I guess what I'm saying(or asking) is this:  Is the WAR calculation the same every season?   As I understand it, it is not.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2012 3:43:00 PM (view original):
Taking a look at Adam Jones vs. Mike Trout for defensive stats:

Jones:

Innings in CF: 1450
Putouts: 438
Assists:  7
Errors:  8
Double Plays: 0
Fld Pct:  .982
RF/9: 2.76
Defensive Runs Saved aboce average per 1200 innings: -13
dWAR: -1.3

Trout:

Innings in CF: 877.2
Putouts: 261
Assists:  2
Errors:  2
Double Plays: 1
Fld Pct:  .992
RF/9: 2.70
Defensive Runs Saved aboce average per 1200 innings: 31
dWAR: 2.1  (includes additional 340 innings played in LF/RF)

This raises more questions than it answers.

Jones has a slightly higher putout rate in CF than does Trout.  He has more assists than Trout.  He has a higher range factor that Trout.  Trout has fewer errors, as evidenced by his better fielding percentage.  Overall, just looking at those raw numbers, one would not necessarily conclude that Trout is the better CF (other than the fewer errors).  Jones seems to have more range, catches more balls, and has a better arm than Trout, at least based on these numbers.

Yet, the "Defensive runs saved" and dWAR stats seem to indicate that Jones is a defensive liability in CF, while Trout kicks *** in CF.

So now I question how meaningful dWAR really is.  Because thse numbers don't really pass the smell test.

Yep.

Now are you so sure Trout is the MVP?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2012 3:45:00 PM (view original):
I guess what I'm saying(or asking) is this:  Is the WAR calculation the same every season?   As I understand it, it is not.

I'm not sure. Either way, Trout and Cabrera were both calculated against the same replacement level this year and with the exact same position bonus.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2012 3:43:00 PM (view original):
Taking a look at Adam Jones vs. Mike Trout for defensive stats:

Jones:

Innings in CF: 1450
Putouts: 438
Assists:  7
Errors:  8
Double Plays: 0
Fld Pct:  .982
RF/9: 2.76
Defensive Runs Saved aboce average per 1200 innings: -13
dWAR: -1.3

Trout:

Innings in CF: 877.2
Putouts: 261
Assists:  2
Errors:  2
Double Plays: 1
Fld Pct:  .992
RF/9: 2.70
Defensive Runs Saved aboce average per 1200 innings: 31
dWAR: 2.1  (includes additional 340 innings played in LF/RF)

This raises more questions than it answers.

Jones has a slightly higher putout rate in CF than does Trout.  He has more assists than Trout.  He has a higher range factor that Trout.  Trout has fewer errors, as evidenced by his better fielding percentage.  Overall, just looking at those raw numbers, one would not necessarily conclude that Trout is the better CF (other than the fewer errors).  Jones seems to have more range, catches more balls, and has a better arm than Trout, at least based on these numbers.

Yet, the "Defensive runs saved" and dWAR stats seem to indicate that Jones is a defensive liability in CF, while Trout kicks *** in CF.

So now I question how meaningful dWAR really is.  Because thse numbers don't really pass the smell test.

The fielding runs are calculated using UZR, not range factor or fielding percentage.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-two

do trout's stolen bases get counted twice, at least somewhat? i.e. he steals second and scores on a single. without the steal, he may not score on the single. does that factor in, or is it somehow excluded?

"Now are you so sure Trout is the MVP?"

I'm questioning the value of dWAR, and want to understand a little more about how it's calculated.

But if you go strictly on oWAR, Trout's at 8.6 and Cabrera's at 7.5.  So that's still advantage to Trout.  But the "gap" between the two certainly has narrowed.

And I've already dismissed the playoff argument as retarded in this case, for reasons previously given.

So help me understand - is that saying a team with Jones in CF will allow 48 more runs than a team with Trout in CF? Because if so, that's BS. I'm an Os fan, so take this for what you want, but I haven't seen many CF who can cover as much ground as Jones. His errors are usually on lazy pop ups where he's a bit too casual. I'd still happily take him in CF any day of the week.

When you see the phrase "most valuable" do you see that as "most valuable to any team" or "most valuable to the team he is on"?  If it's the latter, then Cabrera is more valuable to the Tigers, as they likely don't make the playoffs without him. 

They wouldn't have made the playoffs without Verlander or Jackson either.

They can't all win MVP.

True. But we should give the MVP to the best player in the league since he is, by definition, the most valuable.

So i guess you see it as "most valuable to any team."  And I do too, mostly.  The problem is, there are a lot of people who see a player's value as "most valuable to the team he's on."  David Wright is great, but how valuable is he to the Mets this year when without him they would have went 68-94 rather than 74-88? What's the difference?  But Cabrera is easily the best player on the Tigers, and without him, they aren't a playoff team, and possibly a WS team.

Again, I disagree with this thinking, but I understand it, and wouldn't call it "retarded" as a few of you guys have.

Posted by burnsy483 on 10/3/2012 4:17:00 PM (view original):
So i guess you see it as "most valuable to any team."  And I do too, mostly.  The problem is, there are a lot of people who see a player's value as "most valuable to the team he's on."  David Wright is great, but how valuable is he to the Mets this year when without him they would have went 68-94 rather than 74-88? What's the difference?  But Cabrera is easily the best player on the Tigers, and without him, they aren't a playoff team, and possibly a WS team.

My thoughts are this:

There are 25 guys on the roster. A star position player gets 4 or 5 at bats a game and doesn't pitch at all. There's only so much he can do. Barry Bonds could mate with Ozzie Smith and birth a gigantic roided up SS with range 17 times better than Derek Jeter and the ability to hit 100 home runs with a .330 BA . But if he's on the Astros this year, they aren't making the playoffs, even with his 24 WAR. Even if he's replacing a replacement level SS, they still won't get to 80 wins.

Ozzie Bonds would clearly be the mot valuable player in the league. That the other 24 guys on his team are complete piles of **** doesn't change that fact.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 3:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2012 3:45:00 PM (view original):
I guess what I'm saying(or asking) is this:  Is the WAR calculation the same every season?   As I understand it, it is not.

I'm not sure. Either way, Trout and Cabrera were both calculated against the same replacement level this year and with the exact same position bonus.

Yet replacement level(which you're not even sure about how it's calculated) is different for CF/3B and could greatly vary from season to season and position to position.   

If your MONSTER stat is the one you're gonna swear by, I suggest understanding how it works first.