True story.  BBR offensive WAR is better, but their defensive WAR is worthless.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2012 5:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 10/3/2012 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 4:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by loudawg10 on 10/3/2012 4:58:00 PM (view original):
FUN WITH WAR!!

Per B-R (for position players only):
Cabrera's WAR (O+D) is 6.9.  His team total WAR is 14.5.  Meaning Cabrera's WAR is 47.6% of his team's total level.
Trout's WAR (O+D) is 10.7.  His team total WAR is 38.2.  Trout's WAR is 28% of his team's total.

Who is more valuable to their team?

Trout had better teammates. Makes sense since the Angels won more games and were a better team. Should Trout be punished for this fact?

I agree that Trout was the better player this year.  I'd vote for him.

But who had the most value this year?  Trout didn't help to get his team in the playoffs, while Cabrera did.  Cabrera provided more value to his team than Trout did to his.  It's difficult to argue that he didn't.  And while I look at MVP as "best player," I won't rip someone who sees the definition differently, since the BBWAA gives NO definition to what an MVP is.

"Trout didn't help to get his team in the playoffs, while Cabrera did.  Cabrera provided more value to his team than Trout did to his.  It's difficult to argue that he didn't. "

It's not that difficult.  Some of us have been doing it for 18 pages.  You should go back and read.

I see you arguing Trout was MVP. I don't see you arguing that Trout was more valuable to the Angels than Cabrera was to the Tigers.

If I'm trying to raise $100 for whatever reason, and X gives me $90, but I finished with $95 raised total, I didn't accomplish my goal. If someone else is trying to do the same thing, Y gives him $80, and he raised $110 total, he reached his goal. If it wasnt for Y, he doesn't reach his goal. I appreciate X's efforts, but Y provided more value to the other guy than X did to me.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2012 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Fangraphs calculates replacement the same every year:

FanGraphs calculates replacement level as being 20 runs below average per 600 PAs. So if a player gets exactly 600 plate appearances, their positional adjustment would be +20. If they have more than 600 PAs, their adjustment would be higher; if they have fewer than 600 PAs, the adjustment would be lower. The exact formula is (20/600)*PA.

EDIT: Average is league wide average, not positional average.

So average never changes?    Average in 2003 was the same as average in 2012?

Same with dWAR(which is questionable and surely rates by position)?

League average varies by year. The replacement level calculation is made off of that. The calculation to replacement never changes but league average varies. It's one league average for all positions, then the replacement is calculated, then the positional adjustment is added. The positional adjustment is the same for 3B and CF.

I thought my argument was pretty clear.  10.7 WAR is more valuable than 6.9 WAR.  That's simple math.

And if you dismiss dWAR (which I am now questioning the validity of), then Trout's 8.6 oWAR is still more valuable than Cabrera's 7.5 oWAR.

I've also dismissed the "Tigers are going to the playoffs while the Angels are not" argument by pointing out that the Angels won more games against tougher competition than did the Tigers, and the fact that the Tigers are going to the post-season is more fluke than anything else.

Posted by burnsy483 on 10/3/2012 5:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2012 5:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 10/3/2012 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 4:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by loudawg10 on 10/3/2012 4:58:00 PM (view original):
FUN WITH WAR!!

Per B-R (for position players only):
Cabrera's WAR (O+D) is 6.9.  His team total WAR is 14.5.  Meaning Cabrera's WAR is 47.6% of his team's total level.
Trout's WAR (O+D) is 10.7.  His team total WAR is 38.2.  Trout's WAR is 28% of his team's total.

Who is more valuable to their team?

Trout had better teammates. Makes sense since the Angels won more games and were a better team. Should Trout be punished for this fact?

I agree that Trout was the better player this year.  I'd vote for him.

But who had the most value this year?  Trout didn't help to get his team in the playoffs, while Cabrera did.  Cabrera provided more value to his team than Trout did to his.  It's difficult to argue that he didn't.  And while I look at MVP as "best player," I won't rip someone who sees the definition differently, since the BBWAA gives NO definition to what an MVP is.

"Trout didn't help to get his team in the playoffs, while Cabrera did.  Cabrera provided more value to his team than Trout did to his.  It's difficult to argue that he didn't. "

It's not that difficult.  Some of us have been doing it for 18 pages.  You should go back and read.

I see you arguing Trout was MVP. I don't see you arguing that Trout was more valuable to the Angels than Cabrera was to the Tigers.

If I'm trying to raise $100 for whatever reason, and X gives me $90, but I finished with $95 raised total, I didn't accomplish my goal. If someone else is trying to do the same thing, Y gives him $80, and he raised $110 total, he reached his goal. If it wasnt for Y, he doesn't reach his goal. I appreciate X's efforts, but Y provided more value to the other guy than X did to me.

$90 will always be more valuable than $80.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2012 6:00:00 PM (view original):
I thought my argument was pretty clear.  10.7 WAR is more valuable than 6.9 WAR.  That's simple math.

And if you dismiss dWAR (which I am now questioning the validity of), then Trout's 8.6 oWAR is still more valuable than Cabrera's 7.5 oWAR.

I've also dismissed the "Tigers are going to the playoffs while the Angels are not" argument by pointing out that the Angels won more games against tougher competition than did the Tigers, and the fact that the Tigers are going to the post-season is more fluke than anything else.

So you dismissed the "Tigers going to playoffs" argument by stating that the Angels aren't going to the playoffs. Good job.

WAR, huh, yeah,
What is it good for,
Absolutely nothing

Jesus Christ. The Tigers aren't going to the playoffs because Cabrera was better than Trout. They aren't even going because they were better than the Angels. They're going because the Rangers and A's were better than the White Sox.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 5:37:00 PM (view original):
ESPN uses BR's WAR calculation. Fangraphs has their own. I like Fangraphs better because post 2002 UZR is more accurate for defense than Total Zone.

That's the same defensive ratings that put Trout above Jones, right?

Unreliable bullshit.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 10/3/2012 5:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2012 5:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 10/3/2012 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 4:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by loudawg10 on 10/3/2012 4:58:00 PM (view original):
FUN WITH WAR!!

Per B-R (for position players only):
Cabrera's WAR (O+D) is 6.9.  His team total WAR is 14.5.  Meaning Cabrera's WAR is 47.6% of his team's total level.
Trout's WAR (O+D) is 10.7.  His team total WAR is 38.2.  Trout's WAR is 28% of his team's total.

Who is more valuable to their team?

Trout had better teammates. Makes sense since the Angels won more games and were a better team. Should Trout be punished for this fact?

I agree that Trout was the better player this year.  I'd vote for him.

But who had the most value this year?  Trout didn't help to get his team in the playoffs, while Cabrera did.  Cabrera provided more value to his team than Trout did to his.  It's difficult to argue that he didn't.  And while I look at MVP as "best player," I won't rip someone who sees the definition differently, since the BBWAA gives NO definition to what an MVP is.

"Trout didn't help to get his team in the playoffs, while Cabrera did.  Cabrera provided more value to his team than Trout did to his.  It's difficult to argue that he didn't. "

It's not that difficult.  Some of us have been doing it for 18 pages.  You should go back and read.

I see you arguing Trout was MVP. I don't see you arguing that Trout was more valuable to the Angels than Cabrera was to the Tigers.

If I'm trying to raise $100 for whatever reason, and X gives me $90, but I finished with $95 raised total, I didn't accomplish my goal. If someone else is trying to do the same thing, Y gives him $80, and he raised $110 total, he reached his goal. If it wasnt for Y, he doesn't reach his goal. I appreciate X's efforts, but Y provided more value to the other guy than X did to me.

$90 will always be more valuable than $80.

Not always. Like, in this example.

No, the $90 contribution is more valuable than the $80 contribution.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2012 6:00:00 PM (view original):
I thought my argument was pretty clear.  10.7 WAR is more valuable than 6.9 WAR.  That's simple math.

And if you dismiss dWAR (which I am now questioning the validity of), then Trout's 8.6 oWAR is still more valuable than Cabrera's 7.5 oWAR.

I've also dismissed the "Tigers are going to the playoffs while the Angels are not" argument by pointing out that the Angels won more games against tougher competition than did the Tigers, and the fact that the Tigers are going to the post-season is more fluke than anything else.

I agree with you. Not entirely based on WAR, but it's a large reason.

I'm just explaining the point many people make. And I'm not arguing what team is better than any other. But one team is going to the playoffs, and if it wasn't for Cabrera, they wouldn't. If Trout isn't on the Angels, they...still...don't make the playoffs.

BL has trouble with more than one sentence per post.   He can't wait to answer so it's impossible to read an entire post.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 7:23:00 PM (view original):
No, the $90 contribution is more valuable than the $80 contribution.

It's not. They needed $100, and they failed. The $80 was much more valuable to the person collecting it.

The Angels wouldn't have made the playoffs with Cabrera. They would have finished further back in the standings.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 7:24:00 PM (view original):
The Angels wouldn't have made the playoffs with Cabrera. They would have finished further back in the standings.

Correct. This is irrelevant to my argument.