Impact of Defense

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Just checked -- the issue is that UZR isn't available until 2002.  And you used his total career innings from 1998.  (It's confusing, because the career total innings are still listed under the Fangraphs "Advanced Fielding" table, but that table only begins in 2002.)

 

If you do the math with just the innings starting in 2002 (15054.2 innings), it works out exactly as represented (-1.3 UZR per 1350 innings or 150 games).

 

I'm all for being critical (sorry for the on this thread ), but let's give the Fangraphs guys some credit here -- they're not complete morons to equally weigh a 10 game season and a 150 game season when presenting a career rate stat.

Ah, good catch.

 

Still not fond of UZR/150 but I suppose it does have some use in that context.

[Willihammer]

UZR treats the shift as either on or off but in the outfield there is not a true shift like we see in the infield. I would call it shading instead. Does anyone know if UZR agrees or are there plays where it registers as shift=on, a LF shading the line against Mauer, for example.

[jimmer]

Earlier in this thread the Trout/Cabrera MVP debate was mentioned.  Here's an interesting article concerning the 2012 MVP debate. It's about a metric that 'measures only offense and credits hitters for their performances with men on base. At the risk of adding to the alphabet soup, I think it’s worth looking at this little-used metric that measures exactly what the Cabrera contingent wants us to measure.' (In other words, the people who only wanted to look at what was done at the plate and ignore minimal contributions like defense, baserunning, and difference in positions).

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/trout-versus-cabrera-offense-only-context-included/

 

The metric is called RE24.  

 

'Unlike with context-neutral statistics like wRC+, RE24 takes the number of outs and number of baserunners into account. It does not assume that all home runs are equal, nor does it treat a strikeout with a man on third base and one out as just another out. The rewards for performing with men on base are higher, and the blame for failing in those same situations is steeper as well. This is a metric that essentially quantifies the total offensive value of a player based on the situations that he actually faced. This is not a theoretical metric. If you hit a three run home run, you get more credit than if you hit a solo home run. If you are consistently getting hits with two outs to drive in runs, you get more credit than if those hits come with no outs and the bases empty. And, of course, it’s only an offensive metric, so there’s no defensive component, no position adjustments, and no replacement level. This is just straight up offense, adjusted for the context of the situations that they faced.'

 

And this can be tracked daily in player logs. 'this isn’t some kind of black box where you just have to take our word for it. We have RE24 on each player’s Play Log, so you can see the exact amount of value that each player was credited with on every single offensive play they were involved in all year long.'

 

Trout finished 2nd in the AL. Cabrera finished 4th and 2nd on his own team. (oh, and Mauer finished 6th)

 

Conclusion:

 

'And Trout still comes out on top. Ignore defense. Ignore things like going first to third on a single, or taking the extra base on a fly ball. Ignore WAR. Trout still wins. '

[Brock Beauchamp]

That's a pretty great metric for this type of discussion.

 

Either way, I just don't get that upset about MVP discussion. There are so many angles from which to look at MVP, including "did his team win or make the playoffs?" I don't agree with many of the angles but I won't begrudge people for looking at the award in that manner. Is MVP a "the best player in baseball" debate or a "the best player on a winning team" debate? Cabrera also won a Triple Crown, which hadn't been done in half a century. That's a pretty big deal to some folks. I'm not amongst their number but whatever.

 

I just don't get worked up about it one way or the other. The last time I got riled up about an award was when Santana had a Cy flat-out stolen from him by an inferior pitcher and it wasn't particularly close (Johan didn't even finish second that year, which makes it all the more mind-blowing). The voting pendulum changed quite a bit after that bad choice so it was hard for me to even get too upset about that after the next year's voting went down.

[jimmer]

 

That's a pretty great metric for this type of discussion.

 

Either way, I just don't get that upset about MVP discussion. There are so many angles from which to look at MVP, including "did his team win or make the playoffs?" I don't agree with many of the angles but I won't begrudge people for looking at the award in that manner. Is MVP a "the best player in baseball" debate or a "the best player on a winning team" debate? Cabrera also won a Triple Crown, which hadn't been done in half a century. That's a pretty big deal to some folks. I'm not amongst their number but whatever.

 

I just don't get worked up about it one way or the other. The last time I got riled up about an award was when Santana had a Cy flat-out stolen from him by an inferior pitcher and it wasn't particularly close (Johan didn't even finish second that year, which makes it all the more mind-blowing). The voting pendulum changed quite a bit after that bad choice so it was hard for me to even get too upset about that after the next year's voting went down.

In fairness, Cabrera won the triple crown in 2013, not 2012.  The article as about 2012.  In 2013, Cabrera was #1 in that stat and Trout right behind him at #2.

 

Santana got boned by the win stat that year and his inability to be as awesome as he was the year before (yet still the best in the Al, which is what it should be about).

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

In fairness, Cabrera won the triple crown in 2013, not 2012.  The article as about 2012.  In 2013, Cabrera was #1 in that stat and Trout right behind him at #2.

 

Santana got boned by the win stat that year and his inability to be as awesome as he was the year before (yet still the best in the Al, which is what it should be about).

Ah, yes. I got my years mixed up. 2013 was the Triple Crown season.

 

What's so weird about the Santana voting was that he was only boned by the win stat. It wasn't a "old school vs. new school argument", as Santana was better than Colon in every meaningful stat except the "win", whether you believe in sabremetrics or not. It was just a horrible decision. Even their win percentages were reasonably close. The old school guys should have seen his superior ERA, strikeouts, innings pitched, etc. and voted for Santana over Colon.

 

It was, in a word, stupid.

[jimmer]

-wRC+ is context neutral offensive stat that tells us what the player did offensively compared to others in the league and adjusted by park and league, period.

-wOBA is context neutral on what a guy did at the plate, period.

-RE24 does what wOBA does, but is context specific.

 

[jimmer]

 

Ah, yes. I got my years mixed up. 2013 was the Triple Crown season.

 

What's so weird about the Santana voting was that he was only boned by the win stat. It wasn't a "old school vs. new school argument", as Santana was better than Colon in every meaningful stat except the "win", whether you believe in sabremetrics or not. It was just a horrible decision. Even their win percentages were reasonably close. The old school guys should have seen his superior ERA, strikeouts, innings pitched, etc. and voted for Santana over Colon.

 

It was, in a word, stupid.

yes, one of the worst award voting in memory. the fact Colon wasn't even close to being worthy. he wasn't even a top 3 SP, maybe not even a top 5 guy.

[Beemo]

 

Nope, still different. A catch is a catch. It counts for one out no matter whether the fielder stood there and made the catch or whether he ran 200 ft to make the most spectacular catch in baseball history but UZR grades them differently. Defensive metrics assume that making a hard catch is inherently more valuable than an easy catch because it's a repeatable skill based on a single event. That's not necessarily the case.

On the other hand, a walk is nice but it only advances everyone a single base... But a triple advances everyone three bases. When counted in the aggregate, a triple is far more valuable and the metrics count it as such. There's no defensive equivalent to a triple because after a triple, the bases are cleared and a guy is standing on third base. That actually happened. There are no instances where a single is more valuable than a triple but there are plenty of cases where making a hard catch is far less critical than making an easy one. The offensive metric weights those two events correctly but the defensive metric might not.

 

I don't understand your reasoning here. A double is more valuable than a single, but an out that prevented a double isn't more valuable than an out that prevented a single? 

 

What are the cases where making a hard catch is less critical than making an easy one, especially if a catch is a catch?

[TheLeviathan]

Thanks for posting the RE24 stat, that's my first exposure to it.  Very interesting.

[jimmer]

You're welcome.  It's a great stat, IMO. It's been one of my favorites for a few years along with wOBA and wRC+, depending on what I'm talking about.

 

RC27 is good too.  Tells how many runs created per 27 outs (as opposed to the cumulative season #).  It's a good stat when you want to compare players who regularly don't play 162 games, like catchers, to other position players.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't understand your reasoning here. A double is more valuable than a single, but an out that prevented a double isn't more valuable than an out that prevented a single? 

 

What are the cases where making a hard catch is less critical than making an easy one, especially if a catch is a catch?

The catch the prevents a double is more valuable than a catch that prevents a single, yes.

 

But UZR has absolutely no way to track the value of a catch in that manner. Yes, a failed difficult catch will more often result in additional bases but that is certainly not the case every time. The catch by Revere posted earlier in this thread is a good example of that. If Revere misses that extraordinarily difficult catch, the runner gets a single.

 

Whereas a home run is always of greater value than a double and a double is always of equal or greater value than a single. Offense metrics track that difference.

 

My point isn't that all catches are the same, my point is that offensive metrics can track varying degrees of success with measured results that are always true whereas defensive metrics have to assume certain things that may not be true. If you add up those assumptions made by defensive metrics over a long period of time, you'll reach an aggregate number that is reasonably accurate but in small doses, the variance can be misleading and don't necessarily reflect "what actually happened".

 

To make a long story short, an offensive metric can track 6-7 different outcomes of a plate appearance and weight them in order of value.

 

A defensive metric tracks a Boolean result. True or false. Assumptions have to be made about value in the aggregate, hoping that they will balance out in time.

 

Tracking more outcomes and weighting them properly means more accuracy, especially in smaller sample sizes. Add that greater nuance to the vastly larger pool of opportunities tracked by offensive metrics and you have a much more reliable system to value a player (aka. "what really happened").

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You're welcome.  It's a great stat, IMO. It's been one of my favorites for a few years along with wOBA and wRC+, depending on what I'm talking about.

 

RC27 is good too.  Tells how many runs created per 27 outs (as opposed to the cumulative season #).  It's a good stat when you want to compare players who regularly don't play 162 games, like catchers, to other position players.

Yeah, I'm familiar with RC27 (was introduced to it during Bonds' hayday, which provided great amusement because the numbers were so off-the-charts absurd, a testament to Bonds' dominance) but I never read into RE24 before.

[jimmer]

 

Yeah, I'm familiar with RC27 (was introduced to it during Bonds' hayday, which provided great amusement because the numbers were so off-the-charts absurd, a testament to Bonds' dominance) but I never read into RE24 before.

I like wRC+, RC27 and RE24 when talking about Mauer's 'lack of offensive production' and 'lack of value' over the years :-)

[jay]

 

But at their core, all catches are the same. The end result is a single out.

A triple is not the same as a single. One advances the runner three bases every time. The other advances the runner a single base every time. There is inherent value in advancing more bases and a single is never more valuable than a triple.

And that's why UZR needs a lot of data to be accurate. It's rewarding difficulty. It's assuming that the "run across the field, making the spectacular diving catch" is inherently more valuable than the "stand there, don't screw up catch". That's not necessarily the case. They're both outs... But one nets the defender a 1-2 RAR and the other barely moves the needle.

To counteract that problem, UZR needs a lot of data because in the aggregate, those spectacular diving catches indicate ability so the metric assumes the defender is routinely making spectacular diving catches and that some of those catches are super-valuable.

The best way to put it is this way:

Defensive metrics rely on a Boolean result every play.

Offensive metrics can have a multitude of results in an AB and weight them on value. Home run is best, triple next, etc. In no situation is a walk a better result than a single or a double better than a home run.

Over the course of a season, the weighted metric with multiple results is going to be more accurate when valuing a player.

 

The advanced offensive metrics use an expected run value for that event in order to calculate value.  There is not inherent value in an offensive event except for a home run.  Standing on second base instead of first base doesn't inherently get you more runs.  A double is calculated as more valuable than a single because we know it has a higher expected run value.  Context of runners on base or game situation is completely ignored (although you fault defensive measures for this).

 

This is the quite literally the exact same concept that is applied to defensive metrics, including multiple possible outcomes exactly like you're talking about.  The expected run value is first scaled to the specifics of that exact batted ball based on location, speed, etc.  Then, the probability of that catch is applied with a 0-10% probability catch being the best with the most value and so forth along the scale. 

 

That unlikely catch prevented the expected run value of that specific event by creating an out (not every catch is the same!) while offensive metrics capture the expected run value generated when an out is not created.  It's the same concept, they just mirror each other...

[Brock Beauchamp]

UZR doesn't do any of those things and that has been the topic of most of this thread. I specifically mentioned it in my post.

 

There are other metrics that weight win probability but UZR doesn't measure it. Remember that this part of the conversation started with a mention of dWAR, which doesn't use weighted metrics on defense.

 

Hence, dWAR is of limited use if you want to know "what happened" in a player season because the metrics used to calculate dWAR aren't meant to be used as a single-season metric.

 

The very creators of UZR (and by default, dWAR) do not recommend the metric be used in that manner. I don't understand why this is even an argument. The creators admit that outlier fluctuations happen when the metric is used as a single-season valuator. By that very admission, dWAR over a single season is unreliable.

[jay]

There's a difference between expected run value and win probability.  I think you're ignoring that.  Expected run value is the concept used in UZR as well as the offensive metrics.  It's the same.

 

Win probability factors the specific scenario of that event in that game.  Some offensive stats are designed to use that (WPA), but most don't and nor do the common defense metrics.

[jimmer]

So there's a story over at ESPN entitled 'Left Field lacks the big sluggers of the past.' (hint, that's why Gordon was deemed so valuable, though the story isn't about that).

 

When you 'look at the 10 teams with the worst offensive production from left field in 2014 (using wOBA) and their total defensive runs saved at the position', you see Twins were far and away the worst.

 

'The 10 teams with bad offense (they are talking about from the LF spot) -- each posted a wOBA under .300 -- combined for minus-34 defensive runs saved. Sure, a large chunk of that came from the Twins, but the other nine teams were still collectively below average on defense.'

[KGB]

There are just too many stats that really don't mean anything. One thing is certain about numbers, you can make a case for just about anything. They can be helpful tools but you still really need to evalute players play during a game. It's still about actually scoring runs and winning games. I would think most people who watched the Twins last year wouldn't agree with the results of the RE24 stats:

 

Mauer > Dozier

Willingham > Arcia

Fuld > Vargas

Correia > Hicks (okay that one might be right)

[jimmer]

 

There are just too many stats that really don't mean anything. One thing is certain about numbers, you can make a case for just about anything. They can be helpful tools but you still really need to evalute players play during a game. It's still about actually scoring runs and winning games. I would think most people who watched the Twins last year wouldn't agree with the results of the RE24 stats:

Mauer > Dozier
Willingham > Arcia
Fuld > Vargas
Correia > Hicks (okay that one might be right)

It is not necessarily fact that our human eyes are right and the metrics are wrong. We have perceptions of what Mauer should do based on his past and salary, and our bias can play into those perceptions (Like how he gets paid 23M and doesn't hit HRs so he's a slacker).  Yeah, he was well below his normal, but he was that far ahead of most everyone on the team at his normal too.

 

Neither Dozier nor Mauer tore it up in RE24 either.  Mauer well below his norm.

 

I have no issue believing Mauer's offense was more valuable than Dozier's.  My eyes agree with that. (and as a fan, I'm more of a fan of Dozier than Mauer).

 

Mauer got on base at a higher clip (like 15 points) and posted a .290/.466/.467 with RISP.  Dozier posted a .225/.356/.371 with RISP. So compared to his season numbers, Dozier did worse with RISP while Mauer, compared to his season numbers, did much better with RISP.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

There's a difference between expected run value and win probability.  I think you're ignoring that.  Expected run value is the concept used in UZR as well as the offensive metrics.  It's the same.

Except that expected run value has more correlation with offensive metrics. Couple that with the vastly expanded data points of offensive metrics and they're more reliable, especially over the course of a single season.

 

I'm not dismissing defensive metrics, only stating that they haven't been shown great accuracy over short periods of time, which the creators of the metrics readily admit.

 

Therefore, a player who derives a significant portion of his seasonal WAR from dWAR is suspect. That doesn't mean he's not worth three wins on defense, it merely means that the number cannot be trusted.

[KGB]

 

It is not necessarily fact that our human eyes are right and the metrics are wrong.  

 

Correct - and it also works the other way, it's not necessarily a fact that the metrics are right and the human eyes are wrong. That why numbers are helpful tools, not necessary right or wrong. And why we have humans managing and not machines - at least for now.

[jimmer]

 

 

Again, We have perceptions of what Mauer should do based on his past and salary, and our bias can play into those perceptions (Like how he gets paid 23M and doesn't hit HRs so he's a slacker).  The metrics we're talking about don't have emotional perceptions of what Mauer should do for us Twins fans AND then judge him based on those.  They just evaluate him for what he did.

 

Yeah, Mauer was well below his normal, but he was that far ahead of most everyone on the team at his normal too.

 

Neither Dozier nor Mauer tore it up in RE24 either.  Mauer well below his norm.

I have no issue believing Mauer's offense was more valuable than Dozier's.  My eyes agree with that. (and as a fan, I'm more of a fan of Dozier than Mauer).

Mauer got on base at a higher clip (like 15 points) during the season and, with RISP, he posted a .290/.466/.467.  Dozier posted a .225/.356/.371 with RISP. So Mauer dwarfed him in that regard. And, compared to his overall season numbers, Dozier did worse with RISP, while Mauer, compared to his overall season numbers, did much better with RISP.  Those aren't metrics, those are good old fashioned stats.  And they say Mauer was better.

[jay]

 

Except that expected run value has more correlation with offensive metrics. Couple that with the vastly expanded data points of offensive metrics and they're more reliable, especially over the course of a single season.

 

I'm not dismissing defensive metrics, only stating that they haven't been shown great accuracy over short periods of time, which the creators of the metrics readily admit.

 

Therefore, a player who derives a significant portion of his seasonal WAR from dWAR is suspect. That doesn't mean he's not worth three wins on defense, it merely means that the number cannot be trusted.

 

The same run values are used.  There isn't more correlation, it's just arrived at sooner for the following reasons (some of which you've addressed)... 

 

On defense, you're dealing with the combination of both smaller sample sizes AND the question of how that expected run value was arrived at. That's where using the word "accuracy" can be a confusing term -- those two issues are distinct and separate.

 

The smaller sample sizes are what is largely being addressed in those statements from the "creators". In order to represent "true talent level" (which is always changing, btw), you need the x years of data. Those statements are not saying that a player's defensive measures need 3 years of data to tell you the expected run value of the plays he made or didn't. The values are what they are, just like a HR binge in June. That's the context in which I say they are "what happened" (and specifically not the same as win probability).

 

That context of those statements is commonly removed and used to discredit defense measure accuracy. Here's the exact quote from FG:

"How many UZR opportunities do you need for UZR to be reliable? There isn’t any magic number. If I asked you how many AB you need before a player’s BA becomes reliable, you would likely answer, “I don’t know. The more the merrier I guess.” That is true with UZR and with all metrics."

 

However, the need for a sufficient sample is true across all stats. It takes longer on defense to collect enough data points. That longer period of time doesn't mean the individual events didn't "happen". Offense metrics arrive at a higher confidence level in a shorter period of time due to a higher frequency, in addition to better expected run value accuracy for individual events, which we'll address next.

 

The other aspect is how the expected run values were arrived at. At the base level, both offense and defense metrics start with a binary question -- safe or out. From there, they both assign an expected run value to the event. Offense has the advantage of very distinct outcomes that can be assigned their own values. Defense is inherently at a disadvantage here in that interpretation has to be done to categorize the event in order to assign a run value. A simple safe or out or even 6 to 7 possible outcomes wouldn't tell you much. This is why there are more potential outcomes and values compared to offense that are used to distinguish a catch from a catch (type, location, speed of ball, etc) -- to improve granularity.

 

It's fair to question the accuracy of the categoization methods. The challenges here are what require more data points (which, again, takes more time). Additional granularity in assigning the defensive value (ie Field F/X) will increase the accuracy. This will allow for smaller and smaller data samples to assess reliability and a player's true talent level. It won't change the need for a sufficient sample size.

[markos]

 

The same run values are used.  There isn't more correlation, it's just arrived at sooner for the following reasons (some of which you've addressed)... 

 

On defense, you're dealing with the combination of both smaller sample sizes AND the question of how that expected run value was arrived at. That's where using the word "accuracy" can be a confusing term -- those two issues are distinct and separate.

 

The smaller sample sizes are what is largely being addressed in those statements from the "creators". In order to represent "true talent level" (which is always changing, btw), you need the x years of data. Those statements are not saying that a player's defensive measures need 3 years of data to tell you the expected run value of the plays he made or didn't. The values are what they are, just like a HR binge in June. That's the context in which I say they are "what happened" (and specifically not the same as win probability).

 

That context of those statements is commonly removed and used to discredit defense measure accuracy. Here's the exact quote from FG:

"How many UZR opportunities do you need for UZR to be reliable? There isn’t any magic number. If I asked you how many AB you need before a player’s BA becomes reliable, you would likely answer, “I don’t know. The more the merrier I guess.” That is true with UZR and with all metrics."

 

However, the need for a sufficient sample is true across all stats. It takes longer on defense to collect enough data points. That longer period of time doesn't mean the individual events didn't "happen". Offense metrics arrive at a higher confidence level in a shorter period of time due to a higher frequency, in addition to better expected run value accuracy for individual events, which we'll address next.

 

The other aspect is how the expected run values were arrived at. At the base level, both offense and defense metrics start with a binary question -- safe or out. From there, they both assign an expected run value to the event. Offense has the advantage of very distinct outcomes that can be assigned their own values. Defense is inherently at a disadvantage here in that interpretation has to be done to categorize the event in order to assign a run value. A simple safe or out or even 6 to 7 possible outcomes wouldn't tell you much. This is why there are more potential outcomes and values compared to offense that are used to distinguish a catch from a catch (type, location, speed of ball, etc) -- to improve granularity.

 

It's fair to question the accuracy of the categoization methods. The challenges here are what require more data points (which, again, takes more time). Additional granularity in assigning the defensive value (ie Field F/X) will increase the accuracy. This will allow for smaller and smaller data samples to assess reliability and a player's true talent level. It won't change the need for a sufficient sample size.

As an addendum to this talk about reliability and accuracy of the defensive metrics, it should be pointed out that they consistently and significantly improve the overall WAR distribution relative to actual, real-life wins and losses. As an example, if you back out the fielding contribution for each team, you end up with a WAR-to-Win correlation of 0.7. If you add the fielding back in, the correlation jumps up to 0.81. So the fielding values aren't total crap, and they actually help make the WAR models better match reality, which to me is a strong argument for their overall accuracy.

 

Going back to the very beginning of this thread and the claim about the relative defensive value between the Indians and the Royals, the 130 run difference has been dismissed by many people commenting on this thread. However, note the following:

 

Projected wins using WAR without fielding:

KC - 83

CLE - 91

 

Projected wins using WAR with fielding:

KC - 90

CLE - 84

 

Actual wins

KC - 89

CLE - 85

 

Those 130 runs are the difference between the Fangraphs WAR model matching reality and missing badly. If you don't think that the 130 number is correct, and that it should be something significantly smaller, then you should have an argument as to how to adjust hitting and pitching to account for those missing runs.

[KGB]

 

Again, We have perceptions of what Mauer should do based on his past and salary, and our bias can play into those perceptions (Like how he gets paid 23M and doesn't hit HRs so he's a slacker).  The metrics we're talking about don't have emotional perceptions of what Mauer should do for us Twins fans AND then judge him based on those.  They just evaluate him for what he did.

 

Yeah, Mauer was well below his normal, but he was that far ahead of most everyone on the team at his normal too.

 

Neither Dozier nor Mauer tore it up in RE24 either.  Mauer well below his norm.

 

I have no issue believing Mauer's offense was more valuable than Dozier's.  My eyes agree with that. (and as a fan, I'm more of a fan of Dozier than Mauer).

 

Mauer got on base at a higher clip (like 15 points) during the season and, with RISP, he posted a .290/.466/.467.  Dozier posted a .225/.356/.371 with RISP. So Mauer dwarfed him in that regard. And, compared to his overall season numbers, Dozier did worse with RISP, while Mauer, compared to his overall season numbers, did much better with RISP.  Those aren't metrics, those are good old fashioned stats.  And they say Mauer was better.

Do you believe Mauer had a better offensive year than Dozier?

 

I believe the WAR stat would say Dozier and another stat will say Mauer. This isn't really about defending Mauer, it's about picking stats you believe in and find valuable. Stat's are conflicting, so you can't believe everyone. Some people find RBI's and Runs valuable and some people will value WAR and wRC+.

[jimmer]

 

 

Do you believe Mauer had a better offensive year than Dozier?

I believe the WAR stat would say Dozier and another stat will say Mauer. This isn't really about defending Mauer, it's about picking stats you believe in and find valuable. Stat's are conflicting, so you can't believe everyone. Some people find RBI's and Runs valuable and some people will value WAR and wRC+.

Yes, I believe Mauer's offensive year was better.  And I showed why. Since Dozier played more, and that SHOULD count, they are close.

[ken]

 

Yes, I believe Mauer's offensive year was better.  And I showed why. Since Dozier played more, and that SHOULD count, they are close.

Interesting, considering the other stats you talked about. Dozier had a better offensive output in 4 out of the 5. 

 

                             Off-WAR      wOBA    wRC+    RE24       RE27

Dozier                      23.2           .340         118       5.8           5.24

Mauer                        6.8           .322         106       8.4           4.94

[jimmer]

 

Interesting, considering the other stats you talked about. Dozier had a better offensive output in 4 out of the 5. 

 

                             Off-WAR      wOBA    wRC+    RE24       RE27

Dozier                      23.2           .340         118       5.8           5.24

Mauer                        6.8           .322         106       8.4           4.94

Our debate started when he questioned RE24 and said they eyes didn't match it. So I used my eye test and old school stats (which are easier to gauge by eyes) to say that my eye test said Mauer was better. I know what the other stats say, but he preferred the eye test over metrics.  See what I'm getting at? How all of our eyes see different things?

 

And I don't think it's RE27 it's RC27, no? 

 

And by the way, Off-WAR isn't even a stat to use here (and I don't think I have ever personally used it on this site at all, even for the correct use). WAR is a stat to compare players of the same position. We are talking about comparing Mauer's offense to Dozier's offense directly, not Mauer's offense relative to 1Bs versus Dozier's offense relative to 2Bs.  

 

And wRC+ is affected by playing time, which I addressed as well.

[KGB]

Interesting, considering the other stats you talked about. Dozier had a better offensive output in 4 out of the 5. 

 

                             Off-WAR      wOBA    wRC+    RE24       RE27

Dozier                      23.2           .340         118       5.8           5.24

Mauer                        6.8           .322         106       8.4           4.94

This is my point of stats. We often use the stats that benefit our argument and ignore the same stat if it doesn't support our argument.