Bill James / Paul Konerko

[SI1020]

Originally Posted by doublem23

Just going by your posting habits I have seen on this board, I would say you have shown a fair and open mind to a lot of the newer stats out there even if you are skeptical about their function and usefulness. So I hope you didn't think my post was directed at you personally, just the sect of baseball fans out there, for better or worse (mostly worse) who think that anything beyond batting average, home runs, and runs batted in needs some kind of master's level-degree in statistics and math and is done by geeks in their basement for the purposes of mental masturbation. It is what it is.

We're fine. I like to read your posts and continue to feel free to fire away at mine if and when you think you need to.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by TDog

If you want to argue that Paul Konerko cost the White Sox x-number of games in a season, you don't take some contrived formulas that are not organic to the game and do the math. You find specific examples of games that were lost by his defense and balance them against games that were won by his defense.

The "contrived formulas" are still rooted in your precious "organic stats," so the idea that you have to whip out the old calculator to do such magical alchemy like "adding" and "multiplying" which suddenly renders the numbers useless is probably... well, there's no nice way for me to put it, so I will merely state it's either the result of blatant and deliberate ignorance.

And yes, there are them fancy number things that do help us quantify how much Paul Konerko helped and hurt the Sox last year. His oWAR was 2.7 (he added about 3 wins to the team at the plate compared to his position) and cost the team 2.2 wins defensively (though, I do admit I'm not as fond of the defensive stats, but pretty much anything is better than fielding percentage) so, when you remove the duplication built in for position, you get a WAR of Konerko of +1.4 last season, which essentially means that if Konerko had vanished off the face of the Earth in March 2012 and the Sox replaced him with the league average offensive and defensive 1B, they would have expected to win 83 or 84 games last year instead of the 85 they did win with his contributions.

[WhiteSox5187]

Originally Posted by doublem23

Well first, that's the definition of a pointless stat, but second, no, there are people who bring up errors and fielding percentage when discussing defense... Unfortunately, those are not universally derided stats.

Errors can occasionally tell you something. From watching White Sox games this year it seemed to me that most of the time when they gave someone an error it was well warranted. It's not the end all be all and when being used with guys up the middle should be taken with a grain of salt, but if you have a first baseman with a lot of errors or an outfielder with a lot of errors I would say the vast majority of the time you have a defensive liability on your hands.

[TDog]

Originally Posted by doublem23

The "contrived formulas" are still rooted in your precious "organic stats," so the idea that you have to whip out the old calculator to do such magical alchemy like "adding" and "multiplying" which suddenly renders the numbers useless is probably... well, there's no nice way for me to put it, so I will merely state it's either the result of blatant and deliberate ignorance.

And yes, there are them fancy number things that do help us quantify how much Paul Konerko helped and hurt the Sox last year. His oWAR was 2.7 (he added about 3 wins to the team at the plate compared to his position) and cost the team 2.2 wins defensively (though, I do admit I'm not as fond of the defensive stats, but pretty much anything is better than fielding percentage) so, when you remove the duplication built in for position, you get a WAR of Konerko of +1.4 last season, which essentially means that if Konerko had vanished off the face of the Earth in March 2012 and the Sox replaced him with the league average offensive and defensive 1B, they would have expected to win 83 or 84 games last year instead of the 85 they did win with his contributions.

The sad thing is that you beleive that.

Organic statistics aren't prescious, they are natural parts of the game. If your shortstop makes 40 errors, you don't say he cost your teams x-games based on his fielding percentage, but you know that his defensive game needs to be addressed if he is going to continue there. But you watched him play, so you probably already knew that. The fact that organic stats don't tell you that much has people trying to work out exotic formulas to try to tell them more.

If you want to argue that Paul Konerko cost the White Sox x-number of games on defense last season, you have to be able to quantify that with what actually happened. Really, if you can't do the same for everyone on defense on every team, your numbers are invalid. That is the way science works.

If you are going to apply scientific formulas to baseball, the burden to show they match what we see actually happen is on you. Otherwise, your formuas are invalid.

[russ99]

Originally Posted by doublem23

The "contrived formulas" are still rooted in your precious "organic stats," so the idea that you have to whip out the old calculator to do such magical alchemy like "adding" and "multiplying" which suddenly renders the numbers useless is probably... well, there's no nice way for me to put it, so I will merely state it's either the result of blatant and deliberate ignorance.

And yes, there are them fancy number things that do help us quantify how much Paul Konerko helped and hurt the Sox last year. His oWAR was 2.7 (he added about 3 wins to the team at the plate compared to his position) and cost the team 2.2 wins defensively (though, I do admit I'm not as fond of the defensive stats, but pretty much anything is better than fielding percentage) so, when you remove the duplication built in for position, you get a WAR of Konerko of +1.4 last season, which essentially means that if Konerko had vanished off the face of the Earth in March 2012 and the Sox replaced him with the league average offensive and defensive 1B, they would have expected to win 83 or 84 games last year instead of the 85 they did win with his contributions.

Also, those bone fragments in his hand robbed him of a good second half for two seasons. Despite age-related concerns of decline, I expect a better year from Paulie next season if he can swing pain-free all season.

[DumpJerry]

Originally Posted by PaleHoser

Disagree. Both of the older Molina brothers are timed in the 60 yard dash using a calendar. They both make Paulie look like a speed merchant in comparison.

At least the Molinas have a time. Paulie is still out there completing his 60......

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187

Errors can occasionally tell you something. From watching White Sox games this year it seemed to me that most of the time when they gave someone an error it was well warranted. It's not the end all be all and when being used with guys up the middle should be taken with a grain of salt, but if you have a first baseman with a lot of errors or an outfielder with a lot of errors I would say the vast majority of the time you have a defensive liability on your hands.

But that's the point, errors don't tell you anything that you don't need to verify with your own two eyes. Obviously I can tell you who are good and bad defenders on the Sox because I watch them 140-150 times per year, but I can't do that for the other 29 teams. I can't tell you how many times in the last 50-60 games this past year that a ball would be sharply hit in the direction of 3B that Youkilis would just simply watch go by him becauss he had literally no lateral movement left in his legs. No error, because he didn't come close to making any kind of play, but a ball you would clearly expect a MLB 3B to at least knock down, if not have a shot at. I don't know what Youkilis's fielding percentage was last year for the Sox (again, because, who cares?) but I can tell you he was a crappy 3B for most of the 2nd half.

Originally Posted by TDog

The sad thing is that you beleive that.

Organic statistics aren't prescious, they are natural parts of the game. If your shortstop makes 40 errors, you don't say he cost your teams x-games based on his fielding percentage, but you know that his defensive game needs to be addressed if he is going to continue there. But you watched him play, so you probably already knew that. The fact that organic stats don't tell you that much has people trying to work out exotic formulas to try to tell them more.

If you want to argue that Paul Konerko cost the White Sox x-number of games on defense last season, you have to be able to quantify that with what actually happened. Really, if you can't do the same for everyone on defense on every team, your numbers are invalid. That is the way science works.

If you are going to apply scientific formulas to baseball, the burden to show they match what we see actually happen is on you. Otherwise, your formuas are invalid.

Well, first off, I don't believe I ever noted that I took those calculations as gospel, I only provide the information as a courtesy to other posters in these threads because we have these constant discussions where people **** all over the sabremetric stats but then fail to ever A) bring them up, B) put them in proper context and C) even bother to ****ing understand what they're measuring. For instance, dWAR is not calculated using errors or fielding percentage so yet again, your understanding of the stats you're trying to refute is so pathetically minuscule that anyone who spends 15 seconds on Google is more of an expert on the subject than you, so you're free to believe whatever you want about the big, bad sabrematrician boogeyman lurking out their to ruin all the fun of baseball.

But, and as I believe I have always noted when discussing the subject, even though I don't put a lot of weight, even if dWAR and ZR are calculating using such witchcraft as multiplying and adding things (EGADS, THOSE NERDZ) I can tell from having watched baseball for 20+ years that it is still a more reliable metric than errors and fielding percentage, which is a completely and utterly useless waste of everyone's time, if for no other reason than *******s like Orlando Cabrera can call the official scorer's office and bitch enough to get an error overturned, what more proof needs to be said? If you still put any credence into it, then I just can't help you.

Originally Posted by russ99

Also, those bone fragments in his hand robbed him of a good second half for two seasons. Despite age-related concerns of decline, I expect a better year from Paulie next season if he can swing pain-free all season.

I agree. I don't think Paul ever stopped getting hits and drawing walks throughout his struggles last year, his power was just completely zapped. He finished with a .298 BA and .371 OBP, way over his career norms and very much in line with the previous 2 seasons when he was having legitimate MVP-caliber years, but his slugging percentage was a paltry .486. So, hopefully, he still has the physical capability to play at a high level, he just has to stay healthy, which is, of course, sometimes a bit of a scary proposition when you're banking on the health of a 37-year-old guy.

[TDog]

Originally Posted by doublem23

Well, first off, I don't believe I ever noted that I took those calculations as gospel, I only provide the information as a courtesy to other posters in these threads because we have these constant discussions where people **** all over the sabremetric stats but then fail to ever A) bring them up, B) put them in proper context and C) even bother to ****ing understand what they're measuring. For instance, dWAR is not calculated using errors or fielding percentage so yet again, your understanding of the stats you're trying to refute is so pathetically minuscule that anyone who spends 15 seconds on Google is more of an expert on the subject than you, so you're free to believe whatever you want about the big, bad sabrematrician boogeyman lurking out their to ruin all the fun of baseball.

But, and as I believe I have always noted when discussing the subject, even though I don't put a lot of weight, even if dWAR and ZR are calculating using such witchcraft as multiplying and adding things (EGADS, THOSE NERDZ) I can tell from having watched baseball for 20+ years that it is still a more reliable metric than errors and fielding percentage, which is a completely and utterly useless waste of everyone's time, if for no other reason than *******s like Orlando Cabrera can call the official scorer's office and bitch enough to get an error overturned, what more proof needs to be said? If you still put any credence into it, then I just can't help you. ...

I don't know, have never known anyone who advocated that a fielding percentage of x or y numbers of errors at any given position translated to specific numbers of wins. I don't think I have ever, even while talking in my sleep, have defended the value of fielding poercentage. Errors raise red flags, but I would never judge any player's defense on any metrics, and wouldn't trust anyone who did.

Orlando Cabfrera lobbying th official scorer the way Ron Santo used to do is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't change my point that any metric that purports to show that a player cost a teach x number of games on defense during a season is invalid unless you can show which games the player lost.

[wassagstdu]

Originally Posted by doublem23

...
And yes, there are them fancy number things that do help us quantify how much Paul Konerko helped and hurt the Sox last year. His oWAR was 2.7 (he added about 3 wins to the team at the plate compared to his position) and cost the team 2.2 wins defensively (though, I do admit I'm not as fond of the defensive stats, but pretty much anything is better than fielding percentage) so, when you remove the duplication built in for position, you get a WAR of Konerko of +1.4 last season, which essentially means that if Konerko had vanished off the face of the Earth in March 2012 and the Sox replaced him with the league average offensive and defensive 1B, they would have expected to win 83 or 84 games last year instead of the 85 they did win with his contributions.

By adding oWAR and dWAR you are putting the two statistics on the same level of credibility, which everyone agrees is not justified, and consequently the WAR number is no more credible than dWAR. So by taking WAR seriously you are throwing out all of your reservations about defensive stats relative to offensive. Them fancy number things are misleading to worthless.

[amsteel]

PK doesn't make plays that other 1B can, simple as that. Is he good within his limited range? Absolutely.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by wassagstdu

By adding oWAR and dWAR you are putting the two statistics on the same level of credibility, which everyone agrees is not justified, and consequently the WAR number is no more credible than dWAR. So by taking WAR seriously you are throwing out all of your reservations about defensive stats relative to offensive. Them fancy number things are misleading to worthless.

It is possible to simultaneously be wary of stat's usefulness while at the same time, still believe it has some merit. Sabremetric defensive stats, while not perfect, are still unquestionably the best defensive stats out there. So while I don't take dWAR, WAR, or even oWAR for that matter, as 100% gospel all the time, it doesn't mean they're "misleading to worthless." You simply have to understand and contextualize the information you have and move on with it. To throw the whole the whole thing out because you're afraid of the 3rd grade level math that goes into developing them is silly.

It's no different than looking at 2 players; say Player A had 100 RBIs this year and Player B had 90. Manufacturing runs is the name of the business right? But you'd be foolish to automatically say Player A is better than Player B, even though he was 10% better at helping his team score runs based on this one, single stat. Nobody in their right mind would put all their chips in one basket. Just like nobody, ever, in the history of the world has ever said the WAR, dWAR, or oWAR are tell-all, be-all inclusive stats and everything else can be ignored. They're good because of what they measure and, in the case of dWAR, light years better than traditional fielding stats, but there's a lot they leave out so it takes a little understanding how to use them correctly. So you can either take the... 10 seconds required to understand them and have an educated opinion on them, or you can go the TDog route and hold your breath, throw a tantrum, and hope that all those dang kids with their dang spreadsheets who are 20-30 years younger than you will, I don't know, die of carpal tunnel syndrome and you won't have to be bothered with it any more.

[chicagowhitesox1]

Originally Posted by wassagstdu

By adding oWAR and dWAR you are putting the two statistics on the same level of credibility, which everyone agrees is not justified, and consequently the WAR number is no more credible than dWAR. So by taking WAR seriously you are throwing out all of your reservations about defensive stats relative to offensive. Them fancy number things are misleading to worthless.

I could be wrong on this but Brett Lawrie was on his way to having a monster WAR season and most of it was due to his defense. The BlueJays would often position him in the outfield which made his range seem far greater which made him look like Brooks Robinson on paper. If this is correct then by all means you are right.

It's hard for me to believe that in 16 seasons Konerko has only gotten a 25.3 career WAR. Meanwhile in 7 seasons Ben Zobrist has gotten a 25.4 career WAR. There's no way Ben Zobrist has had a better career than Konerko. I don't disagree with Zobrist's numbers but I do disagree with how Konerko is viewed and it is because of his defense for the most part on why he is so low.

[doublem23]

WAR is influenced by position so if 2 players have identical stat lines, but one is a middle infielder while the other is a first baseman, the middle infielder's WAR will be higher than the 1B since you expect to generate a lot more offense from your corner IF/OF than your infielders. Zobrist has played over 60% of his career games either at 2B or SS, so his offensive contributions are generally much greater than the league average middle infielder than Konerko, who, for most of his career, was just kind of an average offensive 1B.

[Frater Perdurabo]

Many of us don't buy into the hype of these metrics - not because we are afraid of math - but because these metrics cannot explain what happened on the field that resulted in a particular game being won or lost.

These metrics have some utility when comparing players to each other, for instance when comparing players who play the same position, such as debating Sox left fielders over the years.

But ultimately, the game is played on the field, and no one watching the game gave a fat rat's *** what Scott Podsednik's WAR was; Sox fans always will remember him for his amazing World Series walkoff HR.

[chicagowhitesox1]

Originally Posted by doublem23

WAR is influenced by position so if 2 players have identical stat lines, but one is a middle infielder while the other is a first baseman, the middle infielder's WAR will be higher than the 1B since you expect to generate a lot more offense from your corner IF/OF than your infielders. Zobrist has played over 60% of his career games either at 2B or SS, so his offensive contributions are generally much greater than the league average middle infielder than Konerko, who, for most of his career, was just kind of an average offensive 1B.

Thats true, I always thought catchers should get a sliding scale due to they miss out every 5th game or so.