Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
vilehoopster

Why WAR is stupid for Closers, especially for Colome

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

There is nothing about WAR that is subjective. Its difficult to give a slash line because amazingly enough you get value and lose it for more than just offense because baseball isn't just offense.

Leury Garcia plays a premium defensive position and has graded out above average there. He also is a + base runner. Abreu is a bad defender and base runner who is only about 10% better than Leury with the bat this year despite playing a position that asks for premium offensive production.

That's why leury is a more valuable player. It's not that complicated.

A replacement level SS (assuming league average defense and baserunning) slash line would look something like Brandon Crawford this year:

234/304/376

I still don't agree Leury is more valuable, but I understand the reasoning now that others do. Thanks for the response,although im aware theres more to baseball than offense, didn't need the snark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tony said:

Always love this line of thinking. "I don't understand it, so it must be stupid!" 

Yet amazingly, often times it can be both. Since in my experience numerous ppl that yammer on about it cant explain it.  But carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vilehoopster said:

1st off Ray Ray Run: "There is nothing about WAR that is subjective."  Of course there is tons of stuff in WAR that is subjective. At home, a KC batter hits a ball hard to short and TA takes one step over and the ball goes off his glove. 

 2nd Dam8610:  "Firstly, closers will always be well above the league average save rate because blown saves are credited to middle relievers and setup relievers who give up a lead, despite the fact that they never would have gotten the save had they not given up the lead. Further, as has been stated several times, you're giving the closer credit for the whole win in those situations. Under your model, the closer's contributions to the win are the only ones that matter. Not the starting pitcher's quality start, not the offense's performance, not the defense's performance, but only the closer matters."

Okay, how am I giving the closer "credit for the whole win."  Just because the closer gets credit for the win, doesn't take away from anybody else's performance. Can't the pitcher who threw 8 innings of one-hit ball still help his WAR. Or if a batter who hits four home runs, doesn't his WAR also go up. That a closer increases his WAR has no effect, positive or negative, on how any other player performed and helped or hurt his WAR, so "the closer gets all the credit for win argument" goes out the window. 

Also, how the pitcher pitched or the offense did doesn't matter to the closer. If he comes into what major league baseball (not subjective) has determined as a save situation and gets the save, that should increase his WAR, regardless of how the starting pitcher did or how the offense did, who also can increase or decrease their WAR. -- This goes to Juschill and Eminor3rd who also made the "closer whole credit" comment. 

Now to Eminor3rd: "replacement level does NOT equal average. It equals replacement level. The average MLB contributor is roughly two wins above replacement level. 

Okay, I did do my research and I did see this statement and didn't deal with it. Thanks for letting me deal with it now. This is such a flawed idea. So computing Wins above Replacement, the baseline is 2. An average player has a 2 WAR.  Does that make sense? Instead of just shaking your head, use it to think for a minute. Shouldn't the baseline when computing starts for an stat be zero: positive is above zero and negative is below zero. But for WAR, the baseline of average is 2, so the average player contributes to 2 wins a year. Shouldn't the average player contribute to zero wins a year, and a below average player hurt his team with losses (cough, cough Yonder A.??) There's a lack of logic there to me when the baseline for figuring out good or bad is already at plus 2 for average. Don't you see the bad logic there with average being plus 2 ??

 Let me leave with asking two questions?

First, Colome has a WAR of 1.7. Do you really think that Colome has only had a positive to the point of adding only 1.7 wins to the Sox this year, only 1.7 wins? Do you really believe that if the Sox didn't have Colome, that they would only have two less wins this year, only two?  Seriously, be honest in your answer. Especially when the average WAR is seen as 2.0. Colome has had a below average contribution to the Sox win total this year? Do you really believe this?

Second: Don't you think that the 9th inning matters more than the first couple innings? In basketball we talk about the last 2 minutes decides the best players or in football, how important that final drive is in determining greatness. But with WAR the 1st inning is the same as the last. Do you think that that is correct?  According to WAR, a pitcher that throws 22 or so pitches in the 9th inning with the game absolutely on the line, with the other team bunting or pitch hitting all stops out, means less to the win than a left fielder who had four at bats and had four balls hit to him the entire game. Is that correct?

Be honest with yourself, do you believe totally yes to both of these questions? If so, than WAR is 100% on the money with you. But if you say no to either question or both, you really have to start questioning the validity of WAR. 

1. To say there's nothing subjective isn't totally true, but the situation you laid out and the way it's scored doesn't make any difference to WAR. That play will be a knock on him in both instances. 

2. I'm not even sure what your point is.

3. Use Wins Above Average then. What difference does it make what the baseline is. This is completely silly. 

And yes the 9th inning generally matters more than the first couple, but not necessarily more than the 8th or 7th.

Edited by mqr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Roofshot said:

Yet amazingly, often times it can be both. Since in my experience numerous ppl that yammer on about it cant explain it.  But carry on.

Which is irrelevant, because there are already many resources that explain WAR, both simply and in-depth.

https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/

https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained.shtml

http://m.mlb.com/glossary/advanced-stats/wins-above-replacement

https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained_position.shtml

Just because someone didn't memorize the equation doesn't mean they didn't look into it and verify its validity. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Lol...you sure did destroy us all!

With facts and logic

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, gusguyman said:

Which is irrelevant, because there are already many resources that explain WAR, both simply and in-depth.

https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/

https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained.shtml

http://m.mlb.com/glossary/advanced-stats/wins-above-replacement

https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained_position.shtml

Just because someone didn't memorize the equation doesn't mean they didn't look into it and verify its validity. 

Just read through the first link. Doesn't change my opinion of it.  Thanks for the info though. Ill dig into the others later.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, bmags said:

Juan Minaya, 2017, 90% save percentage.

19 war

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, mqr said:

1. To say there's nothing subjective isn't totally true, but the situation you laid out and the way it's scored doesn't make any difference to WAR. That play will be a knock on him in both instances. 

2. I'm not even sure what your point is.

3. Use Wins Above Average then. What difference does it make what the baseline is. This is completely silly. 

And yes the 9th inning generally matters more than the first couple, but not necessarily more than the 8th or 7th.

WAR is derived from factual outcomes and is absent of "opinions." That's why WAR is not subjective. No ones opinion or feelings impact a players WAR. 

That is why WAR is not subjective.

The defensive metrics built into WAR are based on expected outcomes of batted balls based on prior outcomes of similarly batted balls, not a score keepers judgement on whether it should be made or not. 

In regards to hits vs errors offensively, we'll just agree to disagree. It has no true impact on WAR as the sample size your addressing over the career of a player is near zero.

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

WAR is derived from factual outcomes and is absent of "opinions." That's why WAR is not subjective. No ones opinion or feelings impact a players WAR. 

That is why WAR is not subjective in the least bit.

I'm proudly a statnik, so I feel like I am doing a disservice by falling to infighting here, but WAR definitely has some subjectivity baked in, exemplified at the very least by the fact that there is both fWAR and bWAR. The derivation of the weighting of the factual outcomes allows opinions to influence the final result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

WAR is derived from factual outcomes and is absent of "opinions." That's why WAR is not subjective. No ones opinion or feelings impact a players WAR. 

That is why WAR is not subjective in the least bit.

The defensive metrics built into WAR are based on expected outcomes of batted balls based on prior outcomes of similarly batted balls, not a score keepers judgement on whether it should be made or not. 

If this were true, than there'd be one version not 3. I'm not even hating on it, I'm big on the numbers, but saying there is zero subjectivity is not true. It's certainly not objective fact that RA9 is better than FIP or vice versa. 

Straight from the horses mouth:

"There are hundreds of steps to make this calculation, and dozens of places where reasonable people can disagree on the best way to implement a particular part of the framework"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gusguyman said:

I'm proudly a statnik, so I feel like I am doing a disservice by falling to infighting here, but WAR definitely has some subjectivity baked in, exemplified at the very least by the fact that there is both fWAR and bWAR. The derivation of the weighting of the factual outcomes allows opinions to influence the final result.

The difference in fWAR and bWAR is the defensive metrics they use for batters. For pitchers, fangraphs uses an expected outcome (FIP) instead of an actual outcome (ERA). Those metrics can have different readings on a player without being subjective. They simply derive their values from different data sets but those data sets are built on outcomes and not opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mqr said:

If this were true, than there'd be one version not 3. I'm not even hating on it, I'm big on the numbers, but saying there is zero subjectivity is not true. It's certainly not objective fact that RA9 is better than FIP or vice versa. 

Straight from the horses mouth:

"There are hundreds of steps to make this calculation, and dozens of places where reasonable people can disagree on the best way to implement a particular part of the framework"

That's not what subjective is for a stat though.

The data sets they are using, and chose to use, are not influenced by opinions. 

The choice of which stats to value (FIP vs ERA for example) in their equations is based on what their end goal maybe, but the actual outputs (the stat itself) is not subjective as it is not influenced by opinions - it is only influenced by the actual production.

I think were disagreeing on semantics. Modelers may be subjective in what stat they value the most, but the actual statistical outputs themselves receive zero influence or opinion built in so their outputs are not subjective. 

WAR isnt popped out and then adjusted based on opinions. It is normalized for every single person playing the game, therefore since the standards of equation remain the same for everyone, it is not subjective.

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least some of you are trying to help the guy. It's really not so easy to understand after all. I always wonder why if a team has 90 wins shouldn't you be able to add up the players on the the teams WAR and it should equal 90 ? But it's always much lower than that. LOl i know I know sue me I'm not a math wiz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Well at least some of you are trying to help the guy. It's really not so easy to understand after all. I always wonder why if a team has 90 wins shouldn't you be able to add up the players on the the teams WAR and it should equal 90 ? But it's always much lower than that. LOl i know I know sue me I'm not a math wiz.

It's because you're supposed to at ~43.5 wins to the WAR total, as that's how many games you'd expect a 0 WAR team to win. 

The Sox were expected to get ~61 wins by bWAR last year, they got 62. Obviously it's still baseball and weird shit happens but it's almost always within +/- 10 wins and more often than not within 5. 

 

Edited by mqr
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Well at least some of you are trying to help the guy. It's really not so easy to understand after all. I always wonder why if a team has 90 wins shouldn't you be able to add up the players on the the teams WAR and it should equal 90 ? But it's always much lower than that. LOl i know I know sue me I'm not a math wiz.

No, because a replacement level team would win games as well - I believe a replacement level team is calculated to win about 50 games; somewhere around there.

Edit: its 48 wins, not 50

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mqr said:

It's because you're supposed to at ~43.5 wins to the WAR total, as that's how many games you'd expect a 0 WAR team to win. 

The Sox were expected to get 61 wins by bWAR last year. It's almost always within +/- 10 wins and more often than not within 5. 

 

Would be a lot easier if the players WAR added up to team wins.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Would be a lot easier if the players WAR added up to team wins.

Sure but then you're looking Wins Above Irredeemable Major Leaguer or something. Here's the top 15 teams last year for example, I just added a flat 48 to everyone. 

WAR Actual         Exp 1
59.9 103 48 107.9 4.9
56.3 108 48 104.3 -3.7
51.3 100 48 99.3 -0.7
50.7 91 48 98.7 7.7
49.8 92 48 97.8 5.8
49 97 48 97 0
47.3 90 48 95.3 5.3
45 95 48 93 -2
40.7 90 48 88.7 -1.3
39.8 82 48 87.8 5.8
39.6 96 48 87.6 -8.4
36.6 91 48 84.6 -6.4
35.7 89 48 83.7 -5.3
34.9 80 48 82.9 2.9
34.1 82 48 82.1 0.1

They Brewers are the largest outlier, and it did feel that they over performed their true talent at least to me. 

Edited by mqr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mqr said:

Sure but then you're looking Wins Above Irredeemable Major Leaguer or something. Here's the top 15 teams last year for example, I just added a flat 43.5 to everyone. 

WAR Actual Exp +/-
59.9 103 103.4 0.4
56.3 108 99.8 -8.2
51.3 100 94.8 -5.2
50.7 91 94.2 3.2
49.8 92 93.3 1.3
49 97 92.5 -4.5
47.3 90 90.8 0.8
45 95 88.5 -6.5
40.7 90 84.2 -5.8
39.8 82 83.3 1.3
39.6 96 83.1 -12.9
36.6 91 80.1 -10.9
35.7 89 79.2 -9.8
34.9 80 78.4 -1.6
34.1 82 77.6 -4.4

Its 48 wins not 43.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Its 48 wins not 43.

You'se right, fixed it. 

That table obviously isn't enough to prove a conclusion, but it's an idea why people care about the stat. 

Edited by mqr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WAR is definitely broken for closers and specialist players. It doesn't even work comparing similar roles most of the time since its a generalized stat.

For example here's the fWAR for all closers: https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=10&type=8&season=2019&season1=2019&startdate=2019-01-01&enddate=2019-12-31&sort=5,d

chapman has 5 blown saves and is "valued" 2.6x as valuable as colome. jackson has 7 BS and valued almost 2x. Is yates 5x the closer than colome? Sad part is most FOs will look at this and see colome a trash closer lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, scotty22hotty said:

WAR is definitely broken for closers and specialist players. It doesn't even work comparing similar roles most of the time since its a generalized stat.

For example here's the fWAR for all closers: https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=10&type=8&season=2019&season1=2019&startdate=2019-01-01&enddate=2019-12-31&sort=5,d

chapman has 5 blown saves and is "valued" 2.6x as valuable as colome. jackson has 7 BS and valued almost 2x. Is yates 5x the closer than colome? Sad part is most FOs will look at this and see colome a trash closer lol

Fangraphs won't like Colome because he doesn't strike any one out. BBRef loves him. And teams presumably have their own much more sophisticated forms of WAR that none of us have access to. Not a one of them is pulling up fangraphs before they make a trade. 

Edited by mqr
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Lol...you sure did destroy us all!

Answer my two questions: do you really believe that Colome has only added (rounded up) two wins to the Sox this year, below average in the world of WAR?  Yes or no?

Do you really think that pitching the 9th is equal to pitching the first couple innings?  Yes or no?

If you answer truthfully, it's a LOL for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, vilehoopster said:

Answer my two questions: do you really believe that Colome has only added (rounded up) two wins to the Sox this year, below average in the world of WAR?  Yes or no?

Do you really think that pitching the 9th is equal to pitching the first couple innings?  Yes or no?

If you answer truthfully, it's a LOL for me. 

You either agree with me, or you agree with me and are lying about it!!!!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vilehoopster said:

Answer my two questions: do you really believe that Colome has only added (rounded up) two wins to the Sox this year, below average in the world of WAR?  Yes or no?

Do you really think that pitching the 9th is equal to pitching the first couple innings?  Yes or no?

If you answer truthfully, it's a LOL for me. 

Yes, I 100% believe Colome has been worth two wins or less.  And the average you’re quoting is intended for position players and not relievers.  An average reliever is not worth close to two wins.

No, I think high leverage innings should be attributed more value than low leverage ones.  WAR ignores context which is admittedly a shortcoming.  It doesn’t mean WAR is a bad tool like you’re suggesting, just requires a bit more nuance in its application.

No idea what that lady line means.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×