Tiger337

1 hour ago, tiger2022 said:

Kershaw has 80.9 WAR and Verlander has 81.7 WAR.  Who was a better pitcher?  Verlander is 5 years older than Kershaw.  One just retired and the other is playing another year

 

Kershaw was the more dominant pitcher most years.  Verlander had more career value which is what WAR measures.   If you are more interested in peak value or dominance, then WAA (Wins Above Average) is one way to measure that.  Kershaw finishes ahead of him in that.  Pitchers are even harder to rank than hitters though because their role has changed so much throughout history.  

43 minutes ago, tiger2022 said:

WAR per 162 game average:

Keith Hernandez 4.7

Will Clark 4.6

Mark Teixeira 4.4

Jack Clark 4.3

John Olerud 4.2

Miguel Cabrera 3.9

Don Mattingly 3.8

Guess the one that is a sure fire 1st ballot HOFer and guess which ones have zero chance at making the HOF?

All the guys played at least 15 years.  And Kent has the same WAR per 162 games as Cabrera, 3.9

 

Craig Nettles, 68.0 WAR, 22 years, 4.1 per 162 games

Miguel Cabrera, 67.2 WAR, 21 years. 3.9 per 162 games.

Buddy Bell, 66.3 WAR, 18 years, 4.5 per 162 games.

 

 

WAR per 162 game average is not particulatly interesting and it kind of goes against the point of WAR which is a cumulative stat. 

Cabrera will be first ballot because of how great of a hitter he was at his peak.  I really wish his last 7 years were not trash, because he looked like he was going to be in the Hank Aaron or Frank Robinson class.  

19 minutes ago, tiger2022 said:

I imagine Bonds hit all those home runs for him too.  

The dude still did what he did, no matter how much you don't want it to be true.  

Also, Kent hit 3rd and Bonds hit 4th.  Whitaker had an actual HOFer hitting after him.  That Bonds fellow couldn't even make it in the HOF.

 

Bonds batted third and Kent batted fourth in the years when Kent was getting a lot of RBI.  I just looked it up on b-ref to make sure I was remembering correctly.  I also remember they gave Kent credit for protecting Bonds which was silly. 

Kent did what he did...he was very good, but was overrated because writers love RBI.  He's not the worst Hall of Famer ever, but there are a couple of second basemen who should have been in before him.  One of them is Whitaker.  

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with Trammell batting behind Whitaker.  

6 minutes ago, Stormin said:

" You can get into the HOF if you hit 377 HRs, .862 OPS, 139 OPS+ and are a slow base runner and a poor fielder?  Why didn't the Tigers let me play second base?   -- Signed Norm Cash" 🙂

As you probably remember, Cash also had a rep as a good first baseman.  It's hard to measure firstbase defense, but the stats back up his reputation, at least in the 60s before he aged. 

1 hour ago, tiger2022 said:

Kent was a great choice.  Your argument is based on WAR and WAR alone.  

Kent was arguably the greatest offensive 2nd baseman.  .290 avg, 377 hrs, 1518 rbi, 1320 runs. .855 ops.  I know people hate all these stats now and just go by war, but who cares if Kent wasn't a Gold Glover or amazing base runner.

And just because they hate Whitaker and won't put him in the HOF doesn't mean Kent shouldn't be in there.

I care if he wasn't as great of a fielder or base runner.  Those are parts of the game and they count in determining a player's overall value.  People say that they don't care about fielding and base running and then they complain when the see fielders making bad plays or baserunning mistakes.  I used WAR in this case because Kent and Whitaker were similar types of players playing the same position and about the same number of games and WAR does a good job of showing that Whitaker was a better overall player.    And Kent was not much better as a hitter (123 OPs+ vs 118 OPS+).  Kent's value got pumped up because of his RBI totals.  It's not too hard accumulating a lot of RBI when you bat behind Barry Bonds!

34 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Flaherty averaged 0.67 runs in in the games Tigers won

Olson 1.17

I wouldn't have guessed it was quite that low across the board though, so it was an interesting observation on your part.  

The Tigers scored 4.5 runs in all of Skubal's starts and 6.0 in Mize's starts.  Skubal never gave up more than 4 runs in any of the losses, so he likely would have won more games with more run support.  

ER allowed per game in Mize's losses 3.2. 2.0 in Skubal's losses.  

 

Olson got 4.5 runs of support per game.  He also allowed just 2.4 ER per game in his losses.  So, he seems to have been unlucky compared to Mize.  

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Share those tips with he and I.

Them guys aint sharing nothing with you.  

1 hour ago, Shelton said:

I’m a big fan of this Stormin guy. 

I'm a fan too.  He might even be better than you.    

44 minutes ago, Stormin said:

In the 18 games the Tigers won when Mize pitched, Mize averaged 1.77 earned runs per game.  In the 21 games the Tigers won when Skubal pitched, Skubal averaged 1.33 earned runs per game.

Flaherty averaged 0.67 runs in in the games Tigers won

Olson 1.17

I wouldn't have guessed it was quite that low across the board though, so it was an interesting observation on your part.  

The Tigers scored 4.5 runs in all of Skubal's starts and 6.0 in Mize's starts.  Skubal never gave up more than 4 runs in any of the losses, so he likely would have won more games with more run support.  

ER allowed per game in Mize's losses 3.2. 2.0 in Skubal's losses.  

38 minutes ago, Stormin said:

The media likes to point point out that the Tigers were 21-10 in games that Skubal pitched and a .500 team without Skubal. The Tigers were 18-10 in games that Mize pitched.

Mize got trememdous run support in his games last year which contributed to his deceptive W/L.  He was OK though.  If he pitches the same this year, I'll be reasonably happy.  

1 hour ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Andruw Jones is in the Hall and Lou Whitaker is not.   Come on, man

Kent was a worse choice than Jones.  Jones was questionnable and I wouldn't put him in, but he is perhaps the best defensive outfielder ever - better defensive numbers than Mays.  So, at least he's got that.  Kent played the same position as Whitaker and was 20 wins behind him in WAR.  

41 minutes ago, buddha said:

war has always overly benefitted starting pitchers who accumulate innings.

the fact that park effects can change year to year without any physical change to the park itself or change to the general weather patterns tells me that players who play in the park have as much or more influence on the "park effect" that season than the modelers would have you believe.

Park effects are not annual.  They are averaged over 3-5 years.

As for the innings. are you talking annual or career?  Given how difficult it is for pitchers to pitch deep into games now, I believe innings have become more valuable now and should be rewarded more than ever for single seasons.  For historic WAR, the value of the cumulative effect of WAR is questionable.  It depends on whether you favor peak value or career value.  If you like peak value more, then you can use WAA (Wins above average).  In this case, a pitcher can not accumulate value unless he is better than average.  

I do agree WAR should not be gospel and that it is overused

1 hour ago, buddha said:

war has gone from being a really interesting statistical way to analyze player value to overrated gospel.  

it places too much emphasis on things like park effects, fielding, and base running, and not enough emphasis on hitting.  

just my .02.

like most stats, i like it when it supports my argument and dislike it when it doesnt.

That's because you're an offensive snob.  

1 hour ago, tiger2022 said:

WAR calculations don't make any sense to me.  In 2014, Scherzer and Sale both had a 6 5 WAR even though Scherzer was superior to Sale in every single statistic.  And Iwakuma had a 7.0 WAR even though he was worse than Scherzer in everything but slightly better in ERA.  

And I'm sure you can find hundreds of other examples that don't seem rational 

Both Iwakuma and Sale had better ERA+ and K/BB than Scherzer.  Scherzer was surely penalized for playing in a pitcher friendly park.  

3 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:

lol, sorry.  I was teasing and should have been more clear about that.

It's OK.  You are new, so I didn't recognize the sarcasm.  

I don't get why the recent signings change whether or not they should trade Skubal.  He was very unlikely to sign with them prior to free agency regardless and not very likely to sign with them when he's a free agent.  I still hope they keep him for this year.  The only exception would be if they got some kind of ridiculous offer which I don't think is going to happen. 

1 hour ago, IdahoBert said:

Someone smart, not me, should start a spring training thread.

On my ESPN app it just alerted me that the Tigers are playing the Yankees at Steinbrenner Field, February 21. That’s just 34 days away. 

Pitchers and catchers report on February 11.  24 days.  

17 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Perhaps another reason they don’t publicize their work on WAR is that with at least three different versions of it out there, each proprietor might have a proprietary interest in keeping their versions secret from the other two?

I don't believe so.  They have been pretty open about most of it and they seem to honestly answer questions when asked about it.  

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The thing about WAR I don’t particularly like is how under the hood the calculation is. I have always wanted to know it so I could tinker with myself. Maybe they hide it by design to prevent that. Who knows. I do trust it to be accurate at least within reason.

I am not entirely sure what's under the hood myself, because they update it without publicly documenting it all the time.  I think it is has gotten so messy that few people would really understand it anyway.  That mioght be why they don't publicize it much.  It is very hard to find official documentation on positional adjustments but I know it's based on an analysis of players who played multiple positions (I think in the same year or adjacent years).  I don't know the details.  Tango did it and it was peer reviewed, so the method is most likely sound.  I can see problems with such an analysis, but there is probably no good way to do it if you are trying compare players historically.    

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

right - and also the ratios involved are so huge. If you are working for Amalgamated Widget, and the guy in the next cubicle doing a similar job gets a bigger raise then you do, it's not likely to be to 30x what you are making like it is between a future HOF player in his rookie yr versus a washed up unproductive player that got lucky like Cobb.

True, but the difference in the amount of money you and your co-worker gets would probably have a bigger impact on the lives of average people than the difference in the amounts that Cobb and Skubal get.  

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

any player in the MLB who is worried about himself or other guys being paid what they are actually worth in the years they are worth it is going to be having a very hard time emotionally. I'm sure any pro baseball player who hasn't already lost his mind over it has made his peace with the fact that what guys are being paid at any given time in MLB has almost nothing to do with how much they are contributing to the team or whether those players are more or less 'value' to the club than they are.

It's not different from other jobs in that respect.  It's just that there is a lot more money involved and the results are public.  

30 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I get how it can be difficult to understand just how much positional adjustments should matter because we can't see under the hood how they are done. I generally trust the hundreds of baseball minds who have been (and presumably continue to be) working on establishing and honing the valuation, but I do grant that it's possible there's a huge blind spot afflicting the entire informed-outsider analytical community about it. Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't let that possibility lead me to reject outright the current calculations, though.

I do understand that WAR has not been communicated well and I think it may be more complex than it needs to be if it's going to be presented to a wide audience.  Perhaps, they could have one WAR for people doing research and one simpler WAR for average fans.  Joe Posnanski has been suggesting something like that for years.  It might piss off some sabers to see other fans using an inferior stat, but I could live with that.  It would be like using OPS rather than wOBA.  

I don't think it's difficult to understand why a shortstop contributes more to his team than a first baseman just by being a shortstop though.  And I know you understand that.  Maybe, it could just be presented better.     

38 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

WAR is sort of cruel to 1Bs. He was over 2 OWar in '23 and '25 but got pulled down by DWar numbers, which we've talked about a lot for 1Bs. It's just a place where in my view the stat is detached from reality. Torkelson's play at 1B is does not cost the Tigers wins or negate his offense. He is simply not a bad 1B and whatever his dWAR thinks it  is capturing, I don't care about it (e.g I'm not asking him to play SS!)  and I'm willing to bet the analysis the Tigers use internally doesn't either.

I'm not sure how you want to fix that.  Do you want to get rid of positional adjustments and ignore position in evalualting a player or do you think that the positional adjustment for first basemen in particular is too harsh?  I can't really justify the former, but the latter is possible.  

9 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:

Le Grand Red was a Wizard at 1B.

He was strictly a DH with the Tigers.  He played a little 1B after he left the Tigers.  He didn't play enough there for me to have an opinion on how good he was, but his career didn't last as long as it did for his defensive skills.  Early in his career, he was a decent right fielder.  

51 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

If you 'incentivize' longer starts, you'll just destroy more arms. It's not the players, it's the game.

Maybe, but it seems like there are just as many (if not more) injuries now than there was in the past.