- Joined: Jun 11, 2012
- Last Login: Oct 26, 2021, 7:35pm EDT
- Posts: 15
- Comments: 18,257
Share this profile
Comment 2 replies, 3 recs
That's a bold claim
I think if one of the creators (or more accurately, "maintainers"?) was here, they’d say that WAR values OBP and up-the-middle defense highly because those things are highly valuable. It’s not like they picked a number and said "meh, that feels about right." They put a lot of time and brain power into determining how these things should be weighted… I mean, this is their job. So if you’re telling them they’re wrong and there is a flaw in their methodology, I sure hope you’re going on more than a gut feeling.
I think they’d also tell you that the bias in OPS is that it overvalues power and grossly undervalues high-OBP and, obviously, defense. So it really short-changes a guy like Grossman.
But anyway, yeah, Grossman ranks second in 8 of 10 playoff outfields by fWAR and 7 of 10 by OPS, unless you get very generous with the definition of a full-time outfielder. He’s not a fringe third outfielder in any context.
Comment 1 reply, 2 recs
So you think WAR's positional adjustment is inaccurate. Interesting.
I’d love to see the statistical reasoning you used to reach that conclusion. You know, since we’re big on demanding empirical proof from others in this thread.
Comment 1 rec
Comment 2 replies
I have no idea why we would use OPS for this, but ok...
First off, a correction: Joey Gallo didn’t get counted due to his midseason trade, so Grossman’s fWAR would rank squarely third in the Yankees outfield (even though Gallo didn’t contribute much). So 6 of 8.
Now, based on OPS we definitely lose the Red Sox from this list, so 5 of 8. Adam Duvall tied Grossman and after that… I mean, how much cherry-picking do we want to do? Does LaMonte Wade count? Yordan Alvarez?
Doesn’t really matter, we’re struggling to make him look like a solid third outfielder, let alone a "fringe" one. Can’t even make that claim work with our thumb on the scales.
Comment 1 reply, 3 recs
Comment 1 reply, 2 recs
Comment 2 replies, 1 rec
Because it didn't happen until this year
Moya, Collins, Gerber, Stewart, Jones, Demeritte, Rodriguez, Lugo, Machado, Rogers, Greiner, Alexander, Rondon, Jimenez…
We have a long history of Tigers’ rookies not being good, and not getting better. All of a sudden, they are. Now, of course, with Mize and Skubal you’ll say that the talent pedigree is head and shoulders above where it used to be, and you’d be right. But you can’t can’t really say the same thing with Lange and Funkhouser…. and Badoo, and Alexander, and Cisnero, and even Haase or Soto.
So yeah, it’s justifiably surprising and it coincides with the coaching changeover. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
Comment 3 replies, 9 recs
On-field managing decisions are only worth a few wins, sure
Lineups, bullpen management, when to pinch hit or attempt a steal… sure, those things don’t actually add up to much at the end of the day. The articles you’ve read analyzing the impact a manager has are usually just adding up the little WPA differences from plays that are deemed "manager decisions" and spitting out 3 wins or whatever.
There are bigger questions, though. Can a manager improve his players’ skills through instruction, as Skubal claims? Or does he get any credit for bringing coaches who can, as is reportedly the case with Fetter? Can a manager influence a front office to acquire certain players, as is reportedly the case with Grossman?
I’m not sure, but I know that the 3-win figure was never attempting to answer those questions. So it’s probably not applicable.
Comment 1 rec
Comment 1 reply
There are other ways to make him leave too...
And that is a perfectly valid preference
But it is just that — a preference. Correa may or may not agree with you, but there is a valid argument in both directions. Point being, let’s not act like the Tigers are objectively excluded and he would obviously have no interest, because it’s not obvious or objective at all.
Comment 1 reply, 5 recs
Correa is looking for a 10-year contract
Unless he signs with the Dodgers, and maybe even if he does, his new team isn’t going to be making deep playoff runs for the entirety of his contract. Dynasties like that don’t really exist any more. He can give whatever soundbites he wants, but he’s going to be on a mediocre or bad team at some point, no matter where he goes.
So with that said, if you were in his shoes and you want to win, would you pick an up-and-comer who’s looking for a shot at a WC in year one and more from there, or would you prefer an established playoff team who might be looking to rebuild in year three or four?
Comment 1 reply, 8 recs
The Tigers are going to be a winning team in the near future
I know it may be difficult for you, but we might as start getting getting used to it.