Options
I really don't get Win-Above-Replacement sometimes
mb2005
Posts: 165 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
I know it can be calculated differently, but looking at Bryce Harper's stats on espn.com:
HR: 8 1st in NL
RBI: 17 1st in NL
BB: 21 1st in NL
Total bases: 42 2nd in NL (not on espn.com)
OBP: 0.487 3rd in NL
SLG: 0.784 2nd in NL
OPS: 1.265 1st in NL
Errors: 0
PO: 19
Fielding percentage: 1.0
but he is 14th in the NL in WAR?
Is it that he doesn't cover enough ground in RF?
It is due to a ton of great players at RF so he isn't worth as much?
I don't get it....
0
Comments
depends on whether one is a believer in fielding metrics. If you are, then he's been a below average fielder for 5 years by most measures. In a very small sample size, he's already a -4 DRS and/or -2.6 UZR (and a comically awful -34.8 UZR/150) this year so he's been brutal and that's where the drag in his WAR has come from. From the eye test, he's always taken odd routes, and I have zero evidence to back this up, but when he collided with the wall a couple years ago and jacked up his knee(or was it an ankle?), he's since appeared to be Alfonso Soriano-grade allergic to outfield walls (as a Cubs fan you should remember those days). Anything clubbed to the warning track and Captain Blowdry peels off his route like an NHL forward at the defensive zone's blueline in the 1980's. Baserunning is factored into WAR as well and despite having above average speed, he's an average at best baserunner due to attempts to stretch singles into doubles or getting Sid Bream'd at the plate.
Hmmm, I would think most of his effect on the game would be at the plate still, where Harper is tops. That is why the 14th place in WAR looks strange.
Please don't bring up Alfonso Soriano....the contract that never seemed to end
WAR vastly overrates baserunning and defense at times. This is clearly an example of it. Harper is sitting at a 0.8 for the year. That's nonsense.
The "made up" stats are not good.
If WAR actually means "Wins Above Replacement", his offensive numbers are either #1 or #2 and even if he is not that great on 5%(?) of balls hit to the wall and he is an average baserunner, these stats have very little to do with losing a game, (at least in comparison to offensive numbers) so they should not drop him lower than #5.
The more you complicate the numbers the more problems you get.
In general corner outfielders are there for run production.
To be fair, I haven't seen him play defense much. Could he be that bad?
I put very little stock in WAR for catchers and pitchers. Those two positions have the most erratic outcomes. For other position players, things tend to shake out pretty well by the end of any given season. Go back and look at the BR WAR leaderboard for last season and it's basically the guys you'd expect to find there - Altuve, Judge, Stanton, Votto, Arenado were the top 5 in that order (Trout and Harper each missed about 50 games last season, don't forget) So in 2017 Harper posted below average defensive numbers and still checked in around a +5, so if he didn't miss 7 weeks, he would have landed in the top 5 easily last season, if not the top 2 or 3. His defense may have held him back from topping Altuve, but we're not talking about a wide gap. He's just been inconceivably bad thus far in 2018. Maybe it's the weather, maybe he's nursing a leg injury, or maybe it's positioning or odd outfield shifting or whatever. Over the course of the season it will likely even out unless he's just fallen off of a cliff defensively, Sammy Sosa circa 1997 style when his arm went from one of the best in MLB to Johnny Damon-adjacent for inexplicable reasons.
That said, Theo and Jed weren't the only ones who tried to throw money at Jason Heyward two years ago. So did Mike Rizzo and so did The Hackers in St Louis among a few others. I think most would agree that those are three pretty well run organizations and all three tried to shove money into Heyward's pockets. Sure, few expected his bat to completely vacation off of the face of the Earth, but even back when his bat still had positive value, Heyward was largely valued for his defense and baserunning foremost. There is statcast type data that isn't publicly available that only each organization receives, so I think it would be impossible for any random dopey fan to try to figure out just how valuable defense and baserunning truly are. But if a handful of generally smart front office yobs value it pretty highly, then it must carry more value than an average fan might assume.
Yes it is mostly a nonsense stat.
Robb
And those organizations were all being dumb with regard to Heyward. They were paying him Mickey Mantle money when he was putting up a 110 OPS+ every year. Now, 110 OPS+ with GG-level defense in CF is really nice but it's not elite money-nice. I didn't expect his production to completely crater like it has but I sure thought he was wildly overpaid at the time of the contract.
I never attempted to even begin to get into geek stats for baseball, I know Dallas and others are experts and will scoff at guys like me but I keep it simple and look at HR’s, BA, K’s, W vs L ect..
One would assume of the main reasons to take a run at a player like that would be a worst case scenario, the bat falls apart, but that player would still be capable of being worth 3 wins on defense and baserunning alone. Seeing that 1 WAR is the equivalent of around $7 million in present day value, that's $21m of value per year. Obviously they were hoping for twice that amount because in 4 of his first 6 seasons he was a 5.5-6.6 WAR player. Hence the contact being what it is. I wouldn't have signed him either, but I understood the move given that the Cubs had all these young positional players making nothing for a 4-6 year stretch.
Take heart, Bryce Harper fans, he's having a better year than WAR is telling you. But yes, it is his defense bringing down his WAR; Harper is tied for 4th in offensive WAR (T-1st in the NL). But WAR isn't a very good stat, and defensive WAR is absolute crap. In Win Probability Added, the best batting stat, Harper is leading the majors. Also, the Nats pitchers are leading the league in strikeouts, so there are fewer balls in play; WAR does a terrible job of accounting for things like that, it just counts up the plays made at each position.
The defensive measurement in WAR, in a word, is worthless, and why someone like Jason Heyward got a 2.3 WAR last year, even though 95% of the fly balls he caught were routine(catchable by 99% of MLB outfielders).
Stats like defensive WAR give the good advanced measurements a bad name.
If you want to make WAR useful, then give the defensive portion only 15% of the value of what they come up with. Give the positional adjustment the same treatment, and then you will get a more accurate reading of the players actual value.
For example Heyward had a 2.3 WAR last year with an offensive stat line of:
.259/.326/.389. 59 runs scored. 11 HR. 59 RBI. 15 doubles. 4 triples. OPS+ 84
In 1983 Dave Winfield had a 2.5 WAR:
.283/.345/.513. 99 Runs scored. 32 HR. 116 RBI. 26 Doubles. 8 Triples. OPS+ 138
95% of fly balls hit to the outfield are routine, and 95% of starting outfielders in Division 1 college baseball would catch them. So the replacement value for outfield defense is EASILY EASILY replaced by nearly any outfielder in College, Minor league baseball, and certainly on your MLB bench. Heck, just watching home run derby and the kids in the outfield are running down and catching fly balls off of a MLB hitter ripping shots. NONE of those kids could hit a home run off a MLB pitcher. So which skill is 'replaceable'?
Now find me an offensive replacement that could do what winfield did in 1983. You could only find maybe 15-20 in all of MLB to replace that offense. Forget about finding that replacement value on your bench or in the Minor leagues on call. It simply isn't replacelable.
Defensively it comes down to those extra 10-15 plays that Heyward makes that Winfield 'might' not. Just looking at the 11 more doubles Winfield hit, more than equals out those extra 10-15 defensive plays Heyward 'might' make. I say might, because Winfield has shown several times he could make those plays too.
Yet those two players are nearly equal in those seasons based on WAR? Ridiculous. Winfield provided a true commodity, while Heyward's commodity is easily replaceable by outfielders not even in professional baseball, and certainly replaceable by AAA or MLB bench.
So the concept of "above replacement" in WAR is extremely out of whack.
WAR - what is it good for? - - - - absolutely nothing!
Erik
stats ....... making a tragically boring sport even more dismal is the goal so for that WAR is a success
I have found all sports to be boring to watch now. I can't sit through a football game anymore. Touchdown. Commercial. Extra point. Commercial. Kickoff. Commercial. Two yard run up the middle. Huddle 40 seconds. Eight yard slant. 40 seconds huddle...
Basketball....constant movement, but nothing compelling...still just need to watch the last two minutes of the game...then sit through a multitude of free throws. Yawn.
Hockey...similar to basketball. Not much different than putting a ball in a ring and twelve kids kicking it around, going back and forth, accomplishing nothing. Eventually scoring a couple goals.
Soccer. Same as hockey but worse.
Stats are what make baseball great. When you are capable of understanding them, knowing which are accurate...they are the only objective measurements around. The good baseball hitting measurements are good for everything.
What good are they though , if you no longer care about the actual game? I used to go to a few dozen games a year and sit in the bleachers for $3 . I'd bring my own drink and food in , it was a cheap day and it was fun. Now we have 3 and a half hour games , expensive tickets , can't bring your own snacks and I'm not paying $9 for a soda or a hot dog that costs them 5 cents to make for soda or a 30 cent hot dog .
I remember the old games I saw in the moment they happened , but I don't care about the stats of any of the players in them . I feel the same about hockey. I remember the golden days of $8 tickets and riding the T to north station , I remember the goals and the fights as they happened but I have no awareness of career +/- ratings or points or who had the most whatevers . I agree that all the sports are boring , I'm not paying $50 to park and $250 for a ticket to see the bruins in a 2-1 game with no fights. In the thirst for gate receipts and TV money they have all abandoned the fans and they are going to learn a lesson.
If I start a book club will you be in it?
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The same can be said for every major sport. I only go on freebies now. I can afford it, but choose not to. No way I'm going to an NFL game and paying $100+ for just one ticket and then another $30 to park. Then sit there and watch them play. F that.
BTW, you can still bring food into baseball games(probably depends on the stadium). I've done it with my family several times and those tickets are still affordable. I don't think there are any cheap NFL or NBA tickets unless it is some minor city somewhere and the team blows.
no 50 shades books I hope , Sci fi , maybe some world history sounds like a plan
It's nice to see people finally questioning some of these new stats. In some ways they show us different ways of looking at things, but they can be very flawed.
All stats have flaws, and of the "new stats" defensive WAR is the most flawed. But, defensive WAR is better than the stat that preceded it, which was nothing. And offensive WAR, OPS+, WPA, Win Shares, etc. are all several degrees of magnitude better than any "old stat". So yes, question the new stats, but do that while you're using them and ignoring the old stats.
A bad stat is better than no stat at all? Debatable.
To say there was no stat is disingenuous as well, fielding attempts and error rate have been tracked for a long time. One could argue those are a better measure of value than the convoluted and over weighted defensive WAR.
In regard to fielding, I agree. For instance, Bill Mazeroski gets all this extra credit due to his 'range', but is it really his range or just the fact he had more balls hit to him? We saw Mazeroski's defensive replacements replicate the same range rate as Mazeroski, so we have an inkling that "more balls hit to him" were at play.
But forget that for a moment, if Mazeroski were such a great fielder, then how come he simply could not field balls cleanly as frequently as Ryne Sandberg did? Nobody gets charged with an error on an attempted 'range play'. Is there anybody here who doesn't believe Sandberg would get just as many assists as Mazeroski if he got 100 more balls hit to him too? Based on the error rate, Sandberg would get MORE assists.
For example:
Bill Mazeroski made 204 errors in 11,863 chances, or one error every 58 chances.
Rich Dauer made 57 errors in 4,512 chances, or one error every 79 chances.
Ryne Sandeberg made 109 errors in 10,279 chances, or one error every 94 chances.
There are very few variables in that measurement. The ball is hit to the player and he either fields it or not. He either makes a good throw or not.
When you add the range factor equations, then the biggest variable becomes simply, how many more balls are hit to each player? That variable is nearly impossible to isolate. Mazeroski made more total plays than both of them, but is that because he was THAT much better or because he simply had more playable balls hit his way?
That being said, if someone were to use that range factor and determine that Mazorski was a better fielder than those two, then how come a fielder as great as that cannot catch a simple ground ball as good as the other two?? Maybe, just maybe, because he wasn't as great as that range factor says.
A bad stat tells you something, which is something more than you know from no stat at all. So, not debatable.
One could make that argument - one could make any argument - but anyone making that argument would be wrong. There were fielding stats, that counted stuff up, provided no context, and were essentially random numbers. Defensive WAR was the first stat to attempt to put those random numbers into context and combine them in a way that the result was no longer random. They did a very poor job, but if you evaluate players by their defensive WAR you will be correct more often than if you evaluate them by random numbers. If you evaluate them by defensive Win Shares, you will be correct the majority of the time and you will never be completely wrong.
SOMETIMES, the eye test is better than any mathematical formula. The problem is many (most?) will see only what they want to see.
If you can be objective, you are ahead of the others. I look at all the new stats and some are ok, but some are really bad, mostly in measuring defense.
Someone claimed those defensive stats proved Kirby Puckett was not a great defensive player. If any stat indicates that, it should be ignored.
The offensive stats are better, but I will never ignore the basic ones, after all they are used to figure the "new" stats, so how can they be bad as long as you are objective?