Mike Trout

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
Post Reply
User avatar
Big Amoco Sign
Master of Hyperbole
Posts: 14402
Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am

Re: Mike Trout

Post by Big Amoco Sign »

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?

User avatar
haltz
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 22018
Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis

Re: Mike Trout

Post by haltz »

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?

User avatar
haltz
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 22018
Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis

Re: Mike Trout

Post by haltz »

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?

User avatar
Big Amoco Sign
Master of Hyperbole
Posts: 14402
Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am

Re: Mike Trout

Post by Big Amoco Sign »

haltz wrote:
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.

User avatar
haltz
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 22018
Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis

Re: Mike Trout

Post by haltz »

Big Amoco Sign wrote:
haltz wrote:
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?

User avatar
Big Amoco Sign
Master of Hyperbole
Posts: 14402
Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am

Re: Mike Trout

Post by Big Amoco Sign »

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).

User avatar
haltz
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 22018
Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis

Re: Mike Trout

Post by haltz »

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.

User avatar
Big Amoco Sign
Master of Hyperbole
Posts: 14402
Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am

Re: Mike Trout

Post by Big Amoco Sign »

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

User avatar
haltz
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 22018
Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis

Re: Mike Trout

Post by haltz »

You're either not tracking or being intentionally obtuse.
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.

User avatar
Big Amoco Sign
Master of Hyperbole
Posts: 14402
Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am

Re: Mike Trout

Post by Big Amoco Sign »

haltz wrote:You're either not tracking or being intentionally obtuse.
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.

Post Reply