since it has come up in some of our threads, i thought this would be a chance to discuss some SABER stats vs counting (traditional stats). 

ESPN posted a great article, including references to the value of david eckstein.  he was far more than a gritty, scrappy, over achiever.

hope the article proves valuable, and perhaps changes the way we all see the world around us, not just the game we love.

link

here's the essence of the advanced stats, and summed up wonderfully using a cards ws mvp:

"A writer who wanted to praise Eckstein, then, could have made some assumptions about Eckstein based on his height, weight and skin color (white), collected some flattering athlete-cliche quotes from Eckstein's teammates and flipped through his thesaurus looking for new words -- thaumaturgical! leptosome! -- to describe the little guy. Or he could have started with WAR and explained how David Eckstein, ballplayer, was good at playing ball."

For a moment there I thought you were doing an Orson Welles on us, Duckaroo. Be careful, Duck, I'm on the 12th floor this morning. But seriously I think this will be a good read that will engineer substantial debate. Thanks, Ducky!

Great working title! I will get back to you on the rest. All kidding aside i have to work today but i now have something to look forward to reading when i get home. See ya!

Thanks for sharing the article.

One thing the article brought up that I never realized was that WAR has some variance across the different sources. I had assumed it was more standardized than it is.

very good point dmens.  imo, if WAR is to be fully accepted by all fans, it will have to become uniform.  i prefer the baseball-reference formula, but others work as well.

it seems that the variances are attributed mostly to ways that defensive metrics are measured.  determining a player's defensive value is an ongoing study.  i expect WAR to be standardized in the very near future.

As if on cue, the newest ESPN The Magazine arrived in my mailbox today. The cover has a photo of Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout standing back to back. The two battled it out for the AL MVP last season. The title of the article:

"This is WAR - how one geeked out stat ignited baseball's biggest debate"

P.S. The actual article is the same one Ducky linked to above.

---------------------------------------------
--- Domeboys wrote:

As if on cue, the newest ESPN The Magazine arrived in my mailbox today.

Ducky isn't by chance your mailman, is he, DomeBoys?







The cover has a photo of Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout standing back to back.


How much do you want to bet that both players were indiscreetly up on their tippytoes a bit just as the photographer bellowed out "say cheeeese"?




---------------------------------------------

Here's my question: Assuming that WAR provides a result that allows a reasonable comparison between players does it have any additional use?

Part of what I'm getting at is WAR is often used by people to determine value in evaluating whether a team overpaid or got a bargain in signing a free agent.

It seems to me that the value a player has varies from team to team.  Depending on the incremental value the player brings to the team.  By way of example, an NL team badly needing one signs a first baseman with a WAR of 6. Instead of signing with this first team he signs with a different team that already has a first baseman with a WAR of 6.  Neither first baseman can play any other position.

Clearly, at least to me, the only value the free agent directly brings to the second team is as a pinch hitter and as first base depth.  An indirect value he brings is that he can replace the incumbent who can than be traded to help fill other needs.

Now this example likely would never really happen but makes the point I'm trying to make easily understood.

Another example, a little simplistically presented is the Tribe's signing of Bourn.  As I understand it a lot of Bourn's WAR is the result of his defense.

Before signing Bourn the Tribe had two very good defensive players (Brantley and Stubbs) slated to play left and center and Swisher who is adequate playing right.

It seems to me that sticking Bourn in center with Stubbs to right adds less outfield defensive value than the defensive value he would have added if he had signed with a team with three adequate outfielders.

Note too that the move of Swisher to first replacing Reynolds (who becomes the DH) probably improves defense at first some.

My being being that looking at the WAR of a player being added to a team does provide some useful information it doesn't necessarily provide a good indicator of value.

Where have I gone off the path and lost my way?

excellent questions.  the only part i see you off base on is that a player doesn't bring 6 WAR to a team from last year.  WAR is based upon what he does in that year.  so a team would not have (2) 6 WAR firstbasemen, unless they both put up 6 WAR in the same year.  this would be insane production.  and if a team got a combined 12 WAR from a single position, it would be in discussion for greatest season ever.  for a frame of reference, in the midst of his roids years, bonds was putting up 11.6's. 

also, you don't gain WAR by sitting on the bench, you earn it as the year goes on.  it would be silly to have 2 excellent players at the same position, forcing one to sit out, whether we use WAR or ba, hr, rbi.

when evaluating the contract to offer a free agent, gm's will attempt to predict WAR of the player, and try to match up production with salary.  so for example, i feel kyle lohse is a 2.25-2.5 WAR pitcher over the next 4 years, and i feel he will miss a year with an injury.  best case scenario, he will get 7.5 WAR over the life of that deal, so my offer will be 7.5 WAR X value of 1 WAR ($4.5-$5mil)=$33.75-$37 mil.

duckymedwick7 wrote: excellent questions.  the only part i see you off base on is that a player doesn't bring 6 WAR to a team from last year.  WAR is based upon what he does in that year.  so a team would not have (2) 6 WAR firstbasemen, unless they both put up 6 WAR in the same year.  this would be insane production.  and if a team got a combined 12 WAR from a single position, it would be in discussion for greatest season ever.  for a frame of reference, in the midst of his roids years, bonds was putting up 11.6's. 

also, you don't gain WAR by sitting on the bench, you earn it as the year goes on.  it would be silly to have 2 excellent players at the same position, forcing one to sit out, whether we use WAR or ba, hr, rbi.

when evaluating the contract to offer a free agent, gm's will attempt to predict WAR of the player, and try to match up production with salary.  so for example, i feel kyle lohse is a 2.25-2.5 WAR pitcher over the next 4 years, and i feel he will miss a year with an injury.  best case scenario, he will get 7.5 WAR over the life of that deal, so my offer will be 7.5 WAR X value of 1 WAR ($4.5-$5mil)=$33.75-$37 mil.

Sorry I wasn't clearer.  When a team adds a player with a WAR of 6 some people treat it as though a player with a WAR of 6 is being added.  I made the simplifying assumption that the incumbent player was expected to have WAR that next season. 

In summarizing what the free agent first baseman added to the team I should have made the point that lost of a large amount of playing time in the next season would dramatically reduce his WAR for that season.  

Thanks for the reply.

Jennifer-

Other than being a Tribe fan instead of a Cards fan, I don't see how you've lost your way.  :)

The value of a new player for my team depends on the increment over the player who would be replaced.  If a team is particularly weak at one position, that's the easiest place to upgrade.  If we're only talking contracts for a single year, I'd think a team should pay more for an upgrade from 0 to 2 WAR at a position than an upgrade from 5 to 6 WAR.  Of course there are a lot more 2 WAR players than 6 WAR players, so supply should drive the price back down.

Speaking of ESPN, they have started a new series in which they compare a scout's view of a Dodger player to what a couple of projection systems indicate, including Bill James. It is a quick read, but could provide further illustration to those with an open mind. This one is on Matt Kemp.

Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe writes: "WAR stat in baseball is complete nonsense." As you might imagine, the comments that follow are not very supportive of his point of view...

Domeboys wrote: Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe writes: "WAR stat in baseball is complete nonsense." As you might imagine, the comments that follow are not very supportive...

Bob has always been one of my favorites. Say what you will but this guy knows his stuff. I might be off but it seems to me that the East coast guys are much less likely to support metrics. Bob is from Joisy so i guess i will include him as being East coast. I am not a fan of the Sabermetrics and nor are any of my East coast friends. It is actually obvious. I wonder what that is all about? Am i just imagining this?

Though not a WAR-based analysis, this is interesting. FanGraphs' Dave Cameron, writing at ESPN (insider article), predicts that the Cardinals offense (even without Furcal) will be the best in the National League and perhaps the best in baseball over the last five years. He uses wRC+ as the measure.

Domeboys wrote:
predicts that the Cardinals offense (even without Furcal) will be the best in the National League and perhaps the best in baseball over the last five years.

Brian, I don't mean to nitpick, but I got lost in the tense. Should that be the next five years?  Or may be the five years ending with 2013?

The author/editors may be confusing their tense. Here is the actual headline.

Cards will have NL's best offense
St. Louis could finish as the best hitting team of the past five seasons

In the article, he lists the wRC+ totals over the last five years, which obviously cannot yet include 2013. On that list, the Cards are second. My assumption is that he means that if 2013 is better than 2008 (which would be bumped off from the next five-year view), then the Cards could be #1 at this time next year.

Thanks for the clarification.

Oqie11 wrote: Thanks for the clarification.

+1

I like SABER stats.  Mainstream will never accept them though. RUNS and RBI's will always have more clout amongst people than any SABER stats and it's so stupid.

That being said, WAR is a terrible, terrible stat.  The way it's calculated is a joke, and what it represents (wins above replacement) is also a joke.

wOBA for batters (offense)

FIP for pitchers

I don't like any defensive stats.  Fielding % is a joke.  There's just no stat to judge a guys defensive ability. 

I'm in a fantasy league where the following stats are used in a 4x4 format

wOBA
HR
PA
Net steals

FIP
IP
K%
Shutdowns and Meltdowns

drafting guys using those categories, you really separate the men from the boys.