The Increasing Over Reliance on WAR

chop2chip said:
Well inherently offense will be be a heavier component. ITd not necessary to inflate one's importance over another.

Just the same I don't see any purpose the Gov was suggesting of tinkering with the theory. Just take the stat at face value and if you are actually going to analyze players, then just don't use WAR. There are far less volatile offensive statistics and at using multiple defensive metrics over multiple years corrects for a portion of the unreliability. But still I guve FO's the benefit of the doubt when it comes to defensive evaluations because they simply have much better sources of data then us especially in relation to defense.
Click to expand...

But, going back to the original post, people ARE relying on WAR to value players. Everybody likes a single number. It's shorthand. It's easier. So I think we're getting it wrong and I think we ought to improve it. It ain't goin' away.

What do you suppose these "better defensive metrics" are that teams use? I don't think they exist. I think there's guesswork.

And I think there's discounting.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
You seem to be suggesting I take whatever this invented formula is as truth. I don't think that's wise.
Click to expand...

I think it is unlikely you have bothered to fully examine the formula and see what the inputs actually are. If you don't like the results, the empiricist would example how those results were generated, rather than just saying "psshaw... obviously bogus."

GovClintonTyree said:
I remember a few years ago, in Matt Kemp's (non-steroid) MVP year, he was absolutely hitting the dog**** out of the ball first half with average defense. Michael Bourn was having a great year before completely tailing off. But the WAR calc in July said Michael Bourn had created and prevented more runs than Kemp.
Click to expand...

This never happened. I think you are mixing up players and anecdotes. Kemp's near MVP year was 2011. Bourn actually had a negative DRS that year.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
But, going back to the original post, people ARE relying on WAR to value players. Everybody likes a single number. It's shorthand. It's easier. So I think we're getting it wrong and I think we ought to improve it. It ain't goin' away.

What do you suppose these "better defensive metrics" are that teams use? I don't think they exist. I think there's guesswork.

And I think there's discounting.
Click to expand...

Well, if WAR's mission is to be an easy way to assess value then I think it's doing its job quite admirably. My whole purpose in the original post was to point out the flaw in that way of thinking.

And I absolutely believe teams have better proprietary data. That doesn't mean it contradicts the public data (I would say it would agree with it the vast majority of the time), but there are going to be inconsistencies. That's one of the many reasons why teams will differ greatly on some individual player evaluations.
 
Metaphysicist said:
I think it is unlikely you have bothered to fully examine the formula and see what the inputs actually are. If you don't like the results, the empiricist would example how those results were generated, rather than just saying "psshaw... obviously bogus."

This never happened. I think you are mixing up players and anecdotes. Kemp's near MVP year was 2011. Bourn actually had a negative DRS that year.
Click to expand...

It did happen, but in 2012. Kemp got off to a very hot start and got hurt. Somewhere in there I saw a comparison and knew that the stat was suspect. Kemp's OPS was over 1.000 at the time.
 
chop2chip said:
Well inherently offense will be be a heavier component. ITd not necessary to inflate one's importance over another.

Just the same I don't see any purpose to what Gov was suggesting of tinkering with the theory. Just take the stat at face value and if you are actually going to analyze players, then just don't use WAR. There are far less volatile offensive statistics and using multiple defensive metrics over multiple years corrects for a portion of the unreliability. But Still give FO's the benefit of the doubt when it comes to defensive evaluations because they simply have much better sources of data then us especially in relation to defense.
Click to expand...

Yes the ratio should be at least 2 to 1. But probably less than 7 to 1. How is that for precision!
 
thewupk said:
I don't think it's that odd for a player to have a better year in a given season (the Uggla example). To me that is what happened and should be presented as such. However going forward I wouldn't expect that to still be the case and as we saw the next season he performed at his expected level. Just like bad hitters can get hot for a month or two at a time. Poor defenders can be 'good' for a year.
Click to expand...

This is one part I don't buy. Poor defenders may not make as many poor plays over the course of a year, but should we really expect that Uggla improved his range any? He had the 2nd best fielding percentage of his career, so I can understand that he may have indeed performed better overall, but to the point that he was a positive defender? I just don't see it (and I certainly didn't see it with my eyes in 2012 either).
 
Btw there is an interesting analogy with an area I know something about. Gasoline prices are only about 5% of the Consumer Price Index. But account for 80-90% of the variation from month to month. Nothing wrong with that. It is simply the way the world it.

Similarly, defense might be only 10% of a position player's value. But it could still be right that it accounts for 80% of the season-to-season variation.
 
nsacpi said:
Yes the ratio should be at least 2 to 1. But probably less than 7 to 1. How is that for precision!
Click to expand...

Nice!

I feel better hearing ".700 OPS with excellent defense" or ".850 OPS with average defense" than I do with a 2 WAR or 5 WAR player. And I wish that weren't so.

As Metaphysicist says, I haven't examined the individual components that go into the calculation, and I suppose that's on me. But I shouldn't have to. This great new stat is supposed to take everything into account and spit out one number for you to go on. Except it doesn't. And that's on the people that advance and compute the stat.

Maybe FieldFX will help.
 
nsacpi said:
Btw there is an interesting analogy with an area I know something about. Gasoline prices are only about 5% of the Consumer Price Index. But account for 80-90% of the variation from month to month. Nothing wrong with that. It is simply the way the world it.

Similarly, defense might be only 10% of a position player's value. But it could still be right that it accounts for 80% of the season-to-season variation.
Click to expand...

You really believe that?

Defense doesn't slump. Oh, wait, that's speed.
 
Carp said:
This is one part I don't buy. Poor defenders may not make as many poor plays over the course of a year, but should we really expect that Uggla improved his range any? He had the 2nd best fielding percentage of his career, so I can understand that he may have indeed performed better overall, but to the point that he was a positive defender? I just don't see it (and I certainly didn't see it with my eyes in 2012 either).
Click to expand...

I thought he was adequate the year before, pretty good that year, and poor the year after. The quantification of that with DRS and Wins never jives with what I saw, though. The variances are more subtle.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
As Metaphysicist says, I haven't examined the individual components that go into the calculation, and I suppose that's on me. But I shouldn't have to. This great new stat is supposed to take everything into account and spit out one number for you to go on. Except it doesn't. And that's on the people that advance and compute the stat.
Click to expand...

If this how you view statistics then you shouldn't use them. But that doesn't make the stat categorically flawed.

B-ref states that the proper use of their WAR is to accept a range of about 1-2 Wins when assessing players. It's not as if they are championing it as the ultimate 'be all end all'.
 
thewupk said:
I mean it depends. A good hitter with elite defense can be +40 runs above replacement. 20 on offense and 20 on defense. A great hitter with say average defense could also be on the +40 runs above replacement. Say 35-40 on offense and 0-5 on defense. So they could both provide the same amount or runs above replacement. Then you have to factor in things like playing time and the position they play.

To me a run created is the same as a run saved. Elite defenders will never be able to save as many runs as an elite hitter will be able to create. But that doesn't mean the runs they do save or create aren't equal.
Click to expand...

The main issue with this(at least for me) is that we have a clear understanding of how many runs a player generates on offense. He drives in 100 runs and scores 100 runs. Thus, he has created 200 runs. We can see that.

However, defensive runs are hypothetical. You don't actually know how many runs a player saves. It's based on actual data that is then compared to an imaginary replacement player. But the imaginary player never had a chance to make those plays.
 
Also, aside from that Uggla example, you have Pat Burrell. A notoriously horrid defender, gets cut by the Rays in early 2010 I believe. Then goes to San Fran and UZR shows him as a positive defender. Again, I know about sample sizes, but defense is a different animal than offense. You simply can't hide some defensive deficiencies. I find it very hard to believe that Burrell performed well enough to be an asset defensively, even in the short time he was there.
 
Carp said:
The main issue with this(at least for me) is that we have a clear understanding of how many runs a player generates on offense. He drives in 100 runs and scores 100 runs. Thus, he has created 200 runs. We can see that.

However, defensive runs are hypothetical. You don't actually know how many runs a player saves. It's based on actual data that is then compared to an imaginary replacement player.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with your description of offense. In this traditional view 1 run is then double counted.
 
Carp said:
Also, aside from that Uggla example, you have Pat Burrell. A notoriously horrid defender, gets cut by the Rays in early 2010 I believe. Then goes to San Fran and UZR shows him as a positive defender. Again, I know about sample sizes, but defense is a different animal than offense. You simply can't hide some defensive deficiencies. I find it very hard to believe that Burrell performed well enough to be an asset defensively, even in the short time he was there.
Click to expand...

BJ played next to Pat in Tampa.

No wonder Pat sucked. BJ caught everything near him.
 
thethe said:
I don't necessarily agree with your description of offense. In this traditional view 1 run is then double counted.
Click to expand...

Would only be double counted if he hit 100 solo home runs.

If he drives in run in one at bat and then scores a run his next time up, he has accounted for 2 runs. Now obviously scoring a run is mostly dependent on the people behind you, but you still had to reach base for the run to be scored.
 
Carp said:
This is one part I don't buy. Poor defenders may not make as many poor plays over the course of a year, but should we really expect that Uggla improved his range any? He had the 2nd best fielding percentage of his career, so I can understand that he may have indeed performed better overall, but to the point that he was a positive defender? I just don't see it (and I certainly didn't see it with my eyes in 2012 either).
Click to expand...

There are other metrics that back this up as well. He made 354 plays that year which is by far the most of his career including 50 that were out of his zone which is the most he had made since 2007. He was at 39 and 23 the previous two years. His revized zone rating that year was 833 which was the bset of his career and miles ahead of anything he had done recently. So yes everything points to him having better range that season. It can happen. Was it a fluke? Certainly. But bad fielders can have good seasons just like bad hitters can have good months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top