WAR is Garbage

[FreshOutThePack]

Originally Posted by pewe

Average is the wrong way to look at it… but we can credit Trout for a lot of the focus on sabermetrics… based on traditional “eye test” he consistently falls outside the top 5-10 for sexy stats, which causes lots of folks to question why he deserves an MVP look.

But it has been sabermetrics to the rescue to get writers to care about him. Particularly early in his career, before he pivoted to a more HR centric approach.

His “great across the board, but not top in any one thing” is hard to measure vs. players who out perform him in portions of the game without advanced stats like WAR


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trout has plenty of black ink on the back of his baseball card. He dominates in the 2 offensive categories that most credit for producing runs; OBP and OPS. But this also brings up another knock on advanced metrics. For example his 2018 OPS is 198 which is essentially saying he is double the league avg, when clearly his numbers were not double the league avg.

Originally Posted by Silent George

Vizquel doesn't compare to Scooter or Ozzie.

Scooter had a significantly higher wRC+ and yes, he missed 3 prime years, 26, 27, 28 fighting fascists in WWII, which - I'm going to thank him for and not hold against him. Even missing those 3 years he had far better offensive rate stats than Omar, AND his defensive runs saved would have been higher also.

not only is Ozzie's wRC+ higher than Omar's, but his defense is THE SECOND BEST ALL TIME, behind only Yadi. He blows away Omar 375.3-262.1, and he played a lot LESS than Omar.

in spite of this, Vizquel was surging in the HOF vote totals before the REAL thing holding him back from the Hall came out - that he has beat the crap out his wife on several occasions that we know about. Again, not WAR.

Fwiw I think alot of advanced metrics don't nearly tell the whole story very well at all. Look what happened when the Rays pulled Snell in Game 6. The Dodgers bench started cheering wildly when he got pulled. And we all know how that story ended.

Vizquel played the most games at shorstop ever. He has the highest fielding percentage at SS ever. Longevity and greatness is kinda the thing that gives you fame. Saying that Smith was essentially 2 times better than Vizquel is laughable to me. And believe me I know Smith was great. To say that Rizzuto is so much better than a guy who batted basically the same and was a gold glover year-in-year-out is absolutely ridiculous. You know what Vizquel's average defensive range was over his career? 4.62. The league average over that time 4.61. So this metric basically says Vizquel was a replacement level defender over his entire career. L.O.L.

[jswest18]

Originally Posted by no10pin

He clearly didn't do enough backflips.

I agree with you on Jones, but he is going to get in down the road a bit. I think flaming out offensively at 30 moved him down a lot of voters' lists, but I expect he'll keep gaining ground and get in within the next 4-5 years.

Haha yeah had to be the backflips.

I think he gets in too. If not by the writers, by the veterans committee.

Originally Posted by hche

Because OFs are generally viewed as a less defensively important position than a SS? No clue

Well CF is generally understood as one of the 3 most important defensive positions on the field along with SS and C. If you're arguably the greatest defensive CF of all time then that's a big deal and worthy of enshrinement.

[jswest18]

Originally Posted by FreshOutThePack

Trout has plenty of black ink on the back of his baseball card. He dominates in the 2 offensive categories that most credit for producing runs; OBP and OPS. But this also brings up another knock on advanced metrics. For example his 2018 OPS is 198 which is essentially saying he is double the league avg, when clearly his numbers were not double the league avg.




Fwiw I think alot of advanced metrics don't nearly tell the whole story very well at all. Look what happened when the Rays pulled Snell in Game 6. The Dodgers bench started cheering wildly when he got pulled. And we all know how that story ended.

Vizquel played the most games at shorstop ever. He has the highest fielding percentage at SS ever. Longevity and greatness is kinda the thing that gives you fame. Saying that Smith was essentially 2 times better than Vizquel is laughable to me. And believe me I know Smith was great. To say that Rizzuto is so much better than a guy who batted basically the same and was a gold glover year-in-year-out is absolutely ridiculous. You know what Vizquel's average defensive range was over his career? 4.62. The league average over that time 4.61. So this metric basically says Vizquel was a replacement level defender over his entire career. L.O.L.

No, it's saying his range was average. He had incredible hands though which is why he has the highest fielding % of all time. He got to every ball he was supposed to get to and he almost always made the play. That's really valuable.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by FreshOutThePack

Fwiw I think alot of advanced metrics don't nearly tell the whole story very well at all. Look what happened when the Rays pulled Snell in Game 6. The Dodgers bench started cheering wildly when he got pulled. And we all know how that story ended.

Vizquel played the most games at shorstop ever. He has the highest fielding percentage at SS ever. Longevity and greatness is kinda the thing that gives you fame. Saying that Smith was essentially 2 times better than Vizquel is laughable to me. And believe me I know Smith was great. To say that Rizzuto is so much better than a guy who batted basically the same and was a gold glover year-in-year-out is absolutely ridiculous. You know what Vizquel's average defensive range was over his career? 4.62. The league average over that time 4.61. So this metric basically says Vizquel was a replacement level defender over his entire career. L.O.L.

1) baseball is all about probability. If you have a guy that gets on base 40% of the time, you use him over a guy who gets on 30% of the time. It doesn't mean it's going to succeed every time, or even close. Just that one is 10% more likely than the other. it doesn't make an advanced metric wrong if the 30% guy gets a hit and the 40% guy doesn't.

2) Average =/= replacement level. The metric is saying that per 9 innings the average shortstop got 4.61 putouts or assists. That's not next guy up from the minors. That is typical SS. Omar, over 9 innings, got 4.62.

This isn't some weird projection system. It's not funky math. It's simpler than batting average, slugging, era, obp, etc. All it is is taking the combined number of assists and putouts, dividing by the total number of innings, and multiplying the result by 9 to get an average game total.

There is no ballpark adjustment, there is no strikeout, or groundball consideration. No calculation for how good the other infielders are to see if they are adding or subtracting from potential outs. There's sure no fielding percentage malarky of getting home town calls on hits/errors, etc. It's as simple as can be. Per 9 innings, how many assists + putouts does a player get.

So if Omar only being a tad above league average is seen as evidence that a stat cannot be counted on, then either your eyes lied to you - or we need a more advanced stat to give the proper context.

[LCM1223]

The idea of it is flawless. How it’s derived, however, is incredibly flawed.

[Melagoo]

Originally Posted by FreshOutThePack

I give you exhibit A:

Dave Parker -

1 MVP
5 more top-10 finishes (nearly 6)
Batted over .300 his first 13 seasons overall
Over 2,700 hits (90%+ of 3000 *Guaranteed HOF*)
Almost 1,500 RBI

Throw in big contributing roles on 2 WS winning teams.


And all of that is good for only 40 WAR?? Yeah ok, that makes sense. That is barely a little over halfway to the HOF in terms of average WAR for other RF that have been elected. Yet all of his other HOF statistics say he should be in. WAR tells very little while other stats tell so much more.

... and an absolute canon for an arm

[hche]

Originally Posted by jswest18

Well CF is generally understood as one of the 3 most important defensive positions on the field along with SS and C. If you're arguably the greatest defensive CF of all time then that's a big deal and worthy of enshrinement.

I guess it's the backflips then. Vizquel is not getting the love either.

[FreshOutThePack]

Originally Posted by jswest18

No, it's saying his range was average. He had incredible hands though which is why he has the highest fielding % of all time. He got to every ball he was supposed to get to and he almost always made the play. That's really valuable.

Go look at the all-time leaders for a single season at shortstop. I like Bill James, but this is a ridiculous made-up, good for nothing metric. It tells me absolutely nothing except how many times the ball got hit or thrown to to a player. It actually makes sense that his number is average because over 24 years, the average number of times the ball is hit to shortstop should basically even out across all teams. Then you factor in the shift and everything really changes in regard to this metric.

[Melagoo]

Originally Posted by JR42collector

WAR is not garbage. Dave Parker is.

... the Cobra will take offence to that ... almost as much as when a fan threw batteries at him during the game while playing in right field

[jplarson]

Compromise - put Parker in the Hall next to Harold Baines in the wing that is perpetually closed to visitors due to ongoing plumbing maintenance.

[Melagoo]

Originally Posted by k13

Made up stat to make trout look good when he's average in the big scheme of things. If he was so valuable as WAR suggests his team would not be losing that much.

The whole thing is a joke.
Anyone can make up some metrics.

You can never calculate defense properly.

... I might have to agree with you here ... all these stats and analytics are messing up sports ... grit - heart - drive can't be measured that way

[jswest18]

Originally Posted by hche

I guess it's the backflips then. Vizquel is not getting the love either.

Lol, the people have spoken. It's the backflips!

[jswest18]

Originally Posted by FreshOutThePack

Go look at the all-time leaders for a single season at shortstop. I like Bill James, but this is a ridiculous made-up, good for nothing metric. It tells me absolutely nothing except how many times the ball got hit or thrown to to a player. It actually makes sense that his number is average because over 24 years, the average number of times the ball is hit to shortstop should basically even out across all teams. Then you factor in the shift and everything really changes in regard to this metric.

Not really. A player that has better range at SS will have more opportunities every game to make a play. A player that has elite range and great hands will actually make more plays than a SS with average range over the course of a game and the course of his career. Now, in a sense you are right about things averaging out. For an individual game a SS could have an obsurd amount of balls hit right them. The next game they could have none hit to them. That doesn't tell you anything about the SS' range. But over the course of a decade or two decades then those things average out and you get a good idea of the range of any given SS. That is one of the big separators between Ozzie and Omar. Ozzie had one of the greatest ranges as a SS in the history of the game. He got to balls and made plays on those balls regularly that Omar never could.

I do agree that all of the shifting taking place now has to do damage to this metric.

[Melagoo]

Originally Posted by Melagoo

... I might have to agree with you here ... all these stats and analytics are messing up sports ... grit - heart - drive can't be measured that way

I should be clear ... I'm not agreeing that Trout is average I mean the stats don't always reflect the determination and drive a player has ... I think Trout is a top 5 all time player ... hope he gets back soon

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by Melagoo

I should be clear ... I'm not agreeing that Trout is average I mean the stats don't always reflect the determination and drive a player has ... I think Trout is a top 5 all time player ... hope he gets back soon

If a player has grit and determination, and that grit and determination help him succeed, then it must show up in the stats somewhere. Maybe he gets more hits out of it. Maybe his teammates perform better from his inspiration, regardless, however much an individual's "drive" impacts them, it has to show up in the stats, the runs, the W-L, because there aren't magical grit points.

so when you see someone say a player makes everyone else around him better, ok! that could be a real thing! and you could measure it by asking if players around him did get better, or maybe the team has a better record in close games, or something.

[FreshOutThePack]

Originally Posted by jswest18

Not really. A player that has better range at SS will have more opportunities every game to make a play. A player that has elite range and great hands will actually make more plays than a SS with average range over the course of a game and the course of his career. Now, in a sense you are right about things averaging out. For an individual game a SS could have an obsurd amount of balls hit right them. The next game they could have none hit to them. That doesn't tell you anything about the SS' range. But over the course of a decade or two decades then those things average out and you get a good idea of the range of any given SS. That is one of the big separators between Ozzie and Omar. Ozzie had one of the greatest ranges as a SS in the history of the game. He got to balls and made plays on those balls regularly that Omar never could.

I do agree that all of the shifting taking place now has to do damage to this metric.

If Smith is far and away the best SS ever (I'm not saying otherwise), then wouldn't his range be far and away better than anyone else's if this stat really means anything?

From what I see, the best single season marks are from the dead-ball era which is no surprise. And then the guys who are career all-time leaders are from an era when there were far less strikeouts and home runs compared to when Omar played. This stat cannot be taken at face value, whereas something like fielding percentage can be. To properly evaluate a true defensive range, it requires digging way deep into so much more than just saying putouts plus assists divided by innings played.

[49ersSF]

Dave Parker should be in the Hall of Fame. He has the career numbers, a couple of WS rings, an MVP, 3 gold gloves, 3 silver sluggers and can claim to be the most dominant player in MLB for a 5 year stretch of the late 70's. Not too mention he has one of the best nicknames in the history of the game "The Cobra".

Hands down he should be in the hall of fame.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by FreshOutThePack

Have you seen Ozzie Smith's WAR and ops+? He got in solely on defense. Maybe if Omar were to have done a backflip after every great play, his WAR might have gone up by 30 or so. Then check Omar to Rizzuto. Very similar careers albeit Rizzuto lost 3 years of his prime, but you can't quantify what would've happened, only speculate. I guess if the Tribe would've pulled off '95 and '97 there really would be no question.

Vizquel is victim to the fact that the 90's moved towards offensive shortstops that maybe shouldn't have been playing the position. Then you throw in the juicers such as A-Rod playing the position and his value goes down even more.

What I see is Smith had a HIGHER OPS+ than Vizquel and about 200 more steals in 5 less seasons. Throw in the fact (sorry, no one would think this is an opinion) that Smith is the best defensive SS all time, arguably the greatest defender of all time. In short, they were VERY similar hitters...but Smith was a significantly better on the basepaths and legendary in the field. No shock his WAR is ~30 higher than Vizquel. One is a deserved HOFer, the other a HOVGer.

[49ersSF]

Originally Posted by PDCCollectibles

Trout, average? He's over a .300 hitter with 300+ homeruns, 200+ stolen bases and over 1,400 hits...just to name a few. Odd comment...

There is no denying Trout is a great player but the "importance" of WAR has been used by many in order to make Trout into a mythological character of sorts as early as his second year in the league. In my opinion, it was an orchestrated attempt by the MLB to create a face for the league which they were sorely lacking. I do not really blame MLB for doing so as they can see the importance as the NFL, NBA and Soccer all have their faces of the league and hugely benefit from it. The importance of WAR will diminish over time and be relegated to something from this era in my opinion.

[WalterAZ31]

Originally Posted by PDCCollectibles

Trout, average? He's over a .300 hitter with 300+ homeruns, 200+ stolen bases and over 1,400 hits...just to name a few. Odd comment...

hes a supertroll, one of the worst on blowout. a coward too

[ScooterD]

I know that different sites calculate WAR differently, but the one I’m looking at has Mark Belanger at 40+ and Dante Bichette at 5.6 for their careers.

I very much understand that defense plays into the calculation, but I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around the fact that Belanger and his 20 career HRs and .220 avg gave the O’s nearly 8x as many wins as Bichette’s offensive production gave his teams.

For those of you who understand WAR, does this represent one of the inherent flaws that has been alluded to in other posts?

[BBases31]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

I know that different sites calculate WAR differently, but the one I’m looking at has Mark Belanger at 40+ and Dante Bichette at 5.6 for their careers.

I very much understand that defense plays into the calculation, but I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around the fact that Belanger and his 20 career HRs and .220 avg gave the O’s nearly 8x as many wins as Bichette’s offensive production gave his teams.

For those of you who understand WAR, does this represent one of the inherent flaws that has been alluded to in other posts?

Bichette was barely a league average hitter for his entire career. He had a 104 wRC+

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by jplarson

Compromise - put Parker in the Hall next to Harold Baines in the wing that is perpetually closed to visitors due to ongoing plumbing maintenance.

Me likey.

[ScooterD]

Originally Posted by BBases31

Bichette was barely a league average hitter for his entire career. He had a 104 wRC+

And Belanger was 71 wRC+…. I don’t see 8x as many wins comparing the two.

I’m not saying that Dante Bichette was Babe Ruth, but I want to understand whether the WAR difference between these two players is justifiable or an anomaly.

[oplum29]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Absolutely nothing.