[DC 86]

Belt on 10 day IL. Estrada brought up.

Belt expected to be out for four weeks.

---

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).

The established "defensive spectrum" positions first base as the least important and left field next, and this is reflected in the position penalties in both B-R and FG WAR formulas. The metrics behind this are that the difference between an average left fielder and a replacement are materially greater than the difference between an average left fielder and a replacement.

Of course Belt has a net positive contribution as a first baseman and compared to a specific left fielder he could be more valuable, but in aggregate first base is simply the least important position on the field. A substitute first baseman will almost always make the same plays as a good defender such as Belt, but a substitute left fielder with less range and a weaker arm in the outfield will be much more costly in terms of run prevention. Likewise a skilled left fielder (referring mostly to covering a lot of ground) will contribute more by turning hits into outs and cutting off potential extra base hits than a first baseman will at his position. However, it is close, so I don't think it's a signifiant issue, as opposed to comparing shortstop/first base as is the case with Crawford/Belt.

[DC 86]

Belt on 10 day IL. Estrada brought up.

Belt expected to be out for four weeks.

---

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).

The established "defensive spectrum" positions first base as the least important and left field next, and this is reflected in the position penalties in both B-R and FG WAR formulas. The metrics behind this are that the difference between an average left fielder and a replacement are materially greater than the difference between an average left fielder and a replacement.

Of course Belt has a net positive contribution as a first baseman and compared to a specific left fielder he could be more valuable, but in aggregate first base is simply the least important position on the field. A substitute first baseman will almost always make the same plays as a good defender such as Belt, but a substitute left fielder with less range and a weaker arm in the outfield will be much more costly in terms of run prevention. Likewise a skilled left fielder (referring mostly to covering a lot of ground) will contribute more by turning hits into outs and cutting off potential extra base hits than a first baseman will at his position. However, it is close, so I don't think it's a signifiant issue, as opposed to comparing shortstop/first base as is the case with Crawford/Belt.

[BostonCard]

To put It another way, the average ops of a first baseman is .859; that of a corner outfielder is .819, which is to say that in the outfield, teams are willing to sacrifice some offensive production to get better defensive production, while at first base, teams will generally not sacrifice that much offensive production to get a better defender, because the defensive contribution at will help the team less than the defensive contribution in left field.

BC

[BostonCard]

To put It another way, the average ops of a first baseman is .859; that of a corner outfielder is .819, which is to say that in the outfield, teams are willing to sacrifice some offensive production to get better defensive production, while at first base, teams will generally not sacrifice that much offensive production to get a better defender, because the defensive contribution at will help the team less than the defensive contribution in left field.

BC

[BostonCard]

Giants and Dodgers both win, Giants remain two games up with 5 to play.

BC

[BostonCard]

Giants and Dodgers both win, Giants remain two games up with 5 to play.

BC

[Mick]

In my mind Crawford is easily the MVP.

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)

[Mick]

In my mind Crawford is easily the MVP.

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)

[BobK]

Magic number is now 4. Lots of good luck last night but it all counts

[BobK]

Magic number is now 4. Lots of good luck last night but it all counts

[lex24]

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)

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.

[lex24]

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)

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.

[Phogge]

Sherman: "War is Hell."
Sherman: "Kill them all."
Sherman: "The only good Trojan is a dead Trojan."
Sherman: "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve."

My kind of guy. Think he may have played QB at Michigan.

[Phogge]

Sherman: "War is Hell."
Sherman: "Kill them all."
Sherman: "The only good Trojan is a dead Trojan."
Sherman: "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve."

My kind of guy. Think he may have played QB at Michigan.

[Mick]

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)

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.

WAR is baseball's best stat.  It's all-encompassing.  Here's why:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1642...0of%20them.

[Mick]

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)

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.

WAR is baseball's best stat.  It's all-encompassing.  Here's why:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1642...0of%20them.

[DC 86]

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.

[DC 86]

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.

[teejers1]

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.

[teejers1]

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.

[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!

[DC 86]

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.

[DC 86]

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.

[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.)

[DC 86]

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.

I haven't disagreed with any of this in this thread or in general.

WAR is not the end all, especially the publicly available versions.
Analytics have certainly changed the way the game is played, perhaps for the worse from a fan standpoint.
Intangibles matter and are actually quantified through various models by front offices in their evaluations, especially with regard to the amateur draft.

My argument is that WAR is the best starting point for holistic player evaluation that we have, and dismissing out of hand it as part of any discussion about a player's merits makes the discussion itself pointless. To paraphrase Churchill: it's the worst form of player evaluation, except for all the others.

[DC 86]

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.

I haven't disagreed with any of this in this thread or in general.

WAR is not the end all, especially the publicly available versions.
Analytics have certainly changed the way the game is played, perhaps for the worse from a fan standpoint.
Intangibles matter and are actually quantified through various models by front offices in their evaluations, especially with regard to the amateur draft.

My argument is that WAR is the best starting point for holistic player evaluation that we have, and dismissing out of hand it as part of any discussion about a player's merits makes the discussion itself pointless. To paraphrase Churchill: it's the worst form of player evaluation, except for all the others.

[Phogge]

This club wins. Only stat that counts.

[Phogge]

This club wins. Only stat that counts.

[qwerty49]

Gutsy 1-0 win tonight. 

I won’t say anything about the Dodger game to respect the woof gods.

[qwerty49]

Gutsy 1-0 win tonight. 

I won’t say anything about the Dodger game to respect the woof gods.

[teejers1]

Gutsy 1-0 win tonight. 

I won’t say anything about the Dodger game to respect the woof gods.

A grounder right through the wickets of Wilmer at 1B.  Fortunately, the extra out did not lead to a run for the D-backs.

Also, I guess what bothers me about SS being so much more important than 1B is that SS rarely, if ever, "erase" errors by first basemen.  First basemen do that a lot for infielders, including shortstops.  And how many 1B make field that rocket off the bat Belt did several games ago, let alone initiate a game-ending double play on said rocket?

Belt's D is WAY underappreciated, including by folks on this board.

BTW, GREAT W tonight via small ball.  [After Giants had failed to score on a bases loaded, one out situation early in the game].

As Phogge said, this team racks up Ws. That's the most important stat.

[teejers1]

Gutsy 1-0 win tonight. 

I won’t say anything about the Dodger game to respect the woof gods.

A grounder right through the wickets of Wilmer at 1B.  Fortunately, the extra out did not lead to a run for the D-backs.

Also, I guess what bothers me about SS being so much more important than 1B is that SS rarely, if ever, "erase" errors by first basemen.  First basemen do that a lot for infielders, including shortstops.  And how many 1B make field that rocket off the bat Belt did several games ago, let alone initiate a game-ending double play on said rocket?

Belt's D is WAY underappreciated, including by folks on this board.

BTW, GREAT W tonight via small ball.  [After Giants had failed to score on a bases loaded, one out situation early in the game].

As Phogge said, this team racks up Ws. That's the most important stat.

[qwerty49]

I bit my lip when the Pads were up 9-5 in the 7th. Too late. Dodgers hit 4 HRs (3 off the same reliever) in the bottom of the 8th to take a 11-9 lead.

Oh well. Magic number is now 3, barring a miracle 9th from the Pads.

Doval looks like the real deal.

[qwerty49]

I bit my lip when the Pads were up 9-5 in the 7th. Too late. Dodgers hit 4 HRs (3 off the same reliever) in the bottom of the 8th to take a 11-9 lead.

Oh well. Magic number is now 3, barring a miracle 9th from the Pads.

Doval looks like the real deal.

[DC 86]

Also, I guess what bothers me about SS being so much more important than 1B is that SS rarely, if ever, "erase" errors by first basemen.  First basemen do that a lot for infielders, including shortstops.

Players play first base because they aren't good enough to play another position. If Brandon Crawford played first base he would be the best fielding first baseman in baseball, but Brandon Belt couldn't play shortstop given the amount of range and agility that's required there. That's really the essence of it. Which is no disrespect to Belt who is a very good fielder and adds value on defense; but if he could play another position well he would be playing it.

Every baseball team at every level from little league through MLB puts their best athlete at shortstop. At some point some shortstops have to move to second base or third base or centerfield because they can't cut it or because there's someone better at shortstop. And those who can't play those positions become corner outfielders. Try to imagine a first baseman executing routine plays for shortstops (going into the hole to field a ball and throwing out the runner, or quickly pivoting to turn a double play) which come up frequently in every game.

There's a reason that first basemen need to hit extremely well to be paid at the same level as shortstops who are merely good hitters.

[DC 86]

Also, I guess what bothers me about SS being so much more important than 1B is that SS rarely, if ever, "erase" errors by first basemen.  First basemen do that a lot for infielders, including shortstops.

Players play first base because they aren't good enough to play another position. If Brandon Crawford played first base he would be the best fielding first baseman in baseball, but Brandon Belt couldn't play shortstop given the amount of range and agility that's required there. That's really the essence of it. Which is no disrespect to Belt who is a very good fielder and adds value on defense; but if he could play another position well he would be playing it.

Every baseball team at every level from little league through MLB puts their best athlete at shortstop. At some point some shortstops have to move to second base or third base or centerfield because they can't cut it or because there's someone better at shortstop. And those who can't play those positions become corner outfielders. Try to imagine a first baseman executing routine plays for shortstops (going into the hole to field a ball and throwing out the runner, or quickly pivoting to turn a double play) which come up frequently in every game.

There's a reason that first basemen need to hit extremely well to be paid at the same level as shortstops who are merely good hitters.

[lex24]

Gutsy 1-0 win tonight. 

I won’t say anything about the Dodger game to respect the woof gods.

A grounder right through the wickets of Wilmer at 1B.  Fortunately, the extra out did not lead to a run for the D-backs.

Also, I guess what bothers me about SS being so much more important than 1B is that SS rarely, if ever, "erase" errors by first basemen.  First basemen do that a lot for infielders, including shortstops.  And how many 1B make field that rocket off the bat Belt did several games ago, let alone initiate a game-ending double play on said rocket?

Belt's D is WAY underappreciated, including by folks on this board.

BTW, GREAT W tonight via small ball.  [After Giants had failed to score on a bases loaded, one out situation early in the game].

As Phogge said, this team racks up Ws. That's the most important stat.

Are you seriously arguing that the importance and difficulty of first base defensively is remotely equivalent to shortstop?  You can’t be.  Can you…..

---

Also, I guess what bothers me about SS being so much more important than 1B is that SS rarely, if ever, "erase" errors by first basemen.  First basemen do that a lot for infielders, including shortstops.

Players play first base because they aren't good enough to play another position. If Brandon Crawford played first base he would be the best fielding first baseman in baseball, but Brandon Belt couldn't play shortstop given the amount of range and agility that's required there. That's really the essence of it. Which is no disrespect to Belt who is a very good fielder and adds value on defense; but if he could play another position well he would be playing it.

Every baseball team at every level from little league through MLB puts their best athlete at shortstop. At some point some shortstops have to move to second base or third base or centerfield because they can't cut it or because there's someone better at shortstop. And those who can't play those positions become corner outfielders. Try to imagine a first baseman executing routine plays for shortstops (going into the hole to field a ball and throwing out the runner, or quickly pivoting to turn a double play) which come up frequently in every game.

There's a reason that first basemen need to hit extremely well to be paid at the same level as shortstops who are merely good hitters.

Bingo.  Put another way, Mark Belanger was  valuable as a SS, while Boog Powell played first….  Belanger played 18 years.  Hit .228 with 20 HRs and a .580 OPS.  18 years. Shows the defensive value of the position.  You couldn’t play 17 days at first with those numbers…..

[lex24]

Gutsy 1-0 win tonight. 

I won’t say anything about the Dodger game to respect the woof gods.

A grounder right through the wickets of Wilmer at 1B.  Fortunately, the extra out did not lead to a run for the D-backs.

Also, I guess what bothers me about SS being so much more important than 1B is that SS rarely, if ever, "erase" errors by first basemen.  First basemen do that a lot for infielders, including shortstops.  And how many 1B make field that rocket off the bat Belt did several games ago, let alone initiate a game-ending double play on said rocket?

Belt's D is WAY underappreciated, including by folks on this board.

BTW, GREAT W tonight via small ball.  [After Giants had failed to score on a bases loaded, one out situation early in the game].

As Phogge said, this team racks up Ws. That's the most important stat.

Are you seriously arguing that the importance and difficulty of first base defensively is remotely equivalent to shortstop?  You can’t be.  Can you…..

---

Also, I guess what bothers me about SS being so much more important than 1B is that SS rarely, if ever, "erase" errors by first basemen.  First basemen do that a lot for infielders, including shortstops.

Players play first base because they aren't good enough to play another position. If Brandon Crawford played first base he would be the best fielding first baseman in baseball, but Brandon Belt couldn't play shortstop given the amount of range and agility that's required there. That's really the essence of it. Which is no disrespect to Belt who is a very good fielder and adds value on defense; but if he could play another position well he would be playing it.

Every baseball team at every level from little league through MLB puts their best athlete at shortstop. At some point some shortstops have to move to second base or third base or centerfield because they can't cut it or because there's someone better at shortstop. And those who can't play those positions become corner outfielders. Try to imagine a first baseman executing routine plays for shortstops (going into the hole to field a ball and throwing out the runner, or quickly pivoting to turn a double play) which come up frequently in every game.

There's a reason that first basemen need to hit extremely well to be paid at the same level as shortstops who are merely good hitters.

Bingo.  Put another way, Mark Belanger was  valuable as a SS, while Boog Powell played first….  Belanger played 18 years.  Hit .228 with 20 HRs and a .580 OPS.  18 years. Shows the defensive value of the position.  You couldn’t play 17 days at first with those numbers…..