AL Rookie of the Month/Year watch

[witesoxfan]

That should tell you that WAR isn't the most reliable stat.

 

No, it tells me that he plays 1B. He's tied for 27th at 0.9 WAR. He's been phenomenal offensively, but his defense has been poor, he's a mediocre base runner (in other words, he's slow), he's hitting .260, and his OBP is .330.

 

WAR is an incredibly reliable statistic and he's still currently on pace for a 5.5-6 WAR season, which is very, very good.

Edited April 28, 2014 by witesoxfan

[Jose Abreu]

No, it tells me that he plays 1B. He's tied for 27th at 0.9 WAR. He's been phenomenal offensively, but his defense has been poor, he's a mediocre base runner (in other words, he's slow), he's hitting .260, and his OBP is .330.

 

WAR is an incredibly reliable statistic and he's still currently on pace for a 5.5-6 WAR season, which is very, very good.

We signed him to hit, not to be a good baserunner. His batting war should be somewhat weighted because that's what he's here to do.

[Rowand44]

We signed him to hit, not to be a good baserunner. His batting war should be somewhat weighted because that's what he's here to do.

Doesn't matter what we signed him to do, base running and defense are still part of the game.

[Ozzie Ball]

No, it tells me that he plays 1B. He's tied for 27th at 0.9 WAR. He's been phenomenal offensively, but his defense has been poor, he's a mediocre base runner (in other words, he's slow), he's hitting .260, and his OBP is .330.

 

WAR is an incredibly reliable statistic and he's still currently on pace for a 5.5-6 WAR season, which is very, very good.

Agree with all but the bold. -1.9 defensive value on Fangraphs is obviously including the positional adjustment. UZR is at 0.1. Based on what I've seen I think his range is solid, he's just made some silly errors. Could be better than average at the position with some work, and has already shown some progression since the start of the year.

[southsider2k5]

Stolen from Twitter, name the only two players in MLB who have multiple 4 hits games so far this year.

 

Marcus Semien & Emilio Bonifacio

[witesoxfan]

We signed him to hit, not to be a good baserunner. His batting war should be somewhat weighted because that's what he's here to do.

 

WAR is weighted to value a player's entire contributions on the field. If you bring in a guy to primarily steal bases and he does that very well but doesn't play good defense or hit very well, then you will see that he's a good base runner but not a good all around player.

 

Jose Abreu is a good player, but his WAR properly depicts his value compared to the rest of the players in the majors.

 

Doesn't matter what we signed him to do, base running and defense are still part of the game.

 

You rock.

 

Agree with all but the bold. -1.9 defensive value on Fangraphs is obviously including the positional adjustment. UZR is at 0.1. Based on what I've seen I think his range is solid, he's just made some silly errors. Could be better than average at the position with some work, and has already shown some progression since the start of the year.

 

You're right, poor was a poor choice (hehe). He hasn't been good, but not bad either, and most 1B do grade poorly overall largely because they are typically large and slower bodied players.

[Eminor3rd]

That should tell you that WAR isn't the most reliable stat.

 

No, that should tell you that people don't accurately factor defense/baserunning into their mental impressions of overall value.

 

He's on pace for a 6.0 fWAR season, which is pretty incredible for a .330 OBP.

[Eminor3rd]

We signed him to hit, not to be a good baserunner. His batting war should be somewhat weighted because that's what he's here to do.

 

Doesn't change the fact that he isn't a good baserunner.

 

His batting war should be somewhat weighted because that's what he's here to do.

 

What?

 

Why would they make it inaccurate on purpose?

Edited April 28, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[Jose Abreu]

Doesn't change the fact that he isn't a good baserunner.

 

 

 

What?

 

Why would they make it inaccurate on purpose?

I'm saying someone who's primarily a hitter should have a weighted batting WAR, the Gordon Beckhams of the world should have a weighted fielding WAR, the Adam Eatons a weighted baserunning WAR.

[Jose Abreu]

He could go .500/75/225 and have a 9.0 WAR because of bad baserunning? Give me a break.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Jose Abreu

[Texsox]

I found this quote that I thought added some insight on defining "rookie"

 

Looking back, after playing nine years in Japan, I was a little embarrassed to be called a 'rookie' here in the U.S., but this was my first time playing in the U.S. except time I spent playing winter ball in Hawaii, so I was a rookie this year." - Ichiro Suzuki in USA Today (Seth Livingstone, 11/21/2001)

[Jerksticks]

I'm saying someone who's primarily a hitter should have a weighted batting WAR, the Gordon Beckhams of the world should have a weighted fielding WAR, the Adam Eatons a weighted baserunning WAR.

Yes! You are on to something. It's time to make WAR smart...instead of the big pot of chili it is.

 

If WAR became smart more people would frickin love it.

[witesoxfan]

I'm saying someone who's primarily a hitter should have a weighted batting WAR, the Gordon Beckhams of the world should have a weighted fielding WAR, the Adam Eatons a weighted baserunning WAR.

 

The point of WAR is to quantify a player's overall contributions to a team so that we can compare people who run the bases well to starting pitchers to strong fielders and to good hitters. It's not going to be weighted more heavily to his batting statistics because the weight of his production won't shift either just because he's a strong hitter. This is how we determine what kinds of things baseball players are good at.

 

Jose Abreu's WAR currently is shifted highly because he's been a good hitter. It shouldn't shift further because he's a good hitter - that doesn't make logical sense. It is adjusted because he plays 1B because it just so happens that it's easy to find guys who can play 1B, so they stick guys with big bats there who can't field otherwise. If you could, you'd play everybody at 2B or SS, but that doesn't make a lot of sense for big, lumbering bodies.

 

Under the logic you present, what would happen if Jose Abreu had a bad season offensively? Would it be doubly bad? That shouldn't be because it should just indicate what he's done on the field and nothing more.

[witesoxfan]

Yes! You are on to something. It's time to make WAR smart...instead of the big pot of chili it is.

 

If WAR became smart more people would frickin love it.

 

Please tell me why it's not smart using actual evidence.

[witesoxfan]

He could go .500/75/225 and have a 9.0 WAR because of bad baserunning? Give me a break.

 

How is his defense? My guess is that if he hit .500/.75/225, he'd put up a WAR right around 15, which would frankly be the best season in the history of the game, regardless of his base running and defense because the offensive output would be worth about 200 run shares.

[Jerksticks]

I think it's pointless as a tool to rank superstars or even good players, and should never be used as an end-all for determining value. We already know good players are good, because they produce. You can't say player A is "better" than every other player with a lower WAR because players have different jobs.

 

I think it's an excellent tool for finding value in non-superstar players when constructing a team but I doubt front offices give one hoot about WAR.

[witesoxfan]

I think it's pointless as a tool to rank superstars or even good players, and should never be used as an end-all for determining value. We already know good players are good, because they produce. You can't say player A is "better" than every other player with a lower WAR because players have different jobs.

 

I think it's an excellent tool for finding value in non-superstar players when constructing a team but I doubt front offices give one hoot about WAR.

 

I think it does that job just fine. It suggests that Mike Trout is the best player in the game. I think that's pretty undeniable. It also says that, even with the limitations of him playing 1B, Miguel Cabrera is the 2nd best player and the best hitter. It states that (when he's healthy, obviously) that Clayton Kershaw is the best pitcher in the league.

 

I understand if people don't want to use it as an end all, be all, but I think it does a great job distinguishing players' values.

[Buehrle>Wood]

So it's May 5th. How long does it take to announce the awards?

[bmags]

Not that interesting stat, but I thought about it ever since seeing Gillaspie finished second in HRs among AL rookies, Abreu is 2 hrs away on May 5th for hitting as many HRs as the top AL HR hitting rookie hit in all of 2013 (Oswaldo Garcia, 14).

 

NL fared a lot better.

[Jerksticks]

I think it does that job just fine. It suggests that Mike Trout is the best player in the game. I think that's pretty undeniable. It also says that, even with the limitations of him playing 1B, Miguel Cabrera is the 2nd best player and the best hitter. It states that (when he's healthy, obviously) that Clayton Kershaw is the best pitcher in the league.

 

I understand if people don't want to use it as an end all, be all, but I think it does a great job distinguishing players' values.

 

Carlos Gomez is valuable but few would argue he's one of the best players in the game. I guess whether you take him or trout is a coin flip?

[witesoxfan]

Carlos Gomez is valuable but few would argue he's one of the best players in the game. I guess whether you take him or trout is a coin flip?

 

No, I would take Mike Trout 10 times out of 10. Carlos Gomez is better than a lot of people realize now a days - he's fantastic defensively, steals bases, hits for average, and hits for power - but Mike Trout is a better player. Frankly, I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that Gomez is one of the 10 best positional players in the game, though I'd gladly listen to arguments. He still doesn't beat Trout.

[Jerksticks]

No, I would take Mike Trout 10 times out of 10. Carlos Gomez is better than a lot of people realize now a days - he's fantastic defensively, steals bases, hits for average, and hits for power - but Mike Trout is a better player. Frankly, I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that Gomez is one of the 10 best positional players in the game, though I'd gladly listen to arguments. He still doesn't beat Trout.

Yea he's silently badass. So if you'd clearly take mike trout over Gomez then I ask what has WAR really told you?

Edited May 5, 2014 by Jerksticks

[Balta1701]

Yea he's silently badass. So if you'd clearly take mike trout over Gomez then I ask what has WAR really told you?

The ability to put a number on "how much better". You can look at their stats and say "yes, Mike Trout was better, but was he 25% better, 50% better, 75% better, etc." and have that be a valid question.

 

In fact, it's hugely important on the free agent market...just imagine hypothetically that both of them hit the free agent market this offseason and your team needs a CF. How much of an impact would it make if you spent $40 mil/year on Trout versus $20-$25 mil a year on Gomez? Is that a good buy? If you spend that money, how much impact will it make on your team? If you go for the cheaper guy could that cost you a couple wins and wind your team up missing the wild card with 87 wins when Trout could have put you over the top?

 

The same comparison works for pitchers as well. If you're trying to weigh the impact of a pitcher versus the impact of a hitter, it's really hard if you don't have a standardized basis by which they can be compared. Pitcher x looks good and my rotation is week, but I also have a hole at 3b. If I go cheap at one position and pricey at the other, which one makes a bigger difference to my team?

[witesoxfan]

Yea he's silently badass. So if you'd clearly take mike trout over Gomez then I ask what has WAR really told you?

 

That Mike Trout put up a WAR of 10 in 2012, 10.4 in 2013, and he's currently at 2.4 this year while Gomez was at 3.0 in 2012, 7.6 in 2013, and 1.3 in 2014.

[Eminor3rd]

I think it's pointless as a tool to rank superstars or even good players, and should never be used as an end-all for determining value. We already know good players are good, because they produce. You can't say player A is "better" than every other player with a lower WAR because players have different jobs.

 

I think it's an excellent tool for finding value in non-superstar players when constructing a team but I doubt front offices give one hoot about WAR.

 

I don't think you understand what WAR attempts to do. I'm not saying that patronizingly.

 

It's all about removing bias and context. It's all about being objective. Player X may be an elite baserunner while Player Y is just an above average hitter, but if hitting is more valuable (objectively) than baserunning, Player Y is the better player. The mechanism from where this value is derived is based on linear weights, and this is the part of WAR that is most solidly correct and doesn't need work -- valuing offensive events precisely and accurately in relation to themselves.

 

The whole point is NOT to give a guy a subjective bump for something -- it's to strip away all the BS and see who contributes the most to a team winning, no matter what is more exciting or hard to find or whatever.

 

EDIT: It is precisely that challenge of ranking players across their different "jobs" that makes it useful.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Eminor3rd