Need a little stat help here

[Baltimorecuse]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I do not think the value of fielding is subjective at all.  The measurement of fielding is somewhat subjective, though less so all the time.  

There's been plenty of championship teams that had defensive weak spots made up for by the weak fielder's slugging.  I think there are more good fielders around today than ever in baseball.  Today's physical fitness, combined with advanced training is the reason.  

[Ohfan67]

13 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

 I've seen them both play.  Opinions are optional.  Credibility is subjective without facts.  

You have brought zero facts to whatever you’re trying to argue, just opinion based on supposed observations made decades ago. It’s not clear what you’re even trying to argue. Again, it just seems like you’re trolling.  Throwing shade at a former oriole just to jerk chains and get responses.  

[Ohfan67]

4 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

There's been plenty of championship teams that had defensive weak spots made up for by the weak fielder's slugging.  I think there are more good fielders around today than ever in baseball.  Today's physical fitness, combined with advanced training is the reason.  

That’s what Frobby told you in this thread!

[Baltimorecuse]

9 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

You have brought zero facts to whatever you’re trying to argue, just opinion based on supposed observations made decades ago. It’s not clear what you’re even trying to argue. Again, it just seems like you’re trolling.  Throwing shade at a former oriole just to jerk chains and get responses.  

I listed Belanger's stats and was question how that led to a lifetime WAR of 41.  Notice the question I asked.  "I need a little help here".  Virtually every stat in baseball is stated as an average but not lifetime WAR?  Why is that?  

Now everyone bashes Mateo's offense.  It's not any worse than the immortal Belanger.  The difference is that in today's game SS is supposed to hit.  I haven't seen anything get by Mateo that Belanger would have caught.

[Frobby]

17 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

There's been plenty of championship teams that had defensive weak spots made up for by the weak fielder's slugging.  I think there are more good fielders around today than ever in baseball.  Today's physical fitness, combined with advanced training is the reason.  

I am not someone who prefers offense to defense or vice versa.   But we know how to weigh them properly.  Let’s say a shortstop gets one fewer single per week than the average shortstop, but he makes two more defensive plays per week than the average shortstop.   In that case, that shortstop is above average overall.  If he’s getting two fewer singles per week and making one more play per week, he’s below average.   There’s nothing subjective about that, it’s obvious.   

Derek Jeter was a below average fielder but a far above average hitter for a shortstop.  On the whole, he was a Hall of Fame player despite his defensive shortcomings.  Mark Belanger was a very poor hitter but one of the greatest defensive shortstops ever to play the game.   On the whole, he was a far above average player, but well short of Hall of Fame level.  There’s no shame in that.  

I think an interesting comparison is Mark Belanger and Larry Bowa.  Bowa was a two-time gold glover and 5 time all star who had a 71 OPS+ for his career, in 2247 games.  Belanger was an 8-time gold glover and one-time all star, with a 68 OPS+ in 2016 games.  But Belanger was worth 41 WAR and Bowa “only” 22.8 (which, by the way, is a very nice career).  Why?  Because as good as Bowa was with the glove (and he was quite good), Belanger was that much better.  Per Total Zone Runs, Belanger was 238 runs better than average during his career, one run behind Ozzie Smith for the best defensive shortstop of all time.  He didn’t win his 8 gold gloves by accident, or just by reputation.  He was that good.  

 

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

I listed Belanger's stats and was question how that led to a lifetime WAR of 41.  Notice the question I asked.  "I need a little help here".  Virtually every stat in baseball is stated as an average but not lifetime WAR?  Why is that?  

Oh, you mean like that famous home runs per game stat that everyone uses all the time?   

It’s just wrong that virtually every stat is stated as an average.   Not even most of them are.  

But what’s your point?  If someone wanted to calculate WAR/game, or WAR/inning, it could easily be done.  But longevity is part of greatness.   Who’s better, the guy who batted .300 for 5 years or the guy who batted .290 for 20 years?  

 

[Ohfan67]

6 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

I listed Belanger's stats and was question how that led to a lifetime WAR of 41.  Notice the question I asked.  "I need a little help here".  Virtually every stat in baseball is stated as an average but not lifetime WAR?  Why is that?  

Now everyone bashes Mateo's offense.  It's not any worse than the immortal Belanger.  The difference is that in today's game SS is supposed to hit.  I haven't seen anything get by Mateo that Belanger would have caught.

First, I apologize for coming off so harsh. I do that sometimes, much to my dismay.
 

Second, Your answer is right there in your post. Mateo had a fantastic year last year. He was worth 3.4 WAR last year when his OPS+ was 84. That’s a lot of WAR for such light hitting in this era. Belanger played for a long time. If Mateo could play that level of defense with an 84 OPS+ for the next dozen years then he would have similar value, especially if you include the relative differences in the value of defense among the eras. 

[Baltimorecuse]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I am not someone who prefers offense to defense or vice versa.   But we know how to weigh them properly.  Let’s say a shortstop gets one fewer single per week than the average shortstop, but he makes two more defensive plays per week than the average shortstop.   In that case, that shortstop is above average overall.  If he’s getting two fewer singles per week and making one more play per week, he’s below average.   There’s nothing subjective about that, it’s obvious.   

Derek Jeter was a below average fielder but a far above average hitter for a shortstop.  On the whole, he was a Hall of Fame player despite his defensive shortcomings.  Mark Belanger was a very poor hitter but one of the greatest defensive shortstops ever to play the game.   On the whole, he was a far above average player, but well short of Hall of Fame level.  There’s no shame in that.  

I think an interesting comparison is Mark Belanger and Larry Bowa.  Bowa was a two-time gold glover and 5 time all star who had a 71 OPS+ for his career, in 2247 games.  Belanger was an 8-time gold glover and one-time all star, with a 68 OPS+ in 2016 games.  But Belanger was worth 41 WAR and Bowa “only” 22.8 (which, by the way, is a very nice career).  Why?  Because as good as Bowa was with the glove (and he was quite good), Belanger was that much better.  Per Total Zone Runs, Belanger was 238 runs better than average during his career, one run behind Ozzie Smith for the best defensive shortstop of all time.  He didn’t win his 8 gold gloves by accident, or just by reputation.  He was that good.  

 

I did not say Belanger wasn't a great defensive SS.  I said Mateo is as good.  There is no way I believe anyone would carry Belanger in today's game.  

[Ohfan67]

8 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

I did not say Belanger wasn't a great defensive SS.  I said Mateo is as good.  There is no way I believe anyone would carry Belanger in today's game.  

I think it’s true that no team would carry that weak of a hitter as a regular for years. But one of the best differences about the eras that Frobby suggested was that teams back then also carried shortstops that fielded significantly worse than the worst fielding regular of today. That’s why Belanger can have a bigger defensive WAR in that era versus Mateo last year. (Frobby ease correct me if I am wrong).  

[Baltimorecuse]

8 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

I think it’s true that no team would carry that weak of a hitter as a regular for years. But one of the best differences about the eras that Frobby suggested was that teams back then also carried shortstops that fielded significantly worse than the worst fielding regular of today. That’s why Belanger can have a bigger defensive WAR in that era versus Mateo last year. (Frobby ease correct me if I am wrong).  

Yeah, the 60's and 70's were different.  Catchers, and middle infielders. were considered defensive players first.  If they could hit to their names tend to be legendary.

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

I think it’s true that no team would carry that weak of a hitter as a regular for years. But one of the best differences about the eras that Frobby suggested was that teams back then also carried shortstops that fielded significantly worse than the worst fielding regular of today. That’s why Belanger can have a bigger defensive WAR in that era versus Mateo last year. (Frobby ease correct me if I am wrong).  

I am not saying it was a strategy.  Players today are better than players 50 years ago, at every position and in every sport.  As an athlete, all you can really do is be the best you can be compared to your peers.  Babe Ruth hit more home runs than entire tesms in his prime - think about that.  But if you could just teleport 1920s Ruth into the 2020’s, facing a league with pitchers averaging 94 mph, he’d probably be lucky to avoid striking out 300 times and hitting 20-30 homers tops.  What would happen if you plopped 1960s Bob Hayes into the 2024 Olympics 100 meter dash finals?   He’d probably finish last.  But that’s not how you judge athletes.  You judge them compared to their peers.   Mark Belanger was much further ahead of the shortstops of his time defensively than any modern shortstop is compared to his peers today.  And that’s why they carried his lousy bat.  

[InsideCoroner]

16 hours ago, Sanity Check said:

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.

Also, players back in Belanger’s era had far more fielding opportunities than in the “three true outcomes” era. In Mateo’s career he’s handled .47 chances per inning, whereas Belanger had .58 cpi in his 18 years. That’s 23% more activity before you even get into other factors like field condition and lighting.

[Ohfan67]

5 hours ago, Frobby said:

I am not saying it was a strategy.  Players today are better than players 50 years ago, at every position and in every sport.  As an athlete, all you can really do is be the best you can be compared to your peers.  Babe Ruth hit more home runs than entire tesms in his prime - think about that.  But if you could just teleport 1920s Ruth into the 2020’s, facing a league with pitchers averaging 94 mph, he’d probably be lucky to avoid striking out 300 times and hitting 20-30 homers tops.  What would happen if you plopped 1960s Bob Hayes into the 2024 Olympics 100 meter dash finals?   He’d probably finish last.  But that’s not how you judge athletes.  You judge them compared to their peers.   Mark Belanger was much further ahead of the shortstops of his time defensively than any modern shortstop is compared to his peers today.  And that’s why they carried his lousy bat.  

No, I didn’t mean it was a strategy. It’s just what the WAR and other data/analysis suggests. The average and perhaps especially the weakest level of play is higher now than in that era. The variation between best and worst fielding at a position today is less than it was in that era. 

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

No, I didn’t mean it was a strategy. It’s just what the WAR and other data/analysis suggests. The average and perhaps especially the weakest level of play is higher now than in that era. The variation between best and worst fielding at a position today is less than it was in that era. 

I think it would take some serious digging to figure that out.  What was average?  What was the worst, and how many guys were down there?  What was very good, and how many guys were up there?  You’d need to know what the whole curve looked like compared to today.  

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think it would take some serious digging to figure that out.  What was average?  What was the worst, and how many guys were down there?  What was very good, and how many guys were up there?  You’d need to know what the whole curve looked like compared to today.  

This isn’t “serious digging,” but a quick and dirty comparison of the “spread”’ between the best and worst shortstops in two-year windows in Belanger’s time and now.

In 1974, Belanger led all shortstops at +21 Rtot, and there were three others at +16, +14 and +12.   The four worst were -10, -11, -13 and -15.   In 1975, Belanger was a career best +35, far ahead of the next group at +18, +16, +11, +10 and +10.  The worst group was -10, -10, -11, -13 and -22 (19-year old Robin Yount being thrown into the fire).   

In 2021, the top SS was +13, followed by +12; nobody else was at +10 or higher.  Nobody was at -10 or below.  But in 2022, the top end was +14, +13, and +11, while the bottom end included -10, -12, -13, -13 and -16.   

That’s far from a comprehensive study of this topic, but I think it’s supportive of the thesis that there was a bit more of a spread between the best and worst defenders in the 70’s than there is today, even if you toss out the best and worst guy from each group.   At the same time, Belanger was way out there in the stratosphere, head and shoulders above the best of his time.  He had 7 seasons where he was over +20 Rtot, and another two over +10.