This Is What Is Wrong With WAR

by Bobby Baseball on Nov 16, 2009 6:43 PM EST

From the Hardball Times

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/criminals-of-war/

Now, I use WAR and I think it is a good stat, but I have mentioned a few times here not to overuse it or trust it too much. I have recieved lots of criticism about this (and my AAOP post) so I would like to point a few things out. The numbers I use will correspond with the numbers in the link, so if I skip a number it is because I am skipping to a different numbered paragraph in the story.

1. It mentions how baserunning is not included in WAR. Take Angel Pagan. So many people want him to play RF everyday in 2010, but everyone seems to forget that he does not know how to run the bases well.

2. Do some research, does Jason Kendall still suck because he has bad WAR and is old? He has a better RF/G and RF/9 than Joe Mauer.

4. Neither Kendall nor Podsednik have negative WARs, but they both have strong points. Kendall his defense and Pods his speed.

Arguments? Agreements?

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 40 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Pagan doesn't run the bases well?

Where/what is this information?

ain't had enough...

by BlackOps on Nov 16, 2009 7:04 PM EST reply actions

he's made some stupid mistakes by being overaggressive

but thats something reasonably easy to work on compared to other problems a player could have.

by KeithsMoustache on Nov 16, 2009 7:07 PM EST up reply actions

oh

So this information isn’t really based on anything, just the eye test in an extremely small sample size? Even based on what you said, how much of that is Pagan and not Razor Shines??

It’s pretty tough to convince me to not like Pagan just because “he does not know how to run the bases well.” Bobby, you should add some stats to your statements.

ain't had enough...

by BlackOps on Nov 16, 2009 7:13 PM EST up reply actions

yup, that seems to be the case

I think Pagan was one of the few bright spots this past year

by KeithsMoustache on Nov 16, 2009 7:14 PM EST up reply actions

RF is a terrible stat

Bill James invented it. And he said that it is useless.

Kendall does suck.

by supermets on Nov 16, 2009 7:11 PM EST reply actions

i've been convinced Jason Kendall is better than Joe Mauer

my eyes have been opened.

by KeithsMoustache on Nov 16, 2009 7:16 PM EST up reply actions

I never said that Kendall was better than Mauer

I just meant that Kendall’s defense was comparable to Mauer’s this year and nobody is criticizing Mauer’s defense.

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Nov 17, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions

Mauer's defense is a bit of an afterthought in comparison to his tremendous hitting.

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 17, 2009 5:30 PM EST up reply actions

OK, well Kendall also allow 5 less passed balls this year than Mauer

And Kendall caught almost 200 more innings than Mauer

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Nov 17, 2009 4:34 PM EST up reply actions

And Mauer led the American League in

AVG, OBP, SLG, wOBA, OPS, etc.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Nov 17, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions

I never said Kendall was better offensively than Mauer

Obviously we can’t get Mauer. I want defense at catcher.

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Nov 17, 2009 8:27 PM EST up reply actions

OK, so offense doesn't count for catchers

by EtSuKe on Nov 17, 2009 9:47 PM EST up reply actions

It counts a little

You want to find a good dedensive catcher. Hitting is a bonus.

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Nov 18, 2009 5:48 PM EST up reply actions

When you go with the premise

“any hitting we get is a bonus”, you’re setting yourself up to fail, and even worse, you will then not be disappointed by that failure. Hitting is not a bonus, it’s an essential requirement. And this team needs contributions from every position, because they have other holes.

by Mackey Sasser on Nov 19, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions

I see your point

However, if a catcher can hit .265 that is okay with me as long as he handles the pitching staff well. If he handles it superiorly well which I believe Kendall can do than I am oka with him even hitting .230 but I think he can do better that.

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Nov 19, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions

Mauer missed most of april

and passed balls and wild pitches are very difficult to distinguish accurately

"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green

by Stephen Schmidt on Nov 17, 2009 8:16 PM EST up reply actions

I think the number 3 comes after 2 and before 4

RF is an outdated stat. And Pagan knows how to run the bases. His EQBRR is .2, not good, but not negative. He also had a speed score of 7 which is very good. I don’t know much about baserunning stats, but he’s capable. Also, according to BtB, he was worth -.18 runs in 09, -4.5 from Driveline Mechanics, and career -13 from baseball projection, not including 09.

"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."

by Evan_S on Nov 16, 2009 7:11 PM EST reply actions

And also, I don't think anyone here has broken those "5 rules."

"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."

by Evan_S on Nov 16, 2009 7:14 PM EST reply actions

For catcher defense, check out this link

http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/2009/10/13/1082419/2009-catcher-defense-filling-in
add this to the RAR and divide by 10 if you want to make it more fair for defensve specialist catchers.

"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"

by firejerrynow on Nov 16, 2009 8:26 PM EST reply actions

OK thanks I didn't know about that website.

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Nov 17, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions

I think this article covers your concerns pretty well

THT Criminals of WAR

Of particular note:

1. Do not exclude baserunning from a position player’s WAR. I’m sure David Appelman will include baserunning in the next edition of WAR, since it’s so easy to calculate, but the numbers are already out there, so please take the time to go to BP, B-Ref, or BJOL to look up the numbers and tack them on.

You can find some pretty good values for baserunning on BP, here’s the Mets page. Overall, Angel Pagan is roughly an average baserunner, however a good portion of his value in 2009 was derived from his ability to advance on groundballs. He was not, however, an efficient basestealer, despite his quality speed.

This is also of relevance from the THT article:

2. Do not place undue trust in WAR for catchers. How much of a catcher’s value do you think is in his defense? I’ll give you a hint: it’s a lot. FanGraphs has unfortunately yet to give an effort to quantifying this vital aspect of the game, other than with the positional adjustment. In fact, catchers should possibly be considered a separate group of players with a separate replacement level and therefore be treated as different from all other position players.

This is indeed one of the shortcomings of WAR. I generally try to stay away from WAR analysis for catchers, since there really isn’t a universal method of discourse for their defensive contributions. However, age, particularly for catchers, comes with an attrition tag, and is thus relevant to any discussion.

The other thing about WAR that gets missed sometimes:

4. Do not cite WAR as a measure of skill. WAR measures production. FanGraphs has a lot more granular data if you’re trying to assess skill. And if you’re going to try to make a projection of WAR, regress each component individually. Also, players with negative WAR still may have value if they excel at a certain skill that can be leveraged.

WAR is a measure of production, it is not a measure of skill. These two things are related, but they are not the same. When we want to project future performance, the first thing we often like to do is establish a baseline skill level for a given player. Simply looking at WAR tells us very little in this regard. What we can do, is look at the more “granular” stats to develop a baseline skill perception, and derive our projection from that, and then convert the projection into WAR.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 16, 2009 8:30 PM EST reply actions

No one claimed WAR was perfect

but all things considered, it’s a pretty good stat. I remember reading that the correlation between WAR and wins is around 0.8 (?), so it must be doing something right.

And most people already know that WAR doesn’t fully account for catcher defense.

by DoghouseBlues on Nov 16, 2009 8:32 PM EST reply actions

As some people have said,

a high correlation between WAR and wins doesn’t mean WAR “works,” but a high correlation is good.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/war-vs.-wins/P0/

by EtSuKe on Nov 17, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions

Looked up Pagan's baserunning runs on BPro

+0.2, basically neutral

by Sam Page on Nov 16, 2009 9:43 PM EST reply actions

WAR, what is it good for?

1. Base running is included. At least SB and CS are. Yes, there are aspects missing like taking an extra base, but they don’t amount to that much.

2. Catchers don’t have RF/G and RF/9. I mean, you can calculate the number if you like, but it doesn’t actually mean anything when you consider that the catcher gets awarded a putout every time a pitcher strikes someone out.

3. Why is there no 3?

4. Kendall had a 1.2 WAR this year. But, that doesn’t include defense for catchers, so you do have to look at that separately. Podsednik had a 1.7 WAR, but that’s because he hit more than usual. Most years he’s pretty much replacement level.

by acerimusdux on Nov 16, 2009 10:19 PM EST reply actions

1. Who says they don’t account for that much?

2. I was looking for UZR but I couldn’t find that for catchers so this was the best thing I knew about.

3. Because I didn’t have any extra thoughts on three, or 5 for that matter.

4.1.2 is not bad, plus I think he has played pretty good defense this year, so really he is more valuble to me than 1.2 WAR.

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Nov 17, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions

his defense was worth negative runs

so it’s lower than 1.2

"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."

by Evan_S on Nov 17, 2009 5:07 PM EST up reply actions

According to what stats was his defense worth negative runs?

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Nov 17, 2009 5:14 PM EST up reply actions

Driveline Mechanics and Beyond the Boxscore's catcher stats both have him worth negative runs

They aren’t perfect, they aren’t even official statistics, buy they are a start.

"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."

by Evan_S on Nov 18, 2009 4:55 AM EST up reply actions

Check out the link I posted above

EqBRR is the composite baserunning stat. David Wright lead the team with 5.2. No one else was higher than 1.8 (Murphy), the team low was Jeremy Reeds -4.2. The highest mark any current Met has produced is Reyes’ 8.7 mark from 2007. He’s been above 6.0 two other times (2005 and 2008). The only other current Met to crack 6.0 is Beltran, twice, with a career high of 6.7. Castillo hit 4.5 in 2007 and 3.5 in 2008. Wright has been 5.2 twice, 2009 and 2005, but never above 3.0 otherwise.

So yeah, except for the really great basestealers like Reyes and Beltran, very few guys generate or cost their team more than half a win on the basepaths.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 17, 2009 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

But there were certainly situations when Pagan's bad baserunning decions cost us a run or two

And who knows when these runs will be missed, it could be in a one run loss that we otherwise could have won. Even if it is just here and there, a game or two, we need to do as much as we can to cut back on losses.This can be the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs.

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Nov 17, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions

But the point of the "who knows when question"

Here’s what BP’s glossary says about EqBRR. Its pretty comprehensive. The point is that for every poor decision Pagan made, he did other things that made up for it. According to the link above, he was pretty good at advancing on groundballs, decent at advancing on hits, but below average at advancing on SBs, Air Outs, and “other” (things like errors, wild pitches, and passed balls).

Sure, we can talk about particular instances where he made a bad decision that may have cost the team the game, but there’s no inherent “clutchness” to his skill level on the basepaths. Those blunders, and the positive things he did as well, still happen with a certain degree of frequency and thus probability, regardless of the leverage of the situation.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 17, 2009 9:29 PM EST up reply actions

Put another way

You can’t think of a run that is not scored as a run that is “cost”. Until the baserunner’s foot touches the plate (or more precisely, when the degree of likelihood the baserunner will score is 100%), there is a chance he will not score that run. So failing to score a run in a situation where the chances of scoring are 95% doesn’t cost you a full run, it costs you 5% of a run. If this same situation plays out with the lack of a run greater than 5% of the time, the odds of scoring in that particular situation weren’t 95%, they were lower. And you can say the same in reverse, that when a player scores that run at a greater rate than 95% of the time, the odds of him scoring were greater than 95%. None of this is dependent on the leverage of the situation though. So for every run Pagan’s foolishness cost him, his speed made up for and then some in the long run, is essentially what his EqBRR is saying. Jeremy Reed, whose EqBRR was -4.5, was not able to do the same.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 17, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions

Except in baseball, not the stats but the actual game, you can't score 5% of a run.

Runs are runs. They add up. They win games, they lose games. What happens and when isn’t always represented in a percentage.

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Nov 18, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions

Not necessarily

A game is 162 seasons. The point is that the leverage of a particular situation doesn’t matter regarding baserunning. For everyone run Pagan “cost” the team, he gained them more and then some, and its just as likely those runs he gained were in high leverage situations as the ones he “cost”. So using a particular piece of evidence to make a general claim doesn’t work. Situations are repeated many times over the course of the season.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 18, 2009 7:40 PM EST up reply actions

LOL my bad

Got a little dyslexic there, a season is 162 games.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 18, 2009 7:40 PM EST up reply actions

Don't worry

this season sometimes felt like 162 seasons.

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 18, 2009 9:41 PM EST up reply actions

Again, to clarify

Its all a question of sample size. If in one game, Angel Pagan “costs” his team decisive run, you can say he “lost” them the game. But can do the same if he creates the decisive run in a different game, and say he “won” them the game. If the former case indicates he’s a bad baserunner, the latter case just as stronly indicates he’s a good baserunner. So which is it?

Its just like when a hitter gets a hit, he is 1 for 1, or a 1.000 batting average in that at bat. That doesn’t mean he’s going to hit 1.000 in all his other at bats. Just like not getting a hit wouldn’t mean he was going to hit .000 in all his other at bats. The more chances a player is given, the more precisely we can talk about his skill level. One instance, no matter how severe, or how high leverage the situation, tells us very little.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 18, 2009 7:46 PM EST up reply actions

And actually, you can talk about percentages of runs

Lets say, on average, Jose Reyes scores 30% of the time he reaches first base. In a particular game, this might lead to a run, or it might not. But then when you expand the sample size, and count all the times he reached first base, you can derive that the value of each time he reached first base generated his team about 30% of a run. And again, this is leverage independent, so you can just as easily say that Jose Reyes scored 30% of a run each time he reached first base in a situation where one run could alter the outcome of the game. So under this model, for every 100 times Jose Reyes reaches first base with the game on the line, we would expect it to create a run 30 times, or have roughly the value of 30% of a run, and alter the outcome of the game 30% of the time.

Disclaimer: I do not know the average rate that a run scores when Jose reaches first, 30% is just a hypothetical example.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 18, 2009 8:15 PM EST up reply actions

exactly

I think it was fangraphs that had something on base running today, and they had only 11 guys in baseball over +4 runs (not counting SB/CS). So it’s useful to know who those guys are (Chone Figgins was one), but it’s not a large flaw for most players.

by acerimusdux on Nov 17, 2009 8:59 PM EST up reply actions