Braun's season-ending push

[logan82]

Ahh the good old inconsistencies of WAR and the abuse of trying to prove player Z is worth X number of wins over player Y.

 

It looks pretty strange when the Angels have the highest aggregate WAR of 37.8 and 89 wins while the Tigers have a WAR of 21.2 and 87 wins, so 16.6 difference in WAR is 2 wins? In reality once you start looking at team WAR and compare to actual wins the numbers are all over so I have a hard time buying into any of the a 5 WAR player is worth 1 win over a 4 WAR player.

 

After the Angels the Brewers are #2 in WAR at 35.1 with 82 wins, Cards at 34.9 and 87, Giants 30 and 93, Braves 29.8 and 93, Yankees 29.7 and 93, Nats 29 and 96, Reds 27.4 and 96, Diamondbacks 27.3 and 80, Rangers 26.6 and 93, Padres 25.6 and 75, Phillies 24 and 81, A's 23.1 and 92, Tigers 21.2 and 87 down at the bottom the Astros are 10.1 and 54, Indians 12.5 and 73, Mariners 12.5 and 67 and the Orioles 15.9 and 92.

How does it look if you include pitching WAR?

How does it line up with run differential?

 

I suspect that you will see a better comparison to run differential than wins. We all know teams win more or fewer games than their talent or how well they played every year.

[rluzinski]

Ahh the good old inconsistencies of WAR and the abuse of trying to prove player Z is worth X number of wins over player Y....In reality once you start looking at team WAR and compare to actual wins the numbers are all over so I have a hard time buying into any of the a 5 WAR player is worth 1 win over a 4 WAR player.

 

What WAR numbers are you referencing and what are they taking into account (offense, base running, fielding and pitching?). What level of correlation between team WAR and team record do you expect? There are huge discrepancies between team wins and team runs scored and runs against. Do you find that troublesome as well?

 

If we want to have an intelligent discussion about WAR, someone start a thread on it because I don't think we are having one here. This isn't the place anyway.

[Ennder]

Park Factors are more or less completely useless so I wouldn't fret over the OPS+ values. One single number can't begin to describe how much a park helps ALL players so they are being used improperly.

 

Trout has been as valuable as a hitter and is a much better base runner and defensive player, this isn't really a close race imo.

[rluzinski]

Park Factors are more or less completely useless so I wouldn't fret over the OPS+ values. One single number can't begin to describe how much a park helps ALL players so they are being used improperly.

 

Trout has been as valuable as a hitter and is a much better base runner and defensive player, this isn't really a close race imo.

 

You've mad the claim before that it's better to ignore park factors altogether than make any kind of adjustment. Have you ever backed that claim up with evidence? There are assumptions and flaws with them, no question but if you are going to say they are "more or less completely useless" (kind of a contradiction in itself), tell us why you think that.

 

And just saying that it's because most don't account for handedness splits or whatever isn't evidence that they don't add any value to a projection.

[topper09er]

That park factors play a role in not only OPS+ but the offensive WAR numbers.

 

And I don't see how Cabrera and Trout are equal on offense. Cabrera has more PAs (which is a good thing towards being the MVP) and more everything else except SBs (H, 2B, HR, AVE, same OBP, SLG).The difference is a 42 net SB lead for Trout and 65 total bases lead for Cabrera, yet WAR say Trout has 53 batting runs and Cabrera has 54. This is because of the Angels Park Factor. I think Cabrera is clearly better on offense but not by that much and the defensive + baserunning difference pushes it towards Trout by a decent margin.

[StearnsFTW]

That park factors play a role in not only OPS+ but the offensive WAR numbers.

 

And I don't see how Cabrera and Trout are equal on offense. Cabrera has more PAs (which is a good thing towards being the MVP) and more everything else except SBs (H, 2B, HR, AVE, same OBP, SLG).The difference is a 42 net SB lead for Trout and 65 total bases lead for Cabrera, yet WAR say Trout has 53 batting runs and Cabrera has 54. This is because of the Angels Park Factor. I think Cabrera is clearly better on offense but not by that much and the defensive + baserunning difference pushes it towards Trout by a decent margin.

 

Well, if you're going to use counting stats (not you, but sportswriters), then it's not a good thing. If he had played the first 20 games you could theoretically make his numbers 148 R, 34 HR, 95 RBI & 56 SB to go along with his .397/.561/.958 line. An inexact science to be sure, but would it make a difference to see the HR & RBI gaps closed and the SB & Runs gap widened to those voters? Probably.

 

To me, of course it doesn't matter, because runs and rbis are largely irrelevant to me.

 

I don't think he'll win, but I think it'll be a crime if he doesn't.

[MJLiverock]

Ahh the good old inconsistencies of WAR and the abuse of trying to prove player Z is worth X number of wins over player Y....In reality once you start looking at team WAR and compare to actual wins the numbers are all over so I have a hard time buying into any of the a 5 WAR player is worth 1 win over a 4 WAR player.

 

What WAR numbers are you referencing and what are they taking into account (offense, base running, fielding and pitching?). What level of correlation between team WAR and team record do you expect? There are huge discrepancies between team wins and team runs scored and runs against. Do you find that troublesome as well?

 

If we want to have an intelligent discussion about WAR, someone start a thread on it because I don't think we are having one here. This isn't the place anyway.

It was just straight WAR from Fangraphs by team. As far as expected correlation I would expect there to be some positive correlation but not a direct 1 WAR is 1 win which is often used when people say things like adding player X will really only get a team 1 more win or losing a player is only going to be a 2 win change based on comparing WARs between two players. That is what I find troublesome the over reliance on the predictable strength of WAR and wins because of the messed up defensive metrics and the completely arbitrary and fictional "replacement level" which is the base of the stat. It stuck out to me that the Angels have such a higher WAR than the Tigers yet that hasn't translated into a much higher win total, in simple terms either the WAR for the Angels is inflated or the Tigers is suppressed relative to the actual results. This may all fall into the timing of hits etc. hence the completely awful WAR level of the Orioles relative to their win total but that too leads directly to the MVP race in that is a hit or stolen base as valuable when up by 7 or down by 1? WAR makes zero attempt at that rather difficult situational hitting adjusment or the hated clutch factor but obviously something in the timing of hits, K's, SB's results matters or the Brewers and Orioles wouldn't be on such opposite ends of WAR spectrum relative to their wins. Or in the MVP race, the Tigers/Cabrera may have just been better at getting the big hit when needed than the Angels/Trout.

 

I think it is interesting here as WAR has been used as the basis for claiming Trout is hands down the MVP and it isnt' close. I think it is very close and I don't disagree that Trout plays a tougher position and plays D very well but winning a Triple Crown is very rare and hasn't even happened in my lifetime. I won't be upset if either wins it.

[Ennder]

You've mad the claim before that it's better to ignore park factors altogether than make any kind of adjustment. Have you ever backed that claim up with evidence? There are assumptions and flaws with them, no question but if you are going to say they are "more or less completely useless" (kind of a contradiction in itself), tell us why you think that.

 

And just saying that it's because most don't account for handedness splits or whatever isn't evidence that they don't add any value to a projection

 

Of course it is evidence. A RH pull hitter in SD is pretty much playing a neutral park yet park factors say he is in an extreme pitchers park. It is absurd that they use park factors to try to adjust anything until they can get more accurate values. It is like using range factor or errors to judge defense. The stat is way too primitive to try to use to evaluate players.

[Ennder]

gotta love it, Plesac on MLB.TV... Without Fielder batting behind him there is no way Braun wins the MVP in 2011 as a statement of how Cabrera's triple crown is even more impressive.... 2012 Ryan Braun puts up the same or better numbers than 2011.

 

Please make it stop!

[dlk9s]

I couldn't believe what I was watching there. Reynolds was an idiot as expected, but then Plesac chimed in with that.

[Ennder]

My one bit of solace is the fact that we recently got the NFL network or whatever it is called and the people on that are even more insane than those on MLB. Saying Matt Ryan is an elite QB because the Panthers have the worst DBs in football etc. I swear sports journalists have to be the dumbest collective group of professionals on earth.

[Fear The Chorizo]

So, for team stats, the Angels lead the majors in WAR at 38.0 (Brewers are 2nd at 35.2, by the way). Mike Trout's insanely high WAR makes up 27% of his team's value above replacement level. Conversely, the Tigers have the 18th highest team WAR at 21.1. Miggy Cabrera's WAR makes up 35% of his team's value above replacement level.

 

Trout's season is absolutely historic, but he wasn't as valuable to his team as Cabrera. Without Trout's contribution, the Angels would remain in MLB's top 10 WAR/$ value teams. Take Cabrera's contribution off the Tigers and they drop below the Cubs in WAR/$ value with the dregs of MLB.

 

Antiquated stats or not, nobody's won the triple crown in MLB for 45 years. Cabrera's team also made the playoffs. He's the MVP, even though there's no arguing that Trout is deserving of MVP consideration in every way. Either one of their seasons wins MVP in either league 99% of the time every single year, and I hope that is understood by everyone regardless of opinions for this year's AL MVP award.

[Ennder]

Oh I understand why Cabrera will win the MVP, I just think the reason is stupid. Picking 3 stats that are important but not the most important and deciding that if someone leads in those 3 they are the best is just silly. No different than if the triple crown happened to be R, AVG and SB which Trout almost won. An RBI isn't any more valuable than R and if you factor in OPS then a HR isn't any more valuable than SB.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The fact Trout almost led the league in all 3 of those categories you mentioned without playing a full season in MLB is all the more impressive.

 

I'm with you on the Matt Ryan b.s., too. Seems like every year is the year he's going to break through and be the elite qb that the talking heads think he is - then the playoffs start and his team's only score is a safety. The end of that Panthers game I was waiting for the db to 'Tramon Williams' him and jump one of those last two out routes, but apparently the cornerback decided to give the WR a 15 yard cushion.

[Ennder]

Ryan is a slightly above QB who won't lose the game for you and that is it. Any conversation that starts with Ryan is elite is just absurd. I'm not irate about what is going to happen with the MVP, I just disagree with it. It isn't awful just not optimal.

[logan82]

So, for team stats, the Angels lead the majors in WAR at 38.0 (Brewers are 2nd at 35.2, by the way).

That is only the hitting WAR. There is also pitching WAR for each team. WAR will not line up with wins. It will probably line up better with run differential. We all know that teams will win more or fewer games than their collective talent and run differential because of strength of schedule and run distribution.

 

WAR is also a counting stat so the fact that Cabrera had more playing time should give him an advantage in that as well. I would easily pick Trout. He hit almost as well, played better than average defense at a premium defensive position, and while I don't value SB much, a 49-3 gap is way to drastic to not give much credence to.

[StearnsFTW]

So, for team stats, the Angels lead the majors in WAR at 38.0 (Brewers are 2nd at 35.2, by the way). Mike Trout's insanely high WAR makes up 27% of his team's value above replacement level. Conversely, the Tigers have the 18th highest team WAR at 21.1. Miggy Cabrera's WAR makes up 35% of his team's value above replacement level.

 

Trout's season is absolutely historic, but he wasn't as valuable to his team as Cabrera. Without Trout's contribution, the Angels would remain in MLB's top 10 WAR/$ value teams. Take Cabrera's contribution off the Tigers and they drop below the Cubs in WAR/$ value with the dregs of MLB.

 

Antiquated stats or not, nobody's won the triple crown in MLB for 45 years. Cabrera's team also made the playoffs. He's the MVP, even though there's no arguing that Trout is deserving of MVP consideration in every way. Either one of their seasons wins MVP in either league 99% of the time every single year, and I hope that is understood by everyone regardless of opinions for this year's AL MVP award.

 

 

100% agree with the bolded.

 

Don't agree with much else.