American League Positional WAA, by Team

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Dec 5, 2010 9:08 PM EST

Absolutely love this, Andy. The graphic is a perfect example of where labels and data actually detract from the visual -- seeing the all the Mariners' positional players in the negatives is perfectly descriptive, and illuminating. -jbopp.

via i273.photobucket.com

Updated 12/7/10, this is the correct version

I don't normally like to clutter the sidebar here with my nonsense, but I thought this was a nice piece that is applicable to all teams and those that write passionately about them. http://dockoftherays.com/2010/12/05/al-team-war-by-position/ I take a look at wRAA + UZR for each of the AL teams by position to see some of the best and worst across the league. Additionally, I think this is a great way to look at which positions teams should be looking to upgrade as the off-season continues to drag out. I'd love to hear any feedback either here or at the Dock, and please get in touch @Sandykazmir or sabresrule79080ATyahooDOTcom if you would like the data e-mailed to look at your own specific team the way that I have looked at the Rays. Thank you for your time, I hope that I haven't wasted it.

http://dockoftherays.com/2010/12/05/al-team-war-by-position/

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Great work, Andy.

Edited for presentational purposes and posted on the front page.

The baseball season doesn't have to end! Create your own players, coach your own teams, and join your friends in THE premier baseball MMO. Two Out Rally opens October 25th!
Two Out Rally, BASEBALL MMORPG | Facebook | @2OutRally

by Justin Bopp on Dec 5, 2010 9:21 PM EST reply actions

Question, it is not by WAR actually is it?

It is WAR minus the position adjustment or am I missing something?

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 5, 2010 9:34 PM EST reply actions

The links says it's actually WAA.

by Justin Bopp on Dec 5, 2010 9:37 PM EST up reply actions

but the title says WAR

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 5, 2010 9:40 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, weird. In the first line of the article it even says what he really means

but the title and link of the thing says WAR too. Any explanation?

by Justin Bopp on Dec 5, 2010 9:45 PM EST up reply actions

It's hard enough for some people to grasp this stuff. They may have an understanding of WAR so I titled it that with an asterisk and a disclaimer in the first line

Thanks for promoting the piece here, I understand the difference, as do just about everybody that reads here, but not everyone is there yet.

Hell yeah it is.
Any amount of points can be scored week to week. well, besides 1 point. Any number is as likely to be reached as another, since there’s only one of each number, each has the same chance to be hit. IT’s how the syetemof averages works.
by waltermercier on Sep 21, 2010 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Dec 5, 2010 10:07 PM EST up reply actions

I problem is that I know the Royals actually had a positive values at SS and the negative values were about the same as the positive.

I agree that it is a great graphic, but the difference between average and replacement value is fairly significant.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 5, 2010 10:23 PM EST up reply actions

Do we need replacement value if you're looking at the totality of the season?

The point of replacement value is to reward an individual player (assuming he’s better than replacement level) for being on the field more and to punish a guy that gets dinged. We’re looking at every PA and IP for the position for the season so if a replacement level player played then thats included and on both sides. It seems silly to punish a team for having depth if a stud gets hurt and they can roll a backup in there and not see tremendous falloff. With replacement level you’re assuming that a RL player took those PA and IP, when that is rarely the case. An example could be the Red Sox still mustering 2+WAAal after losing Youk, while the Indians had a -4+ WAAal because they had no one to replace Grady.

RL would assign a value to those PA regardless of who got them. That’s great in theory, but this stuff actually happened. Keep in mind that this chart shows the comparison to the MLB baseline. There were decent-sized gaps at C, 1B, and SS in favor of the NL so amongst the AL-set the Royals only at -.9 WAA at SS thanks to a .304 wOBA (ALA .305, MLBA .314), but the -8.8 UZR did them in pretty hard.

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Dec 6, 2010 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

Edited title to say WAA instead of WAR.

Still wondering what the point of mislabeling it in the first place was, but w/e. The graphic works.

by Justin Bopp on Dec 5, 2010 9:49 PM EST reply actions

Good stuff.

"Individual players don't win championships, teams do."

by Jeterian 2 on Dec 5, 2010 9:52 PM EST reply actions

Something to be said for

having no or few negatives, huh?

by Justin Bopp on Dec 5, 2010 9:53 PM EST up reply actions

Gobbledegook by that point as I was rushing to do a family thing today

The intention was to point out that having a glaring hole can fully offset a great position. Again, it might sound stupid to you guys, but there are more audiences than the elite.

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Dec 5, 2010 10:12 PM EST up reply actions

I...uh...

have no idea what to say to this. My comment was about how the Yankees’ lack of negative WAA players is a really good thing. Not sure what you’re talking about, honestly.

by Justin Bopp on Dec 6, 2010 9:50 AM EST up reply actions

I don't get it

Per WAR LF was the A’s worst position. But on this it’s close to average?

""Expelliarmus!" said Eckstein, attempting to knock the bat out of Matt Kemp's hands, just before Kemp laced a single to center." -Ken Tremendous

by Cheezombie on Dec 6, 2010 1:56 PM EST reply actions

You're completely right. The A's offense is actually the numbers for the Angels. These are the first two teams I did and all I can think is that I wasn't in a groove yet.

Here is a look at what the A’s did for real:

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj216/SayHeyRays/Athletics-1.jpg

Thanks, big time, for the catch and here’s the updated overall chart:

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj216/SayHeyRays/BestChartWAR-1.jpg

And the updated rankings to reflect this:

Apologies to A’s fans, but I think you like this a lot better. The infield looks pretty sick, though RF failed pretty hard. LF wasn’t their worst position, but it wasn’t very good checking in at 9th best in AL at -1.2 WAAmlb.

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Dec 7, 2010 10:44 AM EST up reply actions