[Giants]

WAR is the most overrated “statistic “ out there. As the song goes: War, uh, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.”  Except for agent in negotiations.

Don’t tell me, for example. the combo of Posey/Casali is worth only 1.4win over THEIR replacement.  I know WAR is supposed league average. But that doesn’t mean much either.  EDIT- ok. I misinterpreted the data.  It’s a figure that they exceed WAR at their position relative to rest of league.  So it’s, using Catcher, 1.4/better than other teams WAR.  I Still think it’s overrated, overused and not particularly telling.

It’s a team. With real players. It’s not APBA.

I'm not sure I understand your last statement. 

Are you saying "real players ... not APBA" meaning that statistics aren't highly relevant to evaluating performance, but that instead some subjective assessment of intangible human qualities is more accurate?

Or are you saying that there's another publicly available all-encompassing metric that is superior? if so, which one is more telling?

WAR posits that the five biggest contributors to the Giants success this year were starting pitching, relief pitching, Crawford, Belt and Posey. That seems to align extremely well with the non-statistical eye test.

Does WAR account for, say, Belt's ability to pick an errant throw from an infielder versus, say, Wade's inability to do same?  
And we coincidentally saw just that last night (well half of it - all of it if you assume Belt would have picked it cleanly).  And then does WAR account for likelihood that with said pick made by Belt, the starter goes deeper into the game?

I love Crawford.  Always have.  And am stoked that he is having a great year, which has been instrumental to the Giants' success.
But my eyes and the numbers tell me that Belt has had a better/more impactful season, especially if you consider he has missed some time and still amassed those numbers.  And in last month+, Belt had been ridiculous.  Big loss for the Giants.  Fortunately, they won last night.  Hope they can get 4 more - though I'm hoping it will only take 3 more Ws to secure the division.

DWAR ranks the Defensive WAR for every player.

---

Crawford was the Giants MVP without question this year.

1. He's played 35 more games than Belt (obviously will finish with at least 40 more games played).

2. Crawford plays the most important defensive position and Belt plays the least important defensive position. Belt has hit slightly better (159 OPS+ vs 142 OPS+) but he would need to have hit dramatically better to overcome the difference in defensive contribution.

I hope you guys are right and that the last 6 games don't reinforce the case for Belt as MVP.

Just because he's not the MVP doesn't mean it's not a big loss for the Giants, definitely hurts a lot for this week and playoffs.

While I agree with choice of Crawford as the Giants MVP, I think you did a disservice to Belt by referring to first base as the least important defensive position.  Every season, Belt saves a quite a few potential errors by the other infielders with his ability to scoop or reach out to snag wayward throws.  A skilled first baseman is of more value that a skilled left fielder (in my opinion, the least important defensive position).

This seems to indicate that SS/Giants is slightly more valuable than 1B/Giants, by 3.7 WAR to 1.9 WAR.  And obviously covers all players at each position.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagu...ompare.cgi

Giants now have third best record in team history with five games to play.  If they win three more games, they'll tie the 1904 NY Giants with the best overall record in team history.  

Here's the SF Giants position-by-position WAR relative to the 30 MLB teams (with WAR total):

#2 Relief Pitching (3.6)
#2 Pinch Hitter (0.4)
#3 Shortstop (3.7)
#5 Catcher (1.4)
#5 1B (1.9)
#6 Starting Pitching (7.7)
#9 CF (1.0)
#11 RF (0.7)
#13 3B (0.8)
#14 LF (-0.1)
#19 2B (-0.4)

Wait a sec.  Are these stats suggesting the Posey/Crawford /Belt “bad contracts” that we have been complaining about for years were, in fact, great decisions?  All hail, Brian Sabean!

[Giants]

WAR is the most overrated “statistic “ out there. As the song goes: War, uh, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.”  Except for agent in negotiations.

Don’t tell me, for example. the combo of Posey/Casali is worth only 1.4win over THEIR replacement.  I know WAR is supposed league average. But that doesn’t mean much either.  EDIT- ok. I misinterpreted the data.  It’s a figure that they exceed WAR at their position relative to rest of league.  So it’s, using Catcher, 1.4/better than other teams WAR.  I Still think it’s overrated, overused and not particularly telling.

It’s a team. With real players. It’s not APBA.

I'm not sure I understand your last statement. 

Are you saying "real players ... not APBA" meaning that statistics aren't highly relevant to evaluating performance, but that instead some subjective assessment of intangible human qualities is more accurate?

Or are you saying that there's another publicly available all-encompassing metric that is superior? if so, which one is more telling?

WAR posits that the five biggest contributors to the Giants success this year were starting pitching, relief pitching, Crawford, Belt and Posey. That seems to align extremely well with the non-statistical eye test.

Does WAR account for, say, Belt's ability to pick an errant throw from an infielder versus, say, Wade's inability to do same?  
And we coincidentally saw just that last night (well half of it - all of it if you assume Belt would have picked it cleanly).  And then does WAR account for likelihood that with said pick made by Belt, the starter goes deeper into the game?

I love Crawford.  Always have.  And am stoked that he is having a great year, which has been instrumental to the Giants' success.
But my eyes and the numbers tell me that Belt has had a better/more impactful season, especially if you consider he has missed some time and still amassed those numbers.  And in last month+, Belt had been ridiculous.  Big loss for the Giants.  Fortunately, they won last night.  Hope they can get 4 more - though I'm hoping it will only take 3 more Ws to secure the division.

DWAR ranks the Defensive WAR for every player.

---

Crawford was the Giants MVP without question this year.

1. He's played 35 more games than Belt (obviously will finish with at least 40 more games played).

2. Crawford plays the most important defensive position and Belt plays the least important defensive position. Belt has hit slightly better (159 OPS+ vs 142 OPS+) but he would need to have hit dramatically better to overcome the difference in defensive contribution.

I hope you guys are right and that the last 6 games don't reinforce the case for Belt as MVP.

Just because he's not the MVP doesn't mean it's not a big loss for the Giants, definitely hurts a lot for this week and playoffs.

While I agree with choice of Crawford as the Giants MVP, I think you did a disservice to Belt by referring to first base as the least important defensive position.  Every season, Belt saves a quite a few potential errors by the other infielders with his ability to scoop or reach out to snag wayward throws.  A skilled first baseman is of more value that a skilled left fielder (in my opinion, the least important defensive position).

This seems to indicate that SS/Giants is slightly more valuable than 1B/Giants, by 3.7 WAR to 1.9 WAR.  And obviously covers all players at each position.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagu...ompare.cgi

Giants now have third best record in team history with five games to play.  If they win three more games, they'll tie the 1904 NY Giants with the best overall record in team history.  

Here's the SF Giants position-by-position WAR relative to the 30 MLB teams (with WAR total):

#2 Relief Pitching (3.6)
#2 Pinch Hitter (0.4)
#3 Shortstop (3.7)
#5 Catcher (1.4)
#5 1B (1.9)
#6 Starting Pitching (7.7)
#9 CF (1.0)
#11 RF (0.7)
#13 3B (0.8)
#14 LF (-0.1)
#19 2B (-0.4)

Wait a sec.  Are these stats suggesting the Posey/Crawford /Belt “bad contracts” that we have been complaining about for years were, in fact, great decisions?  All hail, Brian Sabean!