{"id":32741,"date":"2019-02-25T14:45:07","date_gmt":"2019-02-25T19:45:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/?p=32741"},"modified":"2019-03-23T14:22:33","modified_gmt":"2019-03-23T18:22:33","slug":"war-and-jaws-exaggerating-fielding-value","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/2019\/02\/25\/war-and-jaws-exaggerating-fielding-value\/","title":{"rendered":"WAR and JAWS \u2013 Exaggerating Fielding Value"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In an earlier post, I pointed out that Matt Chapman\u2019s WAR value for 2018 (8.2) seemed to indicate that he had the third best season of any major leaguer \u2013 behind only Mookie Betts and Mike Trout. Of course, any serious fan looking at the numbers would know that this assertion is not believable. There were at least five or six (or more) players who had better seasons than Carpenter.<\/p>\n<p>Then how did it happen? Unfortunately, WAR has a flaw \u2013 which is a tendency to exaggerate the value of a player\u2019s fielding if he is perceived to be a very good fielder or a very poor one. That is, if (as with Matt Chapman in 2018) a player is found to be a very good fielder, then his defensive WAR is illogically increased out of proportion to his total accomplishments. And if a player is found to be a poor fielder, the opposite happens.<\/p>\n<p>This \u201cintrinsic fielding exaggeration\u201d of WAR becomes most apparent when JAWS calculates the \u201ccareer value\u201d of a player using WAR.<\/p>\n<p>JAWS calculates the career value of a player in a manner somewhat similar to the CAWS Career Gauge \u2013 but with two big differences. Here are the formulas:<br \/>\nCAWS = CV + .25(CWS &#8211; CV) where<br \/>\nCWS = career win shares and CV = core value (10 best WS seasons)<br \/>\nJAWS = 7WAR + .5(WAR &#8211; 7WAR) where<br \/>\nWAR = career WAR and 7 WAR = peak value (7 best WAR seasons)<\/p>\n<p>You can see that by taking the 10 best seasons CAWS is looking for a longer \u201cquality period\u201d in a career \u2013 indicative of a \u201cHall of Famer.\u201d By taking only 7 seasons, JAWS is far less demanding of a player\u2019s career.<\/p>\n<p>CAWS then adds only 25% of the remaining win shares to give less importance to \u201clongevity\u201d \u2013 whereas JAWS adds 50% of the remaining WAR.<\/p>\n<p>The principal problem remains, however, that JAWS relies on WAR \u2013 which is a somewhat flawed metric if the player is perceived to be on either end of the fielding spectrum \u2013 that is, either a very good fielder or a poor fielder.<\/p>\n<p>This is best illustrated by examining some JAWS results. Here are the \u201cbest shortstops\u201d (since 1920) according to JAWS.<br \/>\nAlex Rodriquez<br \/>\nCal Ripken Jr.<br \/>\nRobin Yount<br \/>\nArky Vaughan<br \/>\nErnie Banks<br \/>\nOzzie Smith<br \/>\nLuke Appling<br \/>\nAlan Trammell<br \/>\nDerek Jeter<br \/>\nBarry Larkin<br \/>\nLou Boudreau<br \/>\nJoe Cronin<br \/>\nPee Wee Reese<\/p>\n<p>And here are the best shortstops according to CAWS.<br \/>\nAlex Rodriquez<br \/>\nArky Vaughan<br \/>\nCal Ripken Jr.<br \/>\nRobin Yount<br \/>\nDerek Jeter<br \/>\nLuke Appling<br \/>\nJoe Cronin<br \/>\nBarry Larkin<br \/>\nErnie Banks<br \/>\nPee Wee Reese<br \/>\nLou Boudreau<br \/>\nAlan Trammell<br \/>\nOzzie Smith<\/p>\n<p>Note a couple of interesting points:<br \/>\n1. The same 13 players are on both lists of best shortstops.<br \/>\n2. The same 4 players are the top 4.<br \/>\n3. CAWS suggests all 13 have HOF numbers.<br \/>\n4. JAWS suggests all but Reese have HOF numbers.<\/p>\n<p>First of all, does anyone really believe that Alan Trammell had better career numbers than Derek Jeter \u2013 as JAWS suggests? Of course not! This is the first clue that something is wrong here \u2013 and it is \u201ccredit for fielding.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>It is the placement of Derek Jeter and Ozzie Smith on the JAWS list that best illustrates the \u201cfielding exaggeration\u201d of WAR. Derek Jeter clearly had better career numbers than Ozzie Smith but is ranked below him.<\/p>\n<p>1. Ozzie is arguably the best defensive shortstop of all time \u2013 and, therefore, is given an exaggerated credit for fielding by WAR and winds up as #6 on the JAWS list. His appropriate ranking is #13 as on the CAWS list.<\/p>\n<p>2. Jeter is considered by WAR to have been a poor fielder (which is accurate) but is then penalized in an inappropriately harsh manner by WAR and winds up ranked #9 by JAWS&#8212;when he is more accurately #5 as on the CAWS list.<\/p>\n<p>What to conclude from all this?<\/p>\n<p>1. Win shares is a more mathematically sound metric than WAR \u2013 which leads to CAWS being somewhat more accurate than JAWS at assessing a player\u2019s career.<\/p>\n<p>2. JAWS is fairly accurate except when dealing with a player who was a very good fielder or a poor fielder (because of the flaw in WAR).<\/p>\n<p>3. When assessing \u201cHOF credentials,\u201d consult both systems!<\/p>\n<p>Thank you for your time.<\/p>\n<p><em>Mike Hoban, Ph.D.<\/em><br \/>\n<em>Professor Emeritus (mathematics) \u2013 City U of NY<\/em><br \/>\n<em>Author of <\/em>DEFINING GREATNESS: A Hall of Fame Handbook<em> (2012)<\/em><br \/>\n<em>profhoban@gmail.com<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In an earlier post, I pointed out that Matt Chapman\u2019s WAR value for 2018 (8.2) seemed to indicate that he had the third best season of any major leaguer \u2013 behind only Mookie Betts and Mike Trout. Of course, any serious fan looking at the numbers would know that this assertion is not believable. There [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,77,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","category-hall-of-fame","category-prof-hobans-hall-of-fame-blog"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32741","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32741"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32741\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}