Need a little stat help here

[foxfield]

To put it in a different perspective.  Assume Belanger's 41 WAR was all defense...becuase it mostly was.  That means over 18 years he averaged 2.278 WAR per year.

YES, Mateo exceeded that last year...in a single year.  Belanger was an excellent defender for a very long time...in a different era...but you can say Mateo is easily as good and be correct...but Mateo is not on a path that suggests he will exceed the 41 WAR career of Belanger, not should it be considered easy since Mateo eclipsed him once.

[HandsomeQuack]

Cuse, WAR is wins above replacement which is a counting stat. "Replacement" is meant to approximate an average triple-A player. The logic is that if a major leaguer got hurt and couldn't play, you assume that the team would call up and replace him with an average triple-A player, or in other words, a replacement level player. So for Belanger, over the course of his career, the Orioles won about 41 more games by virtue of playing him and not Joe Schmoe Rochester Red Wing. It's an approximation but that's what that means.

For a single season, 4+ WAR is usually all star territory and 7+ is usually flirting with MVP. Usually around 50 WAR is where the Hall of Fame conversation starts. But the whole thing is an approximation and not the end-all be-all.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

So it's 41/18.  That was the question.  Mateo v Belanger's fielding skills are purely subjective.  

No, it isn't.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's magic.

[NCRaven]

Just now, HandsomeQuack said:

Cuse, WAR is wins above replacement which is a counting stat. "Replacement" is meant to approximate an average triple-A player. 

Thank you, and you beat me to it.  It's not an average major league player.  An average ML'er is significantly better than an average AAA player.  Also, to equate one season of Mateo vs. a career of excellent defense of Belanger is ridiculous on it's face.  And, as Corn pointed out, claiming that Mateo was better than Belanger is the very definition of trolling.

[foxfield]

6 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

I don't agree.  Shortstops have to hit now.  

That is moving the goalposts but until Cal, they didn't play big guys who could hit and field at SS very often.  Probably more true today with the three true outcome approach, but what SS are required to do today is irrelevant to the question of how Belanger got 41 WAR nor is is relevant to whether Mateo is easily as good.

 

[HandsomeQuack]

2 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Thank you, and you beat me to it.  It's not an average major league player.  An average ML'er is significantly better than an average AAA player.  Also, to equate one season of Mateo vs. a career of excellent defense of Belanger is ridiculous on it's face.  And, as Corn pointed out, claiming that Mateo was better than Belanger is the very definition of trolling.

Yeah, I think an average major leaguer is around 2 WAR for a whole season.

[Baltimorecuse]

I barely can think of a stat that is given as a percentile where they don't give the lifetime AVERAGE.  Sorry for the confusion.  

[NCRaven]

Just now, Baltimorecuse said:

I barely can think of a stat that is given as a percentile where they don't give the lifetime AVERAGE.  Sorry for the confusion.  

WAR is not given as a percentile.

[foxfield]

Look you asked for some help understanding stats.  The question was how could Belanger obtain 41 WAR with his terrible offensive numbers.  Mateo is a great explanation.  

Imagine a guy having the type of year Mateo did last year for 15+ years.

The interesting thing is that it shows, being an elite defender who doesn't hit, can be a positive if the team has enough offense.  

Look at all of the pitching success the Orioles had during Belanger career.  It's a definite trade off in todays game, but Belanger carried an OBP of .300 and that made it worthwhile.

[Baltimorecuse]

1 minute ago, HandsomeQuack said:

Yeah, I think an average major leaguer is around 2 WAR for a whole season.

I thought the whole I idea of WAR was that average was zero.  

[24fps]

14 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

That's my question.  Usually career numbers are stated as an average.  Is this all his WARs combined?  

Yes.  BBRef has a stat called 162-game average which give you an average of career WAR broken down into 162 game increments.  By this metric, Belanger's WAR is 3.3 per 162 games, oWAR is 1.2 and dWAR is 3.2.  Note that adding oWAR and dWAR doesn't equal WAR due to statistical duplication in the WAR formula.

[Baltimorecuse]

6 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Thank you, and you beat me to it.  It's not an average major league player.  An average ML'er is significantly better than an average AAA player.  Also, to equate one season of Mateo vs. a career of excellent defense of Belanger is ridiculous on it's face.  And, as Corn pointed out, claiming that Mateo was better than Belanger is the very definition of trolling.

Thank you

[Sanity Check]

Belanger's fielding % as a shortstop was .977, and Mateo's is only .973.  Belanger is clearly the better shortstop.

Being serious now........when I looked at Belanger's stats, his errors during his high volume (in chances) seasons were higher that I would have remembered/guessed.  Now, I will make one other point that I don't think can be disputed.....the fields now are much better manicured than when Belanger played.

[24fps]

15 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

So it's 41/18.  That was the question.  Mateo v Belanger's fielding skills are purely subjective.  

God put Bill James and his acolytes on Earth to bury notions like that once and for all.  A lot of work still needs to be done on the defensive side, but that statement is most decidedly not true.

[Sanity Check]

27 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

That's my question.  Usually career numbers are stated as an average.  Is this all his WARs combined?  

Career numbers are usually totals....unless they are averages, and then they are stated as averages.  But hits, runs, home runs, etc are shown in stats as totals.  If you just look at Belanger's annual WAR, it's clear that the bottom number can't be an average.