Honest question for advanced stat oriented guys on Gattis

[thewupk]

That doesn't make sense to me. Agreed that the DH is the worst defender, but if he's not playing in the field how is that a detriment? When he's on the bench he's neither helping nor hurting the defense. That player should get neither credit nor blame.

Thanks for the explanation though.

So let's say we have a DH and 1B that are both 300/400/500 hitters. And the 1B is a league average defender for the position. Should they have the same WAR? I would think the league average 1B is clearly more valuable than someone that can't/doesn't play defense at all. The only way to account for this would be positional adjustments.

[Nerfherders]

I think the idea with WAR is that you can pick 9 random players, and if you put them on the field for a season you could kind of figure out what kind of team you would have. In this case, Gattis' defensive liability must be accounted for.

But the other side to that is Gattis' value to his team, right now, and despite the OBP which *kills* his value, the defensive liability should not be considered, especially when the game, at least in the AL, is designed around having that player. I could also see a case where you have a pretty decent 1B, for example, but then that team also has an all-world defensive 1B, and thus the decent one plays DH despite probably being at least league average on defense, if he played there.

[nsacpi]

I think you have to account for his defensive limitations because it does impose a cost on his current team. If he was a good defender they could DH one of their other defensively challenged players. I could imagine a theoretical team with 7 very good and never injured defenders plus Gattis. But thats not the Astros.

I think the idea with WAR is that you can pick 9 random players, and if you put them on the field for a season you could kind of figure out what kind of team you would have. In this case, Gattis' defensive liability must be accounted for.

But the other side to that is Gattis' value to his team, right now, and despite the OBP which *kills* his value, the defensive liability should not be considered, especially when the game, at least in the AL, is designed around having that player. I could also see a case where you have a pretty decent 1B, for example, but then that team also has an all-world defensive 1B, and thus the decent one plays DH despite probably being at least league average on defense, if he played there.

[thewupk]

I think the idea with WAR is that you can pick 9 random players, and if you put them on the field for a season you could kind of figure out what kind of team you would have. In this case, Gattis' defensive liability must be accounted for.

But the other side to that is Gattis' value to his team, right now, and despite the OBP which *kills* his value, the defensive liability should not be considered, especially when the game, at least in the AL, is designed around having that player. I could also see a case where you have a pretty decent 1B, for example, but then that team also has an all-world defensive 1B, and thus the decent one plays DH despite probably being at least league average on defense, if he played there.

Well every AL team gets the DH penalty equally so it is built into the teams overall WAR. Also I do see your point about having an all-world 1B and your DH being good and likely to start at 1B for most other teams. The thing with WAR is that it doesn't give you a players true talent level. It gives your their current production for that given year. Just like if you have someone at 2nd that could play short but you have a SS that's better. You could be limiting his value by keeping him at 2nd even if his true talent is better than that. The flipside to that is that his defense at 2nd should be a lot higher which equals out the loss of a postional boost from SS but that's not always the case.

[GovClintonTyree]

It's because a players position gets calculated into DWAR. For example positions like center and short get a bonus to their WAR for playing those positions while 1B and corner outfieders get a negative because those positions are easier to play. I would think you would agree that someone who saves 5 runs in center is more valuable than someone who saves 5 runs in right or left. This is how they account for that difference.

If you are a DH then generally you are the worst defensive player on the team. That's not always the case but odds are you are a pretty bad even as a 1B. Should a DH be given credit when he can't even play on the field? Most people view that as an extreme negative as far as value goes and it gets calcualted into WAR accordingly.

Thanks, thewupk. I actually thought you were kidding when you said that this morning, hence my facetious answer to you.

But, really? No, that makes no sense at all to me. And I'm serious.

If a guy saves 5 runs in LF or at SS, he saves 5 runs. My expectation is that the SS will get a greater opportunity to save runs and that will be reflected in the statistic. So he might get a chance to go +33 where a LF might only get a chance to go +10 because there are so few plays, and so many of those plays are routine there are few chances to differentiate from any old swinging Richard.

I understand the point some of you guys are making, that Gattis DHing means somebody else plays who might not be as good. But the net effect of that should be reflected in the other player(s) dWAR calculation. And Gattis' dWAR should be 0 when he DHs. Then on days he plays LF, his dWAR should reflect the difference between him and a replacement level defensive player, so with 11 games (71 innings) and 7 chances, he makes 1 error, doesn't get to 1 ball most guys would in that 11 game period and gets to 0 balls that other guys wouldn't get to, I would expect that to be perhaps -1 1/2 DRS or maybe less which would bring his dWAR to 0.0, most likely.

Why would he get penalized for playing DH? You guys have been telling me that a run saved is a run produced, so why is a run saved in LF any different than a run saved at SS?

[GovClintonTyree]

I think you have to account for his defensive limitations because it does impose a cost on his current team. If he was a good defender they could DH one of their other defensively challenged players. I could imagine a theoretical team with 7 very good and never injured defenders plus Gattis. But thats not the Astros.

No, you don't pay a cost until you put him on the field and he underperforms compared to a replacement level LF. In calculating his value to the team, if he never plays the field, his value to the team should be X oWAR and 0.0 dWAR. And the player who is actually on the field's dWAR would impact the team's WAR.

What am I missing?

[GovClintonTyree]

So let's say we have a DH and 1B that are both 300/400/500 hitters. And the 1B is a league average defender for the position. Should they have the same WAR? I would think the league average 1B is clearly more valuable than someone that can't/doesn't play defense at all. The only way to account for this would be positional adjustments.

I didn't think the starting point was league average. I thought it was "replacement level" player, or a AAAA player (maybe Brooks Conrad or The Deuce). Which would mean a league average defender would indeed have value versus a replacement level player. See what I'm saying?

[thewupk]

I didn't think the starting point was league average. I thought it was "replacement level" player, or a AAAA player (maybe Brooks Conrad or The Deuce). Which would mean a league average defender would indeed have value versus a replacement level player. See what I'm saying?

I do. But I was just making an example. The starting point for 0 WAR is indeed a replacement level player. However the starting point for 0 DRS is that of an average player. So you could have a guy with 0 runs saved on defense and 0 runs created on offense yet he would still be a WAR in the 1-2 range because you factor in playing time.

[thewupk]

Thanks, thewupk. I actually thought you were kidding when you said that this morning, hence my facetious answer to you.

But, really? No, that makes no sense at all to me. And I'm serious.

If a guy saves 5 runs in LF or at SS, he saves 5 runs. My expectation is that the SS will get a greater opportunity to save runs and that will be reflected in the statistic. So he might get a chance to go +33 where a LF might only get a chance to go +10 because there are so few plays, and so many of those plays are routine there are few chances to differentiate from any old swinging Richard.

I understand the point some of you guys are making, that Gattis DHing means somebody else plays who might not be as good. But the net effect of that should be reflected in the other player(s) dWAR calculation. And Gattis' dWAR should be 0 when he DHs. Then on days he plays LF, his dWAR should reflect the difference between him and a replacement level defensive player, so with 11 games (71 innings) and 7 chances, he makes 1 error, doesn't get to 1 ball most guys would in that 11 game period and gets to 0 balls that other guys wouldn't get to, I would expect that to be perhaps -1 1/2 DRS or maybe less which would bring his dWAR to 0.0, most likely.

Why would he get penalized for playing DH? You guys have been telling me that a run saved is a run produced, so why is a run saved in LF any different than a run saved at SS?

To your first point. A SS should indeed have more chances to make plays than a LF. However you don't measure what a SS does agaisnt a LF so those chances are irrelevant. You measure what the SS does agaisnt other SS. So those chances would equal out.

And yes a run saved is equal to a run saved. However when comparing positions with runs saved. So in your example with the LF who saves 5 runs and the SS that saves 5 runs. Swap the players at those positions. Would you still expect the LF to save 5 runs at short? Probablly not. He's going to be a lot worse. Would you expect the SS to save 5 runs in left? Probablly not. He would likely save a lot more. Thus a SS gets a positonal positive to his defensive score and the LF getse a positional negative.

[thewupk]

No, you don't pay a cost until you put him on the field and he underperforms compared to a replacement level LF. In calculating his value to the team, if he never plays the field, his value to the team should be X oWAR and 0.0 dWAR. And the player who is actually on the field's dWAR would impact the team's WAR.

What am I missing?

What your are missing is the DH positional adjustment. In terms of actual runs saved a DH would be 0. But the positional adjustment gets added into to dWAR. As I explained in another post the positional adjustment is needed in WAR.

[Runnin]

So the "Replacement" in WAR is not the average replacement for each position, which is what I had assumed, but a general, statistical composite of all position players?

[thewupk]

So the "Replacement" in WAR is not the average replacement for each position, which is what I had assumed, but a general, statistical composite of all position players?

It's based on what a hypothetical AAAA player would do. Across all positions, including the positional adjustment, a replacement player would come out to 0 WAR.

[nsacpi]

No, you don't pay a cost until you put him on the field and he underperforms compared to a replacement level LF. In calculating his value to the team, if he never plays the field, his value to the team should be X oWAR and 0.0 dWAR. And the player who is actually on the field's dWAR would impact the team's WAR.

What am I missing?

You certainly do pay a cost if you play a poor defender because Gattis is even worse.

[Runnin]

It's based on what a hypothetical AAAA player would do. Across all positions, including the positional adjustment, a replacement player would come out to 0 WAR.

Instead of WAR it should be WAHP (Wins Above Hypothetical Player) The positional adjustment for DH is unfair and meaningless since he's not playing defense. It's not adjusted enough.

[thewupk]

Instead of WAR it should be WAHP (Wins Above Hypothetical Player) The positional adjustment for DH is unfair and meaningless since he's not playing defense. It's not adjusted enough.

I wouldn't call it unfair. In fact for most cases I would say the adjustment penalty actually makes players more valuable then they normally would be. I have no doubt that someone like Ortiz would be way worse if he had to play 1B for a whole year. Then of course there was Adam Dunn who was regularly worth -20 runs in a given year who would end up as a better value as a DH.

[thewupk]

Another way to look at is even a AAAA player should provide some value as a defensive player even if that comes out to 0. A DH provides even less than that because he's not on the field at all.

[nsacpi]

Here's an example of how a DH who can't field costs a team defensively. If David Ortiz was a decent outfielder he would be in left rather than Hanley Ramirez.

[gilesfan]

Instead of WAR it should be WAHP (Wins Above Hypothetical Player) The positional adjustment for DH is unfair and meaningless since he's not playing defense. It's not adjusted enough.

It has been explained, you have to have a positional adjustment to account for the value of each position. It's why a SS can not hit and be a good player. If the DH was a better fielder, they would be in the field (and more valuable). If you simply ignored the positional adjustment, it would overstate the WAR of the DH.

[GovClintonTyree]

Here's an example of how a DH who can't field costs a team defensively. If David Ortiz was a decent outfielder he would be in left rather than Hanley Ramirez.

I don't mean to be dense, and I apologize for not picking up what you're saying. Of course what you are saying is true, but the impact of Hanley playing left is measurable (although the rectitude of that is another story). Entirely in Hanley's dWAR. The fact that Ortiz isn't out there is irrelevant.

It's as relevant as the other five guys on the roster sitting on the bench with him. They're not in the game but nobody's suggesting subtracting dWAR from them as they spit out sunflower seeds and shoot beaver. That would be absurd, right?

Then, four times a game, David picks up a bat and the meter starts running. The same as if another bench player pinch hit. He impacts the game once, not all the way along with a dWAR correction for "benchwarmer."

<sigh> I really don't like the derivation of defensive stats. And now thewupk explains to me that the dWAR starting point is an average fielder at the position, not a replacement player? That seems contradictory to the whole idea of WAR. After all, it's "wins above REPLACEMENT."

Gattis gets a big minus for sitting. Unbelievable. Maybe he should get a plus for staying out of the way while a competent outfielder plays.

[thewupk]

I don't mean to be dense, and I apologize for not picking up what you're saying. Of course what you are saying is true, but the impact of Hanley playing left is measurable (although the rectitude of that is another story). Entirely in Hanley's dWAR. The fact that Ortiz isn't out there is irrelevant.

It's as relevant as the other five guys on the roster sitting on the bench with him. They're not in the game but nobody's suggesting subtracting dWAR from them as they spit out sunflower seeds and shoot beaver. That would be absurd, right?

Then, four times a game, David picks up a bat and the meter starts running. The same as if another bench player pinch hit. He impacts the game once, not all the way along with a dWAR correction for "benchwarmer."

<sigh> I really don't like the derivation of defensive stats. And now thewupk explains to me that the dWAR starting point is an average fielder at the position, not a replacement player? That seems contradictory to the whole idea of WAR. After all, it's "wins above REPLACEMENT."

Gattis gets a big minus for sitting. Unbelievable. Maybe he should get a plus for staying out of the way while a competent outfielder plays.

No dWAR =/= UZR or DRS (whichever advanced stat you prefer). UZR and DRS is the actual measure of runs saved (or lost) compared to other people at that position. In that stat 0 is average. In dWAR 0 is that of a replacement player. They aren't the same even though UZR or DRS is apart of the calculation for dWAR. They are two completely different stats telling you two completely different things.

And your point about Ortiz being comapred to other bench players for dWAR is irrelevant. Ortiz is actually in the game and those bench players aren't.

I think some people are confused that someone not playing defense can be a negative defender. That's not what dWAR is saying at all. Their actual defensive contribution is set to 0. However the DH is less valuable on defense then your typical AAAA player. Thus his defensive value is set to that below 0 (which is what a typical AAAA player would provide).