Comments on: Matt Kemp’s huge team margin in WAR This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: John Autin Sat, 15 Oct 2011 03:00:35 +0000 @45, Lawrence -- I must be the worst in the world at recognizing irony in the comments. Mea culpa.

By: Lawrence Azrin Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:23:35 +0000 @43/ John Autin -
"@40, L.A. -- Considering the runaway success of Casey's platooning strategy with the Yankees, I think that "Somehow they managed to win the World Series" doesn't quite capture the mood..."

John A. - It was meant somewhat ironically, as at the time Stengel's platooning strategy was viewed with a lot of scepticism - see David Halberstam's book about that season,"The Summer of '49".

Remember, when Stengel took over the Yankees in 1949, he was seen by a lot of the press as an amusing clown and an unsuccessful manager, not any sort of strategic genius.

By: Whiz Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:38:35 +0000 @31 Mike, yes, it was the bbref version of WAR -- I haven't checked others.

@37, yes, I agree that WAR should not necessarily correlate with wins -- that was why I suggested it should correlate more with Pythagorean wins (which is after all related to the runs scored and allowed). I suspect that the offensive WAR does correlate very well with runs scored since that analysis is more mature -- pitching and defensive WAR are probably the dominant source of the discrepancy between WAR and Pythagorean wins.

By: John Autin Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:39:35 +0000 @40, L.A. -- Considering the runaway success of Casey's platooning strategy with the Yankees, I think that "Somehow they managed to win the World Series" doesn't quite capture the mood.

I have not studied the matter, but it seems possible to me that one reason the Yankees of 1949-58 were so successful once they reached the WS (7-2 in series, 34-22 in games) is that they weren't worn out in the process of getting there.

By: jason Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:09:10 +0000 only read like the 1st 15,


By: Downpuppy Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:35:13 +0000 To go straight to the obvious -

-15.7 position, -33.9 pitching

Cleveland Spiders, of course

By: Lawrence Azrin Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:41:34 +0000 @27/ John Autin: "This interesting thread got me thinking about the flip side of the coin -- teams with a large WAR total but no MVP-caliber individual.
-- The 1949 Yankees had 17 such hitters and a team hitters' total of 30.6 WAR, led by Joe D. at 5.0. They went 97-57 and won the WS in 5 games, the first of 5 straight championships..."

John A. - In 1949, Joe D. only played 76 games because he missed a big chunk of the season with a painful heel spur. If he had played a full season, he probably would've reached his usual level of 7-8 WAR (at least).

That 1949 Yankees team must've had a lot of injuries and/or platoooning (it was Casey Stengel's first year as Yankees manager), as all but one of the starters played between 103 and 116 games - Jerry Coleman (128 G) and Phil Rizzuto (153 G). Somehow they managed to win the World Series.

By: Genis26 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:43:13 +0000 Well, I didn't read all of the previous posts. I guess there are plenty of other teams to post some horrid team WAR.

By: Genis26 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:39:17 +0000 Well, Michael Cuddyer had a WAR of 3.0, and the Twins' position players (including Cuddyer) combined for just 3.9, so his teammates were actually just 0.9. So Cuddyer actually had more than 3 times the WAR as the rest of his team combined.

The amazing thing is, Denard Span had a WAR of 2.6, so his teammates were combined for just 1.3. He doubled that.

Alexi Casilla was 3rd with 1.8 WAR, almost being more than his teammate's 2.1.

One more for the Twins, starting pitcher Scott Baker, in just 21 starts and 135 IP, posted a 3.8 WAR, almost as much as ALL of the position players combined.

Is 3.9 WAR the worst mark ever for a team's position players? Even Houston's position players posted a 15.6 WAR (though their pitching was at -0.5????)

By: DavidS Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:41:20 +0000 @24 - WAR should not be expected to correlate 100% with wins because there is a timing element to wins (hence the discrepancy between Pythag and actual totals) that is noise around the run differential signal. It should be expected to correlate more strongly with runs scored (for offensive WAR) and runs allowed (for defensive WAR and pitching WAR).

The only stat which would be expected to correlate perfectly with actual wins at the team level is WPA, which is game-state dependent (and ties out by definition).