Tiger337

26 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I’m not trying to be unfair, and I am not trying to be illogical about it. I’m trying to make sense of the mathematical part of the equation and what it represents.

Honest question—why do you think the first base position has defensive runs subtracted as a baseline in the first place?

Because playing shortstop contributes more value to winning games than playing first base.  Similarly playing first base contributes a little more value to winning games than being a dh.  What if they all started out at zero (as Echoes suggested) and you added 25 points for being a shortstop and 5 points for being a frst baseman .  The designated hitter stays at zero.  The next step is to add or subtract points for being a good or bad fielder at your position.  Again the designated hitter can not gain or lose any points here.   Does this make more sense?  You would end up with the same result.  

13 hours ago, chasfh said:

Oh, that’s right, now I remember—we were talking about this and I didn’t help close the loop on it.

Of course I get that WAR is, at its core, a business metric: if we lose our current major leaguer to injury or gambling or whatever, how many wins would we lose on a season-adjusted basis if we have to replace him with a freely-available replacement player? That is what the acronym stands for, after all: Wins Above Replacement. (Remember when Prospectus call their similar statistic “WARP”? I wonder what the P stood for … ?)

I thought I saw this in this here thread, although maybe not, but I do remember seeing somewhere that inherently, the first base position is worth something like -12 runs (or -1.2 wins) defensively, and shortstop is worth +9 defensive runs (or +0.9 wins), versus the average player regardless of position. The numbers I’m using are probably not right, but that’s the principle, anyway. So, to fill the position to some minimally acceptable standard such that an organization can field at least a replacement-level team, they would be willing to accept up to, but not exceeding, two wins less at the plate (i.e., 1.2 plus -0.9 = 2.1) from a shortstop than a first baseman to even them out. OK, makes sense.

However, we fans also have evolved (or devolved, take your pick) to using WAR as a rule-of-thumb overall benchmark stat to estimate the value of a player on the field, and not as much economically. As such, we see WAR as roughly summing up a player’s oWAR and dWAR, so if he has 5.0 oWAR and -2.0 dWAR, his overall WAR is about 3.0. OK.

And I can accept the idea that on average, the league’s first basemen combine to lose, on average, -1.2 games in defense for their respective teams, whereas the leagues shortstops combine to win, on average, +0.9 on defense for their teams, all when compared to a league’s average player regardless of position. I can wrap my head around this.

The disconnect for me is how the league’s DHs could be considered to lose, on average, -1.7 games on defense for their teams, since that’s what their dWAR suggests. Again, I get that WAR is an economic metric for front offices to evaluate the acquisition or deployment of a player to DH versus the average positionless player. But if first basemen and shortstops can be reduced to an average defensive value for economic purposes based on how many games the average one of them wins or loses for their average teams on the field, how can DHs be evaluated defensively in such a way when their contribution to a team’s actual defense on the field is N/A?

Maybe the answer is that we need a different bottomline metric to evaluate a player’s on-field performance, as opposed his economic value, such that DHs’ defensive value is properly regarded as zero, so DHs spend zero time on defense. Maybe that’s what it comes down to?

So, do you think the DH should get no points subtracted for his fielding, but it's OK for the first baseman to lose 1.2 points just for being a first baseman?  How is that fair?  Or is it just the presentation that bothers you?  The points that a first baseman loses does not represent defensive runs lost by the first baseman.  The first baseman gets positional points subtracted for the same reason a DH gets points subtracted.  It's just a way to separate the contribution of a shortstop from a player who plays a less challenging positon.  I don't really care about the business side of the game.  I use WAR as a back of the napkin way to compare players total contribution to his team.  I don't know if they did the positional adjustments exactly right, but if I am comparing two players and one is a shortstop and one is a DH, I need to to give the shortstop credit for playing a position which the DH can't play.  The presentation could be better, but I don't think there is a logic error.  

1 hour ago, buddha said:

remember the year the tigers and white sox were battling down the stretch and ozzie came to detroit and took cabrera and the other venezuelan guys out drinking the night before?  cabrera played like ass and the tigers lost.

Then there was that time Cabrera got drunk in a bar in Florida, got thrown out and later got stopped for drunk driving.  Then they had to let it go, because the cops bragged about how they nailed a famous athlete.  

35 minutes ago, casimir said:

I’m sure I’m guilty of it.  I try to be honest about free agents that I think he would go after, but I’m sure some of my personal bias gets in the way a bit.

Maybe they do it elsewhere, but I don't really see anybody here doing what Edman said.  It is mostly posters talking about who they hope he signs or others talking sardonically about how he'll only sign injured pitchers and waiver wire guys.  

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

His 110 PA in Comerica might be telling him a lot. And I don’t know anyone who can hit home runs who would want to go someplace that suppresses his home runs for the rest of his career. But hey, stranger things have happened, I guess.

If he is making decisions based on small samples, then I don't want him!

57 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Or he’s just plain unfixable.

He always walked too many batters.  

32 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

There is a fascinating thing people here do, and that is projecting their opinion on Scott Harris. e.g. "I think Harris would like (player I like)."

It is kinda funny once you see it once, like the beat guys loving on former Tigers.

What I see more often is people explaining why Harris or Ilitch won't like any player and how no player will want to play for the Tigers so it doen't matter anyway.   

2 hours ago, papalawrence said:

The Big Red Machine came darn close

They are still the best position player team I have ever seen that stayed together for several years.  They could hit, hit for power, field, run and they had personality! Their pitching was not the best, but good enough to win with that team.  

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

I don’t think Bregman would want to have to hit in Comerica Park 81 games a year for the rest of his life. His career slash line here is .242/.309/.475, which runs 17% below his career average. If he has designs to get into the Hall of Fame—and I don’t see why he wouldn’t—he’ll probably want better back nine stats than that.

Comerica Park would suppress his home runs a bit (which isn't his strength anyway).  I don't see why it would hurt his ability to get hits, draw walks, avoid strikeouts which are his strengths.  He might lose some doubles, but make up for it in triples.  His 110 PA in Comerica don't tell me a lot.  

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

McGonigle may not be a perfect-fielding SS...

But is he any worse than Bichette?

So...

If the team actually believes McGonigle is ready for MLB... then Bregman is the better fit. And, we still have Baez and McKinstry so, IMO, SS really is covered.

I just looked up Bichette's fielding numbers.  They are worse than I thought.  They say McGonigle might not stay at shortstop, but Bichette may not either.    

Bregman has always been the perfect fit for the Tigers, exactly what Harris says he wants.  The question, of course, is his age.  I suspect his bat will last longer than most because he is all about plate discipline, but his fielding make be gone soon and then if his offense does NOT last, they would get screwed by a 5-year deal.   

3 minutes ago, buddha said:

it's almost like you wrote a book about this once...

And you helped me write up the defensive measures!

There were posters freaking out in this forum because the Tigers let their "two best players" go after 2003 - Randall Simon and Juan Acevedo.  

23 minutes ago, papalawrence said:

Are players able to sign yet? I forget what the window is post WS conclusion. I still want the Tigers to go for him. A couple upgrades and Detroit has a shot in 2026

yes they can sign now.  

1 hour ago, AlaskanTigersFan said:

Just curious on ya'll's thoughts.......

Nick Kurtz - Unanimous rookie of the year. Why do they love platoon players? Sure he hit out of this world versus Righties (albeit with a .364 BABIP). But look at his left split. .197/.261/.423..... Do you think its ok for MLB to overlook such drastics? 

How many platoon players do you think it's ok to have on a MLB roster?  Kurtz for example, if the opposing team brings in a lefty reliever with the game on the line, do you leave him in? Just curious what you guys think.

Assuming a team has 13 position players on their roster, they could have 5 who play every day plus 8 platoon players.  

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think you answered it  here: 

 

I understand the number have to do what the numbers have to do in the model, but I think the terminology used creates some odd implications - i.e.that all 1Bs are bad fielders *at-their-position*. 

To your answer about 1b vs SS OPS, does it seem to you that there is a general compression taking place across the league?  Or maybe it's a covergence? SSs are certainly getting bigger, so their power potential is up, and maybe pitching is so hard to hit that the big guys who used to play 1B/3B  have lost some of the power advantage they used to have because hitting has to be done at so much higher reaction speed where brute strength is less determinative? 

I think that bigger stronger players are staying at shortstop rather than moving to other positions. It could be that modern strength and agility training allows them to do that.  There are also more players playing multiple positions which makes statistical analysis more challenging.  

10 minutes ago, Shinzaki said:

So OPS+ is a better stat to measure a DH since it doesn't nick them for not doing something they can't do positionally..

OPS+ is kind of a subset of WAR (except WAR uses wOBA, wRC+ instead). 

As to which one is better to use, it depends on the question.  If you are only interested in offensive contribution, then I would not look at WAR.  I would just look at OPS+ or wRC+.  If you are interested in comparing the overall value of players at different positions, then WAR is better, because players who contribute more than just hitting need to get credit for that.   

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Are you asking me that because you think I think that?

No, I am asking that because I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  You and Gehringer are both very smart and I am pretty sure you understand that playing a challenging position has value.   I understood Echoes point and thought that perhaps that is what you were saying too, but apparently not.  

12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

you circle back the SS that hits like a 1b, but most SS don't hit like 1Bs. Those guys are the outliers, so sure they are most valuable, but the positional adjustment applies between 1b's and SS that hit like SS's too. So I grant you that, but most shortstops don't hit like a 1st baseman so a 950 OPS 1B with an average glove still gets paid as much or more than a league average O/D SS.

I don't think it's relevant either way, but I think shortstops are closer to first basemen offensively than you think.  

Average OPS for SS .711 (98 OPS+)

Average OPS for 1B .744 (107 OPS+)

So, there seems like there would be a lot of overlap and for that group which overlaps or comes close to overlapping, shortstops are a lot more valuable because of the position they play.  

Of course a 1b who hits .950 gets paid more than a SS who hits .711, but his WAR would be better too, so I don't understand your point.  

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

OK - I;m going to argue the terminology here just to ornery 😜

I don't think your comparison is fair. A slick fielding big hitting SS is a relative outlier. So I thought we were just talking the defensive side here anyway. Let's talk about an average SS and an average 1B because that where your positional adjustment hits the baseline. By definition, half the shortstops out there field better than your guy,  just like half the 1Bs out there field better than your guy, From that view the ease of replacing either isn't that different. I think the basic weakness is the attempt to normalize across positions. I understand the motivation, but it's just another example of why some of this gets mis or over applied. I think in the real world you have to value a 1b by how much he is an outlier among 1Bs. irrespective of the fact that all SSs are better fielders, because that is the actual marginal value he brings to the team wrt to an average 1B (or replace 'average' with 'replacement', it only a matter of where on the same scale). Or another way to put is just that shortstops don't play 1st, and even if they did, you don't get enough chances at 1st to produce the same fielding value even you if are literally a SS playing 1st, So fielding comparisons across the position measures something which is more abstract than real.

In the real world, players are drafted and start in the lower minors as shortstops or catchers or the the most challenging position they can handle.  Then they get moved to less challenging positions as they move up the ladder.  I don't think there is any doubt that a lot more MLB players could play first base competently than play shortstop competently.  If a shortstop and first baseman have the same offensive statistics and are both average fielders at their positions, the shortstop is going to make more money in free agency and will bring back more in a trade.  He has more value than the first baseman and that's why he gets the higher WAR.  

I still say MLB is largely at fault for partnering with gambling organizations.  Sure, the pitchers broke the rules and should be banned from the game and punished for whatever cimes they committed.  But MLB is sending a very bad message with their hypocrisy.  This kind of thing was inevitable.   

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

That wasn't the answer last year.

It was though, in part.  If he had taken the Tigers offer last year (which reportedly had two team option years), he would not have had the opportunity to be a free agent again this yrear.  

3 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I'm with Chas on this one.

-1.7 WAR for a DH reads as stupid.

Here's an easy fix:

Instead of assigning negatives for positions (1B -12???, DH -1.7???), add bonus points for more important positions.

DH starts at 0, finishes at 0.

1B starts at 0, actual results give actual numbers (speaking only to defensive WAR that is...).

Catcher, SS, and CF get +6, +12, +8 for positional value?

Just my 2 cents.

 

 

 

That would be fine.  In terms of ranking players which is what I use it for, you would end up with the same result if you added instead of subtracted.  

The key is you have to have a way of rewarding players for playing more difficult positilons.   The subtracting of -17 for a DH is not a logical flaw.  It could be argued that it's a presentation flaw though.  

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

Yeah - I get that, but since everyone *has* to play a 1B it seem to fly in the face of logic to automatically make a negative adjustment for the *average* quality player at that position across the board. OK - so as a formalism I can accept that you construct a model where that is a requirement for the numbers to come out, but to me that kind of oddity smacks of a deficiency of the model construction. An *average* fielding 1b isn't really costing you 12 runs in any real sense. By real world definitions the average 1b isn't adding or subtracting anything on the field.

I can see there is sort of a built in paradox here that there is probably no easy way around. Of course a SS is worth more defensively than a 1B, but OTOH, you can't actually play 9 SS. So you have to pick a baseline and either way you pick is going create an anomaly.

WAR is not about many runs a player cost his team.  It's about how easy it is to replace a player.  If a slick fielding shortstop and a DH with the same offensive statistics both get injured, which one is easier to is easier to replace?

If you want to know how many defensive runs a player cost his team based on a stat, you would use something like DRS. You would not use WAR for that. 

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Wanna talk about deficiency in model construction? How about when a guy who is nothing but a DH, as Shohei Ohtani was in 2024, has a defensive WAR of -1.7, as he did last year? That suggests he lost almost two games for his team with his glove, even though he never touched a glove the entire season.

Now that one, I may never understand.

It doesn't suggest he lost two games with his glove.  It's all about valuation.  It means that he has a lot less defensive value (when he's not pitching) than someone that actually plays a position.  Do you think that a shortstop and DH with the same exact offensive statistics have the same value to a team?   

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Curious: what makes you believe Bregman would seriously consider coming here?

By most accounts, including his own, he was interested last year.