[lex24]

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.

Yes, WAR accounts for every defensive play. But I thought the issue was Belt vs Crawford, not Belt vs Wade. Surely it's intuitive that the run prevention contributions of an above average shortstop far exceed the contributions of even the best first baseman.

Belt playing forty fewer games is a major negative. Even if you're the "best" player on the team you can't be the most "Valuable" if you play less than 100 games.

If your eyes tell you that Belt was better that is your prerogative, but by what numbers was Belt better? six more home runs, but the same on-base percentage. And even so it seems that you are focusing entirely on hitting numbers and not defensive or baserunning numbers. I would not be so quick to dismiss what WAR is telling us, at least as a starting point, since it is based in a more holistic analysis.

I do agree, as stated earlier, that losing Belt is a big loss, and it could be the difference in winning or losing a playoff series, which is a shame.

I think WAR is a nice analytic for salary negotiations.  Certainly it tells us something.  I’m just sick of it being the be all end all.  But then I think mathematicians have turned baseball into the Three True Outcome fest that it is. I guess that’s just the old Phogge in me…..

And finally, I do think intangibles matter.  And that good baseball people throw those into the equation as well.

Intangibles, eye test and analytics are not (or at least IMO should not be) mutually exclusive.
(Sorry DC, this is in wrong thread. I agree with you on Crawford v. Belt. On two grounds - defensive importance and games played. As to the former, both are excellent at their positions. But SS is far more important defensively than 1B.)

[lex24]

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.

Yes, WAR accounts for every defensive play. But I thought the issue was Belt vs Crawford, not Belt vs Wade. Surely it's intuitive that the run prevention contributions of an above average shortstop far exceed the contributions of even the best first baseman.

Belt playing forty fewer games is a major negative. Even if you're the "best" player on the team you can't be the most "Valuable" if you play less than 100 games.

If your eyes tell you that Belt was better that is your prerogative, but by what numbers was Belt better? six more home runs, but the same on-base percentage. And even so it seems that you are focusing entirely on hitting numbers and not defensive or baserunning numbers. I would not be so quick to dismiss what WAR is telling us, at least as a starting point, since it is based in a more holistic analysis.

I do agree, as stated earlier, that losing Belt is a big loss, and it could be the difference in winning or losing a playoff series, which is a shame.

I think WAR is a nice analytic for salary negotiations.  Certainly it tells us something.  I’m just sick of it being the be all end all.  But then I think mathematicians have turned baseball into the Three True Outcome fest that it is. I guess that’s just the old Phogge in me…..

And finally, I do think intangibles matter.  And that good baseball people throw those into the equation as well.

Intangibles, eye test and analytics are not (or at least IMO should not be) mutually exclusive.
(Sorry DC, this is in wrong thread. I agree with you on Crawford v. Belt. On two grounds - defensive importance and games played. As to the former, both are excellent at their positions. But SS is far more important defensively than 1B.)