drjim

This is a fair point, and would limit somewhat the amount of players that could shift to LF, but probably not so much that it would hard to find 30, 50, even 100 (or more) that would be in the ballpark range of providing enough offense to be an acceptable LF bat. Enough that, even if they aren't quite as good as Gordon defensively, enough would be that it would significantly raise the floor of the "replacement" level defender.

Fair point, WAR complicates enough and already uses enough hypotheticals. And the key point, as far as value is concerned, is that these potential LFs wouldn't necessarily have to be quite as good as Gordon, but good enough to raise the hypothetical "replacement" LF defense above the level of slug that it currently is at. This would lower his defensive WAR value substantially.

This article didn't say anything I didn't already realize about WAR, how it's measured, and how it might apply to Gordon specifically. I should say, to be clear, that I think Gordon to be a very good baseball player and obviously an elite LF (relative to the other LFs), I don't argue any of that. I just believe there are many players who currently play in MLB that could make a similar switch and do similarly if not just as well, but are playing much more important positions. This article did nothing to improve on the inherent problems of UZR (it admits them), and it really doesn't say much about the problems of applying defensive value when comparing a wide spectrum of baseline "replacement" players or the problems of turning defensive numbers into the same value as offensive numbers.

I never made that argument. My argument is that many of the people currently playing 3B or SS or 2B or CF would be a better LF than Gordon. He benefits because he is compared to the worst defensive players in baseball as his baseline "replacement" level player, while players who stick at other positions are compared to better defensive players as their baseline "replacement" level player. The notion of a replacement level player in LF should be expanded to include the many players in baseball who don't have the luxury of being moved to LF and have to stick at a position that is much tougher on the defensive spectrum.

I looked at this closer. Gordon gets about half of his value (2.5 WARish) from his defense. According to the WAR adjustment, this would mean is the equal defender to a 3.5 WAR defender at 3B right? But there is three years of data showing Gordon was about a 0 WAR defender at 3B (08-10). So he can move down the defensive spectrum and pick up 2.5 WAR in value, that is a nice gig. I was happy to see that the guys on Effectively Wild and Keith Law in his current MVP ballot didn't take this WAR value too seriously. But to answer your statement, the positional adjustment misses the point in my mind. The replacement level threshold is the issue, and trying to quantify defense into the same numbers as offense leads to even more issues. I thought there was value in WAR in comparing across positions, but looking more closely since this thread started I'm now more skeptical if it even has value in that.

September 1 or very soon after we will gather a little more evidence.

Joe Posnanski just tweeted this: If Gordon wins because of a defensive bonus from playing LF, that has to be the death of WAR as a meaningful comparative statistic. He is not good enough to stick at 3B but he can do well in LF and earn a bunch of dWAR, what a bunch of nonsense. A slightly above mediocre CF or 3B is so much more valuable than an elite LF, because it is hard to find even an adequate (or replacement level) defensive player at those positions. The replacement level players for LF are the 70% of MLBers who don't play there because they are good enough defenders to play elsewhere, not the lugs (ahem, Willingham) who they put out there because they can't play anywhere else.

So they are saying someone could hit poorly and still have a high OPS? That is an interesting concept. I can understand a bad hitter having a hot stretch but that isn't what they are saying.

I blame Anderson.

This was my view of it too. Saw the tweet and kind of did a double take, thought it was an unnecessary use of the team twitter feed.

I'll try again with defense: 1. The measure is inexact. This isn't really in dispute, the people who designed UZR admit as much. It probably has some value as a snapshot, but the exact numbers cannot be taken as exact, especially in small samples, but also to any samples smaller than three full years. 2. The second problem is how it is quantified and measured on par with offensive stats. This is not defense has no value, it certainly does. But, it is problematic, in light of the previous point, to try and quantify defense into a value that can be compared to offense with any sort of reliability. This also doesn't take into account outlier numbers, especially in corner positions, or the fact they really don't know how to properly quantify catchers or 1B. Defense just seems to factor in so much more than offense - such as teammates, pitching styles, shifts, etc. These surely skew the numbers, especially in smaller samples of a season or less. To answer your questions, I would pretty much get rid of WAR as it is currently construed. I would keep defensive, offensive and baserunning statistics separate and to be judged on their own merit. I wouldn't get rid of UZR or other defensive metrics, but I would keep hammering home the point that they are best as snapshots and ranges, not definitive ranks. And I would especially be leery of any efforts to quantify them into the same common value as offensive runs and then think it is a definitive stat. WAR is probably the *best* measure only in the sense that there are no others. But it is seriously flawed and doesn't us much without looking at many other stats. There is value in comparing across positions and across eras, but that is a quick measure that should not be seen as definitive.

Let's not make agreeing with each other too much of a trend.

This conversation has touched on another aspect of WAR that is problematic in my mind. We are talking about huge numbers for Heyward and Gordon, corner OFs. Corner OF is not meaningless, but much less important than middle of the diamond. Their numbers are skewed by the low threshold of the "replacement" corner OF, even though I wouldn't take an elite defensive corner OF over a below average SS (as far as defense is concerned), but WAR doesn't come close to capturing this. But, of course, the market surely does.

To me WAR represents a quick and dirty snapshot of how a player performed relative to his position and taking into account other contexts like ballpark. I also think it can provide a nice look at players across eras. A nice tool, but like most stats needs a lot of other information to say anything definitive. I am especially skeptical of the defensive metrics and quantifying them in the same way offensive counting numbers are quantified. This, and the definition of replacement player and how it distorts some positional values (especially in small sample sizes), strike me as the biggest weaknesses of the stat. The other key thing, in my mind, is to not pay too much attention to the tenths place. It is better to think of it as a range and not as a completely accurate order. All that said, I very rarely look at WAR.

I think Pinto will be the primary backup catcher in September, and I also think Suzuki will catch games at a slightly lesser rate than he has up to this point. Pinto will also DH on occasion if Vargas or Mauer need a day. It will be worthwhile to take another look at that time, to see if his catching skills have progressed with his time back in AAA.

18 year old stats in GCL can tell you a little bit. This isn't college guys in the Appy League. It will be interesting to see if the Twins push him to Cedar Rapids next year or if they give him another year in Rookie Ball.

Maybe they could have them jog and take half swings too. Could prevent leg and oblique injuries.

Last time I checked, you play to WIN the game, not K as many people per 9 as possible!!!!11!!1!!!!!!!11!1!

But there is also evidence, as recently as last offseason, that a better market would have resulted in better pitchers. And I don't think the statements in the first paragraph are mutually exclusive. They didn't get anyone good in 12-13 because it was a terrible free agent market, but there is also ultimately an upper limit to the type of free agent the Twins can realistically sign. The can't get the absolute elite guys (Scherzer and Lester this offseason), but can certainly get better guys than Correia. Some years there are handful of players in this range (like last year), and sometimes there are virtually no one (like 12-13). This offseason is interesting because there is some depth, but the Twins may actually end the season with representative starters for all slots, depending on how they feel about May, Meyer and Milone.

I must read different rumors. I always read Mansfred was more or less a continuation of the labor policies of Selig. It is hardline owners (like Reinsdorf) that want a change.

Also, Duffey was drafted as a reliever and converted to a starter. Maybe the strategy does work! Those sneaky Twins, taking advantage of market inefficiencies in the draft.

I would say comparing the actions of Target Field to the Metrodome would be a fool's errand. I absolutely expect more free agent signings now, and we have clearly seen that. He spent more in each of the past three seasons than he ever did in the Dome, as he should. I would not disagree that they were "modest" signings this offseason, but I would say they are pretty realistic for the tier that the Twins are in relative to comparable franchises/markets. They aren't going to outbid the big market teams.

Baseball America had a good article on Duffy about a month ago promoting him as a sleeper. I would clearly put him after Meyer-Berrios-Stewart-Thorpe, but he might be as good as anyone else.

I would be careful in what you wish for. The most likely "change" from an outsider would be a hardline stance against the union. That wouldn't end well.

I'm on board with Tomas.