Comments on: Teams Who Have Gone To WAR This Season http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7979 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: David http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7979/comment-page-1#comment-43682 Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:43:36 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7979#comment-43682 Ah Brewers. If only you had more than 5 players above replacement level, maybe you'd be in the hunt for a division title.

]]>
By: paul http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7979/comment-page-1#comment-43481 Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:06:55 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7979#comment-43481 As suggested by post 17 (Rich), dichotomized cut-scores are almost always misleading. A regression model (GLM) with a team's summed WAR predicting winning percentage after accounting for confounds (not sure this is necessary) would be a robust test of WAR's predictive validity. I see two problems with my approach: Calculating a team's summed WAR is difficult in part because players change teams (post 2) and play multiple positions (19). The latter means that the WAR for player x as a shortstop (say, y) should be z and WAR for player x as a 3rd basemen (say, m) should be n. But the regression exercise might be helpful because useless statistics will continue to proliferate and excellent ones will continue to be regarded with skepticism (post 1, post 16) until statisticians demonstrate the predictive validity of each statistic, using appropriate criteria, like winning percentage.

]]>
By: DavidJ http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7979/comment-page-1#comment-43207 Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:23:59 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7979#comment-43207 Jeff, that's not a problem with WAR; that's the whole point of WAR. Everything else being equal, the ability to play SS is more valuable than the ability to play 1B (because a replacement-level SS is going to be a worse hitter than a replacement-level first-baseman). WAR simply takes that into account, since the purpose is to measure a player's total value. If you just want to compare two players' offensive abilities independent of what positions they play, well, there are already countless offensive stats you can look at. The point of WAR is to give us the bigger picture.

As for players who play multiple positions, the adjustment (as far as I understand it) simply depends on how many games they play at each position (e.g., a player who plays 100 games at 1B, 40 at 3B, and 20 in RF gets 100 games' worth of 1B adjustment, 40 games' worth of 3B adjustment, and 20 games' worth of RF adjustment).

]]>
By: Jeff http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7979/comment-page-1#comment-43188 Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:28:34 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7979#comment-43188 The problem with a stat such as WAR is that there are positional adjustments to try to offset that 1B hit more than 2B (i.e.). There's two problems with that general line of thinking.

1) What about players who play 2, 3, 4 postitions? Which adjustment do you use? 2) and more importantly, nobody in the history of the game ever went to the plate as a 1B. Every batter goes to the plate as a batter.

Assign them value for what they did at the plate. Then assign them value for what they did in the field (if that's really possible. Fielding stats generally suck compared to hitting and pitching stats).

]]>
By: Basmati http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7979/comment-page-1#comment-42968 Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:30:53 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7979#comment-42968 This tells us how many players have contributed above a certain threshold. The Reds are obviously doing well because of good contributions from lots of players, as opposed to a few great players and nobody else doing anything.

I posted a while back how the Angels won 100 games without anybody having >5 WAR (All star level). In other words the correlation between team performance and your best 1 or 2 players is quite low.

]]>
By: Rich http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7979/comment-page-1#comment-42956 Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:29:59 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7979#comment-42956 @16
I'm not a huge fan of WAR myself but that's not what this post is saying at all. The Brewers offense is pretty good. Their pitching is horrible.
As far as the Reds, if this post had been made a little bit later, or if the cutoff of 2.0 had been different, they'd have several more players on this list. Drew Stubbs and Ramon Hernandez are at 1.9 and Jay Bruce is at 1.8

]]>
By: Ghost of Horace Clarke http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7979/comment-page-1#comment-42915 Sat, 28 Aug 2010 05:19:03 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7979#comment-42915 So the Detroit Tigers and Milwaukee Brewers are a better team than the Reds this year....and the Reds are no better than the Diamondbacks....based on this new ....almighty stat. But of course. stats don't lie.

]]>
By: Ed http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7979/comment-page-1#comment-42911 Sat, 28 Aug 2010 04:34:02 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7979#comment-42911 @13
Just looked at Jeter's splits. In addition to his normally poor fielding, his been horrible against right-handers (651 OPS) and on the road (617 OPS). Interpret as you'd like.

]]>
By: Ed http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7979/comment-page-1#comment-42909 Sat, 28 Aug 2010 04:26:57 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7979#comment-42909 Pretty amazing that Carlos Santana made the list considering he only played in 46 games before his season ending injury.

]]>
By: Drew Cobb http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7979/comment-page-1#comment-42758 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:49:16 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7979#comment-42758 Can't believe Jeter doesn't have a 2 in WAR this year. Could be on the beginning of his descent????

]]>