GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently May 26 19, 1:58 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Mike Trout
PostPosted: May 13 19, 9:42 am 
Offline
Master of Hyperbole
User avatar

Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Posts: 4939
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Trout
PostPosted: May 13 19, 9:44 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Posts: 19833
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
Quote:
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.

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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Trout
PostPosted: May 13 19, 9:45 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Posts: 19833
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
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?

There's nothing you don't understand about the stat, so why don't you tell us?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Trout
PostPosted: May 13 19, 9:50 am 
Offline
Master of Hyperbole
User avatar

Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Posts: 4939
haltz wrote:
Quote:
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.

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?

Yeah, potentially, because it's a high leverage situation for Bonds and well know the trends of pitchers in those situations vs. not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Trout
PostPosted: May 13 19, 9:56 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Posts: 19833
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
Big Amoco Sign wrote:
haltz wrote:
Quote:
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.

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?

Yeah, potentially, because it's a high leverage situation for Bonds and well know the trends of pitchers in those situations vs. not.

Just so I've got this straight, you're saying that you'd expect Bonds to have a higher wOBA in high leverage situations?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Trout
PostPosted: May 13 19, 10:00 am 
Offline
Master of Hyperbole
User avatar

Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Posts: 4939
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).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Trout
PostPosted: May 13 19, 10:06 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Posts: 19833
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
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).

It doesn't assume it trends up or down - just that it stays the same.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Trout
PostPosted: May 13 19, 10:08 am 
Offline
Master of Hyperbole
User avatar

Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Posts: 4939
haltz wrote:
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).

wOBA is context neutral so the specific leverage index doesn't matter in terms of that stat.

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.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Trout
PostPosted: May 13 19, 10:14 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Posts: 19833
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
You're either not tracking or being intentionally obtuse.

Quote:
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).

wOBA takes neither leverage or IBB into account.

Are you saying WAR should be context dependent? That's different than your assertion that Bonds was shortchanged vs Ruth because of IBB.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Trout
PostPosted: May 13 19, 10:25 am 
Offline
Master of Hyperbole
User avatar

Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Posts: 4939
haltz wrote:
You're either not tracking or being intentionally obtuse.

Quote:
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).

wOBA takes neither leverage or IBB into account.

Are you saying WAR should be context dependent? That's different than your assertion that Bonds was shortchanged vs Ruth because of IBB.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Transmogrified Tiger and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group