TheLeviathan
-
Posts
21,582 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by TheLeviathan
-
Eaton and his injury problems are part of why he was available. I agree that too many Twins fans are quick to point at farm systems in our division rather than seeing the other ways our rivals are resourceful.
-
Molitor Pushing Hunter Reunion
TheLeviathan replied to Parker Hageman's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Right, that's the catch and I honestly don't know how to answer that. -
Molitor Pushing Hunter Reunion
TheLeviathan replied to Parker Hageman's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
I tend to be opposed to it as well, but the guy does hit lefties well. Perhaps he has a true bench role with the team? In that scenario I can be a little more optimistic. Remember, the guy on the bench that treated platoons like an affront to the game is no longer there. We might be able to think of guys fitting into more appropriate roles for the first time in a long time. -
A good first step would be a dramatic reduction in the amount of subjective, arbitrary components of its calculation.
-
Berardino: Twins Interview Willis For PC
TheLeviathan replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
More I read, the more I'm a fan. -
Except it's not even a good measure of how a player performed in a given season because UZR is a very poor measure of defense in a one year sample. (Among a variety of other factors) So while you are partially using the statistic at its best (for comparisons), you are also failing to take into account known problems with the statistic to use for a year-to-year comparison. WAR is pretty poor at the function you just described as well. What you quoted still stands - people are arguing this is a good stat or the "far and away the best" - and yet that argument essentially boils down to "it's the least sucky available". Just because brussel sprouts are the last thing left to eat doesn't make them good, nor does WAR being the least flawed composite stat make it any good. Which, to take it back to the original post, is all Bill James said: WAR isn't nearly the golden goose it's often made out to be. It's still pretty unimpressive itself.
-
Tommy Milone. Done.
-
You are derailing a thread with a scarecrow here. No one said it shouldn't be used, but the presentation of that statistic is consistently off-track. It says something about the statistic if it's that poorly used just as it says something about a speed limit if no one (including cops) pays attention to it. If you want to bring us all back to 55 with WAR - by all means, but we're well past that point with how the vast majority of people employ the statistic. (Including Fangraphs and its writers). So step one for pro-WAR people should be to get their own camp in-line with the proper use of the statistic rather than continuing to laud how great it is. I also bristle at the notion of dwar being "not perfected", that's roughly akin to saying Michael Bay's movie direction is "not perfected". The defensive component of WAR is built on observer bias, small sample sizes, total disregard for positional importance, and a host of other issues. And rarely, if ever, are these problems brought to light. Instead it's just "not perfected". A lack of alternatives doesn't make a bad thing a good thing - that's a poor argument if that's the best you got in WAR's favor.
-
I also worry that at Rios' age those nagging injuries are more of the norm rather than something he can bounce back from.
-
I'm totally behind most of this. However, I would suggest that the hypothetical "replacement player", the reliance on UZR, and the inability to discern positional defensive value provide plenty of dubiosity to the stat. Mostly I just wanted to say dubiosity.
-
I'm not suggesting it's "bad", but I am suggesting it is far more dubious than it is often presented. I'll consult it for sure, it has some value, but it has some serious issues for it to be relied on as some sort of end-all, be-all stat.
-
+100
-
Yeah that's precisely what I'd like to see with one in CF and one in LF. I want Rasmus for 1-2 years at about 18-20M, so right on again. The risk you present is real, but I guess I'm not sure what alternatives out there are any better? The Twins' offense has some serious regression issues and I don't see much on the market that can help them. Particularly among the OFs - what are you thinking?
-
I think it depends on the cost. Personally I'd like to have Bourjos and Rasmus.
-
Except there are better measures for a player's offensive contribution. The issue is defense. I don't know why people feel the need for a catch-all.
-
That's why I consult both. I trust my eye equally to most defensive calculations to date. I'm very open to hearing one that makes me trust it more, but I've yet to see that.
-
These things need not be mutually exclusive.
-
Right now for defense? Trust their eye and consult the stats for comparison sake. If you absolutely have to use a stat, never use it with less than 3 years of data.
-
Cards/Braves Swap (Heyward-Miller-More)
TheLeviathan replied to biggentleben's topic in Other Baseball
I like this deal for Atlanta. Heyward is an overrated player by many and he's going to command a lot of money for a guy with a relatively average bat and injury issues already at his age. He's going to get freakishly overpaid considering what he brings with the bat. -
I would suggest if you misuse a stat by it's own admission, you probably should at least acknowledge the flaws. You earlier insinuated that there is regularly accepted limitations of the stat and yet its most ardent supporters often use it erroneously. Here's the truth - anytime you use WAR on a one-year basis you have fundamentally misused it. And people do this constantly. I would propose WAR be treated the same way as defensive stats - with a gigantic grain of salt and only in larger sample sizes.
-
It's hard to argue a counterfactual, especially when you agree with the premise. i'm not opposed to rushing some kids, but many people are recommending that become the default way of filling positions. I'm not comfortable with that. And I'm certainly not ready yet to declare Santana and Vargas shining beacons of success with that philosophy. We got a ways to go on that one.
-
Except science has a method and process designed to filter out observer bias - WAR just accepts observer bias because they haven't found a method to filter it out. What is subjective about WAR (in particular - UZR) is not even close to the same kind of subjectivity in controlled scientific experiments. Not even remotely. That and WAR is juxtaposed with statistics that are almost entirely non-subjective - like OPS or BABIP or many of the other quantifiable components of baseball that makes the study of its statistics highly unique. Baseball is a sport played with controls, but WAR is a stat that steps outside of that. The links you posted show that Fangraphs and their primers understand the limitations of the stat, but most people who employ it do not. For example, the last few years the largest outcry of people pro Trout for MVP over Cabrera was the use of WAR. Except, by the very links you posted, using a single season WAR stat as a measurement of who was better is definitionally misusing the statistic. Yet people do it ALL THE TIME. I can't remember the last time I heard someone argue WAR as a composite of 3-5 years of data. It's used almost exclusively, and incorrectly, as a seasonal measurement.
-
WAR is not presented as having a large subjective component, that's the sham. People know scouting is subjective.
-
We should probably start by dropping the assumption that Santana is a known quantity. He is one of the most obvious regression candidates I can recall in quite some time. Before we declare Vargas and Santana as successes that warrant during that practice into a habit, I might suggest we give it a bit more time. The truth is that pretty much all teams avoiding rushing players because it harms development. Going into next year relying on a guy in Rosario who is not ready, coupled with Hicks who has proven to be as unready as any ballplayer I've seen in, coupled with Schafer's almost certain regression....sounds like one of the worst planned disasters since Battlefield Earth.
-
Flawed is still flawed, regardless of the alternatives. It's valuable, when used very loosely and with full disclosure about it's flaws, but that's rarely done and that's the true problem. It's quoted as both a predictive stat and a reflective stat with rarely a caveat at how it was compiled or how a player may have been benefited or hurt by the calculation unfairly. I tend to be with James - half the equation for WAR is little more than a sham. And while I agree there aren't many better alternatives, there are too many people content with WAR. That's the problem.
