Joe Mauer...HOF yay, or nay?

[Airdrop01]

Originally Posted by TheMaus2

batting average is a made up stat, old man

No. One WAR is not equal to another WAR. It’s subjective. These sabremetric things are all subjective. So they’re made up by people. People looking to make a case. They’re like scouting reports based upon not actually watching a guy play. That makes them a poor tool. The fact that many —- not all —— front offices follow that doesn’t make them right to do so.

It sure makes exec and agents jobs easy though. I’ll give you that. It also makes being a modern day baseball writer the biggest con job since meteorologists.

Just like I say player x is a 4power with upside 5, it’s subjective. Go ahead and pretend it’s not. Knock yourself out. You’re ruining the game.

I think it’s funny that I asked you to tell me WHY Joe Mauer is the 7th best catcher of all time and instead of answering in terms of Baseball, you cite made up sabremetric garbage to me.

[Airdrop01]

I seriously think the posters other than Cobra here think WAR is the same no matter who compiles it. It’s crazy.

And, aside from all of that, Joesph Mauer is NOT a catcher.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

No. One WAR is not equal to another WAR. It’s subjective. These sabremetric things are all subjective.

Yes, they are subjective and not universal. That doesn't indicate a major error in them.

I'll break down how small those errors are.

WAR base line for team wins is 48

WAR shows the separation of run differential, which is a fantastic predictor of wins and loses.

rWAR - based on run prevention and total zone defensive metrics
Last year, the Astros had 39.6 rWAR among their position players
Last year, the Astros had 13.5 rWAR among their pitchers
48+39.6+13.5=101.1 projected wins
The Astros went 101-61 and had a projected record of 101-61 based on their run differential.

fWAR - fip based pitching and UZR/DRS defense
Last year, the Astros had 32.7 fWAR among their position players
Last year, the Astros had 20.8 fWAR among their pitchers
48+32.7+20.8=101.5
The Astros went 101-61 and had a projected record of 101-61 based on their run differential.


Are you focusing on the 10th here or something? It's great in terms of raw numbers. It being a few decimal points one way or the other doesn't mean anything.


Now, what happens when you have a team that is far off from their WAR?

2017 Yankees
29.5 rWAR among position players
23.6 rWAR among pitchers
48+29.5+23.6=101.1

28.4 fWAR among position players
24.4 fWAR among pitchers
48+28.4+24.4=100.8


You think, aha! The Yankees went 91-71 last year.


Wait, they had a 100-62 pyth record, almost exactly what WAR would have projected them to have.

They were better than their run differential, but that's because they went 18-26 in one run ball games, but 37-13 in blow outs.

They didn't score in close games like they needed to, but their fire power was there. They were better than a 91 win team, and they showed that in the playoffs and this season.

So you can go player by player, and see that they were a 100 win team.

Yeah, there are discrepancies. You can debate whether run prevention or pitcher FIP based pitching is more valuable. But both work, and correlate well over 90% accuracy to actual wins.

It's not some made up stat riddled with flaws like Quarterback Rating and PER for basketball. It has a massive amount of correlation and accuracy. Just because two sites come together to formulate the number in different directions isn't a flaw in the stat. It's valuing different, but the same information.

A pitcher with a 1.50 ERA but a 4.50 FIP is going to have a better fWAR, and a worse fWAR. And a different pitcher with a 4.50 ERA and a 1.50 FIP is going to have a better fWAR than rWAR. But over large sample sizes, such as hall of fame discussions, that normalizes.

So they’re made up by people.

So is baseball, batting average, and literally every single stat you see and know.

Nothing is just magically created in the ether. The entire sport is man made.

People looking to make a case. They’re like scouting reports based upon not actually watching a guy play. That makes them a poor tool.

No, they are based on the data that the player creates while playing, and compared to every other player in the same spectrum. No bias, no opinion. Just what he does or doesn't do.

The fact that many —- not all —— front offices follow that doesn’t make them right to do so.

Over the last 15 years, the front offices that didn't follow this, had to rebuild. The front offices that were early adopters dominated the league. Now the entire league does it. Because it's not some mythical science.

Btw, front offices have their own version of wins. Each separate based on what they know to be valuable. They have more data than we do. But it's all going to be relatively the same and close. And far better than evaluating with fallible eyes and memories or inferior statistics.

It sure makes exec and agents jobs easy though. I’ll give you that. It also makes being a modern day baseball writer the biggest con job since meteorologists.

I hope that you do realize that every thing in our lives is data driven now. I mean, outside of the creative arts, every thing is data driven. Not just baseball.

This is akin to the old man yelling at clouds at this point.

Just like I say player x is a 4power with upside 5, it’s subjective. Go ahead and pretend it’s not. Knock yourself out. You’re ruining the game.

It ruins the game to put a measurable calculation on that?

It's ruined for who?

And a 4/5 power (on a scout scale, I'm assuming 40/50?) anyway, that's very measurable. They can measure the guys load, swing path, time, efficiency of swing, likely developmental size, etc.

It's not based on some scouts opinion anymore. It's based on what they can very easily measure and compare to others.

You still have to get to know the players, develop the individual, build the character, and all the warm and fuzzy parts of player development. That stuff doesn't disappear. We just don't need fallible people sizing up to make mistakes with huge investments.

Put their swings on the camera, measure the points, size up the potential with modifications, and then assess the character and aptitudes.

I think it’s funny that I asked you to tell me WHY Joe Mauer is the 7th best catcher of all time and instead of answering in terms of Baseball, you cite made up sabremetric garbage to me.

No, I just asked for your top 10 list

Here is mine

(I prefer to tier instead of straight line rank)

Tier 1
Bench

Tier 2
Carter
Pudge
Fisk

Tier 3
Berra
Piazza
Torre (if you count him as a catcher)

Tier 4
Hartnett
Cochrane
Simmons

There are my top 10^

Tier 5
Mauer
Tenace
Downing
Munson
Freehan
Posada
Others


I can easily be persuaded to put Mauer in the 4th tier, Posey is heading for Tier 3 or 4, but I wanna see a few more years of him avoiding massive decline. Yadier is probably safely in Tier 5, but could reach Tier 4. But I'm not including Posey and Yadier for the purpose of this discussion, but I placed Mauer so you had an idea.

[Rain King]

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

I seriously think the posters other than Cobra here think WAR is the same no matter who compiles it. It’s crazy.

And, aside from all of that, Joesph Mauer is NOT a catcher.

Well he has started more games at catcher than any other position at this point.

If he plays more first or DH over the years, that will change. But that's currently the universal description of a players position.

In all-time debates, A-Rod is considered a SS, not a 3B because of this.


Btw, moving off catcher probably hurt Mauer's career WAR a good amount because he was still passable as a catcher but not much in a more rangey position. But the Twins were trying to protect him. But it doesn't help him in terms of WAR. His bat needed to be stronger because he went from the weakest offensive position where he hit well, to a loaded offensive position where he became just average.

[Airdrop01]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Y
And a 4/5 power (on a scout scale, I'm assuming 40/50?) anyway, that's very measurable. They can measure the guys load, swing path, time, efficiency of swing, likely developmental size, etc.

It's not based on some scouts opinion anymore. It's based on what they can very easily measure and compare to others.

You still have to get to know the players, develop the individual, build the character, and all the warm and fuzzy parts of player development. That stuff doesn't disappear. We just don't need fallible people sizing up to make mistakes with huge investments.

Put their swings on the camera, measure the points, size up the potential with modifications, and then assess the character and aptitudes.



No, I just asked for your top 10 list

Here is mine

(I prefer to tier instead of straight line rank)

Tier 1
Bench

Tier 2
Carter
Pudge
Fisk

Tier 3
Berra
Piazza
Torre (if you count him as a catcher)

Tier 4
Hartnett
Cochrane
Simmons

There are my top 10^

Tier 5
Mauer
Tenace
Downing
Munson
Freehan
Posada
Others


I can easily be persuaded to put Mauer in the 4th tier, Posey is heading for Tier 3 or 4, but I wanna see a few more years of him avoiding massive decline. Yadier is probably safely in Tier 5, but could reach Tier 4. But I'm not including Posey and Yadier for the purpose of this discussion, but I placed Mauer so you had an idea.

4/8. 5/8. "That's what it was back when I was bangin'" (Costanza)

Some now use 20/80. Mine were 8. Anything below 5 was less than desired to me.

There's quite a few better than Mauer you've missed. Campanella. Ferrell.



I'd take Yadi, even with his ridiculous neck tatoos, a hundred times over before I took Mauer. First, Yadi is a CATCHER. He's a better catcher. By a lot. He's aged a lot, but that's because he's caught freaking 14000 innings. That makes him a MUCH better catcher; and IMMENSELY more valuable. We are still talking about catchers, aren't we?


Posey. Way better than Mauer. They'll have similar paths though, I bet, with position switches.


I'd put Mauer at the end of that list, adding the guys I mentioned, and perhaps a few others. He is NOT a catcher. 7000 innings? That's not enough.



The point is WAR and all these subjective stats are held out as the be all end all and they are not. They are completely fabricated in an effort to apply "metrics" to everything.


Every discussion on this always leads me to the easiest argument ever that sabremetrics don't always work. The 2014 and 15 Royals were supposed to be HORRIBLE. They were built with scouting. Not with WAR or sabremetrics. What they have now was built with sabremetrics.



You can only use WAR if you have unlimited funds, because guess what? Unless you luck into Zito, Hudson, Mulder, Chavez, Tejada, Dye, etc. (None of whom were the result of sabremetric approaches to finding them), it ain't gonna work. Buying or not buying players based upon WAR and the like is ruining the game. It's also resulting in a TON of teams racing to the bottom. Again, ruining the game.



I read all these people who love these sabremetrics decrying supposed collusion in this past offseason. Guess what? A big reason certain guys were not signed is because of sabremetrics. Front offices are afraid to use the "eye test" of their scouts before spending money because it's a big "get out of jail free" card to have the "well, I used all the accepted sabremetrics" if it goes badly.


That's how it's ruining the game. (you didn't ask that but someone did)

[Airdrop01]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

he became just average.

And thus, why he shouldn't be anywhere near the HOF unless it's standing next to me in line to get in.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Yes, they are subjective and not universal. That doesn't indicate a major error in them.

It may not indicate a major error. But it does indicate room for debate. It does indicate it is not the final analysis. It does indicate a person can use whichever one suits them in a debate. And, finally, it does indicate a person can use the opinion his naked eye forms because that conclusion is no better or worse than the one who came up with the rating.


I would like to also ask those of you out there, what is the basis for saying batting average is subjective? I can understand the discussion stating BA by itself is not as accurate in determining a player's hitting ability. But the percentage of at-bats resulting in hits isn't subjective. It's fact.

[TheMaus2]

when someone denies the usefulness of metrics but Theo Epstein is wearing 3 championship rings

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by TheMaus2

when someone denies the usefulness of metrics but Theo Epstein is wearing 3 championship rings

Trying to see where someone said metrics weren't useful..........

[TheMaus2]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

That makes them a poor tool.

.

[Airdrop01]

Originally Posted by TheMaus2

.

Theo Epstein had a lot of money at his disposal. He could afford to use a less than ideal tool.


Stop changing my words to suit what you want to say and stick to just calling me names.



I guess they're both equally effective and endearing.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

It may not indicate a major error. But it does indicate room for debate. It does indicate it is not the final analysis. It does indicate a person can use whichever one suits them in a debate. And, finally, it does indicate a person can use the opinion his naked eye forms because that conclusion is no better or worse than the one who came up with the rating.

The first points, yes. The last point, no.

It's additional information. In fact, it's much better information than a person could ever create with their naked eye. By a laundry shoot.

And if you are debating with someone, and they are switching whichever WAR they want to suit their argument, that should tell you plenty about the strength of their argument and the person you are debating with.

I would like to also ask those of you out there, what is the basis for saying batting average is subjective? I can understand the discussion stating BA by itself is not as accurate in determining a player's hitting ability. But the percentage of at-bats resulting in hits isn't subjective. It's fact.

Doesn't account for walks, sacrifices aren't merited against it, a home run is equal to a single, etc.

Why not count a walk as a hit? Why not count a sacrifice as an out? Why not weigh each extra base hit differently?

It's because that's how it was originally created. That's it. Sacrifices don't count against your at bats, and walks are like they never happened.

That's what makes it subjective. It's created in interpretation by Chadwick for really no reason other than how it was originally created in cricket.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

Theo Epstein had a lot of money at his disposal. He could afford to use a less than ideal tool.


Stop changing my words to suit what you want to say and stick to just calling me names.



I guess they're both equally effective and endearing.

So what did Jeff Luhnow have?

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

4/8. 5/8. "That's what it was back when I was bangin'" (Costanza)

Some now use 20/80. Mine were 8. Anything below 5 was less than desired to me.

There's quite a few better than Mauer you've missed. Campanella. Ferrell.

You have to really really value peak for Campy to jump into the top 10. 3 MVP's and one of the better hitting catchers, especially for his era. But less than 5K PA (because of race and a horrible accident) really makes it nearly impossible for me to place him in the top 10.


Rick Ferrell is no where near the top 10.

Heralded as a great defensive catcher, but Yadier is already passing him in career innings caught and isn't as weak offensively as Ferrell. Not a real challenge to put Yadier over Ferrell, and Yadier isn't on my list there (as I indicated at the bottom).

Here is how Ferrell lands in OPS+ compared to the rest of my lists

Tier 1
Bench - 126

Tier 2
Carter - 115
Pudge - 106
Fisk - 117

Tier 3
Berra - 125
Piazza - 142
Torre (if you count him as a catcher) - 129

Tier 4
Hartnett - 126
Cochrane - 129
Simmons - 118

There are my top 10^

Tier 5
Mauer - 126
Tenace - 136
Downing - 122
Munson - 116
Freehan - 112
Posada - 121
Others


Ferrell is at 95, significantly weaker than every one else on this list (Yadier is at 98)

I'd take Yadi, even with his ridiculous neck tatoos, a hundred times over before I took Mauer. First, Yadi is a CATCHER. He's a better catcher. By a lot. He's aged a lot, but that's because he's caught freaking 14000 innings. That makes him a MUCH better catcher; and IMMENSELY more valuable. We are still talking about catchers, aren't we?

Sounds like you are really valuing the defensive side of catching, which is absolutely fine and understandable. We are still learning the best ways to evaluate catchers defensively, it's pretty far from perfect. Guys like Molina propel themselves up, and possibly past guys like Mauer overall because of what they can do defensively.

Yadier has a catcher ERA more than a full run better than his backups over his career. That's pretty incredible, but difficult to place a specific value and hard to give him specific credit for.

I'd put Mauer at the end of that list, adding the guys I mentioned, and perhaps a few others. He is NOT a catcher. 7000 innings? That's not enough.

Campy only caught 10K innings lol, just a little more than 2K more than Mauer.

And Mauer is hanging around hitting and playing more baseball than Campy by about double.

The point is WAR and all these subjective stats are held out as the be all end all and they are not.

No, they absolutely are not.

I continue to see WAR detractors make up these arguments, and they are riddle in falsehoods. Nobody is doing that. Nobody is saying Player A had a 5.4 WAR, and Player B had a 5.2 WAR, so Player A is superior. If you do find someone doing that, they don't know snot about the stat.

They are completely fabricated in an effort to apply "metrics" to everything.

No, they are a snapshot of a players value and contribution to their teams win totals.

That's literally it.

Every discussion on this always leads me to the easiest argument ever that sabremetrics don't always work. The 2014 and 15 Royals were supposed to be HORRIBLE. They were built with scouting. Not with WAR or sabremetrics. What they have now was built with sabremetrics.

they were incredibly data driven!!!!

Are you kidding?

The Royals were built on high contact hitters and a dynamite bullpen. Teams are spending huge money on having legit bullpens like the Royals and Giants had.

They also had the best farm system I can remember a team ever having in the 21st century, and still managed to mess a lot of that up. They were a 90 win team that was built for the playoff structure of closing out short games.

That's a sabrmetric principle that plenty of other teams are doing.

You can only use WAR if you have unlimited funds, because guess what?

What? Of course not, and now you are just reaching for straws that aren't there.

WAR is just a stat, it's information. It's not a team assembly. You are completely confusing these facts.

Unless you luck into Zito, Hudson, Mulder, Chavez, Tejada, Dye, etc.

Luck into?

I take it you never did actually read 'Moneyball' did you?

Beane was drafting college players because they had a higher probability of success.

Zito was a college pitcher, the 9th overall pick.
Hudson was a 6th rounder out of Auburn
Mulder was the 2nd overall pick out of Michigan State
Chavez was the 10th overall pick out of high school, but he was from their back yard and Kotsay went the pick before
They traded for Dye
Tejada was an international signing


You think they 'lucked' into these guys?

Every single person who thinks that, never read that book, watched the movie and is completely clueless to what really happened in Oakland.

(None of whom were the result of sabremetric approaches to finding them),

Bahhaha, dude, read the book.

They knew college pitchers were a much better group to draft than high school. And that those guys panned out significantly more often. It's why they drafted Zito, Hudson, and Mulder.

that was sabrmetrics at work! They broke out the success rate of college vs high school players. It's why they drafted guys like Nick Swisher too.

it ain't gonna work. Buying or not buying players based upon WAR and the like is ruining the game. It's also resulting in a TON of teams racing to the bottom. Again, ruining the game.

Again, you are completely confusing information and team assembly. Nobody is buying off of WAR.

I read all these people who love these sabremetrics decrying supposed collusion in this past offseason. Guess what? A big reason certain guys were not signed is because of sabremetrics. Front offices are afraid to use the "eye test" of their scouts before spending money because it's a big "get out of jail free" card to have the "well, I used all the accepted sabremetrics" if it goes badly.

No, teams just know it's inefficient to waste money on big priced free agents. They age poorly and players best years are in their first 6 years of control.

That's it.

That's how it's ruining the game. (you didn't ask that but someone did)

If having more information is ruining things for you, then I feel bad for you.

I guess ignorance really is bliss.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by TheMaus2

.

If you want to take it out of context, then yeah he said it. But in the context of the conversation he means it is a poor tool if you are searching for a definitive calculation on a player/team's worth.

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

The first points, yes. The last point, no.

It's additional information. In fact, it's much better information than a person could ever create with their naked eye. By a laundry shoot.

It's much better information if added to what is seen w/the eye. But numbers w/o actually watching the games is just as insufficient as watching w/o doing the math. Neither method taken alone is an accurate way of measurement

And if you are debating with someone, and they are switching whichever WAR they want to suit their argument, that should tell you plenty about the strength of their argument and the person you are debating with.

But if what if you are debating w/2 other fans w/differing opinions? I think Willie Mays is better, you say Mickey Mantle, airdrop says Duke Snider. We are all going to pick the numbers that support our argument. So if baseball-reference supports my position, I'm going to quote them, you are going to use fan graphs cause it has Mantle higher, airdrop is going to rely on all the Dodger games he watches cause he has season tickets to Ebbets Field. Neither can be used as the definitive answer. That's the point we are trying to make. It is all subjective. So saying one of these metrics, that can be weighed according to the calculator's taste, says Mauer is a HOF isn't close to a certain reality.

Doesn't account for walks, sacrifices aren't merited against it, a home run is equal to a single, etc.

Why not count a walk as a hit? Why not count a sacrifice as an out? Why not weigh each extra base hit differently?

It's because that's how it was originally created. That's it. Sacrifices don't count against your at bats, and walks are like they never happened.

That's what makes it subjective. It's created in interpretation by Chadwick for really no reason other than how it was originally created in cricket.

That's the argument for saying it doesn't tell the whole story. That it is a flawed statistic in measuring a batter's success. But it doesn't change it from being a fact. A hit is defined. An at-bat is defined. Those are facts. Thus, the BA is defined. It is a fact. Not subjective.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

It's much better information if added to what is seen w/the eye. But numbers w/o actually watching the games is just as insufficient as watching w/o doing the math. Neither method taken alone is an accurate way of measurement

Certainly, the more information the better, always.

Just know that our brains are giant fail factories, we can't possibly measure or evaluate all 2430 games each year with any objectivity, and we are riddled with biases. Plus, to even attempt to do that, you are watching it on cameras/tv with limited information (such as where were the players positioned, broadcaster influence, etc).

There is so much room for error it's rather incredible.

But if what if you are debating w/2 other fans w/differing opinions? I think Willie Mays is better, you say Mickey Mantle, airdrop says Duke Snider. We are all going to pick the numbers that support our argument. So if baseball-reference supports my position, I'm going to quote them, you are going to use fan graphs cause it has Mantle higher, airdrop is going to rely on all the Dodger games he watches cause he has season tickets to Ebbets Field. Neither can be used as the definitive answer. That's the point we are trying to make. It is all subjective. So saying one of these metrics, that can be weighed according to the calculator's taste, says Mauer is a HOF isn't close to a certain reality.

Absolutely.

But even if you are coming to these debates with different inherent information, it doesn't end with WAR.


Mantle was the better hitter, but had the shorter career. Mays the better defender and much longer career.

Snider isn't in the conversation with those two.

If Air attended every single home game that Brooklyn played in 1955 for example...then he attended, at max, 6% of the games played in baseball that season. Would have seen Mays 11 times, and Mantle three times (World Series) and would be completely unqualified to discuss it at all if that is all the information being brought to the table.

Not to mention the massive bias that would exist in 1955 (Dodger fan no less), and the continued and likely extrapolated bias that would exist in 2018. Plus, holy cow the failed memory at that point.


You can discuss Mays and Mantle ad naseum, they are a fair debate with different strengths and weaknesses. Two people could have a reason for their disagreement based on information that they value more.

However, if people are just entering the debate with their minds made up and looking for relevant information to support their arguments, that's just a waste of time.

If I always used rWAR for example, and never fWAR, and then suddenly went to fWAR because it supported my argument in a particular case, you can throw me out of the conversation right there. That's just cherry picking to present an argument. It's useless.

That's the argument for saying it doesn't tell the whole story. That it is a flawed statistic in measuring a batter's success. But it doesn't change it from being a fact. A hit is defined. An at-bat is defined. Those are facts. Thus, the BA is defined. It is a fact. Not subjective.

It's a created fact. Just like WAR is.

They are very literally the same thing in this arena.

A players rWAR won't change because someone wants to change it up or down. It's based on their output. Same as Batting Average. It's a set formula. Just because it has a sister called fWAR doesn't detract from that.

[TheMaus2]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

I’ve got a metric for Jay Jaffe: DORKS. Damned Old Recalcitrants Killing Sports.

Jay is off the charts in this metric. He’s like, ya know, the best of all the weirdo baseball writers. He’s beating the hell out of George Will, Bill James. Not to mention actual baseball minds. I can only imagine what Thurman Munson would say to Jay. Lol.

Note you can buy Jay’s musings for a cool $26. Not to be confused with the Jay Jaffe who actually did play baseball at USC. He gives inspirational speeches, about overcoming cancer, etc. as opposed to making up stats and schilling snake oil.

okay man who started the name calling

[Airdrop01]

I called no one in this discussion a name. I’m not sure how you see that but clearly you are not interested in anything but personal attacks rather than addressing the points made.

It’s kind of your MO from what I’ve seen.

[dsvitak]

Mauer's adjusted OPS is the same as J. D. Drews. Mauer's dWar is about 2...for his CAREER. He sucked as a catcher, which is why he hasn't been a catcher for years.

Ummm....no.