Their ability? no. I don't think Harper is a true 112 WRC+ hitter. But that's what he did in 2016 thanks in part to a low BABIP. So his value to the Nationals in 2016 was a lot lower than it likely will be in 2017.
Matt Kemp
- Thread starter jsebe10
- Start date
Their ability? no. I don't think Harper is a true 112 WRC+ hitter. But that's what he did in 2016 thanks in part to a low BABIP. So his value to the Nationals in 2016 was a lot lower than it likely will be in 2017.
Are you trying to argue that WAR and similar metrics should not take into account anything that happens in games you're winning easily? I guess we have to remove events that happened in losses as well. And players on good teams will always contribute more than players on bad teams by this logic.
You seem to have missed what these metrics do and why they do it. They are in no way trying to figure out literally the fraction of an actual win a particular play helped produce. If that's what it was trying to do, the routine infield pop fly is worth just as much as the insane, nearly impossible play in the outfield. They're both one of 27 outs.
1.Go ahead a get ANY real job in baseball, and then you can talk all you want.
2. I'm sorry I don't agree with you. I realize that's hard for you to handle.
3. If I received $1 for every time I gave a rat's a$$ about what your opinion is....I would have $0.
4. I "am" just a fan. PS....so are you (please read #1).
5. I'm just here to lightheartedly discuss the Braves. Hate to break it to you....no one with the Braves even know you or any of us exist (sorry). So, you might not want to take this so serious.
6. You aren't ever around any real people are you?
When thinking about things like that, you should take your line of thinking to the extreme and see if it still makes sense. If you put mid-prime Andruw Jones in CF on a team where your pitchers strike out literally every batter all year, then yeah, his defensive contribution to that team's wins/losses is 0. But how valuable is that judgment? He's still the best defensive CF of all time, but you wouldn't know that just looking at his defensive contribution. And nothing in baseball (except maybe MVP awards) is determined by looking back at a player's contributions in the past.
It all goes back to the difference between value and ability. In your scenario Druw provided 0 defensive value because the same outcomes would have existed with me on CF.
Doesn't take away from the fact that his ability is that of the best defensive center fielder innbaseball.
Right, but in what context is it even valuable to talk about the defensive value he contributed? Teams are going to evaluate him based on the value they would expect him to bring their team in the future, and whatever his current contract in this scenario is will pay him the same regardless of his contribution. I can see where you might want to take a look at that if he were in the discussion for MVP, but that's a very narrow scope and something you could go back and look at as needed. It's just not particularly helpful when talking about the vast majority of players.
I love the statistical revolution in baseball. What I reject is the somewhat arbitrary assigning of value to players cobtrubutions. It's a good base to evaluate buts it by no means an absolute as some would like to argue.
I agree with your point above 100% fyi.
I said somewhat because theres definitely great analysis which is leveraged to perform this calculation. However, as noted above there are many instances when noise in the small sample of defensive chances over a year can impact that value.
That's not arbitrary, though. Perhaps subject to some fluctuations due to the small sample, but it seems like that would actually cause you to favor the defensive metrics even more. They do attempt to describe the value that player provided defensively for that year. The problem with the defensive metrics, if there is one, is that they aren't quite as predictive as the offensive metrics until you develop a larger sample of a few years.
But they definitely don't just arbitrarily assign value.
That's what it's supposed to do. Provide the value that player provided that year. It's not supposed to tell you how good they will be in the future. That requires further analysis.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
It's exhausting, is what it is. I come here to talk baseball. He wants to talk statistics and work out his personal problems by being a condescending ass.
I'm taking a break until spring training. Hopefully the tenor of the discussion changes when there's real baseball being played and the results don't jive with his ironclad, airtight theses. Hard to have a conversation when one guy is right all the time.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
You will be back before then.. don't kid yourself. HH is just getting started on his trade X player threads.. so it will be a fun 3 -4 weeks. I love those things!!
Trust me, it is equally exhausting having a discussion with someone that is always wrong and never brings a logically coherent thought that is backed up by facts to the table. When that person is so desperate to be "right" about something that they resort to arguing over the definition of "fact", it becomes unbearable.
I think Kemp will produce 0-1 wins, but some folks here have presented enough facts and data to convince me 2 wins is possible with improved conditioning and a return of his offensive skills now that he is out of SD. That still doesn't make him worth the money the Braves are paying him, and it still doesn't justify the trade that acquired him though.
If you think Kemp brings more value to this roster than 1-2 wins, you are wrong. Period. In fact, I can't even remember a single time you have been proven right with one of your assertions when we disagreed. So, in fact, you are always wrong.