Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2013 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2013 9:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2013 8:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2013 7:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2013 4:05:00 PM (view original):
Monday's effectiveness with the bat was about the same as Williams'. But Williams was able to do it longer so he had more offensive value.

But, it's worth noting that Monday's career WAR is closer to Williams' than Williams is to Martinez.

"Monday's effectiveness with the bat was about the same as Williams'".

Please explain the seasonal discrepancies in their respective oWAR values.  After all, oWAR is a fantastic way to measure a player's offensive value, correct?

WAR is cumulative.

What part of "seasonal" confused you?

What part of cumulative confuses you?

WAR accumulates during the season. It isn't a rate.

Wouldn't the person who accumulates the higher oWAR within a season be the more effective hitter?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2013 9:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2013 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2013 9:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2013 8:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2013 7:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2013 4:05:00 PM (view original):
Monday's effectiveness with the bat was about the same as Williams'. But Williams was able to do it longer so he had more offensive value.

But, it's worth noting that Monday's career WAR is closer to Williams' than Williams is to Martinez.

"Monday's effectiveness with the bat was about the same as Williams'".

Please explain the seasonal discrepancies in their respective oWAR values.  After all, oWAR is a fantastic way to measure a player's offensive value, correct?

WAR is cumulative.

What part of "seasonal" confused you?

What part of cumulative confuses you?

WAR accumulates during the season. It isn't a rate.

Wouldn't the person who accumulates the higher oWAR within a season be the more effective hitter?

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

For example, a guy that gets injured at the break with 80 hits in 200 AB might have been a more effective hitter than another guy who gets 135 over 500 AB. But it's possible that that second guy has a higher WAR that season. This is an illustrative example only, I made the numbers up.

Over their entire careers, Bernie provided more offensive value than Monday. But they have the same OPS+ because they saw similar results (adjusted for the time period they played) in the PA they got.

So who would you rather have . . .1970's Rick Monday, or 1990's Bernie Williams?

Clearly Williams. He had the same OPS+ over a couple thousand more PA and 10 or 15 more WAR over his career.

So why point out that they both had the same career OPS+ and imply that they were comparable players?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2013 9:55:00 PM (view original):
So why point out that they both had the same career OPS+ and imply that they were comparable players?

I was giving context. A 125 OPS+ is nothing special. Monday had a 125 OPS+.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2013 9:55:00 PM (view original):
So why point out that they both had the same career OPS+ and imply that they were comparable players?

I do find it funny that you're so upset by the Rick Monday comparison.

The difference between Williams and Monday is smaller than the difference between Martinez and Williams.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2013 10:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2013 9:55:00 PM (view original):
So why point out that they both had the same career OPS+ and imply that they were comparable players?

I was giving context. A 125 OPS+ is nothing special. Monday had a 125 OPS+.

Exactly what context does that give?

Seems like you're admitting that Williams was the better offensive player over Monday.  So the fact that they had identical OPS+ over their careers means . . . what?

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2013 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2013 9:55:00 PM (view original):
So why point out that they both had the same career OPS+ and imply that they were comparable players?

I do find it funny that you're so upset by the Rick Monday comparison.

The difference between Williams and Monday is smaller than the difference between Martinez and Williams.

I'm not upset.  I'm puzzled why you're trying to imply that they were comparable offensive players.

bad_luck is saying that, on a per PA basis, Monday and Williams were comparable

That's pretty dumb, because they clearly were not.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2013 10:34:00 PM (view original):
That's pretty dumb, because they clearly were not.

But they were when you account for the different run scoring environments they played in.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2013 10:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2013 10:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2013 9:55:00 PM (view original):
So why point out that they both had the same career OPS+ and imply that they were comparable players?

I was giving context. A 125 OPS+ is nothing special. Monday had a 125 OPS+.

Exactly what context does that give?

Seems like you're admitting that Williams was the better offensive player over Monday.  So the fact that they had identical OPS+ over their careers means . . . what?

Bernie Williams had a 125 OPS+. Is that good? Let's see, who else has an OPS+ of 125? Rick Monday and JD Drew. Nope, that ain't great.

And there's the fallacy of your argument.  You apparently have blind faith in the validity of OPS+.  Just as you do with WAR.  And UZR.  And all the other new-age stats.

I look at OPS+ and say "Bernie Williams = Rick Monday?"  Even when adjusting for ERA, I have to say "Um, no".  If OPS+ says they're comparable, then maybe there's a problem with OPS+.  Critical thinking gives OPS+ a cold, hard slap across the face.

I watched a lot of baseball in the 70's.  I saw a lot of Rick Monday.  I saw a lot of Bernie Williams in the 90's and 00's.  To try to imply that they were comparable players within the context of their respective eras is laughable.

They were comparable when you account for eras. Bernie was more valuable, those extra couple thousand plate appearances can't be ignored but, in terms of power and on base ability, they were similar.

Sorry if you don't agree.