Why WAR is stupid for Closers, especially for Colome

[Thad Bosley]

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

This dude claims to have researched the stat prior to challenging it and yet shows he has done no such thing based on his actual argument.  Maybe if you knew the poster’s history when it comes to advanced metrics (such as using the beloved “statnik” rip those who use them) you wouldn’t be coming to his rescue.  So hey, maybe take your own advice and stay out of it.

Alright, alright.  Just seemed like he wasn’t causing any major harm.  

[Moan4Yoan]

Damn statniks...

[vilehoopster]

1 hour ago, LeeElia said:

Save % is a statistic that doesn’t provide any context. More specifically, a pitchers save % depends on multiple factors outside the control of the player. A better measurement of Colome’s value is the huge gap between his ERA and xFIP and his comically low k/9 rate. Stop valuing closers by save %. 

Even if he was the best closer ever you wouldn’t assign him the entire value of the win. Hitters production, defense, and the pitcher(s) that got the other 24 outs had something to do with the win as well.

 

See this is what I'm talking about. Why would ERA and Xfip and k/9 rate even matter?  What does it matter how he does it, what matters is he gets the save. To me save percentage should be the only stat that matters in such a specialized field. 

With field goal kickers, shouldn't percentage of field goals made matter the most. But with the stuff you stated for Colome, xfip and all that. That's like saying the guy leading the league in field goal percentage (like Colome is tied for MLB league in save percentage) is not a good kicker because the SOT speed off toe or AoA angle of set back ankle is not good. None of that matters as long as the ball goes thru the uprights. 

What makes up a save is the same for every pitcher. Who cares how he does it (ie xfip, K rate, whatever). All that should matter is save percentage. 

All other stats are clear example of you can't see the forest for the tree. For a closer, you give him the ball and if he gets the save, it's good. If he blows the save it's bad, all that other stuff means nothing in the bottom line. 

Today's game gives me an example of the opposite. Why do we keep giving Dylan Covey the ball? Oh, because on some sort of weird saberstat it's been determined that Covey has "great stuff". I was in the car for the start of the game and all the radio announcers kept saying to justify Covey was his "great stuff". Jason and Stone always refer to his "great stuff" too. Someone measuring his pitch speed and ball rotation and degree of ball change has decided that he has "great stuff". 

Once again, can't see the forest for the trees. After today he will have 6 wins and 28 losses as a Sox pitcher. There is nothing great about Covey, least of all this "stuff". What ever stats are being used to justify Covey's great stuff and that we keep giving him the ball need to be thrown in the garbage. Just like any stat that says Colome is an average reliever has to be pretty much ignored when the guy leads the league (well tied for the lead) in save percentage. 

[vilehoopster]

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

This dude claims to have researched the stat prior to challenging it and yet shows he has done no such thing based on his actual argument.  Maybe if you knew the poster’s history when it comes to advanced metrics (such as using the beloved “statnik” rip those who use them) you wouldn’t be coming to his rescue.  So hey, maybe take your own advice and stay out of it.

Same thing as I've said to all others. Show me where my logic or math is wrong. 

I teach in my classroom a unit on how to spot propaganda, which is the art of getting people to believe stuff without any evidence, getting people to accept something is true without any evidence. 

The number one resort of all propagandist is to go right to the insult. It's a dead givaway that the person has no counterargument. 

[Chicago White Sox]

4 minutes ago, vilehoopster said:

Same thing as I've said to all others. Show me where my logic or math is wrong. 

I teach in my classroom a unit on how to spot propaganda, which is the art of getting people to believe stuff without any evidence, getting people to accept something is true without any evidence. 

The number one resort of all propagandist is to go right to the insult. It's a dead givaway that the person has no counterargument. 

Vile - What’s funny is I actually agree with your thread title and personally think WAR is a stupid way to evaluate all relievers.  I just don’t buy that you’ve actually done much research on this subject and this thread just reeks of a continued desire to push your anti advanced metrics propaganda.

[vilehoopster]

9 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Vile - What’s funny is I actually agree with your thread title and personally think WAR is a stupid way to evaluate all relievers.  I just don’t buy that you’ve actually done much research on this subject and this thread just reeks of a continued desire to push your anti advanced metrics propaganda.

You are correct. The motivation of the thread is to push my anti-advanced metric belief, not propaganda. I am trying to give some credance to my anti-advance stat with this post, but I did do some work and research. 

I looked up the majors save percentage, that took some finding. And I repeatedly looked up the definition of WAR and the idea of replacement on two separate sites. I did some work and gave some facts. Then I have tried to use logic to defend my point, which is hard to do when you're cursing Dylan Covey at the same time. 

[Dam8610]

3 hours ago, vilehoopster said:

Because I questioned a stat that few understand (including me) but everyone quotes, people comment with quick, unsupported witty comments, but so what. 

Where is my logic wrong. Is my definition of replacement wrong?  Are my stats wrong?  Was my math wrong. Tell where I'm wrong in my logic instead of just dismissing my statement with an insult. 

It's been explained to you. You're giving the closer credit for the whole win in the "saves above average" category, which is wrong for reasons that have already been pointed out. Firstly, closers will always be well above the league average save rate because blown saves are credited to middle relievers and setup relievers who give up a lead, despite the fact that they never would have gotten the save had they not given up the lead. Further, as has been stated several times, you're giving the closer credit for the whole win in those situations. Under your model, the closer's contributions to the win are the only ones that matter. Not the starting pitcher's quality start, not the offense's performance, not the defense's performance, but only the closer matters. In fact, going further, based on your "calculation" of 6.86 vs. the fWAR calculation of 1.7, Colome is actually getting about 25% of the credit for the "wins" he's "responsible for", which to me is actually dramatically skewed in his favor.

[LeeElia]

4 hours ago, vilehoopster said:

See this is what I'm talking about. Why would ERA and Xfip and k/9 rate even matter?  What does it matter how he does it, what matters is he gets the save. To me save percentage should be the only stat that matters in such a specialized field. 

With field goal kickers, shouldn't percentage of field goals made matter the most. But with the stuff you stated for Colome, xfip and all that. That's like saying the guy leading the league in field goal percentage (like Colome is tied for MLB league in save percentage) is not a good kicker because the SOT speed off toe or AoA angle of set back ankle is not good.

There is a lot more that goes into a “save” than the performance of one player. Outcome alone is the least effective way to value relievers. When you are making high level decisions emphasizing  process is the only way to show a “profit” in the long term.

Since we are comparing apples and oranges look at it this way, let’s say you fell into 100 million to invest. Are you going to invest in a company based on their performance in the last 4 months or are you going to dive into the financial metrics and make a decision based on those? Here’s another way to look at it, a poker player calls with two suited cards and chases down a flush despite the odds offered by the pot and bet size. If the poker player hits the flush does that means they made the right decision? 

It’s cool to be the type of fan that’s results oriented. Personally I like to understand what I’m watching. 

 

[Eminor3rd]

18 hours ago, vilehoopster said:

Okay, I did my research on this. Explain to me where my math or logic is wrong.

First, WAR is wins above replacement. Now, the way I understand that stat, "replacement" is what an average player would acheive in that spot or position or whatever, and WAR measures how many more wins this player gets for his team above an average player at that position. In a way, WAR measures how much a player is above average? Correct because "replacement" means an average player at that position, wins for your team above how many wins for your team an average player would help your team win? (That got rather long, sorry; but follow my logic.)

Okay, Colomen has a WAR right now of 1.7 (I found it on two different sources).  Colome has a save percentage of 95.5%. He has saved 21 or 22 save opportunties. 

Now this is where I have a problem. I also looked this up: the MLB average for saves is 64.24%. Therefore, by my logic, "replacement" for Colome would be someone who saves 64.24% of his save opportunities. 

So, putting that 64.24% (as replacement) in 22 save opportunities would be only 14.13 saves. An average closer, "replacement", would only have saved 14 of the 21 games Colome has saved. 

So, when looking at that, shouldn't Colome have a WAR of (his 21 saves minus the league average of 14.13 saves in 22 SOs)  therefore 21 - 14.13 = 6.86.

Right now, Colome's wins above an average relief pitcher/ closer is 6.86. 

Why isn't his WAR 6.86???? This makes no sense to me. 

That makes a lot more sense than his present WAR or 1.7. 

I also know that WAR figures in the team stats, like how the field or a pitcher's team defense would affect his value to the team. Well, if you look at that, remember that Colome's one blown save is because of a bonehead defensive play when Rondon threw home instead of the obvious throw to 1st to get the out. 

So, look at my logic and my math. Why doesn't Colome have a WAR of 6.86?

 

 

A LOT of problems here, but for starters, replacement level does NOT equal average. It equals replacement level. The average MLB contributor is roughly two wins above replacement level. 

Secondly, WAR seeks to assign wins in a context-neutral setting. A save is about the most context-dependent statistic in existence, so it is completely unrelated. 

Thirdly, if you were going to try to make the argument that Alex Colome was worth six or seven wins because of his save totals, you’d have to first make the argument that a save itself is worth an entire win — which, if you think about it, makes no sense at all. How could playing in one half of one inning be equivalent to winning and entire game?

I’m not trying to sound condescending here man, but what “research” did you do here? Nothing of what you said above has anything to do with WAR. 

If you really do want to understand WAR, I can point you to some resources. 

[chitownsportsfan]

A better way to evaluate relievers in general is probably WPA.  A guy coming in with a 4-1 lead in the 9th should be closing that game out with a win 95% or so of the time just based on historical averages.  So over the course of a season if a reliever has a negative WPA they probably blew a bunch of games late.

Just to piggyback on @Eminor3rd WAR is a CUMULATIVE stat.  In this way it is similar to runs scored, runs batted in, stolen bases and so on.  It's NOT a rate stat like slash line or wRC+.

If a closer is only pitching 70 innings he isn't going to have a chance to accumulate WAR like a SP.  That's why some prefer WPA or something like FIP (fielding independent pitching) metrics that attempt to parse out bad luck and bad fielding from a pitcher's ERA.

[mqr]

There are better ways to compare relievers to other relievers. But it's pretty on point when comparing relievers to anyone else on the diamond. 

[bmags]

I think there just needs to be some bridging of the gap with people here.

Some fans are used to using stats descriptively because that's often how they used them growing up.

In this view, Alex Colome's 21 saves are important because it underscores how we watched him come in 21 times and finished with the win. 

Same with RBI, each being tied to watching the batter come up and end up with a runner scoring at home. These are re-enforcing the description of the season as it occurred and the memories tied to it.

But what those stats are not answering is "how good is player x". And that's a question many on here and in baseball fandom want to answer because it helps us understand the game better, helps us enjoy the game more, and part of that is due to wanting to theorize how to make the best team possible.

I think everyone here enjoyed Scott Podsednik having 38 stolen bases before the ASB in 2005, which led to him being an all star. But that didn't mean that he was one of the best outfielders in the game.

And this gap happens were people feel like they are diminishing the things a player did in fact do, when really it is just trying to answer a different question.

It's awesome Colome has come up 21 times in the 9th and shut it down. It was fun to watch. But if I'm a GM trying to trade for the guy I don't get to transfer those 21 saves to my team. I'm trying to figure out if the guy I acquire will nail it down for me. That's what the "statniks" are trying to understand: how much of a players performance is indicative of their talent, and how much is indicative of the context it happened in.

[Kyyle23]

1 minute ago, bmags said:

I think there just needs to be some bridging of the gap with people here.

Some fans are used to using stats descriptively because that's often how they used them growing up.

In this view, Alex Colome's 21 saves are important because it underscores how we watched him come in 21 times and finished with the win. 

Same with RBI, each being tied to watching the batter come up and end up with a runner scoring at home. These are re-enforcing the description of the season as it occurred and the memories tied to it.

But what those stats are not answering is "how good is player x". And that's a question many on here and in baseball fandom want to answer because it helps us understand the game better, helps us enjoy the game more, and part of that is due to wanting to theorize how to make the best team possible.

I think everyone here enjoyed Scott Podsednik having 38 stolen bases before the ASB in 2005, which led to him being an all star. But that didn't mean that he was one of the best outfielders in the game.

And this gap happens were people feel like they are diminishing the things a player did in fact do, when really it is just trying to answer a different question.

It's awesome Colome has come up 21 times in the 9th and shut it down. It was fun to watch. But if I'm a GM trying to trade for the guy I don't get to transfer those 21 saves to my team. I'm trying to figure out if the guy I acquire will nail it down for me. That's what the "statniks" are trying to understand: how much of a players performance is indicative of their talent, and how much is indicative of the context it happened in.

Bmags this is no place for sensical discussion.  Please leave

[chitownsportsfan]

1 hour ago, bmags said:

I think there just needs to be some bridging of the gap with people here.

Some fans are used to using stats descriptively because that's often how they used them growing up.

In this view, Alex Colome's 21 saves are important because it underscores how we watched him come in 21 times and finished with the win. 

Same with RBI, each being tied to watching the batter come up and end up with a runner scoring at home. These are re-enforcing the description of the season as it occurred and the memories tied to it.

But what those stats are not answering is "how good is player x". And that's a question many on here and in baseball fandom want to answer because it helps us understand the game better, helps us enjoy the game more, and part of that is due to wanting to theorize how to make the best team possible.

I think everyone here enjoyed Scott Podsednik having 38 stolen bases before the ASB in 2005, which led to him being an all star. But that didn't mean that he was one of the best outfielders in the game.

And this gap happens were people feel like they are diminishing the things a player did in fact do, when really it is just trying to answer a different question.

It's awesome Colome has come up 21 times in the 9th and shut it down. It was fun to watch. But if I'm a GM trying to trade for the guy I don't get to transfer those 21 saves to my team. I'm trying to figure out if the guy I acquire will nail it down for me. That's what the "statniks" are trying to understand: how much of a players performance is indicative of their talent, and how much is indicative of the context it happened in.

I'm not sure the answer to a pile of nonsense and poorly thought out pseudo-science is "let's meet halfway".

[gusguyman]

2 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I'm not sure the answer to a pile of nonsense and poorly thought out pseudo-science is "let's meet halfway".

He didn't say meet halfway. He said the gap needed to be bridged. Not many good things come from stopping in the middle of a bridge.

[Roofshot]

On 7/28/2019 at 12:07 PM, vilehoopster said:

Okay, I did my research on this. Explain to me where my math or logic is wrong.

First, WAR is wins above replacement. Now, the way I understand that stat, "replacement" is what an average player would acheive in that spot or position or whatever, and WAR measures how many more wins this player gets for his team above an average player at that position. In a way, WAR measures how much a player is above average? Correct because "replacement" means an average player at that position, wins for your team above how many wins for your team an average player would help your team win? (That got rather long, sorry; but follow my logic.)

Okay, Colomen has a WAR right now of 1.7 (I found it on two different sources).  Colome has a save percentage of 95.5%. He has saved 21 or 22 save opportunties. 

Now this is where I have a problem. I also looked this up: the MLB average for saves is 64.24%. Therefore, by my logic, "replacement" for Colome would be someone who saves 64.24% of his save opportunities. 

So, putting that 64.24% (as replacement) in 22 save opportunities would be only 14.13 saves. An average closer, "replacement", would only have saved 14 of the 21 games Colome has saved. 

So, when looking at that, shouldn't Colome have a WAR of (his 21 saves minus the league average of 14.13 saves in 22 SOs)  therefore 21 - 14.13 = 6.86.

Right now, Colome's wins above an average relief pitcher/ closer is 6.86. 

Why isn't his WAR 6.86???? This makes no sense to me. 

That makes a lot more sense than his present WAR or 1.7. 

I also know that WAR figures in the team stats, like how the field or a pitcher's team defense would affect his value to the team. Well, if you look at that, remember that Colome's one blown save is because of a bonehead defensive play when Rondon threw home instead of the obvious throw to 1st to get the out. 

So, look at my logic and my math. Why doesn't Colome have a WAR of 6.86?

 

 

Because WAR is a stupid made up stat? I've tried to get my 22yo nephew to define what replacement level is. Im like, gimme a stat line for a replacement level SS, using my outdated "traditional" stats lol. He cant. WAR is subjective he says. I say if its subjective, its not a real stat.  Listening to the Score tonight while at work, they were talking about trading Abreu, then listed the 6 Sox players with more, higher?, WAR than Abreu. According to WAR, Leury Garcia is having a  more productive year than Abreu. That's all I need to hear about WAR to know its nonsense.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

4 hours ago, Roofshot said:

Because WAR is a stupid made up stat? I've tried to get my 22yo nephew to define what replacement level is. Im like, gimme a stat line for a replacement level SS, using my outdated "traditional" stats lol. He cant. WAR is subjective he says. I say if its subjective, its not a real stat.  Listening to the Score tonight while at work, they were talking about trading Abreu, then listed the 6 Sox players with more, higher?, WAR than Abreu. According to WAR, Leury Garcia is having a  more productive year than Abreu. That's all I need to hear about WAR to know its nonsense.

There is nothing about WAR that is subjective. Its difficult to give a slash line because amazingly enough you get value and lose it for more than just offense because baseball isn't just offense.

Leury Garcia plays a premium defensive position and has graded out above average there. He also is a + base runner. Abreu is a bad defender and base runner who is only about 10% better than Leury with the bat this year despite playing a position that asks for premium offensive production.

That's why leury is a more valuable player. It's not that complicated.

A replacement level SS (assuming league average defense and baserunning) slash line would look something like Brandon Crawford this year:

234/304/376

Edited July 30, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[FloydBannister1983]

On 7/28/2019 at 3:02 PM, vilehoopster said:

Same thing as I've said to all others. Show me where my logic or math is wrong. 

I teach in my classroom a unit on how to spot propaganda, which is the art of getting people to believe stuff without any evidence, getting people to accept something is true without any evidence. 

The number one resort of all propagandist is to go right to the insult. It's a dead givaway that the person has no counterargument. 

I’ve seen it explained at least two or three times in this thread already.

 

Why are you crediting the closer, who pitches one inning, with 100% of the win in your formula.  That’s just the beginning of your bad math.

 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, Tony said:

Always love this line of thinking. "I don't understand it, so it must be stupid!" 

Yeah, I also think many people on the analytical side don't explain things with patience. Frequently, and I find myself doing this as well, we talk to those who want to learn or understand like they were children. 

No one listens while being ridiculed or demeaned. Some don't genuinely want to learn but others do. Messaging is key to education of analytics. It's even more difficult on the internet as speaking in an analytic language can appear condescending even if that's not the goal. 

Defining thing in layman's terms is a talent and it's what makes a great teacher. I struggle to do this frequently but I really do try to explain things respectfully and in an adult manner.

[vilehoopster]

Okay, let me start off be being offensive: Okay, I took a day off from destroying you guys, but I'm back. You guys talk about my lack of understanding of WAR and you keep stating that WAR is correct no matter what holes can be found its logic or assessments of a players value to a win. 

1st off Ray Ray Run: "There is nothing about WAR that is subjective."  Of course there is tons of stuff in WAR that is subjective. At home, a KC batter hits a ball hard to short and TA takes one step over and the ball goes off his glove. At KC that is a single, adding to that guy's WAR and doing nothing to Tim's WAR; at Chicago, that is an error on TA, hurting Tim's WAR and doing nothing for the batter;  unless the crowd boos and Steve makes a comment on TV, then the scorer quietly changes that to a hit an inning later. Angel Hernandez call a total BS strike three on Eloy taking the bat out of Eloy's hand and saving that pitcher's ERA, totally subjective. The stats that feed into war are subjective, therefore, WAR by its nature must be subjective. What isn't subjective is what make a save and what makes a blown save, and Colome has saved 95.5% of his save opportunities. Next . . . 

2nd Dam8610:  "Firstly, closers will always be well above the league average save rate because blown saves are credited to middle relievers and setup relievers who give up a lead, despite the fact that they never would have gotten the save had they not given up the lead. Further, as has been stated several times, you're giving the closer credit for the whole win in those situations. Under your model, the closer's contributions to the win are the only ones that matter. Not the starting pitcher's quality start, not the offense's performance, not the defense's performance, but only the closer matters."

Okay, how am I giving the closer "credit for the whole win."  Just because the closer gets credit for the win, doesn't take away from anybody else's performance. Can't the pitcher who threw 8 innings of one-hit ball still help his WAR. Or if a batter who hits four home runs, doesn't his WAR also go up. That a closer increases his WAR has no effect, positive or negative, on how any other player performed and helped or hurt his WAR, so "the closer gets all the credit for win argument" goes out the window. 

Also, how the pitcher pitched or the offense did doesn't matter to the closer. If he comes into what major league baseball (not subjective) has determined as a save situation and gets the save, that should increase his WAR, regardless of how the starting pitcher did or how the offense did, who also can increase or decrease their WAR. -- This goes to Juschill and Eminor3rd who also made the "closer whole credit" comment. 

Now to Eminor3rd: "replacement level does NOT equal average. It equals replacement level. The average MLB contributor is roughly two wins above replacement level. 

Okay, I did do my research and I did see this statement and didn't deal with it. Thanks for letting me deal with it now. This is such a flawed idea. So computing Wins above Replacement, the baseline is 2. An average player has a 2 WAR.  Does that make sense? Instead of just shaking your head, use it to think for a minute. Shouldn't the baseline when computing starts for an stat be zero: positive is above zero and negative is below zero. But for WAR, the baseline of average is 2, so the average player contributes to 2 wins a year. Shouldn't the average player contribute to zero wins a year, and a below average player hurt his team with losses (cough, cough Yonder A.??) There's a lack of logic there to me when the baseline for figuring out good or bad is already at plus 2 for average. Don't you see the bad logic there with average being plus 2 ??

Let me leave with asking two questions?

First, Colome has a WAR of 1.7. Do you really think that Colome has only had a positive to the point of adding only 1.7 wins to the Sox this year, only 1.7 wins? Do you really believe that if the Sox didn't have Colome, that they would only have two less wins this year, only two?  Seriously, be honest in your answer. Especially when the average WAR is seen as 2.0. Colome has had a below average contribution to the Sox win total this year? Do you really believe this?

Second: Don't you think that the 9th inning matters more than the first couple innings? In basketball we talk about the last 2 minutes decides the best players or in football, how important that final drive is in determining greatness. But with WAR the 1st inning is the same as the last. Do you think that that is correct?  According to WAR, a pitcher that throws 22 or so pitches in the 9th inning with the game absolutely on the line, with the other team bunting or pitch hitting all stops out, means less to the win than a left fielder who had four at bats and had four balls hit to him the entire game. Is that correct?

Be honest with yourself, do you believe totally yes to both of these questions? If so, than WAR is 100% on the money with you. But if you say no to either question or both, you really have to start questioning the validity of WAR. 

[Chicago White Sox]

Lol...you sure did destroy us all!

[Kyyle23]

[Balta1701]

34 minutes ago, vilehoopster said:

First, Colome has a WAR of 1.7. Do you really think that Colome has only had a positive to the point of adding only 1.7 wins to the Sox this year, only 1.7 wins? Do you really believe that if the Sox didn't have Colome, that they would only have two less wins this year, only two?  Seriously, be honest in your answer. Especially when the average WAR is seen as 2.0. Colome has had a below average contribution to the Sox win total this year? Do you really believe this?

Yes, I think it is entirely possible that if the White Sox did not trade for Colome, they would have something like 1 or 2 fewer wins this year. Most outings for closers they come in for the 9th inning with the lead and don't have to worry about a pressure situation - even a bad closer will still have a 75 or 80% save rate. Sergio Romo is not particularly great, he's ok, he's basically a replacement level player this year (0.2 bWAR), but he's also 17/18 on saves. You can find cheap guys to pitch the 9th inning when you're up by 2 or 3 runs without much trouble. Colome also has only pitched a couple of times outside of save situations, and in at least 1 of those he got blasted.

So, let's say the White Sox had 3 more blown saves this year, that's an 80% success rate for a closer, which is pretty replaceable. Have the White Sox lost all 3 of those games? No, one or two of them go to extra innings and there's a 50/50 shot they win one of those. So, 1 or 2 fewer wins with a closer off the scrap heap.

[bmags]

Juan Minaya, 2017, 90% save percentage.

[Roofshot]

 I still don't agree that Leurys more valuable, but I understand the reasons why some do now. Thanks for the response.