Orioles WAR ratings

[AlbNYfan]

Someone, please explain to me how McKenna can have the same WAR as Lopez? That alone makes this list suspect (11th on the list??). Does being a cheerleader add value? Many complain about Nevin and his roster spot, but IMO Mckenna is right there too. McKenna vs Stowers??

[survivedc]

17 minutes ago, AlbNYfan said:

Someone, please explain to me how McKenna can have the same WAR as Lopez? That alone makes this list suspect (11th on the list??). Does being a cheerleader add value? Many complain about Nevin and his roster spot, but IMO Mckenna is right there too. McKenna vs Stowers??

Mckennas value over Nevin is obvious, he’s very fast and a good defender.

[AlbNYfan]

1 minute ago, survivedc said:

Mckennas value over Nevin is obvious, he’s very fast and a good defender.

I don't disagree, but there are better options IMO and still, 11th on team for WAR, tied with Lopez. 

[ArtVanDelay]

32 minutes ago, AlbNYfan said:

Someone, please explain to me how McKenna can have the same WAR as Lopez? That alone makes this list suspect (11th on the list??). Does being a cheerleader add value? Many complain about Nevin and his roster spot, but IMO Mckenna is right there too. McKenna vs Stowers??

McKenna has played 232 innings and Lopez has pitched 42.

[seak05]

34 minutes ago, AlbNYfan said:

Someone, please explain to me how McKenna can have the same WAR as Lopez? That alone makes this list suspect (11th on the list??). Does being a cheerleader add value? Many complain about Nevin and his roster spot, but IMO Mckenna is right there too. McKenna vs Stowers??

McKenna is good at his role, Nevin is not ergo McKenna adds value to the roster, and Nevin does not, and WAR reflects this. 

[DrungoHazewood]

8 hours ago, oldfan said:

I hate to think what the HOF will look like 20 years from now. Their already putting very good players in, it's not for the very good, it's for the no doubters. When you have to start digging down deep into these new metrics, that's a red flag. If your not a first ballot guy, your not a true Hall of Famer.

The first class that included players on the Brady Anderson, Nick Markakis level was in 1946. And that's never really let up.  The Hall was a thing for over 30 years before the first Baseball Encyclopedia came out in '69, so many players were inducted based on embellished stories about players who'd retired half a century before. That continues to some extent even today.  

Tommy McCarthy went in in 1946.  He was basically an average hitter, a pretty good fielder, and once led the league in steals. Only played 13 years, his playing career was like, I don't know... the 1890s version of Jermaine Dye or Jay Bruce.  But someone told a story about him helping invent the hit-and-run, so he's in.

The Frankie Frisch-led Veteran's Committee of the 60s and 70s inducted dozens of players from the 20s and 30s who played with or against Frisch. Players like Sunny Jim Bottomley, who wasn't in the same zip code as Fred McGriff or John OIerud.  There are years from the late 20s where something like 20-25% of NL plate appearances were players who'd eventually go into the Hall.

If you're upset about the Hall inducting pretty good players you need to blame poor information and badly designed voting systems from almost a century ago, not advanced metrics.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, ArtVanDelay said:

McKenna has played 232 innings and Lopez has pitched 42.

I also think WAR fails to capture the proper value of relievers.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, AlbNYfan said:

Someone, please explain to me how McKenna can have the same WAR as Lopez? That alone makes this list suspect (11th on the list??). Does being a cheerleader add value? Many complain about Nevin and his roster spot, but IMO Mckenna is right there too. McKenna vs Stowers??

I can't get to Fangraphs right now, but I'll take a guess:

- Fangraphs uses FIP to measure pitchers.  Lopez has a very low batting average on balls in play, which drives his FIP up to over 3.00, which is good but not great. 

- Statcast sees McKenna as a very good fielder and runner, while his .662 OPS is not that far below league average.

bb-ref uses RA instead of FIP and sees Lopez ahead of McKenna 1.6 to 0.7.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

13 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I also think WAR fails to capture the proper value of relievers.

Or is that just a function of their limited number of innings?  Jorge Lopez has faced 171 batters, and he's only two games behind leading the majors in appearances.  Even multiplying by his leverage index of 1.93 that's the equivalent of 330 plate appearances.  Austin Hayes has 342 PAs, plus another 165 chances in the field, and he's created a few runs on the bases.

Relievers don't have as much space to create value.

[Frobby]

16 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Or is that just a function of their limited number of innings?  Jorge Lopez has faced 171 batters, and he's only two games behind leading the majors in appearances.  Even multiplying by his leverage index of 1.93 that's the equivalent of 330 plate appearances.  Austin Hayes has 342 PAs, plus another 165 chances in the field, and he's created a few runs on the bases.

Relievers don't have as much space to create value.

It’s true.   But I think the main thing is, both flavors of WAR are leverage-neutral.   You can argue about whether that’s good or bad.   

[Sports Guy]

27 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Or is that just a function of their limited number of innings?  Jorge Lopez has faced 171 batters, and he's only two games behind leading the majors in appearances.  Even multiplying by his leverage index of 1.93 that's the equivalent of 330 plate appearances.  Austin Hayes has 342 PAs, plus another 165 chances in the field, and he's created a few runs on the bases.

Relievers don't have as much space to create value.

Yea it’s without question the lack of innings but a better method should be doing, perhaps incorporating WPA or something.  A dominant reliever who excels in high leverage situations should carry higher WARs

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

It’s true.   But I think the main thing is, both flavors of WAR are leverage-neutral.   You can argue about whether that’s good or bad.   

They're not leverage neutral.  From Baseball Reference. From Fangraphs.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea it’s without question the lack of innings but a better method should be doing, perhaps incorporating WPA or something.  A dominant reliever who excels in high leverage situations should carry higher WARs

As I mentioned to Frobby both main flavors of WAR include leverage in their WAR calculations for relievers.  You could just use WPA instead of a leverage-adjusted runs saved number in WAR.  But I don't know if that's objectively better or worse than the way they do it now.  Jorge Lopez has a 0.9 fWAR, 1.6 rWAR, and 0.5 WPA.

[Frobby]

17 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

They're not leverage neutral.  From Baseball Reference. From Fangraphs.

Oops.   Has that always been true?  Maybe I was thinking of an earlier version.  Or maybe I was just wrong.  

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Oops.   Has that always been true?  Maybe I was thinking of an earlier version.  Or maybe I was just wrong.  

I think the Baseball Reference page is from 2012.  Not sure about Fangraphs, but if anything I would have expected them to incorporate that earlier.