Mike Trout
- Big Amoco Sign
- Master of Hyperbole
- Posts: 14402
- Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Re: Mike Trout
Yeah I explained that I didn't know IBB was factored into wRAA. But the formula clearly tells you wOBA affects it heavily. So more HR damage and less IBBs would factor into a higher wRAA, would it not?
- haltz
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 22034
- Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
- Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
Re: Mike Trout
So you're saying that eg in 2004, you guess his wOBA would've been higher than .537 if he hadn't been intentionally walked 120 times?wOBA goes up when there's extra damage, thus changes the scope of wRAA. So even in subtracted IBB for HR, I see it going up higher.
- haltz
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 22034
- Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
- Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
Re: Mike Trout
There's nothing you don't understand about the stat, so why don't you tell us?Big Amoco Sign wrote:Yeah I explained that I didn't know IBB was factored into wRAA. But the formula clearly tells you wOBA affects it heavily. So more HR damage and less IBBs would factor into a higher wRAA, would it not?
- Big Amoco Sign
- Master of Hyperbole
- Posts: 14402
- Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Re: Mike Trout
Yeah, potentially, because it's a high leverage situation for Bonds and well know the trends of pitchers in those situations vs. not.haltz wrote:So you're saying that eg in 2004, you guess his wOBA would've been higher than .537 if he hadn't been intentionally walked 120 times?wOBA goes up when there's extra damage, thus changes the scope of wRAA. So even in subtracted IBB for HR, I see it going up higher.
- haltz
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 22034
- Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
- Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
Re: Mike Trout
Just so I've got this straight, you're saying that you'd expect Bonds to have a higher wOBA in high leverage situations?Big Amoco Sign wrote:Yeah, potentially, because it's a high leverage situation for Bonds and well know the trends of pitchers in those situations vs. not.haltz wrote:So you're saying that eg in 2004, you guess his wOBA would've been higher than .537 if he hadn't been intentionally walked 120 times?wOBA goes up when there's extra damage, thus changes the scope of wRAA. So even in subtracted IBB for HR, I see it going up higher.
- Big Amoco Sign
- Master of Hyperbole
- Posts: 14402
- Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Re: Mike Trout
Well, maybe, I'm saying he's slugging .812 in 2004, so unless you're saying you know that number trends down for that season, his wOBA would be higher if he traded a few of his IBBs for high damage hits (given the amount of IBBs in high leverage situations).
- haltz
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 22034
- Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
- Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
Re: Mike Trout
It doesn't assume it trends up or down - just that it stays the same.Big Amoco Sign wrote:Well, maybe, I'm saying he's slugging .812 in 2004, so unless you're saying you know that number trends down for that season, his wOBA would be higher if he traded a few of his IBBs for high damage hits (given the amount of IBBs in high leverage situations).
In the wRAA calculation you are giving him credit for all of those XBH. Literally, IBB aren't factored in and you do trade them for what he would've done otherwise, which is slug .812.
wOBA is context neutral so the specific leverage index doesn't matter in terms of that stat.
- Big Amoco Sign
- Master of Hyperbole
- Posts: 14402
- Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Re: Mike Trout
Yeah that's part of the problem with it--at least with WAR, not necessarily wOBA. Albeit very specific to a player like Bonds. Otherwise the calculation is fine.haltz wrote:wOBA is context neutral so the specific leverage index doesn't matter in terms of that stat.Big Amoco Sign wrote:Well, maybe, I'm saying he's slugging .812 in 2004, so unless you're saying you know that number trends down for that season, his wOBA would be higher if he traded a few of his IBBs for high damage hits (given the amount of IBBs in high leverage situations).
Here's a video to illustrate where IBB was decided against after the manager talked it over with his pitcher:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCPpyhkQSu8
- haltz
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 22034
- Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
- Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
Re: Mike Trout
You're either not tracking or being intentionally obtuse.
Are you saying WAR should be context dependent? That's different than your assertion that Bonds was shortchanged vs Ruth because of IBB.
wOBA takes neither leverage or IBB into account.his wOBA would be higher if he traded a few of his IBBs for high damage hits (given the amount of IBBs in high leverage situations).
Are you saying WAR should be context dependent? That's different than your assertion that Bonds was shortchanged vs Ruth because of IBB.
- Big Amoco Sign
- Master of Hyperbole
- Posts: 14402
- Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Re: Mike Trout
wOBA should probably remain context-free. I won't disagree there. But wRAA/WAR isn't quantifying the specific situation I gave you in the video. At least not well if an IBB is issued instead.haltz wrote:You're either not tracking or being intentionally obtuse.
wOBA takes neither leverage or IBB into account.his wOBA would be higher if he traded a few of his IBBs for high damage hits (given the amount of IBBs in high leverage situations).
Are you saying WAR should be context dependent? That's different than your assertion that Bonds was shortchanged vs Ruth because of IBB.