Does WAR mean anything??

[nat]

"A lot of them, simply by stealing chances from his centerfielder on routine plays"

This is a known issue. There's some philosophical differences over whether it's a problem or not - it really depends on what's you're trying to measure. If you have Greg Luzinski in the outfield, having him play next to someone who can "steal" chances from him is a really valuable thing to have. If you have other really good outfielders it doesn't matter so much.

As for Mattingly: he was a really good defensive first baseman. I'm not objecting to his gold gloves. dWAR (the defensive component of WAR) itself has two components: a measure of how many runs a player saved based on the plays that he made, and a positional adjustment. Mattingly saved a lot of runs, but, like all first basemen, he's hit with a big negative positional adjustment. But you really do need a positional adjustment, otherwise a short stop who could hit like Mattingly, and a first baseman who could hit like Mattingly, would end up with equal WAR. Whereas obviously the SS is more valuable, since it's so much harder to find someone who can both hit like Mattingly and play short stop. We can argue over how large the positional adjustment should be (how large it should be for DH's is a matter of rather extreme controversy), but it's clear that there's got to be some, and it's clear that it's got to be large and negative for first basemen. But again, that's not a knock on Mattingly's defense, he was a very good defensive player for a first baseman. It's just a reminder that it's easier to find good hitters who can play first than it is to find good hitters who can play short.

[packs]

Mattingly wasn't just good though, he was the Andrelton Simmons of first basemen; an elite of the elite. If WAR was calculated properly for him he'd have the HOF metrics people knock him for. Not saying he deserves them either, but that's the point re: WAR not being reliable.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by packs

Mattingly wasn't just good though, he was the Andrelton Simmons of first basemen; an elite of the elite. If WAR was calculated properly for him he'd have the HOF metrics people knock him for. Not saying he deserves them either, but that's the point re: WAR not being reliable.

hahaha being so wrong so often must get frustrating, huh old man

the game has left you behind, deal with it, or die off and leave it to those who understand it

[nat]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

hahaha being so wrong so often must get frustrating, huh old man

the game has left you behind, deal with it, or die off and leave it to those who understand it

This isn't productive. Explain how the stats are calculated and explain why they're calculated that way. It does, in the end, make sense. So if you want to help people understand baseball better, just show them that it makes sense.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nat

"A lot of them, simply by stealing chances from his centerfielder on routine plays"

This is a known issue. There's some philosophical differences over whether it's a problem or not - it really depends on what's you're trying to measure. If you have Greg Luzinski in the outfield, having him play next to someone who can "steal" chances from him is a really valuable thing to have. If you have other really good outfielders it doesn't matter so much.

As for Mattingly: he was a really good defensive first baseman. I'm not objecting to his gold gloves. dWAR (the defensive component of WAR) itself has two components: a measure of how many runs a player saved based on the plays that he made, and a positional adjustment. Mattingly saved a lot of runs, but, like all first basemen, he's hit with a big negative positional adjustment. But you really do need a positional adjustment, otherwise a short stop who could hit like Mattingly, and a first baseman who could hit like Mattingly, would end up with equal WAR. Whereas obviously the SS is more valuable, since it's so much harder to find someone who can both hit like Mattingly and play short stop. We can argue over how large the positional adjustment should be (how large it should be for DH's is a matter of rather extreme controversy), but it's clear that there's got to be some, and it's clear that it's got to be large and negative for first basemen. But again, that's not a knock on Mattingly's defense, he was a very good defensive player for a first baseman. It's just a reminder that it's easier to find good hitters who can play first than it is to find good hitters who can play short.

I strongly disagree with this. A player's defensive value comes from the runs he saves. He shouldn't need a positional adjustment. A shortstop's
adjustment comes from getting more chances. A statue at shortstop is not more valuable than a first base man saving his infielders throwing errors.

Just examples from a Cubs game I was at last week. Their first base men saved Kris Bryant 2 errors by digging out bad throws cleanly. Jason Hayward missed a catchable ball and then let it get away from him for a triple instead of catching it for an out. However dWAR says the wrong guy has positive value.

I like WAR to compare players at the same position, but otherwise it isn't very useful. Positinal adjustment is a joke in my opinion.