Tiger337

It starts getting interesting on Tuesday: November 18 is the deadline for players to accept or decline qualifying offers and the deadline for teams to set their 40-man rosters to protect players from the Rule 5 Draft. Speaking of the Rule 5 draft, has anyone seen Liston lately? I don't think he has posted since the summer?

That is what DRS and OAA do. A DH gets a zero for those stats. The DH does not hurt you on the field with his defense. yes, a CF provides more value defensively than a 1B and a 1B provides more defensive value than a DH. At least, that is how I see it. Let's say you take positional adjustment out if altogether and make WAR = OWAR + DRS. That would be a stat which is totally based on what they do on the field. Then we can argue about about which player is better, the SS with 2 WAR or the DH 2.5 WAR. There is nothing wrong with that. Arguing is fun. But if we want just one number to answer our argument, we need to figure out how to compare players from different positions. How should we do that?

I thought so too.

You are definitely not stupid! I think you are very concerned with how things are presented because you are good at that. You won a SABR award for that. Right? Anyway, I think you have said you are/were a center fielder in your baseball leaugue. You provide more defensive value to your team than a DH. Shouldn't you get credit for that? Maybe make the DH 0 points and add points for being able to play a position. It would still come out to be the same WAR. Does that work for you?

I think you understsand this, but the "suggestion" is just how you are reading it, not what is actually happening with the stat. You are the one that keeps bringing it up! 😃 I agree that the presentation could be better.

I still don't understand your problem with positional adjutment beyond presentation, but let's talk about WAA. WAA does include all the same defensive calculations as WAR. There are pros and cons of using WAA that go beyond presentation. The main difference between WAA and WAR is playing time. An average player can keep accumulating WAR as long as he performs above replacement. On the other hand, this player will always be 0 WAA whether he has 100 PA or 10000 PA. This might be appealing in HoF or MVP discussions, but maybe less so in roster construction discussions or comparisons between players who are not great players. For Hall of Fame discussions, players with high but short peaks will rank better in WAA, whereas players with longer duration but lower peaks will rank better with WAR. I think it's worth looking at both. For other discussions, the problem with WAA is that an average player who is actually a pretty valuable player will always be 0 wins no matter how much he plays. A player who has a great 50 PA before going down with a season ending injury will have a higher WAA than an average player with 600 PA. With WAR, the full-season, player will be about 2 whereas the 50 PA player will be between 0 and 1 which I think is more appropriate. That's one extreme example, but illustrations the potential problem with WAA in player evaluation.

It could be both!

I thought Bichette would have had more WAR than that. 13 years with an OPS+ above 100 and less than 8 WAR? That is remarkable. He had -34 Fielding Runs one year before you even get to the positional adjustment! He deserved a few WAR just for his eyebrows.

yeah, there is definitely some guess work involved in WAR. It's a good back of the napkin stat for comparing players especially over a long career, but I think it gets overused.

They assign the positional adjustment to both owar and dwar which I agree is confusing. So, they end up double counting and they don't add up to WAR. If they just took the positional adjustment out of the dwar part, a full-time dh would have 0 dwar.

I would always rather see good statistics than bad statistics. It might not mean anything, but it also might mean something. Players go through hot streaks, cold streaks and periods of adjustment making small sample sizes very sketchy, but the more good stretches a player has the better.

Nobody had a bigger head than Ted Williams!

How about 263 OPS+ at age 39?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=stuart004ric

I had a dream last night that Amos Otis was a pedophile who gambled on baseball games. I think it's a combination of me considering Otis for my historical sim team, the gambling news in baseball and the Epstein stuff.

I still look at RBI just for fun too. Pitcher wins are no longer fun or beautiful though. That is a pretty much meaningless stat given the way the game is played today.

RBI are certainly aesthetically pleasing historically. They just don't measure what people think they do. They measure opportunity more than the ability to take advantage of opportunity.

Judge deserved it. You could make a case that the daily grind of catching and the potential contributions that catchers make to pitcher management are not captured by numbers, but you can't claim any bias. The numbers that Judge put up are insane at ANY position.

The old Baseball Prospectus WARP positional adjustment was based on offensive performance. The WAR positional adjustment is based on fielding performance of multi-position players. I have been looking around this morning to learn more about it and there isn't a lot out there. These adjustments were determined more than ten years ago and I can't find any recent articles confirming it's validity for more recent plyers. You would think the data would be better now with more multi-position players in today's game.

The writers still like the RBI. It shows that he is clutch.

Probably for the same reasons that many multi-millionaire businessmen scam people.

I don't know the details, but you can be sure that Tango took age into strong consideration. He has done a lot of studies on aging curves. My only question would be whether multi-position players are a representative sample.

I am not sure I understand your question, but the way Tango figured out positional adjustments was to take all the players who played a good number of games at multiple positions and determine how much better they did at each position compared to the average at those positions. For example, a player who played both 1b and shortstop, might have been 10 runs better than the average at firsbase, but 6 runs per average worse than he average shortstop. If you aggregate that data for all players who played both positions, you can estimate the gap between the positions.

Do we know for sure that the Tigers offered significantly more than any other team? The Astros reportedly also offered six years, but he wanted more than that. The Red Sox offered more per annum than the Tigers which it turned out was preferable to Bregman. Now, he gets to be a free agent again.

Is that's what you were asking the whole time? On B-ref, the positional adjustment is included in both OWAR and DWAR, so as you noticed they don't add to WAR. I think it's done so you can compare players at different positions separately for both offense and defense. OWAR kind of makes sense. It's like the old BP WARP before they had defensive measures. Putting the adjustment into DWAR is not very useful since the adjustment was already made in OWAR. This is the second time we have had this discussion and I finally think I understand what you were asking! I agree with you, assuming that's what you were asking! I think Gehringer asked something different which threw me off.