My main issue with the WAR stat...(Trout)

[Second Base]

I understands there are a couple different ways to calculate the formula, but I think it lacks the ability to calculate precise individual performances. My example in this case would be Trout. Here we are, not 10 games into our season and last night and today he single handedly is responsible for carrying the offense to a victory. His WAR should already be over two. The rest of the lineup is filled with various replacement level players, but without Trout in the lineup, the Angels have at least two less wins, they might even be winless on the season. 

Is it possible that the one stat commonly used to illustrate just how superior of a player Trout is, is actually undervaluing him?

[Reveille1984]

WAR is an individual player stat, so your argument doesn't really make sense in this regard.  It isn't meant to take into account how good or bad of a team that player is on.  

It's like asking if Trout's batting average is more valuable on the Angels because the rest of the lineup is so awful; it's just numbers put into a formula.  It's independent of team performance.

[Docwaukee]

26 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I understands there are a couple different ways to calculate the formula, but I think it lacks the ability to calculate precise individual performances. My example in this case would be Trout. Here we are, not 10 games into our season and last night and today he single handedly is responsible for carrying the offense to a victory. His WAR should already be over two. The rest of the lineup is filled with various replacement level players, but without Trout in the lineup, the Angels have at least two less wins, they might even be winless on the season. 

Is it possible that the one stat commonly used to illustrate just how superior of a player Trout is, is actually undervaluing him?

you're describing a different stat other than WAR.  

also, if you give credit for when he's responsible for a win, you have to give negative credit for when he's not.  

wins are not WAR

[Stradling]

does WAR over value walks because it adds to the OPS.   

[Jeff Fletcher]

WAR is context nuetral. 2 hits are 2 hits, whether the rest of the team had 0 or 15 that day. 

WPA is what you’re thinking of. It values what you do based on the context of the game. 

[jessecrall]

If three men don't reach base ahead of Trout, it's a solo shot. And if Skaggs gets bombed out of the game early and the bullpen doesn't step up, 5 runs might not do it. Trout deserves about $430 million worth of credit for what he does but I think his WAR is generally accurate.

[gurn67]

There's no perfect stat, but I can't figure out why Trout's not getting the Bonds treatment considering the guys flailing behind him are putting up a combined .402 OPS so far.

[jessecrall]

Bill James ran a simulation in his revised Historical Abstract in which he took peak Babe Ruth and put him in a lineup with 8 deadbeats and had a season where he was pitched to and a season in which he was intentionally walked every single time. The team where Ruth was walked every single time scored more runs. It's just rarely a good percentage play to intentionally walk someone even if Trout's hitting ahead of someone who's scuffling. He'll STILL draw intentional walks anyways but managers aren't operating on the same default that they were 15-20 years ago.

[Blarg]

43 minutes ago, gurn67 said:

There's no perfect stat, but I can't figure out why Trout's not getting the Bonds treatment considering the guys flailing behind him are putting up a combined .402 OPS so far.

He is being walked and HBP every series. He is definitely getting the Bonds treatment. 

[tdawg87]

On pace for 144 walks. Definitely getting the Bonds' treatment.

[Blarg]

23 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

On pace for 144 walks. Definitely getting the Bonds' treatment.

60 HBP. 

[tomsred]

60 HBP would shatter the Hughie Jennings record of 51 HBP in 1896.

[Taylor]

3 hours ago, Stradling said:

does WAR over value walks because it adds to the OPS.   

Sounds like a Troll Daddy kind of a question.

[Glen]

48 minutes ago, tomsred said:

60 HBP would shatter the Hughie Jennings record of 51 HBP in 1896.

This sounds like an AO post.

[Tank]

2 hours ago, gurn67 said:

There's no perfect stat

RBI 

because I said so.

[Taylor]

3 hours ago, Blarg said:

He is being walked and HBP every series. He is definitely getting the Bonds treatment. 

But unlike Bonds, he doesn't wear a bionic arm that takes up 40% of the strike zone. 

[Angelsjunky]

^Don't bag on Bonds. Dude was a total beast - the most dominant hitter I've ever seen (at least in 2001-04) and it isn't particularly close. Roids or no roids.

[Lou]

sorry, but roids mattered 

[Lou]

9 hours ago, jessecrall said:

Bill James ran a simulation in his revised Historical Abstract in which he took peak Babe Ruth and put him in a lineup with 8 deadbeats and had a season where he was pitched to and a season in which he was intentionally walked every single time. The team where Ruth was walked every single time scored more runs. It's just rarely a good percentage play to intentionally walk someone even if Trout's hitting ahead of someone who's scuffling. He'll STILL draw intentional walks anyways but managers aren't operating on the same default that they were 15-20 years ago.

Bill James needs to get laid 

[Lou]

6 hours ago, Tank said:

RBI 

because I said so.

and CERA 

[tdawg87]

12 hours ago, jessecrall said:

Bill James ran a simulation in his revised Historical Abstract in which he took peak Babe Ruth and put him in a lineup with 8 deadbeats and had a season where he was pitched to and a season in which he was intentionally walked every single time. The team where Ruth was walked every single time scored more runs. It's just rarely a good percentage play to intentionally walk someone even if Trout's hitting ahead of someone who's scuffling. He'll STILL draw intentional walks anyways but managers aren't operating on the same default that they were 15-20 years ago.

[T.G.]

6 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

^Don't bag on Bonds or Weatherwonk for that matter

 

[fan_since79]

I don't want Trout to be HBP 50 times or whatever and break a record. One of those pitches might break his hand or wrist. 

 

[fan_since79]

7 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

^Don't bag on Bonds. Dude was a total beast - the most dominant hitter I've ever seen (at least in 2001-04) and it isn't particularly close. Roids or no roids.

His head was a lot bigger than a normal human so he could see the ball coming out the pitcher's hand much better. Dude was a physical freak and chemicals had a significant part of that. The Man With The Enormous Head.

But all joking aside, I don't think roids produced his amazing hand/eye coordination or bat speed. Maybe a doctor can weigh in on that. In those years anything in the hitting zone he routinely sent out of the park, and it quickly got out.

[Amazing Larry]

Roids help strength. Strength helps bat speed.

Mongo deduct that roids help bat speed.