Hubs

Actually, I think I would. Value can be expressed in a different constant than a solid number of wins, which would negate the positional adjustment and be easy to show on a scale, like wOBA. It's offensive to people in the traditional stat community to say that Player X was so many wins better than player Y. Last year if the Angels and Tigers swapped centerfielders and thirdbaseman, is there a net gain for either team in wins? A-Jax had a 5.2 WAR, Cabrera was 6.9. Trout had 10.7 and Callaspo 3.2. Would this have resulted in a 2 win loss for the Angels and a 2 win gain for the Tigers? WAR says it does….I doubt that would have happened in real life. Still, It's not the name "Win" thing that really bugs me, it's the use of positional adjustments twice, in both oWAR and dWAR which makes very little sense. Where someone plays is not relevant to their offense. I understand that theoretically a first baseman is easier to replace than a second baseman, but in reality that's just not always true. Anyone can play anywhere…and defensively that makes a difference, but theoretically a team full of Miguel Cabrera's would be horrible fielding the ball, but might score 1100 runs. Likewise a team full of Mike Trout's would be great offensively and defensively, as Trout is much more athletic…This shows in the WAR, but because of positional adjustment, is it an accurate measure?

Exactly. Which, because of WAR's positional adjustment would still quantify the LF Trout about one win less than the CF Trout. Even though they are exactly the same player, with the same defensive ability in the same number of chances, because in theory it is easier to replace a corner outfielder than a centerfielder. The positional adjustment can be argued in the infield sure, but I don't get the 10 run switch between left or right and center. Center is tougher to play, but more offensive production has come from center than from the corners on the top end, which theoretically raises the replacement value, and should account for a lower adjustment, or a higher adjustment for the corners. Despite the fact that 10 of the best 20 hitting OF in the Majors over the past two years played CF. 1. Trout (2012) 2. Kemp (2011) 3. McCutchen (2012) 4. Braun (2011) 5. Stanton (2011) 6. Gordon (2012) 7. Hunter (2012) 8. Bautista (2011) 9. Jackson (2012) 10. Jones (2012) 11. Hamilton (2012) 12. Beltran (2011) 13. Ellsbury (2011) 14. Reddick (2012) 15. Span (2012) 16. Heyward (2012) 17. Granderson (2011 or 2012) 18. Justin Upton (2011) 19. Pence (2011) 20. Holiday (2011) 21. Bourn (2012) / Pagan (2012) / Bourjos (2011) / Harper (2012) Take your pick here. This doesn't even take into account a second season, just the best season for each player of the past two, and it's entirely a subjective order.

Doc...you make some good points. I don't like the theoretical replacement values. I don't have an issue with positional adjustment, just the values that they use. Yes it's harder to replace Beltre or Headley at 3rd than replacing Mark Trumbo at DH, but is it really that much harder? Can't we just take this into account in the fielding replacement? As I just posted above, is a team with outstanding 1st baseman, corner outfielders, and DH that much worse than a team with an outstanding 2B, 3B, C and CF? For those who don't know here are the positional adjustments: C: +12.5 runs (or 1.25 WAR) 2B: +2.5 runs 3B: +2.5 runs SS: +2.5 runs CF: +2.5 runs LF: -7.5 runs RF: -7.5 runs 1B: -12.5 runs DH: -17.5 runs

I like WAR, but I don't like the positional adjustments. Which team is better: CF Trout (10.7 WAR) SS Aybar (4.0 WAR) 2B Cano (8.2 WAR) 3B Cabrera (6.7 WAR) 1B Ike Davis (0.7 WAR) LF Jason Kubel (0.8 WAR) RF Nelson Cruz (0.1 WAR) DH Adam Dunn (0.9 WAR) C Buster Posey (7.2 WAR) Total WAR = 39.3 Or CF Colby Rasmus (1.2 WAR) SS Johnny Peralta (0.9 WAR) 2B Daniel Murphy (1.2 WAR) 3B Chris Johnson (0.7 WAR) 1B Albert Pujols (4.6 WAR) LF Ryan Braun (6.8 WAR) RF Giancarlo Stanton (5.2 WAR) C Matt Weiters (3.2 WAR) DH David Ortiz (2.9 WAR) Total WAR = 26.7. The first team has the three best hitters in the AL by WAR in Trout, Cano, Cabrera plus Buster Posey who was the best in the NL. Adam Dunn hit 41 HR but would be as valuable as Scott Cousins as your DH? Is the second team really going to score 130 runs less? With a middle of the lineup of Pujols/Braun/Stanton/Ortiz/Weiters?

I get the math. I know what a 0.1 or 0.2 or -0.1 or -0.2 player looks like, the problem with that article is it is still comparing actual performances of journeyman to a fictional player. That's what the OP's article discussed... Also these players all had positional adjustments, which in some cases took the guy from a 1.0 WAR to a negative WAR. The positional argument in this last post is flawed…And here's why... Why is Cano's offense better at 2nd than at 1st? Speaking strictly from a run created point of view, can't the same player produce the same number of runs offensively whether he plays 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or Rover? Seriously what does the defensive alignment have to do with a players offense? NOTHING. It only matters when you look at the replacement player. Because yes, it's easier to replace a guy at 1st or DH or in the corner OF. Yet their offensive value does not change. What if you take a oft injured but great fielding guy out of the outfield and put him in the infield at 1st base. Does his offensive contribution change? No. Does his defensive contribution change? Absolutely. This is why positional adjustment should be factored in to defensive WAR only. Also, the positional adjustments do not change in either Fangraphs or Baseball-Reference's WAR, from season to season. How is this possible? In 2012, the top offensive WAR players: Trout (CF), McCutchen (CF), Cabrera (3B), Posey (Catcher), Cano (2B), Headley (3B), Braun (LF), Beltre (3B), Zobrist (UT), Jones (CF). The only player on the list who gets a negative positional adjustment is Braun. Everyone else would have received at least +2.5 runs in their Offensive WAR for every 600 PA in that position. Being a 1st Baseman or a Corner OF or worse a DH, dramatically alters a players offensive contribution, because in theory they are easier to replace. Trumbo's offense is clearly there. He has had some rough stretches, but overall, the guy has been pretty good in his first two seasons. By WAR, putting him at 3rd or 2nd would increase his offensive value, even if he played horrifically on defense. How does that make sense? His WAR would go down, but only because of the fielding, not because of the offense value, which would increase…and it's significant as if he was a 3B versus a DH, it's a 20 run (2.0 WAR) switch. The guy could have a 1.000 OPS as a DH, but actually be less valuable to us as a DH by WAR than as our mediocre 3B. That's just silly. Defensively he'd likely cost us that many runs playing 3B versus a solid fielding 3rd base, but his offense wouldn't change. Another example is Mike Trout. Does his VALUE, what WAR is truly trying to determine, lessen by playing LF on the offensive side of the ball? NO. He may not make as much of an impact defensively in left, but then, doesn't the team get better by having excellent fielders in both spots? Assuming of course that his replacement makes as much of a difference in center defensively as he would have, and that his defense in left is an increase over whoever else would've played that position? Mike Trout as a left fielder in 2012, would've finished with a 7.6 offensive WAR, instead of 8.6 as it's a 10 run switch.

I think it comes down to calling them WINS above Replacement. If they had just stuck with RUNS against replacement, we'd not have this argument as often. Wins do not = 10 runs created.

My biggest issue with WAR is the fictional replacement player's stats. They are not defined anywhere, except to say that a team with all replacement level players would win around 52-53 games. That's not enough. I want to see what a 0 WAR player looks like in terms of average, on-base percentage, slugging, wOBA, etc. Secondly I don't like positional player adjustments. Where a player plays defensively has zero effect on his ability offensively…just in context to this fictional replacement player who plays all 8 positions. So why take away runs? dWAR is subjective, true, which means I want to see offensive stats and defensive stats used more often in conjunction with WAR. I also don't understand why oWAR and dWAR don't add up to be a players WAR. It comes down to positional adjustment being used twice, but why is it used in offensive WAR? If my Second Baseman is my best hitter (Yankees) and my first baseman is as good offensively, why don't they have the similar oWAR? It penalizes players who provide offense at traditional offensive positions, and credits guys who have good years at traditionally bad offensive positions. Here's the best example of what I am talking about. Ben Zobrist plays multiple positions for the Tampa Bay Rays. In 2011 he had a .269 average with a .353 OBP, a .469 slugging, 46 2B, 6 3B, 20 HR, 19 SB. He struck out 128 times and walked just 77 times. He played 131 times at 2nd, 38 in the OF and 3 at DH. In 2012, Zobrist hit .270, with a .377 OBP, a .471 slugging, 39 2B, 7 3B, 20 HR, 14 2B. He struck out less, just 103 times and walked more at 97 times. The years are pretty comparable offensively, 2012 being a bit better than 2011 in most areas. The only lead for 2011 was SB and 2B. Except as a 2B, his nearly identical stats are better than when he played 47 games at SS, 58 games at 2B, and 71 games in the OF in 2012? His defense wasn't as good, primarily because of his time at short, where he was still pretty good with 6 errors in 47 games…and he played more at a traditional power position in the OF (33 games more). How then is a superior offensive season have a lower oWAR? Because of where he played. Which makes zero sense. His defensive WAR went way down from 3.2 in 2011 to 0.4 last year, when he was arguably more valuable for being able to play SS, 2B, and the OF. He didn't play any of the positions badly, but to say he was worth three less wins 8.5 in 2011 to 5.5 in 2012 is ridiculous. 5 less steals, 7 less doubles, and a few more errors do not make a 3 win difference in real life, but apparently they do. His fielding contributions as an OF and playing some short should not have made that big of a difference, but they do. I'd rather see the positional adjustment removed from the formula, use offensive numbers as offensive numbers, then provide a fielding WAR that an be added to a team to add or subtract to get a players total WAR.

Kendrick is comfortable hitting lower in the order. Callaspo had a lower OBP last year than 12 of the 19 qualifying 3rd basemen. His slugging was the lowest and his OPS was second to last. His average was 15th. He scored the third fewest runs, 17th in 2B, and was tied for 16th of 19 in HR. The guy has not been what everyone seems to think he is, an OBP machine who plays good defense. His 53 walks are a low total, granted this team doesn't walk alot, but he's not putting up the 100 walks and 30-40 HR that justify a low average. His career shows plenty of evidence to support that 2011 was an outlier. He's more likely to hit .250/.330/.360 again than .280/.365/.375. Callaspo actually does hit well against lefties, so I'd be fine with him in the #2 spot, but I don't even think he should play against right handers. His defense is an asset yes, but not if the team has 4 extreme fly ball starters. I like Aybar in the spot due to his .290 average, which is 4% more hits than Callaspo, and while he will likely walk 20 times less, the OBP will then be about the same. Aybar will get .50 points higher slugging, which is more doubles, more triples, and similar home run totals. Aybar also doesn't show a dramatic split against lefties or righties and killed the ball in the #2 spot last year. Seeing more fastballs isn't a huge positive for a really patient hitter like Callaspo but for a guy trying to hit the ball the way Aybar does, that's a positive. Yet I feel that the guy for the long run in the #2 spot is Bourjos. He is about to be 26, with one successful year starting full time and two other years where he didn't hit well. Okay, but his speed is a bigger asset than most believe. He's been great this spring, posting a .545 On Base Percentage. Yes it's only spring and yes it's only 11 PA, but 4 hits, 3 walks, is pretty good to start. Bourjos' good year in 2011, he has BABIP's of .415, .243, .411, .364, .333, and .290 in each of the six months. I do not expect him to have a .400 BABIP, but averaging a .360 BABIP would be great. What that would mean is that he gets a hit 36% of the time when the ball is put in play. Should he walk 50 times and hit 15 HR to go along with 100 strikeouts that would result in a line like: 650 PA, 600 AB, 174 hits, .290 average. His OBP then would be around that same .360, assuming he gets hit by a pitch as often. Plus he'll steal 30+ bases, And if he serves up a similar slugging percentage, he'd end up with 30 2B, 10-15 3B and 10-15 HR. All of these are better numbers than Callaspo has shown in his career. And to top it off, Bourjos's defense will really matter. It should be Bourjos and Aybar to start the year, with Bourjos being the guy there down the stretch. Or as Lyle Spencer put up, Trout in the #2 spot and Bourjos leading off. Not traditional, but to face 2-3-4-5 MT, AP, JH, and MT…that's a murderers row.

Oh how I love this news. Of course, then Luis Jimenez had to have two fielding errors the other day, but now is your chance Luis. Take advantage of the fattie and seize the job!

U-Verse is the best out there, TWC sucks, DirecTV sucks, Dish was horrible. I'm happy with them, except for this.

Yeah… me too..

I wrote a much longer post that didn't post when I walked away for a minute and my browser refreshed... But i'll quickly re-write that these projections would end up with Trout having around 365 total bases, Pujols around 350, and Hamilton around 315 based on the playing time I estimate for each to get. That translates (assuming these averages) into 50 2B for Trout 10 triples for Trout and 30 HR. Considering Trout had 27,8, & 30 last year in less games, that's pretty impressive. If his ratio of doubles/triples/homeruns stayed closer to his 2012 (.383 slugging) numbers, but he played more games, he'd actually be closer to 31 2B, 10 triples, and 35 HR. I think we'll see a dramatic increase in doubles and triples in his second year and his HR may actually fall off a bit. Pujols looks like he'll hit 52 doubles and 34 HR based on the playing time I estimated. Hamilton looks like he too will go 35 doubles and 35 HR. Or 45 /30. Trumbo's numbers and Bourjos numbers look a little light to me. The other three just look a little low on average….