WAR for position player spreadsheets
I posted a link to these in the Sabermetrics 101 thread, and upon doing so I realized that they weren't really all that well suited to being viewed and edited by more than one person at a time. Since some people seemed to be interested, I decided to redo them and make them a bit more user-friendly.
If you're not familiar with what goes into calculating WAR, read this post by Tangotiger before you proceed. Also, you might want to take note of the fact that the positional adjustments have been updated. The new adjustments are:
- +1.25 C
- +0.75 SS
- +0.25 2B/3B/CF
- -0.75 LF/RF
- -1.25 1B
- -1.75 DH
Playing time should be entered as percentage expressed as a decimal. Tango's post contains a section on figuring playing time; looking at PAs is generally the best way to go. Market value is calculated based on WAR*$4.75mm, which is the current going rate on the open market. (Note: this is the thing I am least sure about, so if I am incorrect, please feel free to let me know.) As far as defense goes, use your method of choice.
The columns that contain the calculations are hidden; if you'd like to take a look at the raw numbers feel free to unhide them, but I'd like to ask that you rehide them when you're finished. In addition, If you're not familiar with spreadsheets, it might be best to just stick with the basic numbers in the unhidden fields.
Please feel free to use this as much as you'd like, with the following requests; if you see data in a row, use a different row. When you've finished your calculations, please delete the data in uncolored fields that you used; the WAR and Market Value fields will zero out automatically.
If you plan to use this spreadsheet often and you'd like your own copy, there are two ways to go about it; it can be exported into Excel by choosing File-->Export-->.xls, or you can create a copy by choosing File-->Create a Copy. To export the spreadsheet into Excel properly, the hidden columns must be unhidden when exporting. To create a copy, you must have a Google Docs account of your own. Feel free to pass this on to others as well, but send them a link to this post rather than a direct link to the spreadsheets themselves.
Manually changing the data in any colored field (including the WAR and Market Value fields) will screw the pooch, so please try and be careful.If you think the numbers are off, please send me an e-mail and I'll look into it. Accidents happen of course, and so if something does go wrong, I'd like to ask that you drop me a line to let me know. If you need to e-mail me for any reason, my address is on my SBN profile page.
12 recs |
270 comments
Comments
Also, I'd love to do these for pitchers, but my copy of the Book is in a box somewhere either in my basement or at my new place.
Moving blows. So, if anyone wants to hook me up with the formulas that would be cool, otherwise it will have to wait until I’m unpacked.
by acblue on Dec 15, 2008 10:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Should be working now.
The important thing is to make sure wOBA* is expressed as a decimal, using the correct positional adjustment and figuring playing time correctly.
by acblue on Dec 15, 2008 10:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I opened the hidden cells to check the formulas.
There were a couple that were wrong. Everything should work now.
by acblue on Dec 15, 2008 10:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's still saying that Pujols is sub-replacement level.
by JI on Dec 15, 2008 10:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But when I use the old -1 for the positional adjustment, I puts him at about 8.5
by JI on Dec 15, 2008 10:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I copied the positional adjustments from somewhere, so maybe they were wrong.
Perhaps it’s 2.5? I’ll look and see if I can find the post on Tangotiger’s blog.
by acblue on Dec 15, 2008 10:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For 2003 A-Rod...
When I put in the 7.5 adjustment, it spits out a godly 13.84 WAR. When I put in 0.5 (the old one), we get a more reasonable 7.54 WAR.
Every day I hear about Seattle sports' failures. Every night I fall asleep to the sound of my own tears.
by Benne on Dec 15, 2008 10:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah those seemed way off.
Those have to be runs. Duh.
by acblue on Dec 15, 2008 10:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bonds 2004:
12.99
Bonds 2002:
13.42
Could someone smarter than me confirm/refute these things please?
by JI on Dec 15, 2008 11:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I am inputting the defense incorrectly.
by JI on Dec 15, 2008 11:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is UZR runs above average, or plays?
Same questions with the other metrics.
by acblue on Dec 15, 2008 11:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe it's runs.
Pretty sure +/- is plays above average.
Every day I hear about Seattle sports' failures. Every night I fall asleep to the sound of my own tears.
by Benne on Dec 15, 2008 11:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His UZR/150 is 4.0
Also, my 2004 wOBA is from fangraphs, and my 2002 wOBA is property of JI Labs and does use RBOE because fuck if I have that info.
by JI on Dec 15, 2008 11:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
UZR/150 is good enough.
Even a 10 run swing only takes off one win.
by acblue on Dec 15, 2008 11:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Funny, I've been doing the same player
It must be the playing time that’s off somehow.
Every day I hear about Seattle sports' failures. Every night I fall asleep to the sound of my own tears.
by Benne on Dec 15, 2008 10:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Reload for the correct positional adjustments.
The ones I posted were runs above average, not wins. Der.
by acblue on Dec 15, 2008 11:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Apparently 2002 Barry Bonds is worth about $60 million...a year.
Every day I hear about Seattle sports' failures. Every night I fall asleep to the sound of my own tears.
by Benne on Dec 15, 2008 11:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Worth it
I call bullshit on +12 in LF though, that means he could have maned center.
by JI on Dec 15, 2008 11:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh, that's what UZR is telling me.
I wonder what the other metrics say.
Every day I hear about Seattle sports' failures. Every night I fall asleep to the sound of my own tears.
by Benne on Dec 15, 2008 11:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I knocked it down to zero (league-average, which is probably still being too generous), and his WAR took a minimal dip.
He was really that good with the bat alone.
Every day I hear about Seattle sports' failures. Every night I fall asleep to the sound of my own tears.
by Benne on Dec 15, 2008 11:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is it possible to download this bad boy?
I already have a crude wOBA spreadsheet made up.
by JI on Dec 15, 2008 11:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
File--->export--->as .xls.
Fuck, I should put that in the post.
by acblue on Dec 15, 2008 11:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We're supposed to use park adjusted wOBA, right?
by JI on Dec 15, 2008 11:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Here we go
2008 Pujols: 8.55
2004 Bonds: 13.62
2002 Bonds: 13.42 (not adjusted for park, does not include RBOE, almost surely higher)
by JI on Dec 15, 2008 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Insane.
I’m starting to gain a newfound appreciation for just how much Bonds carried his team.
Every day I hear about Seattle sports' failures. Every night I fall asleep to the sound of my own tears.
by Benne on Dec 15, 2008 11:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And I know that doesn't have shit to do with shit but holy shit.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 1:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And what's even crazier is that when you adjust for league average OBP 1920 Babe Ruth was worth 12.35 WAR
which is almost a win and a half less that 2004 Bonds.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 2:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay I have Bonds at 13.22 WAR but still, that fucking ridiculous..
Swap, say, Jason Ellison for Barry Bonds and the 91 win Giants become the 78 win Giants.
Or, to put it another way, replace 2005 Jeremy Reed with 2004 Bonds, move Ichiro to CF and Bonds to the corner, and the 69 win 2005 Mariners become the 82 win 2005 Seattle Mariners. Theoretically of course, but still. Holy shit.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 2:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But nobody could hit the ball in the 20s!
//ignorant Ruth honks
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What's funny is that the leaguse average OBP was 6 points higher in 1920 than 2008.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 11:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Some parks were tiny then.
League Park in Cleveland, for instance.
The 1920’s were a lively ball era similar to the 1990’s- less power, but more average/less strikeouts. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker superficially don’t look like they are aging, but that’s because the 1910’s had a ton less scoring (still in the dead ball era).
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to slag on Ruth
There’s something very alluring about him being “the best player ever.” I still don’t 100% believe he was a real person, everything about the guy is something that seems like it should have been made up by a screenwriter.
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nor I. He was still bugfuck insane good.
I just think it’s funny that some people refuse to listen to any argument against him being the best player ever because of some misguided belief that there was zero offense in his era.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
There’s also the argument that he was an outstanding pitcher AND hitter. Though his pitching was in a pitcher’s era, it was still pretty elite.
Some of the burst of offense in the 1920’s was Babe Ruth showing people “hey, if you uppercut the ball, you can hit it a long way”, but I mean, come on, Rogers Hornsby was doing some pretty amazing things on offense around the same time as Ruth, and guys like Gehrig and Ruth showed up pretty quickly too.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I really have no problem with the idea that Ruth was the best player ever.
Probably the most transformative, too. It’s pretty clear he changed the game in a lot of ways. It’s just that I dislike the argument that he was the only player of his era that had offensive value.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 12:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
'The best player ever' should always be a modern-era player
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Define "modern".
I don’t necessarily disagree, but some people would consider the 1920’s “modern”, as at that point you’re not playing with scuffed-up softballs, teams aren’t stealing 200-300 bases a year while reflexively doing a hit-and-run or sac bunt with a man on first and nobody out, and the rules are pretty much the way they are now.
I don’t think you can consider anything before about 1920 “modern”, for sure, but that’s when you can start arguing the point and not look silly.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For the purposes of this discussion
I would assume that modern is being defined as today.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Might not be valid.
One argument might be that the athletic talent base in baseball is less than it was in, say, the 1950’s or 1960’s, when the NFL and NBA weren’t as prominent options for stardom. I would point out that Jackie Robinson and Mickey Mantle were multi-sport stars who picked baseball because it was the premiere sport at the time. If they were around now, they might not make the same choices.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Knowing the context for the graph would be nice.
Link?
Otherwise, maybe I should plug in some pirates and global warming on some of the axes.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 12:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That argument doesn't hold up against evidence.
Baseball today draws from an insane talent pool compared to even 10 years ago and the training regiments are beyond comprehension as well.
by Matthew on Dec 16, 2008 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course.
But in terms of how much better a player is than his peers, I think Ruth is a compelling argument, and I think that most people having the discussion are viewing it in those terms.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but that's silly
Being much better than your peers is an indication that your competition sucks.
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well sure.
But it can be a fun discussion to have.
I was going to use a physics analogy to help illustrate my point but then I remembered who I was talking to.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 12:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but really how much better could anyone have been at the time?
I don’t necessarily disagree because for all we know Adam Dunn is a better player than Babe Ruth removed from context, but I still think that deserves some weight.
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's kind of what I was driving at.
And I’m fairly certain that if you put Adam Dunn in a time machine with his current skills and sent him back to 1920 he’d outhit Babe Ruth, but that’s largely because he has the benefit of 80 years of knowledge and innovation to draw from.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And point in fact...
Babe Ruth invented modern offseason training in baseball, getting trained down in Florida after his bas seasons in the early ’20’s (since he was drawing a salary that allowed him to not work a second job in the offseason).
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 12:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So? Adrian Beltre's still a better player.
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but Beltre back in 1920 wouldn't be as good as Beltre today
because of technology, training programs, etc he would have never had access too., I think it’s a bit short sighted to leave it at that.
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not particularly bothered by that
All I care about is how good a certain player is at baseball, not about the advantages/disadvantages they may have had.
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But how else can you compare across eras?
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You can figure out how much value each player had to their team easily
You compare across eras by saying that players from the past were worse
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well that's just lazy
That’s like taking two players from the same season: one player who played at Coors, and another who played at RFK, and the doing the Jim Bowden thing of not adjusting their numbers for their environment.
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I do adjust for the environment
The past is like Coors field
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's like saying I'm smarter than Galileo
Because I know there’s 8 planets, and he could only find 6.
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's saying you know more about astronomy
Which is true.
And there’s way more than 8 planets.
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And it also means you're not adjust for era
Which is true
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's much easier to discover the Galilaen moons when they haven't been discovered yet
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Which would be true if Gallielo was from the future
but he wasn’t
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right. So the best astronomers of today are disadvantaged because they are from today.
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No
The core of your argument is that Beltre is better because he has technology from the future and I am saying it’s dumb to not adjust for that,
That’s like saying India is a powerful nation today, because the could have nuked the Romans 2000 years ago.
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Babe Ruth had a .600 wOBA in 1920
What you’re saying is that the best player in this day and age hits above that and Ruth’s number has to be adjusted up and today’s best player has to have his number adjusted down.
by Fogel on Dec 16, 2008 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not exactly
I’m saying players should be compared to the very best players of their era.
Player today are a whole heck of alot better, but much of that is due to advantages they would have never had in the 20s, so therefore it shortsighted to leave it at that.
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What's the difference between AAA and MLB today?
In terms of league difficulty? That probably provides some context.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK.
Then according to his chart, you get the mid-60’s MLB as being equivalent to AAA.
Of course, here’s the thing- you still have players who will eventually go on to be successful MLB ballplayers, All-Stars and HOFers in AAA. Just not as many of them.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Generate 100 random numbers.
Take the top 10 of those numbers. Divide the highest number by the average of those top ten.
Take 10,000 random numbers and do the same thing.
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually...
Wrong chart. The one with age 26-29 shows Ruth was playing in a league that was 85%, so he played in a league that would be between AA and AAA ball today.
Cust posted a ,946 OPS+ during a minor league career where average OPS was .768. Ruth’s was 1.164 against a .753 league (also note Cust’s numbers don’t include a post-30 decline phase).
I think it’s safe to say Ruth > Cust. I think he’d be an all-star, because OPSing 1100 between AA and AAA is pretty darn good.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 1:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't because of sliders and Ruth's style
His swing wouldn’t work in the majors right now.
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He couldn't adapt?
See, now we’re going completely counterfactual. We can’t say how he’d deal with a slider because they weren’t part of the playing conditions.
This is a good argument for not considering the 1920’s modern era, though- a pitch type that’s rather important to modern play is missing.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not while using a 50oz bat he couldn't
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, sure.
But I’m not convinced he’d be Jack Cust in the modern game, either, given that being a very successful to dominant pitcher AND hitter at a level ~AA to AAA is a pretty unique talent set, and one that indicates some level of athletic ability.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is actually another massive red flag as to the level of competition
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right...
Which is why we’re pegging MLB in the 1920’s as somewhere between AA and AAA, if we go by Glassko’s chart.
How many players OPS 1.100 in AA/AAA in such a way that it’s not Small Sample Size Theatre, and then turn out to be crappy MLB ballplayers (throwing out the ones who get injured)? Not very many. In fact, they tend to be pretty good ones.
Or are you arguing Glassko didn’t devalue the past enough?
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm saying that that's an argument that Gassko didn't devalue the past enough, yes
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So how do we prove it?
Where did his method fail?
I don’t think pegging 1920’s competition as somewhere around AA/AAA ball is unreasonable, and it makes sense given that the “major leagues” weren’t really the same beast as today back then- they weren’t clearly at the apex of baseball at that point (considering that a number of players from the 1920’s Baltimore Orioles in the International League went on to deny the Ruth and Gehrig-led Yankees some pennants in the late 1920’s/early1930’s AND go to the HOF/All Star game).
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So what you're talking about is "How good is a player compared to his peers"
While Greyham is talking about who is the best player ever
by Fogel on Dec 16, 2008 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And I'm saying that his way to determine the best player ever is stupid
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because you care about the story more than you care about the accuracy
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
says the person refusing to put anything into any sort of a proper context
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The context of the 1920s is that it was really easy to be good relative to your peers
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In fact, one of the better indicators of league difficulty is talent distribution
Greater outliers —> easier league.
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, to be sure.
Of course, there’s also the fact that the best players in baseball in the 1920’s were not all playing ball in MLB- they were playing in the Negro Leagues, the International League and the PCL as well (all of which had MLB-level talent in them).
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not as massive an outlier as Babe Ruth or Ted Williams
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And obviously the correct way to check this is standard deviations
Which oh look the past blows
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, players from the past were worse
but that’s not the argument
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Your argument is that comparing them to modern players is unfair
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My argument would be that
comparing their talent level to that of modern players is unfair.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on what you mean by outlier.
Barry Bonds was further away from his nearest “competitors” OPS+-wise over 2002-2004 than Ruth or Williams were during their peaks.
Bonds has two years where he was 90+ OPS+ up on everyone. Ruth had Hornsby shadowing him closer than that at his peak, Williams had Dimaggio (and Mantle around 1956-1957).
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Albert Pujols would have never played in the MLB were he born in the early 1900s
That MLB excluded so many people that the level of competition was significantly worse.
Think about Cameron’s sandlot example. Back then, all nonwhites were excluded from playing. By making the pool smaller, your expectations should become lower for level of output from each player. Today, the pool of players is much higher and therefore expectations are higher because the level of play should be higher with so many more people to choose from.
With lower expectations, someone like Ruth, who is clearly more gifted than everyone else at what he does, shines. He’s like a good hitting catcher: sure he may be much better than the rest of his field, but he’s probably not one of the best hitters in the entire league. The only difference is that catchers are picked out of a pool because of a skill they have, whereas Babe Ruth and the rest of the early 1900s players were picked out of a pool because they were white.
by Fogel on Dec 16, 2008 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
Please note that Musial and Williams don’t get shoved off the list of “best hitters ever” when Glassko is done with his work at the end of his article.
I find it hard to believe that going back 50 years and adjusting for era (and not for parks, mind you), they are still some of the best hitters that ever were, but Babe Ruth = Jack Cust.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's part of the underlying question
Ruth was as good as a player possibly could have been when he was alive, there’s little difference between him, and say, Barry Bonds in that respect.
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is what I'm trying to say.
And I know what Graham means and I’m fairly certain that when he says he doesn’t care he’s not just whistling Dixie.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
So Adrian Beltre from 2006-2008 has established himself as one opf the 10 best players in baseball history?
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Amazingly, 'baseball player' does not mean 'hitter'
by Graham on Dec 16, 2008 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No advanced stats for defense in the 1920's.
I think it’s safe to say defense is better than then just given error rates, but this makes “player” a bit harder to quantify, and in evaluating Ruth as a player, I don’t think it’s fair to punish him because he was a very good pitcher in his league AND a dominant hitter.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Time machine, no?
If he were born in 1979? I don’t see why not.
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Time machine is what I was getting at.
And I don’t think he could.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Welllll...
From the first article:
The difference between the two methods is huge! In 1908, Wagner posted a .446 wOBA (adjusted so that league average is .316). Using the first method, his wOBA would drop to .196, which is simply awful. The latter method, however, adjusts it to .339, nowhere near as great as what Wagner had looked before, but still well above average.
(Actually, what we want to use is an additive approach instead of multiplicative. That would adjust Wagner’s wOBA to .269 using the first method, and to .370 using the second. The first method still pins Wagner as a below-replacement player, while the latter method says he’s an All-Star.)
Honus Wagner is from an era earlier than Babe Ruth.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree and find it ludicrous when today's players are compared with players of 75 years ago.
But one could argue that Ruth’s seasons were more valuable to his team than somebody really good from today’s era.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 16, 2008 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Food for thought;
If Bill James’ projections are correct (and I am somewhat skeptical, but bear with me,) 2009 Ichiro will be about .25 wins more valuable than Franklin Gutierrez, 2.5 for Ichiro against 2.28 for Gutz.
I’m not sure how I feel about this, but I know that I hate Bill James’ opinion of Ichiro, love Bill James’ opinion of Franklin Gutierrez and trust both of them about as far as I can throw Bill James himself.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 2:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Interesting tool
Good work on this.
- rec’d.
by urchman on Dec 16, 2008 5:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not that this isn't cool
But WAR will be up on FanGraphs shortly.
by davidcameron on Dec 16, 2008 6:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Thank goodness.
That means I don’t have to do one for pitchers.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 9:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is Fangraphs going to use ERA?
If so, I don’t like it.
by Jeff on Dec 16, 2008 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
I am powerless to start using tRA as a pitching metric on FanGraphs until the lazy inventors of the statistic actually prove it’s worth the hassle to convince people to switch to an entirely new metric.
by davidcameron on Dec 16, 2008 10:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is why it's good when your readers are lemmings
by Jeff on Dec 16, 2008 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How about SC just sells the tRA process to FG, and David A. pays to have his minions do the study?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 16, 2008 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just came in my pants.
Every day I hear about Seattle sports' failures. Every night I fall asleep to the sound of my own tears.
by Benne on Dec 17, 2008 11:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Forgive my ignorance, but why are catchers worth the most?
Is this based on the lack of offense the position typically provides?
Oh fuck you. Get out of work? Do what i do and piss your pantalones. Ain’t no one going to fuck with you when you piss your pants. -- kevin_ess, winebibber
by Wilder. on Dec 16, 2008 11:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Because it's the hardest position to play, basically.
The lower offensive production you see out of catchers exists because the pool of players capable of holding down the job is much smaller than it is for other positions. Not many people can play catcher in the bigs, so the chances of finding a stud hitter in that talent pool is tiny. On the other hand, the number of people who can DH or play first is much bigger, so there’s a much higher bar for what constitutes an acceptable bat. If Jose Vidro could play catcher, he’d be much more valuable than Jose Vidro the DH.
Also, catching is rough on the body, further depressing offensive numbers.
That’s the general idea.
by Teej on Dec 16, 2008 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There was a good discussion about this at USS Mariner last winter.
The post is here. In particular, I liked Dave’s comment at 10:49 a.m. (sorry, I can’t link to specific comments) about creating the best team for a sandlot game.
by Teej on Dec 16, 2008 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here we go
Dave on October 1st, 2007 10:49 am
Okay, for those still struggling despite the good explanations provided by tango, skyking, etc…, here you go.
Imagine we’re picking teams at a sandlot. 100 guys show up to tryout. We’ve got 10 positions to fill, and want to put the best team we can out there. We want to start separating the 100 guys into groups to give us chances to view the best options, so we start setting up qualifiers.
We know that our 3B/SS/2B all have to throw right-handed, as you can’t have a lefty trying to wing the ball across the diamond. So, sorting step #1: Take all lefty throwers and put them in their own group.
Now, you have 80 guys in one group and 20 in another. The 20 guys are now DH/1B/LF/RF/CF only, but the other 80 can still potentially play anywhere. Now, you sort again, this time based on footspeed. For CF/SS, you want a minimum 5.0 40-yard dash, so you have everyone run a sprint and time them.
Of the 20 left-handed throwers, 5 qualify. Of the 80 right-handed throwers, 20 qualify. So now you have four groups – 60 right-handed throwing "slow" guys, 15 left-handed throwing "slow" guys, 20 right-handed throwing "fast" guys, and 5 left-handed throwing "fast" guys.
Your shortstop and center fielder have to come from the fast group, so you’re going to pick the two best guys you can from that pool of 25 players, with the caveat that the shortstop has to throw right-handed. This means that if the two best guys both throw left-handed, you can only take one of them. So, let’s say you end up with the best and third best fast guys, and wham, you have your center fielder and shortstop.
Now, you’d naturally expect these guys to hit less than the other positions simply because you had filtered out 75% of the original pool of hitters. All the big lumbering oafs weren’t included in the SS/CF pool, so you know that you’re not as likely to get a great hitter there as you are at the other positions.
You continue on with this exercise, filtering out guys with weak arms from the third base pool, guys with bad footwork from the second base pool, and guys who just can’t run from the LF/RF pool. In the end, maybe your pool of available players looked something like this:
C: 10 guys
SS/CF: 25 guys
3B/2B: 45 guys
LF/RF: 80 guys
1B; 95 guys
DH: 100 guys
You knew you could pick absolutely anyone to DH, and almost anyone to play first base, but then, the filters started weeding people out pretty quickly after that.
Looking at these pools of players, your minimum expectations for offensive production would be way, way higher for DH than any other position because you could literally pick the best hitter and not have to worry about his defense. But, when it came to the other positions, you’d already ruled out most of the good hitters, so you might find yourself not even being able to take the fourth best hitter (out of 100, remember) because he doesn’t fit anywhere on your team.
This is what the position adjustment accounts for – expectation of offense from that particular pool of players. The larger the pool, the higher the expectation.
Tomorrow, when we tackle defense, we’ll begin to separate players based on their defensive abilities within the predefined player pools
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Does it take into account the unknown factor of defense for catchers?
I can see why SS/2B/3B/CF are worth more because defense plays a major role at those positions. But my understanding is that we don’t know how to value a catcher’s defense.
Oh fuck you. Get out of work? Do what i do and piss your pantalones. Ain’t no one going to fuck with you when you piss your pants. -- kevin_ess, winebibber
by Wilder. on Dec 16, 2008 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We don't, but that doesn't change the fact that the talent pool is smaller.
by acblue on Dec 16, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This.
We have a tough time figuring out catcher defense and which ones are better than others, but we do know that it’s harder to find a catcher who can hit, say, .270/.340/.420 than it is to find a second baseman who can put up that same line. We know this because over the years, the “cream of the crop” catchers who make it to the majors simply don’t hit as well as players at other positions.
by Teej on Dec 16, 2008 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Think of it this way. I'll use my industry as an example.
There are endless numbers of people capable of running a 1-color printing press. There are however a very limited number of people who can run a 6-color press with an in-line coater.
Due to the relative numbers of available talent each position has a starting value or wage that is strictly based on supply and demand.
Any pay raises after being hired will depend on the quality of work they do at said position, think of this as their actual defensive and offensive values.
However, just by merely being capable of running the 6-color press that operator has an inherently increased value over the person who only has the skill to run a 1-color press..
by Sec 108 on Dec 16, 2008 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you were to put Carlos Lee, Jeff Kent, or even Grady Sizemore at catcher, it would be easy to see how important catcher defense is.
It’s difficult to tell the difference between MLB catchers (especially statistically), but it’s not hard to weed out the ones who shouldn’t play it in the minors.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 16, 2008 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A lawn dart off the pitchers mound would be funny.
That is, until it pegged Felix. >:
by eponymous_coward on Dec 16, 2008 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How do you calculate WAR for a RP?
How would a conversion between wins above average and wins above replacement work for RP and SP?
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 16, 2008 7:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The replacement level win% for relievers is .470, against .380 for starters
by Jeff on Dec 16, 2008 11:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To use the win%, convert a pitcher's ERA (or tRA, or whatever "real ERA" metric you like")...
… to a win% using league-average ERA (or tRA or whatever) and the Pythagorean theorem. Compare that percentage to .470 or .380. The difference is “win per game”. Multiply by IP/9 to get WAR.
Or, compare ERA directly to replacement-level, which is lgERA (or whatever) x 1.28 for starters and lgERA x 1.07 for relievers. Divide by 9 and multiply by IP. Multiply by leverage for relievers.
Leverage is another issue…
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 17, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Everything seems pretty straightforward I think
Why do you say leverage is an issue? Is it figuring out which version of leverage to use?
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 17, 2008 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, which number to use.
A player’s actual past LI? A player’s “deserved” LI. A player’s “chained” LI?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 18, 2008 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not calculating for me...
Anyone else having problems, or is this user error?
Stop The Wave!
by ConorGlassey on Dec 17, 2008 7:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
When I used the spreadsheet it worked fine
What is the problem?
by JI on Dec 17, 2008 7:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I put in the numbers, but the green & blue columns stay at 0.0
Stop The Wave!
by ConorGlassey on Dec 17, 2008 7:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The red ones? No, I thought they were hidden for a reason.
Stop The Wave!
by ConorGlassey on Dec 17, 2008 7:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If those haven't been dragged to the approrate row then you won't get any results.
by JI on Dec 17, 2008 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Geez, I'm sorry this is probably annoying and I feel like an idiot bc I can't get it to work
but I’m not sure what you mean when you say I have to drag them somewhere.
1) I don’t see them and don’t know how to make them visible. The last time I checked this out, they were visible and it seemed to be working fine
2) If they do become visible, how/where do I drag them?
3) Why do I have to drag them, why aren’t they just there in the first place?
Stop The Wave!
by ConorGlassey on Dec 17, 2008 7:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think something is wrong with the AL sheet
by JI on Dec 17, 2008 8:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Phew...that makes me feel better!
Stop The Wave!
by ConorGlassey on Dec 17, 2008 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Someone deleted the hidden columns.
Which contain the calculations.
by acblue on Dec 17, 2008 8:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Holy Science Fiction Batman!
Carlos Guillen 2006: 4.25 WAR
Yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
by JordanB on Dec 19, 2008 11:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Just calculate regular wOBA and apply a simple park adjustment based on your best guess
it doesn’t make much of a difference.
by Jeff on Dec 21, 2008 7:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It does when you're talking about the difference between Safeco and Texas.
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not use the numbers on StatCorner as a guide?
by Jeff on Dec 21, 2008 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Only goes back as far as 2003, does not go into the future.
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 7:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just want a way to put ancient/projected wOBAs into context
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 7:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Park factors don't fluctuate that much unless something is structurally different with the stadium
by Jeff on Dec 21, 2008 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm trying to figure out how good our lineup is currently
and the first un-adjusted run through says “not good.”
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 8:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We're below average but a good bit better than last year
by Jeff on Dec 21, 2008 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's a bit low
Isn’t that only around 60 wins?
by Fogel on Dec 21, 2008 8:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming you have a replacement level pitching staff.
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 8:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How many games does a replacement level team win in your simulation?
by Fogel on Dec 21, 2008 8:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming so that would put you at 63 wins
and (assuming I understand what I am doing here) if the pitching was mediocre, but not great that puts you in the mid 70s.
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 8:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK nevermind
According to this the average lineup in the AL is worth a little more than 21 WAR. So our lineup, according to you, is worth about 8 wins less than the average lineup
by Fogel on Dec 21, 2008 8:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That assumes a lot of Chavez in LF
Wlad doing most of the DHing
Yuni being a replacement level player
I’ve never done this and I want to learn how to do it correctly.
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It also assumes a replacement level utility player and fifth OF
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 8:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I still think that's a tad pessimistic
especially if you expect rebound years from Beltre and Ichiro
by Fogel on Dec 21, 2008 8:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here are the assumptions:
-Clement and Johjima split catcher 60/40
-Clement is rated a -5 on D, Joh is rated 0
-Branyan and Shelton split 1B 75/25
-Branyan is rated a 0 at first
-Branyan plays third when Beltre doesn’t
-Chavez and Balentin split LF 70/30
-Balentin and Clement share DH 70/30
-The bench players besides Johjima and Shelton are replacement level
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 9:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What offensive production did you put in for Beltre and Ichi?
by Fogel on Dec 21, 2008 9:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure
I’m using acblue’s spreadsheet
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
.338 AL, .334 NL.
Year to year it’s the league average OBP.
by acblue on Dec 21, 2008 11:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Using the same method
I have the Cardinals lineup at about 24 wins
that assumes:
-Skip Schmaker is playing when the 3 OFs (L/A/R) don’t,
-Ankiel is +2 in LF (UZR didn’t like him in center, and there’s little data, but he looked decent to the naked eye), i
-Molina is +2 on defense
-All backups not named Schumaker or LaRue are replacement level
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 8:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW, Ms lineup in 2008 was 72 runs below average.
by Matthew on Dec 21, 2008 9:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So hey that's a big improvment
once you adjust for defensive value
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
By definition, a league-average offense is 16.5 runs.
An 81-win team is 33 WAR (if rep level is 48 wins).
So if your 13 WAR estimate is just for the M’s offense, that’s below average, but not awful.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 25, 2008 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That factored in the Bill James' projections
which were ridiculously favorable, and Marcelwhich hated every players’ guts.
Based on Marcel this is a ~9.7 WAR lineup, but there’s reason to believe that many of these guys can beat their projections.
by JI on Dec 25, 2008 5:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
weather, turf quality
yeah minor but not irrelavant
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2008 10:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What is the typical range on defense between the best and worst catchers?
…How would I put that into a UZR/150 rating?
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 7:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Generally speaking I like to leave them around 0 unless I have reason to believe otherwise
by Jeff on Dec 21, 2008 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I figured
but I also figure there’s no way Clement is a 0
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a good chance I am very very bad at this
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 8:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Basically I am splitting the difference b/t the BJ and the Marcel projections
and factoring in the three year averages (where available) on defense
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 8:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Marcels is closer than reality to the BJ projections.
Which kind of makes me sad but whatever.
by acblue on Dec 21, 2008 8:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why does fangraphs show them even?
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2008 10:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wish fangraphs would compute what the BJ projections say
the average offense of the league would be. I feel like they predict that every team would score 1000 runs.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2008 12:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Big name, available early.
Those are my guesses at least. My un-objective rankings:
CHONE/PECOTA
ZiPS
Bill James
Marcel
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 25, 2008 5:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
After playing with the numbers with my own bare hands
I understand why Dave Cameron thinks that Yuni > Lopez
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 9:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
How do you figure?
I’m still having a tough time seeing Yuni > Lopez. In my mind they are equal at best. The only way I agree with Dave is if Yuni improves and/or Lopez regresses.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2008 10:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His three year UZR average is minus about -6.
-If you move his over to second, he’s something like +4 (It’s a +10 adjustment, correct?), and there’s reason to think that if he succeeds shedding a few pound he can beat that
-Their durability is roughly the same
-They have similar projected wOBAs
-Lopez can’t play short
by JI on Dec 21, 2008 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I resisted it, but he's totally right.
I still think Lopez has a higher ceiling.
by acblue on Dec 21, 2008 11:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem I have with Yuni
is that I don’t think he’s -6 at SS. I feel like he’s trending pretty badly and this is visible with both metrics and everybody’s eye. A three year average gives him credit for a year when he wasn’t a fat piece of shit.
Positional adjustment is 7.5 runs for SS to 2B I believe.
I guess I see more hope for Lopez than Yuni but that might be the irrational fan in me so I don’t put too much faith into that.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2008 12:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on what you think of Lopez's offensive improvement
if you believe Marcel, then yeah, they both suck.
by Jeff on Dec 22, 2008 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 















