JJ Hardy optioned to AAA- Latest: Per McCalvy, JJ will be left at AAA and add another year before free agency

[Nottso]

Waiting that extra year for free agency might also be very profitable for JJ. It could turn out to be a GREAT thing for him, money-wise. I'm not saying that it will, but it definitely could. Has anyone else thought of that?

[Invader3K]

Nottso, that is actually a good point. The extra year could drive up his value if he performs well, and he could potentially earn a bigger long term contract than he would with just one more year of service time. I'm sure he and his agent aren't necessarily looking at it that way though.

 

It's hard to feel too sorry for him since he'll still get, what? $3-4 million minimum each of the next two seasons, either way, if I'm not mistaken.

[endaround]

Its replies like this that lead me to believe WAR is nothing more than a fan driven calculation that cannot be justified. 22.2M for Hardy last year? Right. To say that he was worth 6.5M this year further validates the uselessness of this calculation. Hardy's defensive stats are not reflective of the plays that a SS like Ramirez or even Escobar can make that Hardy has no shot at due to his lack of speed and range. 22.2M? Not on my baseball planet.

Well we play on Earth not your baseball planet and on Earth Hardy is a plus defender at shortstop while Ramirez is distinctly average. And Hardy is good because he has good range.

 

(fixed code --1992)

[sheethead]

Well we play on Earth not your baseball planet and on Earth Hardy is a plus defender at shortstop while Ramirez is distinctly average. And Hardy is good because he has good range.

 

That evaluation is developed in the WAR baseball planet, not in an Earthly reality. Hardy should have frustrated even the average fan countless times this year on plays that a "plus" defender would make, but Hardy could not.

[Fear The Chorizo]

So what's Pujols or Fielder's current WAR values? 150 and 135 million?

 

To say Hardy has been worth 6.5 million this season is hilarious - are WAR values based on everyone having a Yankees payroll?

 

Maybe they need to come up with something like BEWARE - Bad Economic WAR Evaluation. Or TUPPERWARE - Totally Unrealistic Player Pricing Except Really Wild Agent's Raise Expectations.

[1992casey]

are WAR values based on everyone having a Yankees payroll?

 

I believe they're based on everyone being on the free agent pay scale.

 

A couple of recent messages are tipping the condescension scale in the wrong direction. Let's play nice.

[jhart05]

Hardy's stats in AAA: .246/.279/415/.695

 

Hardy has lost something, maybe he can find it in the off season, and help out a different team next year.

 

Escobar was always the future at SS, and Hardy was going to be traded. If for no other reason than teams like the Brewers have to go with the cheaper option. They are lucky in this case that Escobar is pretty darn good. If this Brewers top, or #2 prospect played any other position, Hardy would still be up here, stinking up the park. It sucks for him that this hot shot prospect happens to play SS.

 

"We're runnin' a business here." This is not kids soccer where we care about hurting people's feelings and everyone has to get a ribbon.

[Hate those Rodents]

Sorry Casey. I have major issues with WAR and how it attempts to explain how much a player is worth. But I'll just stay out of this one the rest of the way. We all are on the same page in wanting the Crew to be a perennial winner, just different opinions on how best to go about getting there.

[sheethead]

1992casey wrote:

A couple of recent messages are tipping the condescension scale in the wrong direction. Let's play nice.

To be condescending and borderline arrogant, and back it up with a contrived metric on evaluating players is outrageous. I expected more I guess. I'm out of this one, and probably any other argument that is backed up using a fantasy metric.

[endaround]

How is using play by play data to evaluate how players turn balls into outs contrived? Because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions? Hardy has always been seen as a plus defender at short since the day he got into professional baseball.

[Never Outhustled]

To say Hardy has been worth 6.5 million this season is hilarious - are WAR values based on everyone having a Yankees payroll?

Thats not correct at all. The reason Hardy is disappointing is because we have numerous high salary players who have played well below there WAR salary equivilent. Guys like Bush, Suppan, and Riske are below replacement level. If everyone played to there salary, we'd win 88 games this year. Obviously guys like Gallardo give us way more wins than there salary, that should make up for the injured players.

 

War values also take into account the Marlins payroll. They don't pay anyone. The Brewers have an above average payroll.

[1992casey]

Sorry Casey. I have major issues with WAR and how it attempts to explain how much a player is worth. But I'll just stay out of this one the rest of the way.

 

Hate those Rodents, I wasn't thinking in terms of your message when I posted about condescension. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif I think it's valid to put out some stats and ask what they'd be worth under this system. (There might be an issue with batting average not providing enough information, but that's not an etiquette thing.)

 

I was concerned about the messages that seemed to be insulting other members. Calling opinions ridiculous (or some similar word) is what we'd like to avoid.

[The Heartbreak Yid]

The question is, are they adding another year of team control because they want to keep him or make him more attatcive to potential trade partners?

[sheethead]

How is using play by play data to evaluate how players turn balls into outs contrived? Because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions? Hardy has always been seen as a plus defender at short since the day he got into professional baseball.

The metric looks at individual players and individual plays and does not compare those plays to other players and their ability to make the same play. How then can that metric possibly be used to compare that individual player to other players at the same position? The metric jumps for each given player, and therefore I believe cannot be used to compare player X to player Y since that given metric does not do so when it is conceived. Too many variable are placed in the "all else being equal" bucket. Helpful metric? Sure. Ideal to compare player X to player Y? I don't think so.

[endaround]

It compares each player to the average player getting the same balls hit in the same area. Yes some player do better on different types of balls than others, but unless you have very disimilar pitching staffs thats not going to make any real difference in an aggregate calculation as UZR. Hardy is a top defensive shortstop, with only Jack Wilson (likely the greatest defender of his cohort) being significantly better.

[TheCrew07]

I find the WAR stat itself extremely useful as a comparison statistic, I will not however, jump on the monetary value bandwagon, as the values are in many cases 40% over the player's fair market value. Not every team is willing to pay the same amount of money per win, and the $X per win value has been extremely over inflated since it's inception. They'd need to reduce the monetary value by 40-50% to get down around fair market value to make it worthwhile.

 

This is the same argument I was having with TLB on the minor league forum. Somehow metrics end up being used as an absolute measure of right and wrong, when in truth they are just an another opinion, formed through a complex mathematical equation that cannot be proven true. Like I said a couple of years ago, when a statistician can prove their formula or metric is correct in the manner of a Geometric or Calculus type proof then I'll be on board with that metric being gospel, until then it's just another opinion I'll consider.

 

I grow weary of people being told their opinions are wrong because fangraphs said so... what if fangraphs is wrong? What if UZR is wrong? I think a little bit of cynicism when it comes to advanced metrics is a good thing. They can be helpful, but they are not absolutes.

[sheethead]

Couldn't have said it better Crew07. What really wears on me is the elitism surrounding some of the posts that cite unproven metrics as fact and the main driver in their argument. Sure it can help support an opinion, but I don't get how some can cite a metric that is benchmarked against a fictional replacement player as an absolute fact when it clearly is not. Disillusioned elitism imo.

[homer]

"benchmarked against a fictional replacement player as an absolute fact when it clearly is not. Disillusioned elitism imo"

 

What wears on me is when people don't understand how a statistic or metric is developed, don't take the time to understand it, yet dismiss it as "disillusioned elitism".

[sheethead]

benchmarked against a fictional replacement player

 

Is this untrue? I fully understand the metric, outside of the proprietary information that goes into calculating it. BP developed WARP, which is benchmarked against a fictional player. And now Fangraphs has conceived their version, which is also benchmarked against a fictional player. I believe fans of the metric call it an average player, or replacement level.

 

My point is the players are not benchmarked against each other, but rather against an ideal of what an average player is.

[TooLiveBrew]

This is the same argument I was having with TLB on the minor league forum. Somehow metrics end up being used as an absolute measure of right and wrong, when in truth they are just an another opinion, formed through a complex mathematical equation that cannot be proven true.

 

For the record, I never claimed it to be an absolute measure. I think WAR is a useful metric because it evaluates players in a vacuum. And, while the statement that 'No one's going to pay Hardy $22M for one year' is basically true, I think that misses the point of WAR. Imho it's best utilized to provide a concept of the value of production relative to a player's peers, just like almost any 'advanced' stat.

 

Perhaps this is unnecessary, but for a simple breakdown of what WAR 'means', it describes player value as it contributes to wins -- iirc a win is represented statistically as 10 runs. So Player X saves _y_ runs on defense, his D is calculated to be worth _z_ wins above replacement... player X adds _y_ runs on offense, his O is worth _z_ wins above replacement. That's incredibly crude & probably does a disservice to the statistical work done to develop these stats, but I think that's a decent way to understand what it means.

 

Imo as long as people understand that the point isn't necessarily to determine what players should or will be paid, I think WAR is a good metric to use.

 

Waiting that extra year for free agency might also be very profitable for JJ. It could turn out to be a GREAT thing for him, money-wise. I'm not saying that it will, but it definitely could. Has anyone else thought of that

Yes, and I agree. And I think the emphasis is that it could turn out to be really, really good for him. I understand how he might not feel that way at the moment, but this poor season came at a really bad time for him if he'd had just one more year of salary control remaining. If he can 'prove' himself for two consecutive years before hitting FA, I doubt any potential suitors would have reservations about signing him.

[endaround]

benchmarked against a fictional replacement player

 

Is this untrue? I fully understand the metric, outside of the proprietary information that goes into calculating it. BP developed WARP, which is benchmarked against a fictional player. And now Fangraphs has conceived their version, which is also benchmarked against a fictional player. I believe fans of the metric call it an average player, or replacement level.

 

My point is the players are not benchmarked against each other, but rather against an ideal of what an average player is.

 

If I say I'm 2" above average in height and my brother is 12" above average in height you are saying there is no way to tell whose taller because its all versus some imaginary average height person.

[Thurston Fluff]

while the statement that 'No one's going to pay Hardy $22M for one year' is basically true, I think that misses the point of WAR. Imho it's best utilized to provide a concept of the value of production relative to a player's peers, just like almost any 'advanced' stat.

 

But that wasn't how it was used here was it? It wasn't said JJ would be worth X amount this year vs the Y amount of the other shortstops are worth this year. If you want to compare then compare players not use the $ figure in a vacuum. If Hardy was worth $6 million then I think most other shortstops would be worth well above that using the same system.

 

I fully understand the metric, outside of the proprietary information that goes into calculating it.

 

This is sort of my problem with some of them. If a formula uses information in it that we cannot necessarily vet out independently how can we know for sure there were no mistakes made in the formula itself? I want to know if the numbers put in are as accurate as they should be before I accept what they tell me as gospel. That does not mean they have no value or they are actually inaccurate just that we should not take them as absolute truth. Since they provide a consistent baseline for all stats and formulas are great for comparing one player to another. What I do not know for sure is how accurate they are in a vacuum or vs a player who has no comparable set within the formula being used. Comparison yes definitive answer to true value not so sure.

 

 

Most of us seem to agree JJ Hardy would not get what the End said he as worth. If that is the case then we must question the validity of the formula used to arrive at that figure.

[TooLiveBrew]

But that wasn't how it was used here was it?

Using simple WAR Hardy was worth 6.5M so far this season because of his defense. He was worth 22.2M last year.

 

From Ennder's post #443... This was in response to a statement that Mark A. was the one that 'got screwed' because he paid Hardy $4.65M this season. I think that you have to be looking for any absolutism to see it. Imo it's just not there. The way I read it, Ennder merely pointed out that even with this struggling season, it's not cut & dried that Hardy's salary was a total ripoff. If anything, it's interesting just to see how much value a good defensive shortstop has.

[Thurston Fluff]

The way I read it, Ennder merely pointed out that even with this struggling season, it's not cut & dried that Hardy's salary was a total ripoff.

 

If he showed that player X was paid more yet his value using the same system showed he was worth less then I'd agree. He did not. He used it in a vacuum using a system that is clearly not based on what players are really being payed without also comparing what that system says about other player's value vs salary. If Mark A could have got better value according to fangraphs then it stands to reason Mark got ripped off.

[sheethead]

benchmarked against a fictional replacement player

 

Is this untrue? I fully understand the metric, outside of the proprietary information that goes into calculating it. BP developed WARP, which is benchmarked against a fictional player. And now Fangraphs has conceived their version, which is also benchmarked against a fictional player. I believe fans of the metric call it an average player, or replacement level.

 

My point is the players are not benchmarked against each other, but rather against an ideal of what an average player is.

 

If I say I'm 2" above average in height and my brother is 12" above average in height you are saying there is no way to tell whose taller because its all versus some imaginary average height person.

Not apples to apples... If your brother has a better chance of reaching a ball due to his height, wouldn't it make sense to compare his value to you, rather than to the same average player that you are being compared to even though you can't reach the same ball? You say Hardy is favorably valued defensively (maybe another said due to his range)...

 

Hardy is a top defensive shortstop, with only Jack Wilson (likely the greatest defender of his cohort) being significantly better.

 

If you are saying what I think you are saying, JJ Hardy is the best defensive SS in baseball and Jack Wilson is #2. If that is what this metric tells me, I might start to question that metric.