5'8" Baseball Players - the new Market Inefficiency?

[Turning2]

20 hours ago, liveforoctober said:

Jose Ramirez didn't lose his entire first full season+ of professional baseball due to COVID. 

There is a whole draft class or two in '19-'20 range that you cannot use age as a fair comparison.

Sure, that ******** the development of some players, but it's also a bit of rationalization if we're going to be honest with ourselves. 

[Turning2]

I'm not in the mood to point / counterpoint with individuals today, so I'll post some general thoughts regarding my view of the Moneyball era metrics. First thing, that movie came about based on the A's 2002 season and the supposed, innovative approach to player evaluation. With few (if any?) exceptions, none of the teams that need to resort to this data spinning alchemy has ever won a World Series by utilizing it. Perhaps small market KC beating the Mets in 2015 might qualify, yet they were 7th in overall payroll that year too. That's not exactly a David vrs Goliath victory like these metrics are supposed to deliver. Moral of that story... money STILL talks, BS walks.

Revisiting a search for how WAR is supposedly calculated brought me to Baseball-Reference.com WAR Explained | Baseball-Reference.com. It only reinforces my beliefs. 

The wording of the definition makes my argument for me. Full of theoretical fluff rather than the calculable,  traditional, time tested means to evaluate talent. The bold parts pasted from Baseball Reference tell me - and should tell everyone, what they need to know about the new mousetrap which a bunch of spreadsheet folks invented. 

 

How to Use WAR

The idea behind the WAR framework is that we want to know how much better a player is than a player that would typically be available to replace that player. We start by comparing the player to average in a variety of venues, then compare our theoretical replacement player to the average player and add the two results together.

There is no one way to determine WAR. There are hundreds of steps to make this calculation, and dozens of places where reasonable people can disagree on the best way to implement a particular part of the framework. We have taken the utmost care and study at each step in the process, and believe all of our choices are well reasoned and defensible. But WAR is necessarily an approximation and will never be as precise or accurate as one would like.

Nobody ever argues about the validity of the traditional stats for a reason. That's because its black and white, real data crunching based on the actual rather than actuarial suppositions and projections. 

I think for myself and that rocks the boat of conformity sometimes. So be it. When folks get blathering on about some silly stat or another, I just laugh and skim over it. Others stand in line for the next new thing, ready to trumpet whatever they're told it is as being far superior than the old thing. I've seen it time and time again in the corporate environment. Lemmings doing lemming things. And then.. years later, it comes full circle, and the next wave of "go getter, full of themselves" smarty pants revert back to the systems and processes that worked previously, lauding them as the "new" continuous improvement implementation. I despise this mentality, and resent how it has infected the game I love. I hate seeing the players having to check their little cheat sheets on the playing field, drowning themselves in a minutiae of information that tells them what players of the past knew from observation, experience and baseball instinct. 

I understand the world changes, progression does occur. Sometimes for the better and sometimes not. It's a matter of distinguishing between the two of what actually present value, and what is a bunch of noise.  

 

 

[liveforoctober]

1 hour ago, Turning2 said:

Sure, that ******** the development of some players, but it's also a bit of rationalization if we're going to be honest with ourselves. 

You are comparing Isaac Collins to a guy who has received MVP votes in 8 of the last 10 seasons as your justification as to why he doesn't have enough power. I don't believe I'm the one that's being irrational, respectfully.

[igor67]

As you indicated you were not super into Baseball for a number of decades there are some important historical items that were left out. First WAR was not used to my knowledge by the As front office. WAR is a statistic that became more popular in what could be called the Money Ball era, but it is not a Moneyball statistic. The Money ball philosophy was quite simple find what things that contribute to success are currently being undervalued by other teams and use that insight to more economically build a team. The original Moneyball insight was that most other teams overemphasized batting average relative to the ability to take walks. Critically in a matter of a few years as other teams changed their approach the A's would also change theirs. 

All WAR really attempts to be is a way of taking the offensive and defensive contributions of a players and turn them into a way of comparing their overall value relative to other players. Any teams looking for competitive advantages in data at this stage are much more focused on Stat Cast type data and using that to guide player adjustments. I doubt that too many front offices look at public WAR number.

[CheezWizHed]

Correct.  Moneyball wasn't specifically based on any "new" statistics like WAR.  It was more a concept of finding undervalued players. 

WAR is a compilation of different measurable metrics. So when it says, "there is no one way" to calculate it... sure.  BR and Fangraphs calculate it differently.  Even with a different algorithm for WAR, both BR and FG end up showing very similar relative results from player to player. 

WAR is a hand grenade of metrics.  It gets you into the ballpark to show relative value between players. But all the metrics going into WAR are also measurable (like AVE, OBP, SLG, etc...) and not just made-up subjective numbers. 

Even OPS (which was new in the mid-1980s) is a compilation metric (easy math: OBP + SLG).  I know that someone with a 900 OPS is a better hitter than someone that is 600 OPS.  But if two players are 800 OPS, does the 200/250/550 batter have more value than the 300/350/450 one? At that point you need to look beyond OPS. 

WAR is analogous to OPS in that way. 

It is also good to point out that some metrics were replaced by metrics that were more accurate (like VORP replaced by WAR).  Generally, when a metric doesn't pass the "scout sniff test" it tends to die or be replaced.  There has been a long evolution on most of these metrics since the 90s. And in the last 10-15 years, using technology to measure all sorts of data has helped build their accuracy too. 

[Turning2]

On 7/4/2025 at 2:26 PM, liveforoctober said:

You are comparing Isaac Collins to a guy who has received MVP votes in 8 of the last 10 seasons as your justification as to why he doesn't have enough power. I don't believe I'm the one that's being irrational, respectfully.

Not exactly, The flow of the thread topic and rebuttals begged for a comparison.  Collins is good value for a nice price for an aging player with little experience. Perhaps that qualifies as market inefficiency, but it usually doesn't lead to winning much more than consolation prizes.  Our current OF offers almost nothing for power hitters outside of Chourio. Mitchell may never achieve his potential. Sal has become an excellent contact / singles hitter. Perk is glove only, Yelli is largely a DH now. Collins might get you 15 HRs in a career year, but he's not likely to become a consistent power hitter. He's never been one and it took him a long time to reach the bigs. Twenty seven year old low power leopards don't usually change their spots is all I'm saying. I like him, I just think sometimes fans rationalize a bit too much when their team can't afford hitters. They need to start getting some more thump, or be content with consolation prizes.   

[Team Canada]

39 minutes ago, Turning2 said:

Perk is glove only,

I think that's a little unfair. He definitely did not have much power last year, but was basically the same as Frelick. He's only had 2 seasons, it's a little early to call him glove-only based on initial results.

[liveforoctober]

38 minutes ago, Turning2 said:

Not exactly, The flow of the thread topic and rebuttals begged for a comparison.  Collins is good value for a nice price for an aging player with little experience. Perhaps that qualifies as market inefficiency, but it usually doesn't lead to winning much more than consolation prizes.  Our current OF offers almost nothing for power hitters outside of Chourio. Mitchell may never achieve his potential. Sal has become an excellent contact / singles hitter. Perk is glove only, Yelli is largely a DH now. Collins might get you 15 HRs in a career year, but he's not likely to become a consistent power hitter. He's never been one and it took him a long time to reach the bigs. Twenty seven year old low power leopards don't usually change their spots is all I'm saying. I like him, I just think sometimes fans rationalize a bit too much when their team can't afford hitters. They need to start getting some more thump, or be content with consolation prizes.   

Very valid. It does seem for better or for worse we have pinpointed the type of outfielder we want and that is how we are moving forward. I do have a soft spot for Collins just based on his path and taking advantage of the opportunity ... so I may have been a triggered a bit with the convo. My apologies.

[Turning2]

4 hours ago, Team Canada said:

I think that's a little unfair. He definitely did not have much power last year, but was basically the same as Frelick. He's only had 2 seasons, it's a little early to call him glove-only based on initial results.

What are you seeing that gives you reason to hope that a 28 year old who has never hit with meaningful power or a high batting average, is going to start doing so all of a sudden? 

[Turning2]

4 hours ago, liveforoctober said:

Very valid. It does seem for better or for worse we have pinpointed the type of outfielder we want and that is how we are moving forward. I do have a soft spot for Collins just based on his path and taking advantage of the opportunity ... so I may have been a triggered a bit with the convo. My apologies.

No apologies necessary. I have a soft spot for the underdog too. I like all our underdogs. The annoying reality of modern MLB economics is that MIL has too many of them. I very much root for Ortiz, Collins, Durbin. But emotions are a fool’s guide. 

[Team Canada]

3 hours ago, Turning2 said:

What are you seeing that gives you reason to hope that a 28 year old who has never hit with meaningful power or a high batting average, is going to start doing so all of a sudden? 

I just wouldn't call a .240 avg "glove only". No power, sure, but that's not .200.

[Frisbee Slider]

Two points from Moneyball: 

- Chad Bradford does not look like a successful major league pitcher (because he threw funny) except he was successful

- Jeremy Brown did not look like an athlete and probably wasn’t. He was a 5’10 overweight catcher but he got on base. Ultimately only had 11 plate appearances in the big leagues.

Front offices may still overlook players that do not ‘look the part’ in 2025. 

[SeaBass]

Why WAR matters as a statistic as explained (perhaps poorly) by a non-stat head.

First it should be stated that the overall view of WAR as a stat, as far as I've come to understand it, is it's not to be used as a be-all, end-all in statistics. It's useful as a measure, but I don't think most people would enter into an argument or discussion and just slap down a WAR stat and declare victory. I don't think that voters for MVP simply look at WAR and cast their vote, nor should they.

I'm not great at math (in fact, I'm terrible) so generally, advanced metrics look like a different language to me. However, OPS and OPS+ do make sense and a lot of times that's kind of good enough for a baseball fan to elevate their understanding of value when compared to a more passive baseball fan that doesn't look much past the basic stats.

Let's look at two players, super stars of the game today. Stats are through games on July 8, 2025.

Juan Soto
.269 AVG, 66 R, 21 HR, 52 RBI, 10 SB

Elly De La Cruz
.275 AVG, 68 R, 18 HR, 60 RBI, 22 SB 

Which has more value? Old school numbers are fairly even, maybe offering a slight edge towards Elly. Both are over 6 feet tall (yay?).

I chose these two guys because in my fantasy baseball league I had to choose between them with my 1st round pick, which was #6 overall. Ohtani, Witt, Judge, Ramirez, Skenes were the top 5 picks. So it's been a point of interest for me as the season has progressed. I ended up picking Soto which was somewhat of a gamble with him switching teams and not having Aaron Judge protecting him in the lineup anymore. Elly went with the #7 pick. Keep in mind, in rotisserie fantasy baseball steals are a pretty important category and getting a star player with power that can steal 60 bases is super attractive. I think a lot of people would have taken Elly at #6. I had one big reason to choose Soto (which I mention later but if you know, you know).

For a while I regretted that choice as Soto indeed got off to a slow start with only 3 HR by the end of April, while Elly got off to a hot start. (Ahh, remember the torpedo bat hype? Good times.) Now it's looking more even, at least in fantasy terms.

Even so, fantasy baseball does not factor in defense, which is factored into WAR. Right off the bat Elly as a SS would suggest a value bump but Elly is maybe slightly above average as a defender at his position since there are so many excellent defensive shortstops. Soto is squarely below average at his position. The stolen bases are also an advantage though Elly is not on the same 60 steal pace from last season. Soto's career high is 12.

Of course, most people here see that OBP was left off the stats above. OBP is such an important stat that its omission is glaring. This is why batting average has become nearly useless in today's game, it's just such a poor stat to make any kind of evaluation with on its own. It is important but only when compared and contrasted with other stats like OBP and SLG.

Soto outclasses Elly because he draws a prodigious number of walks. He's lead all of MLB in walks 3 of the last 4 seasons and is currently leading MLB in walks with 72 which brings him to a .399 OBP, which would actually be a career low OBP if the season ended before games played today.

Our fantasy league uses OBP rather than AVG as a rotisserie stat and that's the big reason I chose Soto. It's bonkers how quickly most players group into an OBP that is .330 or lower. Soto is a guy that you can bank on being .400 minimum. Elly isn't quite on Soto's level but he's not terrible by any means, he has a .348 OBP which is a nice improvement on his previous two seasons. (I dream of Jackson Chourio being at a .348 OBP. Someday...)

Add in slugging and Soto pulls away more.

Soto's slash: .269/.399/.509 for a .908 OPS

Elly's slash: .275/.348/.482 for an .829 OPS (There's some rounding going on in there.)

End result:
Soto  3.8 bWAR / 2.6 fWAR
Elly  3.1 bWAR / 2.1 fWAR

These guys are really good players with similar appearing basic stats but just simply looking at OBP and SLG helps define the difference between them. And there's more baked into WAR than that but to me it's kind of easy to see why Soto just feels like he's better even when their production looks similar. It wouldn't, however, shock me if someone were able to put together an argument for Elly despite this.

For those interested I'm in 3rd place in my league currently. The guy in first place is in a runaway position but the next three teams including mine are pretty close in the running for 2nd. It's a H2H using rotisserie categories so each week you can add a possible 10 wins to your record using the 5x5 rotisserie stats. Last season I won the championship despite being the 5th seed in the playoffs. I had to beat the #4, #1 and #2 seeds to win.