WAR Question:

[clydepepper]

Mike Trout has a 3.9, while Mookie Betts is at 3.6. Of those totals, Trout has 0.9 for his defense, while Betts gets only 0.3 - yet neither has an error yet. The Range Factor Stats (which are VERY foreign to me) do not appear to make much of a difference.

Does it just mean that Betts has better replacements than Trout? If both are full-time players, how do they measure that?

I need someone who is fluent in WAR to explain the big difference.

[D. Bergin]

I'd guess the difference is that Betts plays RF and Trout plays CF and has more overall chances and likely covers more ground due to his position.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think WAR is a conspiracy invented by someone heavily invested in Trout cards.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think WAR is a conspiracy invented by someone heavily invested in Trout cards.

That's certainly what I'd Betts on it.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think WAR is a conspiracy invented by someone heavily invested in Trout cards.

LOL, it's crossed my mind before.

The guy is obviously a great player, but sometimes it seems like he just sneezes and his WAR goes up somehow.

[nat]

That Trout is a CF and Betts is a RF is part of the difference. (Two runs worth.) Most of the difference in defensive ability these days is based in a player's range. Errors are so rare that they don't make much difference. So far this year Trout has been a better fielder than Betts. His defense has saved about three runs more than Betts' has. (To find this look for Rfield on a player's baseball-reference page.)

But also, remember that 0.6 WAR is not much of a difference, and that it's early enough in the season that our final defensive numbers will likely look very different than these.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

LOL, it's crossed my mind before.

The guy is obviously a great player, but sometimes it seems like he just sneezes and his WAR goes up somehow.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2...espnapi_public

Please.

[nat]

The article isn't saying they think he's going to do it. Not even Trout's mom thinks he's going to do it. Just that he's on pace for it. Being on pace for the greatest season of all time after 40 games is hard, staying on that pace for the next 120 is much much harder. Ruth pulled it off, Trout probably won't.

But the article is celebrating Trout for managing this pace for even 40 games, which is an achievement all on its own.

[the 'stache]

By the way, Grich has the 8th best JAWS (compiled by combining career and 7 year peak WAR totals) of any second baseman, better than Ryne Sandberg, Roberto Alomar, and Craig Biggio (all Hall of Famers). It's also better than Lou Whitaker's (a man many think is Cooperstown bound). Grich's JAWS is 58.7. Whitaker's is 56.5.

Then, there's this:

Average for the twenty Hall of Fame second basemen:
69.5 career WAR, 44.5 seven year peak, 57 JAWS

Bobby Grich:
71.1 career WAR, 46.4 seven year peak, 58.7 JAWS

Discussion of his Hall worthiness is not that far fetched. He certainly deserved more consideration than he got by Hall voters his one time on the ballot.

[the 'stache]

Just saw this.

Mike Trout's career WAR is 59.6 in the equivalent of six seasons (6.10 to be precise, 988 games).

He has already passed Yogi Berra, a three time MVP winner who also played a premium position, catcher. He was both a strong offensive and defensive catcher. Per BBR, Berra was worth 59.4 WAR. Fangraphs has Trout at 60 WAR. Fangraphs has Berra at 63.7. That still seems off to me.

I don't care how good Mike Trout is. Something is rotten in Denmark when Mike Trout in 988 games is more valuable than Yogi Berra in 2,120 games.

[the 'stache]

Oh, and before the season's end, Trout will have passed Mike Piazza, Harmon Killebrew, Jackie Robinson and Shoeless Joe Jackson.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Trout and WAR seem to be the perfect couple.