Does WAR Treat Jorge Posada Fairly?
Jorge Posada officially announced his retirement earlier this week, to the surprise of no one who was following the baseball beat the last lately. The career Yankee may have finished with a whimper, but his career was mostly a series of bangs with which FanGraphs readers are probably familiar. From my perspective, it often seemed that Posada was under-appreciated in his prime. However, the force of nostalgia (even for relatively recent eras) seems to be asserting itself a bit as some are arguing that Posada should make the Hall of Fame.
A short blog post is not the place to address every aspect of one player’s Hall of Fame case. What piques my interest is the idea that while the shape of Posada’s Wins Above Replacement total and peak may not measure up to the average Hall of Fame standards, he may merit more consideration because WAR is somehow unfair to catchers. Obviously, if you hate WAR and similar metrics, you probably are not going to read much further. But even if you are open to them, you might think they have limitations, perhaps such as this one. For this post I simply want to argue that while there are some anomalous cases with respect to using the WAR to measuring Hall-worthiness, such as the case of great relief pitchers, I do not think that the same is true of catchers like Posada.
[As an aside, I want to note here that WAR (or whatever total value stat) or numbers in general are not the only factors worth considering for induction, but I do think it is a right place to start, and for the sake of space will be the only kind of thing I discuss here.]
Without getting into all of the background research, I will begin by simply saying that the standard that has been found using WAR to look at the Hall of Fame is that the average inductee has had a total of around 60 career WAR. As discussed elsewhere, we do not just want a big total, but a substantial peak, at least three to five seasons of around seven (or more) wins. Obviously, these are not hard and fast rules, but general guidelines. Recent inductee Andre Dawson provides a good “baseline” Hall of Famer.
The three outfielders nicely illustrate the baseline, a no doubt Hall-of-Famer, and another who should not be in (no matter how much he hints he should be). Posada does not measure up to the Dawson baseline either in terms of total value or peak value.
The reader will no doubt note that the difference is that Posada is a catcher, so the comparison is a bit odd. After all, isn’t equivalent offensive production at catcher more valuable than for an outfielder? However, that is to miss the point of WAR and similar metrics — they take into account relative positional value. So to insist that Posada only be measured against other catchers is to miss the point.
But perhaps WAR is unfair to catchers in the same way that it seems to be unfair to relievers. Let me stop here and note that I am discussing historical, rather than current market value, although I am well aware that there is a great deal of controversy about the proper way to value relievers in both respects. WAR was primarily created to deal with market value in given seasons, but has been adopted to historical discussion because for the most part it seems to “work” pretty well.
While I am tend to trust numbers rather than my own “intuitions,” I have to say that I think that Mariano Rivera is the one of the greatest (perhaps the greatest) relief pitcher of all-time, and think he should be in the Hall of Fame. However, by the “Dawson Standard,” he does not belong.
Now, I do not think that noting this one potential issue with WAR and historical evaluation for the sake of the Hall of Fame means that the whole stat is “broken,” it may just mean more work needs to be done, that WAR maybe should not be used in this case, or something else along those lines. Or it may just mean that I have an irrational attachment to guys like Rivera. It really seems that no great relief pitcher in history comes close to the 60 WAR with a good peak standard given above. But the point of this post is not Rivera, but Posada. Is WAR perhaps unfair to Posada and other catchers in the same way?
[Before anyone brings up how far we have to go in evaluating catcher defense, I will simply agree while noting that most would probably agree that such improvements are quite unlikely to help Posada's case.]
While WAR may have other issues with catchers, I do not think this is one of them. While it might be a problem for using WAR for Hall-worthiness that Mariano Rivera and other great relievers do not measure up, this is not the case for catchers. Let’s take a look at a couple of the classic “great catchers” of the (mostly) Retrosheet era:
Both Bench and Berra are easily worthy by the “Dawson Standard.” But just because a player is not as good as Johnny Bench or Yogi Berra, he could still make the Hall. What about Posada compared to some of his (relative) contemporaries.
It seems to me that Piazza and Ivan Rodriguez each have a good, WAR-based case for the Hall, too. So it does not strike me that the “Dawson Standard” is unfair to the greatest catchers as it may be to the greatest relievers.
Jorge Posada had a wonderful career. While WAR may have its limits with respect to relievers, and perhaps there are other things to take into account for catchers. However, the “WAR standard” does not appear to have the absolute exclusionary problem with catchers (unless one thinks each position should have a minimum quota for the Hall, which I do not, but that is yet another issue) that it does for relievers, so I do not think it is unfair to say that Posada should not make the Hall, at least on this basis.
* piques * interest. Not ‘peeks’,
why did you use an asterisk at first and then an apostrophe symbol? not only is it confusing to switch, but arent they both wrong? i would feel quotation marks are more appropriate.
not trying to be snarky, just found it odd.
Not really a deep article… it’s basically “Posada’s not a hall of famer because there were better catchers at the same time as him”. Would’ve liked it if you had examined his framing and blocking abilities and examined his game calling.
Which ironically make him even less qualified, since they are not included in war, and he was terrible at these things.
The case for Jorge is essentially “good offensive catcher in the right place at the right time.” To the extent that HOF voters just look at offense, Posada has a strong case. The case against him is that he was a REALLY bad defensive catcher, was overshadowed by Piazza & Rodriguez (and then Mauer) and never had Piazza’s hitting skill.
Overall, he falls into the same zone as Bernie Williams; Hall of Very Good, but would have been in if this was the 1930s-1950s and people were blinded by the Yankees’ success.
The real problem for pitch-framing/blocking is that we will have really good data for recent catchers, and really poor data for past catchers. So even if Berra was a terrible blocker, we’ll never be able to measure it because we can’t see the tape.
This. If anything, Posada is overrated by WAR, as his horrible defense wasn’t properly quantified in the same way a great catcher’s defense is underrated by WAR (see: Yadier Molina).
Not to mention Piazza being underrated in his own era and hamstrung by just about the worst staff ever at holding runners on.
Good, interesting article. I think Yankees automatically get more HOF consideration based on the press coverage, so the WAR “deficit” may be a moot point. Posada was a good player, and a had a good career but he was not even the best catcher of his time. Not a HOF in my view.
So players who used roids cannot get in, and players who did not use roids cannot get in because they weren’t as good as the players who used roids?
yes because its 100% certain that Posada was clean even though at least 2 slugging teammates weren’t
I’m just mocking the entire process.
If you look at the WAR leaderboards for catchers (either career or annually), the totals are way below those for other positions. I don’t think the problem is that WAR has some kind of systematic bias. I think the problem is playing time. In 2011, the MLB leader in games started at catcher was only 132. In 2010, it was 130. And catchers tend to have shorter careers because of all the wear-and-tear.
I can accept the fact that catchers tend to contribute fewer wins than do their teammates at other positions. But I don’t think that should mean that fewer catchers deserve to go to the HoF.
Absolutely agree with Yirmiyahu.
Beyond the limits of playing time, there’s also managerial bias. Teams will stick with a high offense, low defense player at a number of positions (Hello, third baseman Miguel Cabrera), but because catcher demands intense work with the pitching staff, poor defense is rarely tolerated there.
If Paul Konerko had been able to stick at catcher, his production would have been more valuable, in part because catcher has historically been a low offense position. Jorge Posada, even as a lousy defensive catcher, still provided HOF value to his team.
Also, Posada was heavily platooned early in his career, which reduced his opportunity to rack up points in WAR’s counting stat method.
wOBA and most other rate stats put him among the most productive catchers of all time. The Hall is filled with outfielders, but few catchers make the cut.
Welll said by the Yirmiyahu.
Playing time is definitely the issue here. Posada has roughly 2/3 the PA and Innings as Dawson does while having similar career lengths. On a rate per playing time basis Posada is closer to Dawson; Posada just didn’t get the PA and Innings to accumulate the WAR. Posada loses 121 runs on his career WAR comparison to Dawson in “Replacement” category. When discussing HOF worthiness, I tend to believe the Replacement column should be closer to 0 for all.
15th highest career WAR, by position:
1B, 74.2 (Rafael Palmeiro)
LF, 70.8 (Tim Raines)
SS, 69.7 (Pee Wee Reese)
RF, 69.7 (Manny Ramirez)
3B, 67.9 (Darrell Evans)
CF, 66.6 (Max Carey)
2B, 62.6 (Ryne Sandberg)
C, 47.6 (Jorge Posada)
Or, put another way: the top catcher of all time (Johnny Bench) only had 81 WAR. That wouldn’t put him in the top 5 at any other position. For all the other positions, the #1 guy averages 150 WAR.
The question is, for Hall of Fame purposes, should we be comparing catchers to other positions, or should we be looking at where a catcher ranks relative to other catchers?
That falls right in line with the 2/3 ratio of PA and Innings for Posada and Dawson (ranges from .64 to .76).
And Bench had 15-20% of his career not playing C.
Right on. I find little value in comparing catcher to other positions for the reasons Yirmiyahu suggests.
In addition, PT for catchers itself has risen over time. Early catchers without mitts and protection were forced to play fewer games at C and to seek multiple positions (see Kelly or Ewing) to keep strong bats in the lineup.
I’ve found that to weigh a catcher against other positions (say, to decide between a C and a 1B for the HOF or HOM), adjusting WAR (or any omnibus stat) for playing time is necessary. There’s plenty of good ways to do this, but if you don’t you’ll end up with a HOF that is skew by position against catchers…just like today’s HOF! : )
Even if you are just comparing catchers from early eras to today’s catchers, some PT adjustment is probably necessary because catcher playing time has increased substantially over time.
There’s a good case to be made for Posada for the HOF (and Bennett, Munson, Schang, Tenace, Simmons, and Torre…maybe Freehan) IF you subscribe the idea that the HOF should honor positions relatively equally. Positional balance as the HOM calls it. If you don’t believe that, well that’s something else.
With about 210 current MLB members (so not counting NgLers for this exercise), and assuming a 2/3 to 1/3 split for hitters versus pitchers (YMMV), then you get about 17.5 men per hitting position. The HOF has 13 C. Torre, Simmons, and two or three of the other guys would fill that out quite nicely.
For what its worth, I don’t have any problem keeping Posada out of the Hall. In my opinion, he’s borderline and there are a bunch of catchers in line in front of him. But I do think more catchers deserve to go in, and I think this article takes the wrong approach to evaluating a rather unique position.
It seems the problem (based on the issues raised of playing time and career length for catchers) are largely due to the fact that WAR is a cumulative stat. Perhaps using a rate based version WAR/150 (similar to UZR/150) would allow for better between position comparisons. Obviously, you’d need some sort of GP cutoff to avoid overly small sample sizes for a given season, but this seems like a more fair way to compare between positions.
There’s also the distinct possibility that there simply haven’t been enough HOF-quality catchers who played the game. Bill James wrote about this once in an article a couple years ago, and I am very sorry to not have a link to that but I don’t pay for that site anymore. To paraphrase, he was suggesting that the low number of catchers might simply be because there have been fewer Hall of Famers to play that position due to the fact that young elite athletes rarely end up behind the plate, and we should be cautious in making knee-jerk reactions by inducting non-worthy candidates to make up for the discrepancy.
That being said, I don’t think we should mess with how WAR is measured(other than improved defensive metrics) for catchers. A starting pitcher can only pitch every 5 days. A reliever only pitches an inning or two per outing. A starting catcher sits every 5 games. Those are just the rules. So i don’t necessarily agree that prorating catcher stats over 150 games is the right move. What needs to change is the Hall of Fame STANDARD for catchers, just as we should do with relievers. Obviously, if Johnny Bench can “only” accumulate 80+WAR, 70 WAR should not be the standard. How about 50?
bstar has covered most of the ground I meant to cover, but if I may add, some of the aspects of the position that lead to catchers getting less playing time also lead to the catchers being objectively less great. The increased rate of injuries and the shorter careers that catchers often experience make such catchers not only less valuable to their teams, but also less impressive.
We should lower the WAR standard for catchers, but only to make up for part of the reduced playing time catchers are heir to. I’d say that catchers with 65 WAR should be presumed worthy of induction, and 55-65 should be seriously considered. I think that’s pretty even-handed, and Posada still falls short.
On another note, I’d say that of all positions, the Hall of Fame has done a pretty decent job with catchers, with only Simmons and (if you consider him a catcher) Torre missing out on induction that they probably should have had.
If you set the bar at 65 WAR, you’ve a Hall of Fame with 5 catchers in it.
Very good player, not a hall of famer. Jeter and Rivera will probably be the only hall of famers on those Yankee teams who won 4 championships.
When discussing Mariano Rivera, he receives a significant benefit from his post-season play. I don’t know what kind of multiplier some fans give him, but those who see him as a no-doubter might multiply (implicitly) all his post-season stats by a factor of 10, or more.
In addition, while he benefits to some extent in finding himself in high-leverage situation, some fans will give him all the credit for the higher-leverage. Whereas some think an LI of 2.0 should translate to 1.5 in terms of “value”, others would insist on keeping it at 2.0.
So, put the two together, and you end up with a no-doubter. But, don’t give him the benefit of playoff multiplier and don’t give him too much benefit for the leverage, and sure, he’s borderline.
Hence, you may as well not talk about Mariano, because it requires a basis of agreement that will be hard to establish.
Sometimes you have to ignore stats and just watch the game. If Mariano Rivera is considered borderline by your calculations I have to first question your calculations and second ask why you are even bothering with the math. He has been so dominant for so long and he has been responsible for so many wins that it seems comical to me that a stat that calculates how many wins someone is responsible for fails to recognize his greatness. How many times does someone have to be the best player on the field, at the most important juncture of the game?
It has to be noted the WAR is flawed and was never meant to be used like it this.
Did you just tell Tom Tango to ignore stats and just watch the game?
I was amazed/impressed by that as well. It’s like that guy that tried to bluff Doyle Brunson on TV.
have we ruled out that it’s tango effing with us just because he’s bored?
” sure, he’s borderline.”
silly silly man
The issue being that if you call him borderline, you might as well basically say that no relievers should be in the HOF. Which is a silly standard, because SOMEBODY has to be a reliever and if you’re the best reliever in the game for years and years- isn’t that Hall of Fame worthy?
It’s called the “Hall of Fame” not the “Hall of WAR.” An easy case for Rivera could be made just by looking at WAR/Inning as a separate category. By that standard, Rivera put up 0.03 WAR/Inning. The great Walter Johnson put up about 0.02 WAR/Inning. So Rivera was putting up 50% more quality per inning.
WAR gives us (quality/time)*time, but for a Hall of Fame case we really want something along the lines of f(quality/time) * time where the function f offers a greater weight to higher quality performances. Otherwise you get a hypothetical player who could rack up 2 WAR for 30 years and have a HOF case. Which, while impressive, is nothing any serious person would deem HOF-worthy. Likewise, ever calling Mariano Rivera a borderline case is an equally blind argument.
Above all things, WAR is still a counting stat. With that said, it is a linear counting stat and any reasonable person intuitively knows that for HOF consideration you should be using a non-linear one. Otherwise you give undue credit to longevity and health, which are nice but don’t mean squat if you don’t have dominance.
WAR ranks Jorge 15th best catcher of all time. Hall of Very Good!
Shouldn’t being top 15 all time get him in the Hall of Fame? Most positions have 20-25 guys in the Hall.
Not necessarily. Maybe there just havent been 15 guys to play the position at a Hall of Fame level. Or maybe there just weren’t many choices among guys who played after 1970. After all, the number of catchers in the Hall of Fame wasn’t an issue back in 1970. Since Yogi got in in 1972, only Johnny Bench and Gary Carter have been elected by the BBWAA(excluding Negro League and Vet’s Committee choices). Forty years, two catchers. Really the only glaring omission is Ted Simmons. Torre barely played half his games at catcher so I don’t really consider him part of this issue.
Speaking of Simmons, what an unbelievable swing-and-miss by the BBWAA on him. One year, 3.7% of the votes, off the ballot. That’s just embarrassing, guys.
Make that 3 catchers since Yogi. Forgot about Carlton Fisk.
if anything this is a case for him making it
Sorry, not when #6 (Joe Torre – 71 WAR) and #9 (Ted Simmons – 61) aren’t in — those 2 are far ahead of Posada with respect to WAR.
Torre will ultimately get in for his managing, but a case could be made that he should be in for both. Simmons is the greatest switch-hitting catcher in the history of the game, and put up some great numbers on some bad teams — you can put his career numbers up against Fisk, Bench and Carter. You can’t say that about Posada.
I think there is a case for all 3 of those guys.
The only knock on Torre is that he wasn’t *REALLY* a catcher.
Torre played many more games at 1B and 3B (together) than he caught.
If Torre never moved off catcher (assuming he hits the same, which isn’t really a good assumption), he’s a first ballot guy, IMO.
But he was a YANKEE. This is why Don Mattingly gets discussed every year, but Kent Hrbek does not.
Also explains why Puckett is in and Bernie won’t get in. Oh wait.
I would have expected the greatest offensive catcher of all time (Piazza) to be far more valuable than Andre Dawson. WAR says Piazza was only worth about 4 more wins over his career. Piazza is a no doubt HOF player whereas Dawson is considered a borderline player.
Well, If Piazza played defense as well as Dawson did, he would have had 13 more WAR, and it wouldn’t be close.
Be careful about totally ruling out a part of a player’s game when evaluating, or you’ll wind up putting a Carlos Zambrano in the Hall of Fame for his bat work and baserunning.
Piazza is, unlike Posada, a guy whose defensive reputation is worse than it ought to be. The most visible (and easily calculated) part of a catcher’s defensive game is preventing stolen bases, which Piazza was rotten at. But in terms of preventing wild pitches and passed balls, Piazza was above-average. The controversial measure of catcher ERA saw him as one of the best catchers of his time by that measure.
Posada’s biggest problem is that he started his career really late. Call it Chase Utley Complex. He was actually fantastic in his thirties. Post WWII, his age 30+ WAR total of 31.7 is only surpassed by Carlton Fisk’s 39.5 for catchers.
Unfortunately, his first full year wasn’t until age 27. A lot of the catchers in the Hall of Fame had already produced over 50% of their career WAR totals by then.
As I mentioned above, Piazza’s early career throwing was marred by catching a staff that was absolutely horrid at keeping runners on. His actual throwing was probably a touch above average, with a very strong arm tempered by his tall frame.
His effectiveness in catching Tom Candiotti and multiple no-hitters ought to say something about Piazza’s receiving.
Anyway, defensive WAR for catchers – especially past catchers – is a terrible measure.
If you’re trying to look at whether WAR is fair to catchers, wouldn’t it be better to compare Yogi Berra to another player who is clearly a hall of famer, and not a borderline player like Dawson? By comparing just WAR, Berra looks like he’s only slightly better than Dawson. In reality, he won 3 MVP awards and no one should question that he is in the HOF.
Seems that part of the issue might be the distinction between skill and value. Though Rivera may not have added a ton of value to his team, he was (is) one of the most skilled relievers (pitchers?) of all time. Similarly, though Posada may not have provided a ton of value relative to other HOFers, one could argue that he was one of the most skilled catchers of all time. I do not mean that he was skilled at catching itself, but that he was skilled at providing offensive production as a catcher. Basically, position relativity matters a lot for some. If you are one of the top players in your position, you should make the Hall, regardless of the value you provided. Not saying that this view is valid, but I think it is part of the reason that many are pulling for Posada to make it.
I know WAR does a positional adjustment for catchers, but it doesn’t account for reduced playing time.
I actually don’t think it should. WAR should mean what it means. If a catcher’s not playing as many games, he should naturally accumulate less wins. Totally makes sense.
But, since ALL catchers play less games than players at other positions, this really puts them at a disadvantage for accumulating WAR. Over a 15 year career, the catcher may be losing two full seasons worth of WAR compared to other positions.
Looking at WAR/150, WAR per season as you did above, and total cumulative WAR would provide a more complete picture perhaps.
Posada’s counting stats are so much lower than you would think. Tony Pena had more hits than him!
The case for Rivera is not about whether or not he gets to the 60 WAR, it’s that his WAR just dwarves that of his contemporaries that are generally considered to be “great”. He’s at 39 and counting. Billy Wagner finished short of 25. Hoffman around 22.
That is just flat out domination when you control for era, usage patterns, etc.
Compared to the other relievers in the hall (Sutter, Fingers, Gossage), he blows them away as well, with Gossage the only one in the same ballpark.
Rivera is also penalized by FIP. He has outperformed his FIP by over half a run for SOOOOO LONG, I find it impossible that it is “luck”. His cutter breaks bats and induces weak contact which leads to easy to field balls. What is his WAR if his FIP was 2.21 instead of 2.76?
WAR is a tragic simplification of the game.
you sir are on the wrong website
YES!
i think its pretty universally accepted that fWAR for shut down relievers is outdated. guys like rivera, soriano, nathan, soria, etc… it’s pretty obvious their low BABIPs and HR/FB rates are not luck. thats why nobody ever really cites their WARs, and the few that do arent taken seriously, at least not since like 2008.
For most of these guys, their bWAR numbers are pretty similar to their fWAR numbers. And bWAR is based off of actual runs allowed, not FIP.
You serious, Yirmi?
soria – 8.8 fWAR, 13.5 bWAR
nathan – 15.8 fWAR, 22.1 bWAR
soriano – 7.6 fWAR, 10.4 bWAR
rivera – 39 fWAR, 56.3 bWAR
soria’s goes up over 50%, nathan’s and soriano’s right around 50%, while rivera improves a whopping 17 WAR, which coincidentally, puts him almost at the 60 WAR HOF threshold.
its pretty obvious we have different viewpoints on the word “similar”, but your post is misleading to the point in can be viewed as just an outright lie.
Sorry, I didn’t word that right. I was thinking in terms of Hall of Fame credentials, looking at bWAR doesn’t help. Guys like Rollie Fingers, Lee Smith, Trevor Hoffman, Billy Wagner, Bruce Sutter, etc. They top out at 30 WAR, which is nowhere close to Hall of Fame worthy.
FYI, there’s a lot of explanations for having a big FIP-ERA differential than just “luck.” For one thing, Yankee Stadium has a pretty big outfield. For another thing, relievers as a group outperform their FIP because relievers put up substantially lower BABIP’s than starters.
Having said that, over the course of a 17 year career, I’m going to look at park-adjusted ERA rather than FIP.
in which rivera is the all-time leader
Point taken about the other stuff going into the FIP/ERA difference.
Just for reference, Rivera is at 56.3 bWAR with at least one more season to go….
Now if only we could get Fangraphs to look at park-adjusted ERA rather than FIP, we’d be so much closer to reality.
Hasn’t it been shown that umpires unfairly giving Rivera a HUGE strike zone could be the reason he outperforms his FIP so frequently, I mean, stats show he’s got the biggest zone in the game…
Rivera’s huge strike zone could just be an artifact of the fact that he doesn’t throw a breaking ball.
Should we also elect the best pinch hitters if their contributions dwarf those of their contemporaries?
The best pinch runners?
The best late game defensive replacements?
The pitchers with the highest “successful sacrifice” (as deemed by the manager, I guess) rates?
There is a reason most relief pitchers are relief pitchers. If they were able to stick in a rotation with similar results they would be providing additional value by pitching more. As a general rule, they cannot so they do not. Why would we assign additional value to relief pitchers’ contributions because of their inability to throw more innings?
I don’t think you can make the argument that relief pitchers belong in the HOF without also admitting performance is but a small criteria. If that is your belief I respect it, but this is probably not the right article to make the case.
I think the best way to evaluate Posada is with comparisons to other catchers. WAR, overall, may or may not treat catchers, overall, fairly, but that is irrelevant to HoF discussions as long as it treats catchers fairly within a group of other catchers, and as long as we see that catchers go into the HoF in the same general proportion as other positions.
Posada seems to ift right in a group of other catchers at the low end of HoF induction or at the high end of exclusion. And most people agree that’s where Posada belongs, on the border, but maybe a little short.
I think it’s fair to say that he is on the border.
I also think it is fair to think there are not enough catchers in the Hall of Fame.
The voters have basically only allowed in catchers who would ALSO meet the offensive standards for say, a HOF 2Bman. Shouldn’t the line be a little lower for a catcher?
Absolutely agree.
The catcher to reliever comparison is flawed. Yes, the two are similar in the the nature of the positions limits total playing time, and thus how many WAR players can compile. Relievers only throw 60-80 innings per year. Catchers can’t play every day, and don’t play as many seasons.
But there’s a huge difference. Catchers’ total playing time is limited by the rigors of the position. Relievers’ innings pitched are limited because they weren’t good enough to be starters. It’s not as if catchers would play more games and compile more WAR if only they were better ball players.
So I think it makes more sense to compare catchers to other catchers. Was Posada in the same league as Berra or Bench? Obviously not. But was he roughly as good as Rick Ferrell, Ernie Lombardi, Buck Ewing, Roger Bresnahan or Ray Schalk? I think he probably was, meaning he is about as good as nearly 40% of catchers already in the Hall.
Totally agree. A would-be catcher who can’t hang at the position defensively gets shifted to 1B/3B/DH. It’s a premium position, and players that stick there are successes. Relievers are failed starters.
I think you’re being too glib, and a little harsh on Posada.
Just in taking a quick glance at the career leader-boards on Fangraphs, the top 30 hitters listed by WAR for all infield positions range approximately from 140 to 50. The top 90 outfielders range from 177 to, again, about 50.
The top 30 catchers range only from 81 to 40. That’s a very distinct difference that underlines the way that the rigors of the position limit career WAR contributions.
I concede that this is a very basic analysis, and that these stats capture a lot of noise – particularly from players who played in multiple positions. I also agree that Jorge Posada was clearly not as good as Berra or Bench, but I think, given his position, he’s a lot closer to deserving a place in the HoF than you suggest.
The discussion on this article about whether WAR is appropriate for catchers and HOF-worthiness seems a lot more informative and interesting than the article. :-/ Guess that’s disappointing.
There’s definitely something to be said about catchers being in the proper peer group. WAR might be appropriate on a season to season basis, but playing a position that takes a toll on the body, which leads to shorter careers, seems like it might not be the appropriate tool for measuring careers. Catchers end up with more nagging knee and leg problems over their careers, so even the ones that have long careers, like Pudge, find their usefulness in later years much reduced, not nearly as useful as their former selves.
Here’s what should be the real topic: Are guys who play catcher not good enough to play any other position? Or perhaps, are players at other positions capable of succeeding at catcher? There aren’t many examples of players being converted into catchers later in their careers, but there’s some catchers who have gone on to play some first base. And early in their careers, especially in the minor leagues, you see plenty of catchers being moved other places, like third base or the outfield. Now sure, the offensive expectations from a successful catcher are lower, but still, someone has to play the position. It’s certainly reasonable that guys like Piazza, Posada, or Pudge could have used their hitting talents and athletic ability to play as outfielders or corner infielders and been productive later into their careers. Would they have posted higher WAR totals? We can’t really know for sure, but it’s at least somewhat reasonable.
Obviously reliever WAR is borked. You’re using a context-independent stat to evaluate highly context-dependent players.
It makes my brain hurt every time I see a Fangraphs author argue that so-and-so reliever got overpaid because players should be paid $5 million per WAR and this guy got $7 million per WAR instead. Yes relievers get overpaid sometimes, but it’s more often than not because most people are really bad at Bayesian inference.
Put another way, substitue a top closer with some clown from AAA and how many wins do you lose over the course of a year. Do you REALLY think it’s only 2? At the very least, WAR obviously needs a large adjustment for LI. Get that right, and maybe reliever WAR starts to pass the laugh test.
And yeah, regarding catchers, they play less than other position players. So they have lower WARs. You’ve got a graph that makes it look like Yogi Berra was only marginally better at baseball than Andre Dawson. A little silly, no?
To me the big obfuscation is “playing time.” A catcher handles the ball about 120 times a game. If you looked at that as Total Chances then catchers blow everybody else on the field away with how many opportunities they have to affect the game by their mistakes.
Fielding Percentage isn’t a useful measure for most infielders, but considering how many times a catcher handles a ball, and placed against a LI you’d see why it’s a premium defensive position and hard to fill.
I think you really have to consider the position differently than anything else on the field. I think a plus defensive catcher is more valuable than a plus defensive shortstop, but I’m not sure how you quantify that.
With what we know, we can neither quantify itor qualify it.
The comments here do a great job illustrating the principal conundrum surrounding induction into the Hall of Fame: the criteria are foggy at best.
There are nine positions on a baseball diamond. Some may be more “valuable” than others, but you still need nine guys on the field to stand a chance of winning (ok, certain Little League coaching experiences have proven me wrong on this one, but I would say it’s true for the MLB). If you play at a less “valuable” position should that count against you? How exactly does one define value? I would agree that WAR is pretty great overall and can give a rapid comparison of one player against another, but, like all methods does have some issues. Do we give Posada credit for gutting it out for so many years at catcher as opposed to switching to another position where he would have gotten more playing time? How much should we weight offense versus defense? I don’t know.
As much as I hate it, I recognize that a plethora of “human” qualities will probably be just as important as statistics when determining whether somebody will get in to the HOF. Remember, it’s an election, meaning that the goal is to have somebody vote for you, regardless of how you get them to do it. A writer may vote somebody in purely on their statistical qualities, but I’m sure that things such as “was he a great leader/clubhouse presence”, “did he play for winning teams”, or “was he an @$$h01e who turned me down for an interview 15 years ago?” will play in. Should these things matter? I don’t know, it’s up to the preference of the individual.
In some ways I guess that’s part of the fun. If the Hall was all about just putting up statistics and there were hard and fast rules, there would be no arguments, no debates, nothing fun about the process. “Did you meet criterion X? Ok, you’re in. End of story.” Face it, we all love discussing this stuff ad nauseum and coming up with all sorts of different ways of showing we’re right and everybody else is an idiot. Isn’t that what being a sports fan is all about, really?
WAR benefits bad defensive catchers more then it hurts them because terrible defensive catchers like Jorge still get the positional adjustment even though they could never really play the position.
The same goes for other positions like SS, CF, etc.
But was he really “that” bad? I think he did a decent job faking catcher for many years….good enough that his bat easily made up for any runs lost.
Posada was atrocious at the end of this career, but as a young man, I doubt he was much worse than average.
He was always terrible defensively.
The passed balls and throwing errors didn’t just start when he got older.
In 2001, 20021he led the league in errors.
From 1995-2001 he averaged 17 passed balls per 150 games.
According to fangraphs (fielding) and BR (DWAR) from 1995-2002, he had only two seasons in which his defense was considered a plus.
Finally, as a blue jays who a bunch of games from his young career I can tell you his defense didn’t pass the eye test either.
According to BR, his cumulative RField is at -2 before his age 35 season. Hardly atrocious at all.
From the eyetest, I’d say he was pretty average until he got to an age where most catcher’s can’t play defense well.
Who is a more deserving or appropriate Hall of Famer – Yogi Berra or Andre Dawson? According to the graphical comparison in this article, they are pretty close. I don’t think anyone would agree with that, so it suggests that the straight WAR comparison presented in this article is flawed.
The commenters above are correct that a separate standard should be applied to catching, a position where playing time is necessarily reduced, as is the caliber of offensive play given the wear and tear of the position. (There are many examples of improved offensive performance with a move from catching.)
By most metrics, Posada is one of the top 10 offensive catchers of all time. His defense at the end of his career was wanting, but not during his peak. Whether this earns him a place in the Hall of Fame is open for discussion, but whether it earns him serious consideration is not.
If he moved from C to 1B he would lose all of his positional value.
Ivan Rodriguez has a career WAR of 73.4.
Carlton Fisk had a career WAR of 74.4.
————————————
Jorge Posada had a career WAR of 47.6
He just isn’t good enough. If he wasn’t a yankee he’d be an afterthought for the hall.
If he moved from CF to DH Joe DiMaggio would lose all of his positional value.
Ty Cobb has a career WAR of 163.9
Willie Mays has a career WAR of 163.2
————————————
Joe DiMaggio has a career WAR of 92.0
He just isn’t good enough. If he wasn’t a yankee he’d be an afterthought for the hall.
How would DiMaggio move to a DH position that didn’t exist until more than 2 decades after he retired?
Catcher is one of the most important positions in the game. If the games best HOF catchers have much lower WAR than the best players in other positions, then WAR is not capturing something important.
If Posada is the 15th best catcher of All Time, he certainly deserves a spot in the HOF given there have been over 600 catchers All Time.
Yes, short, but well-said. Something in the ratings for catchers appears to be broken, or not being capture properly.
Some other problems with WAR comparisons.
The BSR contribution is starting to kick in (it only hit Posada for ~2/3 of his career for -4 wins). Older catchers had no BSR component which for most catchers would drag down their career WAR value by ~5 (or more?) wins.
Caught stealing is not simply catcher controlled yet it’s value gets place solely on the catcher. If a catcher plays on a staff that is slow/fast to the plate or bounces a lot of balls, throws a lot of fastballs (or junk) or is on a team which prioritizes a slide step (or not using a slide step) the caught stealing will vary. I’m not sure this “evens out” enough to make CS a valid catcher to catcher comparison.
The all time list should also be scrutinized:
Torre played ~40% of his innings as a catcher,
Bench played 75-80%
Berra 65-70%
Simmons ~80%
And there are a bunch of guys who played >90%.
Completely arbitrary, but I think when you start getting below 70-75% you have to start scrutinizing the comparison. Torre is a good example… ~20 of his 71WAR was racked up after he was moved off of catcher permanently. And it’s not like he was catching exclusively in the years prior… he probably accumulated ~40WAR as a catcher… I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve to be in the HOF but is he an alltime great catcher?
Tom,
I actually did some math at B-ref to determine how much catcher WAR Torre got. He didnt catch at all after 1969. So it’s really the early part of his career we need to look at to get an approximate answer. Thru 1969, he played 903 out of 1194 games at catcher, or 75.9%. His WAR over that period was 33.3, so .759 x 33.3 = 25.2 catcher WAR.
Most players who move off catcher usually hit better when they’re not catching, so that number might actually be even smaller.
So, by this approximation, he accumulated 25.2 WAR as a catcher and 55.6 overall(these are bWAR numbers). That’s about 45% for his career.
Wait, those numbers are wrong. I missed that he did play catcher in 1970.(I am firing my calculator after this). New, unofficial numbers:
Joe Torre accumulated 25.9 of his 55.6 bWAR playing catcher, or 46.5%.
Good stuff…. that is about where I though it’d be.
If he played ~40% of his innings at catcher it makes sense that his value would be slightly greater than that when you account for positional value.
I wish it would be possible to break out fWAR by position, but I imagine it would be in the 45-50% range as well.
Yeah, B-ref gives you those breakdowns when you look at the fielding for a career. It breaks it up position by position. Unfortunately, I only had games played as the most reliable stat to measure things by. Probably PA/AB would have provided greater insight.
I wasn’t very moved by this argument, particularly given that Yogi Berra, one of the greatest catchers of all time, barely beats the minimum standard suggested by Dawson. Posada isn’t as clear a candidate as Bench, Berra, or Piazza, but we already knew that.
It’s probably hard to consider Posada a HOFer if, like a lot of readers on this site, you think the only thing that matters is equivalent performance in a neutral context.
Yeah, really. Dawson is regarded as a weak HOFer, yet Yogi Berra, who is regarded as one of the top two catchers EVER (and some have him at #1) barely beats the “Dawson standard,” which basically means no catchers should be inducted. That tells me there’s a problem when it comes to rating catchers, and as I noted below, it maybe that the standard on catchers is too restrictive for the position, and inductees should be widened to include players like Ted Simmons and maybe Jorge Posada one day.
But you are now using a counting stat where the two had vastly different career lengths. Berra accumulated about as many WAR as Dawson, but did it in 78% of the PAs.
Albert Belle and Harold Baines had similar career HR totals, but you wouldn’t [or shouldn't] say that Baines had similar HR power since he needed nearly double the PAs to get there…
“to the surprise of no one who was following the baseball beat the last lately.”
I can see what you were trying to say here, but a half-revised, garbled sentence as your first sentence in the article? I hate to be one of those people who comments just to harp on grammar, but that’s kind of sad.
A couple years ago, catcher’s era was–i won’t say popular or accepted, because that’s not correct–but more prevalent than it is now?
Simply, what is the progress of evalutating catcher defense or the impact of a catcher on a specific pitcher? it seems like, in popular parlance, the “personal catcher”–be it for greg maddux or bob gibson or…vance worley–is an accepted value-adder. Does this kind of catcher actually add value or is this just a myth?
I’m not quite as “dialed in” to the various Sabr research channels (besides FG, of course) as are a lot of commentators…I’d love to see some links, if you guys know of any that discuss that.
This is ultimately what I was expecting in response to a post about Posada’s HOF candidacy.
1) Ignoring that he was an average defensive catcher until his mid-thirties
2) Ditching unbiased analysis in favor of “HE’S A OVERRATED YANKEE!”
Point one may have some valadity. Posada’s defense was rarely ever mentioned up until the latter part of his career right when he had his last surgery. He was never regarded as a top defender, but he also wasn’t regarded as a poor receiver. Many people have decided that who he was defensively those last few seasons was who he was his entire career, and that picture is not entirely accurate, or at least clear.
Regarding point two, did Matt Klaassen say that in his article? I don’t think he did. Perhaps it’s up in the comments from fans above by those who have a bias against anyone wearing a Yankee logo. If so, it’s pointless and should be given the same consideration as pro-Yankee bias. In other words, none. There have been a number of studies on HOF voting patterns, and not only does it show there is no benefit to Yankees on the ballot, there is some indicatation that HOF voting (and all awards voting) there is now a slight disadvantage to Yankees.
Don’t kid yourself, Posada’s defense has always been terrible – just take a quick look at passed ball stats.
Looking only at Posada’s period of time as a catcher (1997-2010) we can see that he has given up PBs at the second worst rate in the league, and the only man in front of him was the personal catcher for one of the game’s filthiest knuckleballers:
Player PB/INN PB INNDoug Mirabelli 0.188 74 3581.7
Jorge Posada 0.157 142 12841.4
Pat Borders 0.147 69 6883.4
Benito Santiago 0.141 109 12259.2
Mike Lieberthal 0.137 74 9826.1
Expanding this out to the period from 1920-2010, Posada doesn’t fair much better, ranking as the 10th worst catcher in history :
Player PB/INN PB INNJ.C. Martin 0.231914307 119 4412.8
Lance Parrish 0.219032068 188 15032.4
Geno Petralli 0.207180762 95 3721.8
Doug Mirabelli 0.188290934 74 3581.7
Gus Triandos 0.18317256 132 7616.4
Benito Santiago 0.164853354 153 15666.7
Ted Simmons 0.163023688 177 14736.6
Alan Ashby 0.162983324 110 10266
Ed Herrmann 0.161525748 124 6135.8
Jorge Posada 0.157497977 142 12841.4
Joe Azcue 0.15313644 114 6810.8
Mike Macfarlane 0.150547189 100 8254.4
Carlton Fisk 0.148680391 125 18257
Darrell Porter 0.147260241 129 12245.3
Mike Stanley 0.147050636 83 5383.1
Obviously passed balls are only one aspect of the game, and they are interpreted subjectively, however they are one aspect of that game that we can easily quantify and put squarely on the shoulders of the catcher (if we are willing to accept that the subjective interpretations will balance out over time).
From 1901 until now, among catchers who played 1000 games and at least 75% at catcher, Posada is ranked 8th in offensive WAR per B-Ref, and 12th in total WAR
How is he not a HOF’er?
Regarding Rivera, fWAR incorporates FIP and BABIP in its calculation. Yet Rivera always exceeds those categories because of the unique nature of his cutter, which produces consistent weak contact. If this was a one-year event we’d write it off to randomness. As Rivera heads into his 18th season, we know it’s not randomness; it’s just Rivera. Over the years, it’s been pretty much acknowledged that fWAR undervalues Rivera. He’s an outlier in many ways, and this is just another example.
As for Posada, he probably falls short, on the wrong side of the line among borderline candidates. Yet as Bill James once wrote, the Hall of Fame is a self-defining institution that has by and large failed to define itself. That causes some issues among voters in determining who truly is “a great” worthy of introduction. Posada certainly falls in the top percentage of all-time catchers, yet he still appears to fall below the line of existing inductees (well, most, he actually is better than at least two HOF catchers). Perhaps that’s because the position is under represented. Maybe Ted Simmons and Jorge Posada do belong in the HOF and they should represent the lower end of who we regard as a HOF catcher.
It’s not just relievers who are penalized by fWAR for outperforming their FIP and allowing a below-league average in BABIP. Starters who do the same experience the same downgrade. Look at Tom Seaver, he of the 311 wins, 61 career shutouts, 3500+ K, and a career 2.86 ERA. bWAR has him at 105.3 WAR(4th all-time for pitchers), fWAR says……52.2.??? Ranking ahead of Seaver on the fWAR list are inner-circle Hall of Famers like David Wells, Andy Pettitte, Frank Tanana, Chuck Finley, Kevin Appier, and Javier Vazquez. Who could take this list seriously and/or not LOL?
Who out there thinks Javier Vazquez’s career was better than Seaver’s? Maybe Javy’s mother?
fWAR does not start being calculated until 1974, which means Seaver’s first 7 awesome years are not included in his fWAR. His fWAR would actually be similar (a little over 100) if you ballpark the numbers based on previous seasons.
I dont think bstar is ever serious. That was clearly a troll remark.
Just a note, for this type of WAR graph, there is no reason not to put the legend in the top left. This would make them much more intuitive.
WAR is not the be all end all. People should stop viewing it as all that matters.
Runs are the be all end all in baseball. WAR just converts runs to wins above replacement. Of course, these are estimates and there is uncertainty, especially defensively. Also, I dare say replacement level is much better than it was 50 years ago due to the huge increase in talent pool narrowing the SD among players, which means a modern day player is at a bit of a disadvantage.
But Posada does have 5 rings, and that tends to count for something as well.
and he won the Silver Slugger 5 times as a C, so he had a nice peak (130 OPS+ from 2000-2007).
“Runs are the be all end all in baseball”
(buzzer) Sorry, that’s WRONG. Please try again. You may be thinking of “wins?” You can score all the runs you want, but wins are what matter.
A fundamental flaw of any counting stat, including WAR, is that you’re going to rack up a lot of it on shoddier opponents. Which makes sense- that’s why they’re shoddy. And overall, it mainly evens out- provided you play similar opponents about the same number of times. However, putting up a run on Halladay is clearly worth more than putting up a run on Livan Hernandez. 25% to 50% more, in fact.
So there is something to be said for playing well in the post-season, or against better opponents in general. I’m hardly a Posada booster, as a Red Sox fan I largely try to ignore all 5 of those rings. But playing well in the post-season indicates a high level of performance against a high level of competition. It should count more than the runs you put up in a blowout against the Royals.
Though really, that’s just a junky proxy for what would be a better metric for true quality- a guy’s performance relative to replacement against his opponents. So I’d say that in baseball, not all runs are actually equal. WAR is a convenient fiction and a useful proxy, but runs aren’t wins- never have been, never will be.
Speaking of which, how come no one does postseason WAR? Seems to me like that would be of interest.
The problem for Posada and the benefit for him as well is that the defensive part of WAR for catchers does not yet include Mike Fast’s work on framing and other works on blocking pitches. If the defensive side of WAR already included those things, it’s quite possible Posada would lose another 10 wins just on those two items alone. Reading those works seals the deal for me that although he is the eleventh best offensive catcher of all time, his defense is–in the end–overrated by WAR.
Looking at Posada’s best 8 year stretch and comparing it to Hall of Famers and near misses(by OPS+):
OPS+
1. Piazza 157
2. Ewing 147
3. Tenace 138
4. Dickey 135
5. Bench 134
Torre 134
Cochrane 134
8. Simmons 133
9. Yogi 132
10 Fisk 131
Campanella 131
12 Posada 130
Hartnett130
14 Carter 129
15 Pudge 125
16 Freehan 122
17 Munson 121
18 Parrish 116
Where did 8 years come from, and did you weight these or just use their averages?
Two posts before, pft listed Posada’s best 8 yr peak. It’s pretty easy to find a players best 8 yr streak using b-ref’s tool where you can highlight a group of years and get totals for that stretch. So the stats are from b-ref, sorry I didn’t cite a source.
So yes, they would be weighted perfectly, not an average. For Torre, I only used his catching years since he never caught again after 1970.
Yes, the discussion is bettter than the article that inspired it. People have mentioned, but not broken down, how much of the HOFer’s offensive contribution comes from playing positions other than catcher (except for Torre and Bench). In the DH era, I would suspect that this might make a difference, in that catchers not catching can still DH. On the other hand, Posada is almost unique in this era for refusing to be moved to other positions long after he should have been. He played very little first base over the last two seasons, and one memorable inning at second base.
Finally, I give you Jeff Bagwell. He is what happens to most catchers who can hit.
It’s true that a catcher not catching can still DH, but that
a) defeats some of the purpose of resting him, and
b) is a bad idea if you have a hitter to use as your DH.
You could make the argument that if a guy belongs in the Hall, he should always be your first choice to be on the field, but that’s probably not true for a catcher. Strangely, this may somewhat penalize Posada for being on a team with a deep lineup.
That said, I’d be inclined not to put him in, but I think that he will be inducted.