Tiger337

I like Trei Cruz's .411 OBP! His offensive grades are not good, but is supposed to be an asset defensively. Might be be a good bench player.

Petzold says: Cruz, Valencia, Miller have been added.

Among my online friends, pretty much all of them meet this definition. In real life, most of them still use pitcher wins to evaluate pitchers. This is why I am online so much!

But I think the correlation between production and actual runs is higher than the correlation between production and wins.

I would assume that a two-win player contributed to a lot more than two wins. The Tigers theoretically won two more games because Baez was on the team rather than Kreidler, but surely Baez contributed to a lot more wins than two. I am not sure everyone gets the distinction or even thinks about it, but I have heard people claim things like the Tigers would have lost 100 games if Skubal was not on the team.

How can I hide this forum. I had it hidden for a few months, but now it's back again. Somebody sent me a message (on twitter) showing me how to do it, but I no longer have access to that message. Politics just gets me pissed off now and my life is better when I get away from it.

Harris needs to shake it up!

With the uncertainty around fielding statistics, I would be afraid to see the CI's!

For the casual fan, I agree wins sounds good, but then I can imagine someone asking: "which games did he win"? Another thing I like about runs is a wider range of integers. With wins, you have 1, 2, 3, ... wins and there is a big difference between each integer and most of the players are either 0, 1 or 2. Somebody could have 1.5 wins or 2.6 wins, but that doesn't make practical sense. With runs, you have more integers, so you can make a leaders list without decimals. It's not really a big deal, just a preference I have.

I actually would like to see RAR rather than WAR regardless of how the stat is constructed. I think of Wins as more of team stat. Players don't win games by themselves. They win partial games by producing and preventing runs. And it's pretty easy to translate into wins if someone favors that. It's basically just dividing by 10 (as you suggested in your post).

I agree, but the difference is still noticeable. It might be because I can follow fielders better in person which is the case when I go to a minor league game. It's hard for me to judge hitters in person.

I think we may underestimate the difference between fielding in the majors and minors. When I see minor league games, I notice the difference in fielding between majors and minors as as much as I notice the hitting and pitching differences. It's a whole different game in the majors.

Average DRS is considered replacement level. The reasoning is that a terrible hitter who can field his position at an average level is not hard to find. If your starting player goes down with an injury, you can usually find a find a weak hitter who can field reasonably well.

I don't have time either, but nerd time is a priority!

So, who wants to talk about Park Factors today?😃

I would have been happy to just keeping fielding separate from hitting and not trying boil everything down to one number. If you do want to arrive at one number for a player's value though, I do think you need to consider the position they play. If a DH goes into the Hall of Fame or wins an MVP, he should have to hit better than his peer who plays a position.

He was He was a good defender early in his career. Then he started having hamstring problems and became a fuill-time DH.

I hope that Torres accepts the offer. There may be a couple of more interesting options in free agency, but it sounds like the Tigers will be pursuing pitching more than hitting and I wouldn't want them to lose Torres and not replace him.

It starts getting interesting on Tuesday: November 18 is the deadline for players to accept or decline qualifying offers and the deadline for teams to set their 40-man rosters to protect players from the Rule 5 Draft. Speaking of the Rule 5 draft, has anyone seen Liston lately? I don't think he has posted since the summer?

That is what DRS and OAA do. A DH gets a zero for those stats. The DH does not hurt you on the field with his defense. yes, a CF provides more value defensively than a 1B and a 1B provides more defensive value than a DH. At least, that is how I see it. Let's say you take positional adjustment out if altogether and make WAR = OWAR + DRS. That would be a stat which is totally based on what they do on the field. Then we can argue about about which player is better, the SS with 2 WAR or the DH 2.5 WAR. There is nothing wrong with that. Arguing is fun. But if we want just one number to answer our argument, we need to figure out how to compare players from different positions. How should we do that?

I thought so too.

You are definitely not stupid! I think you are very concerned with how things are presented because you are good at that. You won a SABR award for that. Right? Anyway, I think you have said you are/were a center fielder in your baseball leaugue. You provide more defensive value to your team than a DH. Shouldn't you get credit for that? Maybe make the DH 0 points and add points for being able to play a position. It would still come out to be the same WAR. Does that work for you?

I think you understsand this, but the "suggestion" is just how you are reading it, not what is actually happening with the stat. You are the one that keeps bringing it up! 😃 I agree that the presentation could be better.

I still don't understand your problem with positional adjutment beyond presentation, but let's talk about WAA. WAA does include all the same defensive calculations as WAR. There are pros and cons of using WAA that go beyond presentation. The main difference between WAA and WAR is playing time. An average player can keep accumulating WAR as long as he performs above replacement. On the other hand, this player will always be 0 WAA whether he has 100 PA or 10000 PA. This might be appealing in HoF or MVP discussions, but maybe less so in roster construction discussions or comparisons between players who are not great players. For Hall of Fame discussions, players with high but short peaks will rank better in WAA, whereas players with longer duration but lower peaks will rank better with WAR. I think it's worth looking at both. For other discussions, the problem with WAA is that an average player who is actually a pretty valuable player will always be 0 wins no matter how much he plays. A player who has a great 50 PA before going down with a season ending injury will have a higher WAA than an average player with 600 PA. With WAR, the full-season, player will be about 2 whereas the 50 PA player will be between 0 and 1 which I think is more appropriate. That's one extreme example, but illustrations the potential problem with WAA in player evaluation.

It could be both!