Beyond Runs Expectancy", this will break down the odds of scoring after advancing a base with equal outs.
If what you are attempting to say is true, then why try to steal a base or stretch a single to a double or triple if the odds are exactly the same in all situations. If a runner advances a base the odds of scoring increases. When a runner reaches 3rd base with only 1 out, that base runner has much higher odds of scoring than being on 2nd base with 1 out and those odds at second with 1 out are better odds of scoring than at 1st base.

Saber metric sites will most likely hide the fact that a out where a runner advances a base on a out will give better odds of scoring than not advancing. That would flaw the entire equation.

Edison didn't exactly tell Tesla that his electrical current worked better than the flawed current that Edison created. WAR isn't going to come out and let others know that the equation is flawed. I'm waiting for WAR to hook up a elephant to "Old School Logic" to prove its flawed.

[WizardofOz1982]

Please read "Beyond Runs Expectancy", this will break down the odds of scoring after advancing a base with equal outs.
If what you are attempting to say is true, then why try to steal a base or stretch a single to a double or triple if the odds are exactly the same in all situations. If a runner advances a base the odds of scoring increases. When a runner reaches 3rd base with only 1 out, that base runner has much higher odds of scoring than being on 2nd base with 1 out and those odds at second with 1 out are better odds of scoring than at 1st base.

Saber metric sites will most likely hide the fact that a out where a runner advances a base on a out will give better odds of scoring than not advancing. That would flaw the entire equation.

Edison didn't exactly tell Tesla that his electrical current worked better than the flawed current that Edison created. WAR isn't going to come out and let others know that the equation is flawed. I'm waiting for WAR to hook up a elephant to "Old School Logic" to prove its flawed.

Because stretching a single to a double or stealing a base moves you up in position without giving away an out. This wasn't your original premise. You're trying to move the goal posts. You claimed that by making what most announcers refer to as a "productive out" (moving the runner up on a fly ball, ground out, or sacrifice bunt) you're improving your scoring chances as evidenced by this quote from your earlier post.

"If a hitter bounces or flies out giving the runner a easy base to advance, Data proves that a advanced base runner has a greater odd of scoring".

This statement is completely and totally false.

There are break even points for stretching hits (varies by base) and stealing bases (generally about 75% success rate). All of this is accounted for in WAR values. You went from "productive outs" help score runs to stretching a single into a double is the same thing. They're not remotely close. If a player has the ability to routinely stretch a single/double, go from first to third on a hit, or steal bases at a highly successful rate then that gets figured into his BsR as a positive and raises his WAR value. If he fails to do those things well then his BsR goes down and so does his WAR.

[rwperu34]

www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

Statistics don't show that actually. The link is a run expectancy matrix that covers all your questions. A runner on 2B for instance with zero outs has a higher chance of scoring than a runner on 3B with one out. The odds are almost twice as high actually. The concept of a productive out is flawed and always has been.


It should be pretty intuitive that outside of end of game situations, runner on 2nd zero out is better than runner on 3rd one out. I think (hope) what we're talking about is given the batter made an out, would you rather him Kd or made contact and moved the runner along? Obviously a runner on 3rd and one out is going to score more runs than a runner on 2nd and one out. The question is, how much of a dip in production should a batter be willing to take to get that extra contact?

I think the key chart in that link is the last one. If my math is correct, the # of PA that can even possibly end in a productive out is 6.2%. In the other 93.8% of PA, a K is either equal to or better than contacted out. And of course even in those 6.2% of PA, not making an out is still the best play! So even in those productive out situations it makes sense to trade some quantity of contact for quality of contact. Again the question is, how much?

[clocsta2323]

This thread needs to be shot in the back of the head execution style

[Stifle]

Old school baseball : Strike outs are bad because outside of a rare PB & WP on a strike out where the batter reaches first base safely. Old school baseball wants the batter to place the ball in play to force a fielder make a play.

WAR already calculates a GBDP, but what old school fans are asking WAR is that how many times do batters reach base safely & even more rare have base runners advance on a strike out. That can be calculated. Old school baseball appreciates if a out is made and the base runner moves up a base - fly outs & ground outs. By forcing a fielder to make a play, it may create the batter to reach base safely while advancing base runners - Errors & fielders choice W/0 outs created. This all adds up, even on double plays a base runner may move up a base.

How many times has Mike Trout struck out and reached first base safely in his career and he is at the top of the speed range- I'll guess 8 times while advancing base runners roughly 2 bases. That is 10 total bases advanced on strike outs. Take the total number of advanced bases (10) divided by the number of strike outs. Then take all the at bats that WAR utilizes as "all outs are created equally" outs ( fly ball & ground outs. Errors & fielders choice plays where the batter reached first base safely) but not only advanced Trout but the runners on base. The number of advanced runners would demolish a equal out strike out.

Strike outs are not equated properly because they rarely advance anybody. The more advanced a base runner is the greater the odds for scoring. Attempting to make it easy to understand.

[Stifle]

I'll utilize Miguel Cabrera in Post Season play since he only played 55 games.

WAR measures all outs as equal except GBDP ( 2 x ). Cabrera struck out a total of 48 times while not advancing himself or a base runner a single base. He grounded into 7 double plays (-7 bases due to GBDP) but twice had a runner score from third base in 2 different games (+2) both of those games Detroit won by 1 run.
Cabrera Reached on Error 7 times where he advanced 8 bases and the runners on base advanced 11 bases while scoring 2 runs on the same error which Detroit won by a single run. Then the Ground outs : 5 outs 5 bases advanced with 1 run being scored. Fly outs 2 times that advanced 2 total bases.

WAR already does a double negative to Cabrera for his 7 GBDP : 14 outs then add the 5 ground outs and 2 fly outs as 21 outs, then add the 7 errors that he reached safely are also negatives in WAR calculation 28 total outs. Of the 28 WAR outs and 21 true outs Cabrera has advanced himself and runners on base 28 total bases with 5 runs scoring that are lost in WAR equation. This is in what compares to nearly a third of a season, 55 games. 28 advanced bases and 5 runs scoring that are not calculated by placing the ball into fair territory and not striking out where zero bases were advanced. Now do you understand why WAR is scrutinized as flawed because "All outs are not created equally"!

[Tangotiger]

www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

Statistics don't show that actually. The link is a run expectancy matrix that covers all your questions. A runner on 2B for instance with zero outs has a higher chance of scoring than a runner on 3B with one out. The odds are almost twice as high actually. The concept of a productive out is flawed and always has been.

I think you may be misinterpreting the chart somewhere. Can you point exactly to what you are looking at? Chance of scoring from 2B with 0 outs is slightly less than scoring from 3B with 1 out.

[tribefan26]

You claimed that by making what most announcers refer to as a "productive out" (moving the runner up on a fly ball, ground out, or sacrifice bunt) you're improving your scoring chances as evidenced by this quote from your earlier post.

"If a hitter bounces or flies out giving the runner a easy base to advance, Data proves that a advanced base runner has a greater odd of scoring".


When I've heard announcers talk about a productive out, I have never interpreted them to be saying a team is better with a runner on 2nd with one out than the would be with the runner on 2nd with no outs. The counter is that a non-productive out leaves the runner on first. And clearly you are better off with a runner on 2nd and one out than you are with a runner on first with one out.

I think the bolded quote means the runner has a better odds of scoring than he would if he did not advance on the out.

[rman112]

Regardless of what the odds are, every situation should be viewed separately and in that singular moment (managerial wise).

[rman112]

Not sure if anyone's watching the D'Backs game, but that Jeff Mathis swing is exactly what's wrong with today's hitter.

[rwperu34]

Not sure if anyone's watching the D'Backs game, but that Jeff Mathis swing is exactly what's wrong with today's hitter.

The biggest thing wrong with Jeff Mathis's swing is that it's taken by Jeff Mathis.

(I didn't see the swing you're referring to)

[Stifle]

Regardless of what the odds are, every situation should be viewed separately and in that singular moment (managerial wise).

Rman112 - Sabermetrics are analyzed as if every situation is equal to any other. Not sure how anybody would accept a value system in a game which is dictated on situations. Well, if saber metrics allows all situations to be equal then all situations should have equal results ? ? That would be a huge Negatory, check out 2 out W/RISP and how that situation has been the toughest to be successful for roughly 70 consecutive seasons. A player like Mike Trout should have a history of performing in Late & Close as well as High Leverage as he would in any other situation. WAR doesn't equate Clutch because all situations are created equal. A 2 out RBI isn't created equally as 0 or 1 out RBI but Sabermetrics will dismiss all RBI's.

Take a look at Mike Trout and his situations in High Leverage, Late & Close as well as 2 out W/ RISP and it should be near equal to the rest of the situations.
Should Trout have roughly a .250ish lifetime average as a Late and Close hitter ? Saber Metrics tells us NO. Many fans would consider these situations as "Clutch".

Even with all these flaws WAR is still be utilized. Who has the the highest WAR and most game winning RBI's this season. Let's use all the flawed stats / measurements.

[rman112]

Rman112 - Sabermetrics are analyzed as if every situation is equal to any other. Not sure how anybody would accept a value system in a game which is dictated on situations. Well, if saber metrics allows all situations to be equal then all situations should have equal results ? ? That would be a huge Negatory, check out 2 out W/RISP and how that situation has been the toughest to be successful for roughly 70 consecutive seasons. A player like Mike Trout should have a history of performing in Late & Close as well as High Leverage as he would in any other situation. WAR doesn't equate Clutch because all situations are created equal. A 2 out RBI isn't created equally as 0 or 1 out RBI but Sabermetrics will dismiss all RBI's.

Take a look at Mike Trout and his situations in High Leverage, Late & Close as well as 2 out W/ RISP and it should be near equal to the rest of the situations.
Should Trout have roughly a .250ish lifetime average as a Late and Close hitter ? Saber Metrics tells us NO. Many fans would consider these situations as "Clutch".

Even with all these flaws WAR is still be utilized. Who has the the highest WAR and most game winning RBI's this season. Let's use all the flawed stats.

I find it kind of ironic how a viewpoint that is so heavily based on numbers then turns around and points at certain situations as simply.. luck.

[Stifle]

I find it kind of ironic how a viewpoint that is so heavily based on numbers then turns around and points at certain situations as simply.. luck.

Those who created these measurements don't look at situations, a player who makes 5 meaningless errors in victories will have a lower value than a fielder who makes only 3 errors that costs the team 3 losses ?

[base set]

I am bumping this one because WAR is very confusing on the backs of baseball cards now.

Every pack I ‘read’ quickly has examples like these, from 2018 S1/S2

2016 64 IP, 1.09 WHIP, 2.67 ERA ... WAR = 0.4

2017 101.1 IP, 1.37 WHIP, 4.71 ERA ... WAR = 1.7

This one I think I figured out maybe. WAR _really_ likes Strikeouts perhaps. ?

2016 6.3 K/9
2017 7.6 K/9


But the next card just throws it all out the window.

2014 54.2 IP, 1.23 WHIP, 4.45 ERA ... WAR = 1.5
2017 57 IP, 0.96 WHIP, 2.84 ERA ... WAR = 0.3

His Strikeout rate?

2014 11.5K/9
2017 9.5 K/9

Hits and runs allowed go way down, but Ks go down some too. WAR says that reliever was near useless in 2017 because his Ks dropped all of 2/9 ???

[base set]

Here is an offensive combo comparing 2016 & 2017

2016 AB 421
2017 AB 469

In 2016, the player had 12 Steals but only 10 in 2017.

In all other counting stats, 2017 was more productive:

2016 > 2017

Runs: 50 > 75
Hits: 115 > 128
Doubles: 19 > 24
Triples: 1 > 2
Home Runs: 14 > 23

Naturally with those #s, Slugging went up from .423 to .480; OPS was pulled up from .737 to .796, thus OBP only went up .002; AVG stayed the same at .273. So he drew walks the same and made about the same contact, but with a definite power surge. And then we have

WAR? 2016 = 2.8 & 2017 = 2.2

I guess the guy just forgot how to play defense in 2017?

[rwperu34]

I am bumping this one because WAR is very confusing on the backs of baseball cards now.

Every pack I ‘read’ quickly has examples like these, from 2018 S1/S2

2016 64 IP, 1.09 WHIP, 2.67 ERA ... WAR = 0.4

2017 101.1 IP, 1.37 WHIP, 4.71 ERA ... WAR = 1.7

This one I think I figured out maybe. WAR _really_ likes Strikeouts perhaps. ?

2016 6.3 K/9
2017 7.6 K/9


But the next card just throws it all out the window.

2014 54.2 IP, 1.23 WHIP, 4.45 ERA ... WAR = 1.5
2017 57 IP, 0.96 WHIP, 2.84 ERA ... WAR = 0.3

His Strikeout rate?

2014 11.5K/9
2017 9.5 K/9

Hits and runs allowed go way down, but Ks go down some too. WAR says that reliever was near useless in 2017 because his Ks dropped all of 2/9 ???

I'm guessing they are using fWAR (fangraphs) for pitchers, which uses FIP (K, BB, HR) instead of RA. I really, really don't like that for the back of a baseball card. rWAR (baseball reference) uses RA/9 with a team adjustment for defense, which makes a lot more sense to me when looking backward. fWAR would be a better predictor of future performance, so unless they are putting projections on the back of the card it has no place, IMHO.

For the RP, leverage can be a huge factor. A guy used as a closer might be twice as valuable as a normal RP with the same performance and 3x more than a garbage man. I've never really liked this about any WAR calculation because it sets you up where you can make a guy much more valuable just by changing his usage without a corresponding increase in talent.

Here is an offensive combo comparing 2016 & 2017

2016 AB 421
2017 AB 469

In 2016, the player had 12 Steals but only 10 in 2017.

In all other counting stats, 2017 was more productive:

2016 > 2017

Runs: 50 > 75
Hits: 115 > 128
Doubles: 19 > 24
Triples: 1 > 2
Home Runs: 14 > 23

Naturally with those #s, Slugging went up from .423 to .480; OPS was pulled up from .737 to .796, thus OBP only went up .002; AVG stayed the same at .273. So he drew walks the same and made about the same contact, but with a definite power surge. And then we have

WAR? 2016 = 2.8 & 2017 = 2.2

I guess the guy just forgot how to play defense in 2017?

Yes, defense has to be the missing factor unless he changed park/league...etc.

[base set]

Thanks. Though I did forget all about park factors, there was no change for the offensive player - Javier Baez.

I never have much luck looking at defensive stats on Baseball Reference; I should get around to exploring FanGraphs for that I guess.

I have no idea which WAR calculation Topps uses. Bueller?


The first Pitcher was Seth Lugo. The second was a reliever for the Dodgers, I forget which right now. If “leverage” is somehow part of WAR then I will never understand it from the back of a baseball card only. I get the basic idea of FIP (not on cards eithet) but dropping your ERA by 1.5 and your WHIP by 25% is not just from having a snazzier Shortstop behind you. Yet WAR looks more interested in Ks than anything else. Rewarding ‘Leverage’ surely short-changes set-up relievers somehow - if they don’t have a good outing the.Closer might not even have an outing.

[rwperu34]

It's definitely fWAR, at least for the pitchers.

Lugo brings up another consideration. RP are compared to a tougher baseline than SP, something along the order of 1.00 RA/9. Lugo in 2016 had 9 RP and 8 SP, in 2017 he had 1 RP and 18 SP with an FIP 0.40 lower in 40 more IP. For rWAR they are almost in reverse. In 2016 it was 1.7, in 2017 0.8.

The Dodgers RP is Josh Fields. In 2014 with the Astros (park effect?) he had a low FIP (2.09) but a high ERA (4.45). In 2017 he had a high FIP (4.18) but a low ERA (2.84).

Baez doesn't appear to be either fWAR (2.2 in 2016, 2.3 in 2017) or rWAR (3.2 and 2.9).

I don't know why Topps decided to confuse everybody by using FIP as their WAR component. RA/9 is far more intuitive and will make the stats line up with WAR much better.

[jlzinck]

This thread needs to be shot in the back of the head execution style

God Bless.