Bill James on AL MVP

[David in Jackson]

https://www.billjamesonline.com/judge_and_altuve/

"Aaron Judge was nowhere near as valuable as Jose Altuve.  Why?  Because he didn’t do nearly as much to win games for his team as Altuve did.   It is NOT close."

[Bench]

Well, when you put it like that...

[NeilT]

Well, when you put it like that...

I have no idea what he's saying, but I agree 100% based on the outcome. 

[VirtualBob]

This is sort of why I have never liked WAR but I could not have come close to his tight argumentation. I'd still like to have that version of Killebrew as the PTBNL if we trade McCullers though.

[Astros Fan in Big D]

Many folks who use analytics don't seem to realize that 1) many/most stats simply describe in great detail what has already happened,  not what will happen and
2) the predictive stats should be scrutinized to see if they hold water; thus calculating the Yankmees predicted wins and reconciling this with the actual wins
will yield the 'true' or at least different numbers

And
3) he said Altuve by a mile so I agree with him
3)

[juliogotay]

This is sort of why I have never liked WAR but I could not have come close to his tight argumentation. I'd still like to have that version of Killebrew as the PTBNL if we trade McCullers though.

WHOA!! What is this McCullers thing?

[Astros Fan in Big D]

Joe Posnanski's blog on the James article (spoiler: WAR is skewed toward runs, wins are simply presupposed to flow from runs):

https://medium.com/joeblogs/more-on-war-a95873619731

[NeilT]

Joe Posnanski's blog on the James article (spoiler: WAR is skewed toward runs, wins are simply presupposed to flow from runs):

https://medium.com/joeblogs/more-on-war-a95873619731

I've long admired James as a writer,  but this season Posnanski has been as good as it gets.  It makes me wish I'd read more of him.  I could read this many times more:

http://m.dodgers.mlb.com/news/article/260062960/ws-game-5-was-exhilarating-exhausting-ride/

[Astros Fan in Big D]

I've long admired James as a writer,  but this season Posnanski has been as good as it gets.  It makes me wish I'd read more of him.  I could read this many times more:

http://m.dodgers.mlb.com/news/article/260062960/ws-game-5-was-exhilarating-exhausting-ride/

Great article. The Inigo Montoya quote was perfect

[Navin R Johnson]

Great article. The Inigo Montoya quote was perfect

Speaking of, a new brewery opened up , Great Heights Brewing Company.   Really nice tap room that includes a painting of  Inigo Montoya.

https://imgur.com/a/YCFgm

[Aussie Astro]

I think I understand the analysis, probably have to read it again if I was going to be tested on it though.

[JimR]

WTF did he say?

Hi from Honolulu.

[Aussie Astro]

WTF did he say?

Hi from Honolulu.

Aloha is it?

He said Jose > Judge.  Has the buzz worn off yet or are you feeling it?

[Astros Fan in Big D]

WTF did he say?

Hi from Honolulu.

Aloha.
Some folks touted judge's WAR.

But using WAR, the Yankees should have won 99-102 games. They actually won 91. The discrepancy lies in the fact the WAR formula relies on runs to predict wins.   Altuve's late/close numbers were far superior to judge's.

     

In the late innings of close games (100 plate appearances), Judge hit .216 with a .780 OPS.   But when the Yankees were 4 or more runs ahead or 4 or more runs behind (112 plate appearances), he hit .382 with an OPS of 1.500. 
 

             In the late innings of close games, Jose Altuve hit .441 with a 1.190 OPS.   When the Astros were 4 or more runs ahead or 4 or more runs behind, Altuve hit .313 with a .942 OPS.

Aloha.

[BlownRanger]

I found this very interesting, as well as pertinent to a discussion often revisited around here:

 "The logic for applying the normal and usual relationship is that deviations from the normal and usual relationship should be attributed to luck.  There is no such thing as an "ability" to hit better when the game is on the line, goes the argument; it is just luck.   It’s not a real ability. 

              But. . . I have held my peace on this for 20-some years. . .that argument is just dead wrong.   There are five reasons why it is wrong.

. . . .

 I acknowledge that, in the 1970s and 1980s, sabermetrics reached a consensus on this issue, and I acknowledge that I was part of that consensus.   But we wrong.  We jumped the gun.   We should have remained agnostic on the issue until more convincing analysis is done. "

[subnuclear]

It should be noted that this is an opinion that lines up with Bill James proprietary interests.  WAR is freely available at very useful, free websites baseball-reference and FanGraphs.com, whereas you have to subscribe to BJ's site or buy one of his books to get Win Shares.

Having said that, his point makes sense and you get what you pay for mostly.

[JimR]

Aloha is it?

He said Jose > Judge.  Has the buzz worn off yet or are you feeling it?

The euphoria from the championship will last until OD next season. I still watch every highlight and read every word.

[NeilT]

I found this very interesting, as well as pertinent to a discussion often revisited around here:

 "The logic for applying the normal and usual relationship is that deviations from the normal and usual relationship should be attributed to luck.  There is no such thing as an "ability" to hit better when the game is on the line, goes the argument; it is just luck.   It’s not a real ability. 

              But. . . I have held my peace on this for 20-some years. . .that argument is just dead wrong.   There are five reasons why it is wrong.

. . . .

 I acknowledge that, in the 1970s and 1980s, sabermetrics reached a consensus on this issue, and I acknowledge that I was part of that consensus.   But we wrong.  We jumped the gun.   We should have remained agnostic on the issue until more convincing analysis is done. "

I bought a copy of Win Shares when it was published, and found it incomprehensible for the somewhat casual fan--which is not generally true of James' writing.  I had to accept the output, the Win Share calculation, as an article of faith.  I could never do the analysis myself (or understand the analysis that went into the calculation).  WAR variants are no better.  What both WinShares and WAR represent for me are when analytics became so complicated that only a HAL 9000 or WOPR could crunch the variables, when all I had was a basic understanding of algebra.

That said, inaccessibility isn't the issue. The issue is what you quoted: that WAR labeled something as luck and therefore irrelevant because it was difficult to quantify, but it isn't always or not completely luck and when it's not, WAR fails.

 

[JimR]

I bought a copy of Win Shares when it was published, and found it incomprehensible for the somewhat casual fan--which is not generally true of James' writing.  I had to accept the output, the Win Share calculation, as an article of faith.  I could never do the analysis myself (or understand the analysis that went into the calculation).  WAR variants are no better.  What both WinShares and WAR represent for me are when analytics became so complicated that only a HAL 9000 or WOPR could crunch the variables, when all I had was a basic understanding of algebra.

That said, inaccessibility isn't the issue. The issue is what you quoted: that WAR labeled something as luck and therefore irrelevant because it was difficult to quantify, but it isn't always or not completely luck and when it's not, WAR fails.

 

The notion that clutch hits are nothing more than luck is something I have disputed for years. On my tiny stage of HS baseball, I have seen ordinary players be better in clutch situations. The BP guys would be wasting their time trying to tell me Altuve’s 5th inning AB against Maeda in Game 5 was luck.

[chuck]

The BP  guys would be wasting their time trying to tell me Altuve’s 5th inning AB against Maeda in Game 5 was luck.

Or that the outcome was no more or less probable than what you would expect from a fifth inning at bat in regular season game 55.

[BlownRanger]

Or that the outcome was no more or less probable than what you would expect from a fifth inning at bat in regular season game 55.

I'm also someone who has always scoffed at the notion of "no such thing as a clutch hitter".  I'm just glad to see the Godfather of Sabermetrics acknowledge the fallacy of that claim.  It would have been nice if he had written a column specifically about that mea culpa instead of burying it in an Altuve/Judge MVP discussion.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Some guys don't choke, that makes them clutch.

[JimR]

Some guys don't choke, that makes them clutch.

Way more than that, and I detest the word “choke” applied to a failure in a key situation. Baseball is a game of constant failures. That is baseball, not choking. The ability to rise above the failure inherent in the game when it matters most is clutch.

[NeilT]

"In the late innings of close games (100 plate appearances), Judge hit .216 with a .780 OPS.   But when the Yankees were 4 or more runs ahead or 4 or more runs behind (112 plate appearances), he hit .382 with an OPS of 1.500. 

"In the late innings of close games, Jose Altuve hit .441 with a 1.190 OPS.   When the Astros were 4 or more runs ahead or 4 or more runs behind, Altuve hit .313 with a .942 OPS. "

If Altuve would pick it up when the game's not on the line, he'd be hitting .400. 

[JimR]

"In the late innings of close games (100 plate appearances), Judge hit .216 with a .780 OPS.   But when the Yankees were 4 or more runs ahead or 4 or more runs behind (112 plate appearances), he hit .382 with an OPS of 1.500. 

"In the late innings of close games, Jose Altuve hit .441 with a 1.190 OPS.   When the Astros were 4 or more runs ahead or 4 or more runs behind, Altuve hit .313 with a .942 OPS. "

If Altuve would pick it up when the game's not on the line, he'd be hitting .400.

If he had the same focus and the same approach, yes he would.

[JimR]

Or that the outcome was no more or less probable than what you would expect from a fifth inning at bat in regular season game 55.

Exactly

[NeilT]

Voros McCracken was still the best name ever.  http://vorosmccracken.com/

[BUWebguy]

I've long admired James as a writer,  but this season Posnanski has been as good as it gets.  It makes me wish I'd read more of him.  I could read this many times more:

http://m.dodgers.mlb.com/news/article/260062960/ws-game-5-was-exhilarating-exhausting-ride/

Posnanski does a podcast ("The Poscast") with Michael Schur, writer/producer for The Office, Parks & Rec and Brooklyn 99 (also, of the old "Fire Joe Morgan" blog) that is usually pretty entertaining, if anyone's interested.

(As a side note, Schur has a little bit of a thing for Houston -- he's a diehard Boston fan, and lives in LA now, but has memories of visiting family in Houston growing up, and will occasionally throw out something about Olajuwon, Warren Moon, Mike Scott, etc.)

[jbm]

I found this very interesting, as well as pertinent to a discussion often revisited around here:

 "The logic for applying the normal and usual relationship is that deviations from the normal and usual relationship should be attributed to luck.  There is no such thing as an "ability" to hit better when the game is on the line, goes the argument; it is just luck.   It’s not a real ability. 

              But. . . I have held my peace on this for 20-some years. . .that argument is just dead wrong.   There are five reasons why it is wrong.

. . . .

 I acknowledge that, in the 1970s and 1980s, sabermetrics reached a consensus on this issue, and I acknowledge that I was part of that consensus.   But we wrong.  We jumped the gun.   We should have remained agnostic on the issue until more convincing analysis is done. "

I haven't read the article, but that is nice to read that some have opened their eyes.  Also struck by the last sentence.  The lack of rigor expressed in that sentence is indicative of how that school has been easily corrupted by incompetents.  It is also indicative of how competents have had ample room to thrive within the same area.

[Astros Fan in Big D]

That Altuve AB b5G5 may be my favorite baseball moment ever.

I've watched the whole inning dozens of times,  and his AB in its entirety probably a hundred times.

MLB shop has an autographed photo taken from CF looking in,  split second after contact. I'm sorely tempted to get it.

http://m.mlbshop.com/Houston_Astros_Gear/Houston_Astros_Jose_Altuve_Fanatics_Authentic_2017_MLB_World_Series_Champions_Framed_Autographed_16_x_20_Photograph

[JimR]

That Altuve AB b5G5 may be my favorite baseball moment ever.

I've watched the whole inning dozens of times,  and his AB in its entirety probably a hundred times.

MLB shop has an autographed photo taken from CF looking in,  split second after contact. I'm sorely tempted to get it.

http://m.mlbshop.com/Houston_Astros_Gear/Houston_Astros_Jose_Altuve_Fanatics_Authentic_2017_MLB_World_Series_Champions_Framed_Autographed_16_x_20_Photograph

Perhaps the most amazing thing I have ever seen in baseball was Springer’s first pitch blast in the 7th to re-tie the game after his ill-advised dive gave up the lead in the top of the inning.

[HudsonHawk]

Perhaps the most amazing thing I have ever seen in baseball was Springer’s first pitch blast in the 7th to re-tie the game after his ill-advised dive gave up the lead in the top of the inning.

I think this HR, as well as Altuve’s off of Madea and Bregman’s game tying blast off of Sale, are perfect examples of “approach”.  We mention it all time, but it’s about being ready to hit, knowing what you’re going to do when you get on the box. Not just guessing, but thinking your way through an at bat, looking for a pitch and then being ready to hit it. When Altuve gets in a funk it’s because he chases pitcher’s pitches. But when he’s prepared, and ready to hit, he’s as tough an out as there is.

[toddthebod]

Perhaps the most amazing thing I have ever seen in baseball was Springer’s first pitch blast in the 7th to re-tie the game after his ill-advised dive gave up the lead in the top of the inning.

The fact that it was on the first pitch.  The fact that the ball was hit so hard.  The fact that it appeared like the ball literally exploded when it hit the top of the wall.  The fact that the home run was so redemptive for Springer.

All of these things made this home run the most epic of the Astros' world series home runs. 

[NeilT]

From a different side, Altuve didn't particularly hit well during the Series itself--didn't he hit like .172?  That said, he didn't have a particularly bad Series either, and he clearly contributed positively to the outcome.  I doubt that you would have been able to say the same for Judge in the same situation. 

[HudsonHawk]

From a different side, Altuve didn't particularly hit will during the Series itself--didn't he hit like .172?  That said, he didn't have a particularly bad Series either, and he clearly contributed positively to the outcome.  I doubt that you would have been able to say the same for Judge in the same situation.

He was 6 for 31 (.194) for the Series, and had more strikeouts than hits. But, four of his hits were extra bases, and he drove in 6 runs.  It wasn’t a great series, but he came up big in some big situations.

[jbm]

All of these things made this home run the most epic of the Astros' world series home runs.

The very idea that I can debate whether I agree with this is gratifying

[Astros Fan in Big D]

Perhaps the most amazing thing I have ever seen in baseball was Springer’s first pitch blast in the 7th to re-tie the game after his ill-advised dive gave up the lead in the top of the inning.

At the game, my buddy turned to me after Peacock limited the damage (overlooked) and said "I hope Springer homers to erase that play." I remember thinking dude,  you can't SAY that.  Then it happened.

When Bregman got on I told him I'd 'settle' for an Altuve double.  Boom.  It happened.

Looking back at the commentary,  when they showed the replay of the double Smoltz simply said "he's the best."

[JimR]

He was 6 for 31 (.194) for the Series, and had more strikeouts than hits. But, four of his hits were extra bases, and he drove in 6 runs.  It wasn’t a great series, but he came up big in some big situations.

He did not get a hit the last two games, I think, but he drove in a big run in Game 7 with a ground ball.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Way more than that, and I detest the word “choke” applied to a failure in a key situation. Baseball is a game of constant failures. That is baseball, not choking. The ability to rise above the failure inherent in the game when it matters most is clutch.

Of course I agree. And appreciate your eloquent expounding on my purposely absurd statement.

[JimR]

Of course I agree. And appreciate your eloquent expounding on my purposely absurd statement.

You expressed the belief of the masses. Why would one be purposely absurd?

[Astros Fan in Big D]

Perhaps the most amazing thing I have ever seen in baseball was Springer’s first pitch blast in the 7th to re-tie the game after his ill-advised dive gave up the lead in the top of the inning.

Followed a few pitches later by Correa's moonshot.

Statcast:
Exit velocity 105.8
Launch angle 48 degrees

Highest HR in MLB this season. Estimated 169 feet.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/260062340/astros-carlos-correa-hits-highest-hr-of-2017

[NeilT]

You expressed the belief of the masses. Why would one be purposely absurd?

This is all too subtle for me.  If he didn't choke, could we say that a .280 hitter who hits .218 in high leverage situations maybe gagged a bit on a bone?

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Why would one be purposely absurd?

Because subtext has an intrinsic value.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

This is all too subtle for me.  If he didn't choke, could we say that a .280 hitter who hits .218 in high leverage situations maybe gagged a bit on a bone?

You are missing the point. Your .280 hitter is kind of clutch in low leverage situations.

[NeilT]

You are missing the point. Your .280 hitter is kind of clutch in low leverage situations.

This just about sums me up exactly.  Missing the point and kind of clutch in low leverage situations.

But I think I see what you mean.  There is no anti-clutch, only not clutch, kinda clutch, clutch, clutchier, and clutchiest.

[JJxvi]

The notion that clutch hits are nothing more than luck is something I have disputed for years. On my tiny stage of HS baseball, I have seen ordinary players be better in clutch situations. The BP guys would be wasting their time trying to tell me Altuve’s 5th inning AB against Maeda in Game 5 was luck.

It doesn't even matter, really, for this purpose.  Even supposing it were true that Jose Altuve was "just lucky" to get more hits in close situations, it was still an important factor in what actually happened during the 2017 season. Eliminating and adjusting luck is only useful to predict what is likely to happen in the future. Its stupid not to use that data to determine who was actually the MVP based on the events that actually happened.

[Limey]

"In the late innings of close games (100 plate appearances), Judge hit .216 with a .780 OPS.   But when the Yankees were 4 or more runs ahead or 4 or more runs behind (112 plate appearances), he hit .382 with an OPS of 1.500. 

How much of this is the result of the pitchers not willing to challenge Judge in a tight/late situation, and Judge's inexperience getting him out.  Whereas when the game isn't close or late, pitchers might be more likely to try and sneak some cheese past him...

[Limey]

From a different side, Altuve didn't particularly hit well during the Series itself--didn't he hit like .172?  That said, he didn't have a particularly bad Series either, and he clearly contributed positively to the outcome.  I doubt that you would have been able to say the same for Judge in the same situation.

Or Puig.

[Limey]

There is no anti-clutch, only not clutch, kinda clutch, clutch, clutchier, and clutchiest.

...and Clark.

[JimR]

How much of this is the result of the pitchers not willing to challenge Judge in a tight/late situation, and Judge's inexperience getting him out.  Whereas when the game isn't close or late, pitchers might be more likely to try and sneak some cheese past him...

Why would anyone challenge Judge when he strikes out on sliders?

[Limey]

Why would anyone challenge Judge when he strikes out on sliders?

Announcing their presence with authority?

Seriously though, someone must've been throwing him strikes; they can't all have been mistakes.

[juliogotay]

Why would anyone challenge Judge when he strikes out on sliders?

Imagine his awesomeness if he learns to lay off those.

[NeilT]

How much of this is the result of the pitchers not willing to challenge Judge in a tight/late situation, and Judge's inexperience getting him out.  Whereas when the game isn't close or late, pitchers might be more likely to try and sneak some cheese past him...

The pitching is clutchier than Judge is clutch. 

[Limey]

Imagine his awesomeness if he learns to lay off those.

See EeOh,  Beeej.

[subnuclear]

Fangraph's Dave Cameron has a pretty good answer to Bill James on this topic .

Pretty much every single baseball statistic that is used on a daily basis, regardless of how analytically inclined the user is, is designed to be context-neutral.

There are context-dependent metrics, of course, and we’ve tried to do our part to promote Win Probability and Leverage Index as tools to be included in the discussion of value. We have a number of stats that measure different levels of context-specific performance, ranging from RE24 (baserunner/out context included, inning/score excluded) up to WPA, which includes everything. We keep a statistic called Clutch to track the difference in win values between a player’s context-neutral performance and his context-specific performance.

But if one wanted to build a complete and thorough version of WAR that tied back perfectly to a team’s win total, the reality is that it would not be particularly useful for answering many other questions. Because assigning an individual player with the true contextual value of his performance requires far more adjustments than the simple proposed fix in James’s article.

[Astros Fan in Big D]

Fangraph's Dave Cameron has a pretty good answer to Bill James on this topic .

Both James and this author seen to agree that WAR isn't particularly useful for things like MVP voting:

I think the answer is that it depends on how you’re using WAR. In the case of MVP voting, I do think there is a case to be made for looking at the circumstances under which a player performed, and I did use context-dependent metrics when I was an MVP voter. WAR is an imperfect tool, and it’s particularly imperfect for things like the MVP award, which is why even those of us who host sites that promote WAR fairly extensively suggest not relying solely on its results when filling out a ballot.

So my question for the proponents of WAR:
If its not meant to accurately describe a player's contributions to his team's wins,  why put the word 'Wins' in its title? 

[moriartp]

Both James and this author seen to agree that WAR isn't particularly useful for things like MVP voting:

So my question for the proponents of WAR:
If its not meant to accurately describe a player's contributions to his team's wins,  why put the word 'Wins' in its title?

Why wouldn't you? Any context-neutral stat bears an imperfect relationship to results. Wins is a good scale because (IMO, anyway) it's the most easily understandable measure of a player's value.

[Astros Fan in Big D]

Why wouldn't you? Any context-neutral stat bears an imperfect relationship to results. Wins is a good scale because (IMO, anyway) it's the most easily understandable measure of a player's value.

I'd say because Runs is what you're measuring/ extrapolating,  and if you're maintaining that this should be context neutral it seems a little disingenuous to put the most context dependent thing we measure in baseball,  Wins (or losses) in the title.  That's all.
(Context free extreme: Altuve lost more games than any 2B in the AL in the last 5 years)

For what it's worth, I  think I understand Cameron/fangraphs position and how they use WAR and don't have a problem with it,  I just think a lot of people use these newer metrics without fully understanding them (I certainly don't know most of them).  just saw a good interview with him on MLB Network.   He uses WAR as a bucket tool: Altuve and Judge are in the 8 bucket by themselves, so he pushes everyone else aside then deep dives with other stats to put a fine point on who was better or more worthy for MVP or whatever.  Contrast that with Twitter experts who say Judge higher WAR/more HR/he was robbed.

[JimR]

Good grief! Make it stop!

[Astros Fan in Big D]

Good grief! Make it stop!

Ha. Don't worry.  That's all for me.

[Jacksonian]

Good grief! Make it stop!

WAR

[HudsonHawk]

Good grief! Make it stop!

Be ready to hit.  See the ball.  Hit the ball.

[Astros Fan in Big D]

My son's baseball coach would say the same thing to each kid (ages 8-10):
"I want you to hit the ball with your bat and run to first base."

[HudsonHawk]

My son's baseball coach would say the same thing to each kid (ages 8-10):
"I want you to hit the ball with your bat and run to first base."

I would say that to Jose Altuve.  The time for coaching is not when he's in the box.