PDA

View Full Version : Is WAR The New RBI??



fresh prince
09-06-2011, 08:53 PM
For those of us here that refuse to use WAR as the end all be all metric for player evaluation I thought this article made some really good points.

Still a nice stat but not yet the end all be all to an argument.

http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2011/09/06/is-war-the-new-rbi/


Is WAR the new RBI?
September 6, 2011 by Hippeaux
Let’s face it, it’s the only reason we remember Tony Batista.

In 2004, in his final full season as a major-leaguer, T-Bats drove in 110 runs for the Montreal Expos, despite a putrid .272 OBP. Although he was, arguably, the worst everyday player in the majors in ’04, he was hardly the worst player to ever drive in 100 runs (see Ruben Sierra, 1993), nor was 110 the highest RBI total ever amassed by a replacement-level player (see Joe Carter, 1990). However, for some reason, Tony Batista became a sabremetric icon, our favorite cause celebre when we rage, rage against the RBI.

You’ve heard it before. RBIs are just neat round numbers and context. Given the opportunity to hit behind a couple of on-base machines like Brad Wilkerson and Jose Vidro, anybody could drive in 100 runs. But just because a blind squirrel gets a nut every once in awhile, that doesn’t mean he should bat cleanup.

In the wake of T-Bats glorious season, the sabremetric cause was moving from its grassroots mail-order infancy to full-blown mainstream phenomenon, buoyed by New York Times Bestsellers, championship GMs, and senior columnists. When an broadcaster spouted out a flurry of “traditionals” – batting average, homers, RBI, wins, saves – to make his point, basements full of fantasy addicts looked up from their digital almanacs and replied in unison: Bleh.

Give me OBP, give me OPS, give me IPO, give me WPA, give me K/BB; just don’t give me RBI! If you’re going to give me RBI, Mr. McCarver, I’d rather you gave me nothing.

And then came WAR.

The concept was ratified by the sabremetric Godfather, Bill James, who’d created Win Shares according to a similar ideology in 2002. It was a neoclassical economist’s wet dream, like baseball GDP: an elegant equation which accounted for all the sport’s diverse variables and yielded a single number roughly reducible to the oldest and most hallowed statistic of them all, the win. Hallelujah.

Wins Above Replacement is a beautiful idea. Euclidean grace in a quantum world. A simple answer, not only for age-old baseball conundrums like “Mantle or DiMaggio?”, but also a formula for unprecedented comparisons like “Rickey Henderson v. Johnny Bench” and “Roy Halladay v. Alex Rodriguez“.

There’s only one problem. It doesn’t work.

(click “view full post” to read more)

At least, not yet. Not in the fantastically straight-forward way we try to use it. The idea is so good, so clarifying – like democracy or the rational market – that we really, really want it to work, we’re willing to suspend our disbelief just a little while longer in the hope that it might. Because it’d be so great to know with statistical certainty that Albert Pujols was worth $200 Million, that we really couldn’t win that pennant without Andy Pettitte, that Jacoby Ellsbury is definitely the AL MVP, and that Ben Zobrist is exactly 9.3% better than Adrian Gonzalez. Darn that dream.

The cruel irony, the I-could’ve-had-Sean-Doolittle-and-all-I-got-was-stupid-Barry-Zito irony, is that the problem with WAR is the same as the problem with RBI. It frequently measures context as much as performance. Especially when used to evaluate single seasons, it doesn’t sufficiently account for the inevitable variations in opportunity and environment

2009mvp
09-06-2011, 09:00 PM
Such a poor argument. Neyer pretty much tears it apart quite quickly. The obvious problem is that no one with the faintest understanding of WAR will ever pretend it's "the be all end all" stat.

Edit- This (http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/9/6/2408060/limits-of-war-zobrist-analysis) sums it up.

fresh prince
09-06-2011, 09:04 PM
I've seen many many debates both virtual and real end with one dude saying:

" Well his WAR is higher / thread" i.e walk away."

ManRam
09-06-2011, 09:07 PM
He hardly makes an argument. It's like 8 paragraphs of filler and context, and then two paragraphs of "arguments". There's no substance to his argument. I'm not saying what he's saying is wrong, but it just proves and shows nothing. He uses a silly example and then says some more things without providing support to those claims...

And yeah, what 2009mvp said too.

"Ace"ves
09-06-2011, 09:36 PM
WAR is a great stat

WAR is not the only stat that should be used

Baseball is situational, all the stats combined cannot explain baseball

sexicano31
09-06-2011, 09:36 PM
No because WAR isnt dependent on the team around you

Jeffy25
09-06-2011, 09:48 PM
I've seen many many debates both virtual and real end with one dude saying:

" Well his WAR is higher / thread" i.e walk away."

Anyone smart enough to actually understand WAR would never, ever do that.

Do I believe that you have seen that? Of course, because people do enough forum posting to know what other people use.

But anyone that actually understands WAR, would never use it as the final answer.

As with anything, more information is better, and WAR does provide a very good baseline for information as a starting point. But you need a lot more than just WAR to answer who is a better player.

WAR is a good statistic though, it's intent is to find the run value of a player above whatever the league replacement level player is on that particular season. It's a good barometer for combining true offensive and a defensive value to a player. It has it's flaws, but it's a great stat for a snap shot look.

Anyone that uses it as the final answer for a debate isn't very bright, they likely only barely know what the stat is and what it calculates.


To quote Rob Neyer

"Oh, but that's not what Hippeaux is arguing. Because of course you can't argue that. See, he begins the piece with an indictment of RBI. Then launches into an indictment of Wins Above Replacement. But which works better? Who's going to win more baseball games? A lineup composed of the top nine RBI guys in the majors, or the top nine WAR guys? I'll take the WAR guys, and I think Hippeaux would, too.

No, what he means is that it doesn't work as well as we think it does."

2009mvp
09-06-2011, 10:03 PM
I've seen many many debates both virtual and real end with one dude saying:

" Well his WAR is higher / thread" i.e walk away."

Then they fall under the "don't have the faintest understanding of WAR" category.

2009mvp
09-06-2011, 10:05 PM
The worst part of the article is how easy that argument is to make. If you say WAR is flawed because of how unreliable the defensive component is no one in their right mind is going to disagree with you. But to invent some straw man who's rallying WAR as the stat of all stats serves absolutely no purpose to anybody.

Mr Haha
09-06-2011, 10:49 PM
"...the teams in each league which rank highest in outfield UZR for 2011 – Boston and Arizona – also ranked #1 in their league in FB%"

But it's a great stat, really.

RTL
09-06-2011, 10:53 PM
I am a huge critic of WAR and think it is severely flawed but its no where near RBI.

ChiTownPacerFan
09-06-2011, 10:56 PM
Man, whatever happened to watching the game and making a determination on a player based on his performance. Don't get me wrong, advanced stats are helpful, but the best way to judge a baseball player is to (shocked gasp) watch him play baseball.

sexicano31
09-06-2011, 10:57 PM
"...the teams in each league which rank highest in outfield uzr for 2011 – boston and arizona – also ranked #1 in their league in fb%"

but it's a great stat, really.

uzr=war???

Rylinkus
09-06-2011, 10:57 PM
"...the teams in each league which rank highest in outfield UZR for 2011 – Boston and Arizona – also ranked #1 in their league in FB%"

But it's a great stat, really.

I think there is more of a lack of understanding of UZR on this site than any other stat.

sexicano31
09-06-2011, 10:58 PM
Man, whatever happened to watching the game and making a determination on a player based on his performance. Don't get me wrong, advanced stats are helpful, but the best way to judge a baseball player is to (shocked gasp) watch him play baseball.

You do realize that the people who compile these numbers and create these stats(read sabrmetrictians) watch TONS of games, right? This isnt hockey. You can judge a player by his stats, you dont need to watch them

Mr Haha
09-06-2011, 10:58 PM
"Even WAR’s adherents, like Dave Cameron, generally admit the margin of error is at least 15%. When we stubbornly suggest that 0.5 WAR means anything, we are grossly exaggerating the statistic’s accuracy, even according to its creators.

While I applaud WAR (and other metrics) for aiding in our appreciation of defense and baserunning, it’s beyond asinine to conclude that Ellsbury is twice as valuable as Fielder. Too often WAR is used as a means of comparing oranges to apples.

We’ve struggled to understand and statistically represent the effect hitters have on one another. Would Nyjer Morgan be hitting .306 if he wasn’t batting directly in front of Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder? (WAR suggests, by the way, that Morgan has been more valuable on a per game basis than Fielder.)

According to WAR, in 2011, Carlos Lee has had as much defensive value as Troy Tulowitzki."




Burn.

Mr Haha
09-06-2011, 10:59 PM
I think there is more of a lack of understanding of UZR on this site than any other stat.

I'm pretty sure I get it... not exactly rocket science. But, please, educate me.

sexicano31
09-06-2011, 10:59 PM
So you are so quick to bash sabr stats, why?

Mr Haha
09-06-2011, 11:00 PM
The worst part of the article is how easy that argument is to make. If you say WAR is flawed because of how unreliable the defensive component is no one in their right mind is going to disagree with you. But to invent some straw man who's rallying WAR as the stat of all stats serves absolutely no purpose to anybody.

Could not agree more.

Mr Haha
09-06-2011, 11:01 PM
So you are so quick to bash sabr stats, why?

I'm not. I never do.

I am, however, quick to bash deluded self-certainty.

sexicano31
09-06-2011, 11:02 PM
I'm not. I never do.

I am, however, quick to bash deluded self-certainty.

Fair enough. Just seems like you constantly bash and troll people who use SABRS

Mr Haha
09-06-2011, 11:04 PM
Fair enough. Just seems like you constantly bash and troll people who use SABRS

No not at all.

I am, however, amazed at how emotional people get while defending sabrstats. It's as if by critiquing a stat I am bashing someone's religion.

It's OK not to know everything.

kmo429
09-06-2011, 11:05 PM
My main problem with WAR is that is weighs strikeouts too heavily. The fact of the matter is, strikeouts are the best outs besides those that advance runners because the double play is eliminated one hundred percent of the time unless a runner is stealing, and in the rare case you can get on and runners can advance.

misterd
09-06-2011, 11:05 PM
uzr=war???

That's the biggest problem IMO. Most of us recognize that UZR, while useful, can also be full of ****. When you realize WAR uses UZR, the problems carry over.

This is the problem with "compound" stats. In order to have real value, the base stats have to be valid, and the have to be put in the proper relation to each other (hello OPS).

Mr. Hangman
09-06-2011, 11:07 PM
I think he has a point. WAR has the potential to cause the same kind of problems some traditional statistics do. All sabermetrics do, really. It's not so much a problem with the stats as much as human nature, though. People want to arrive at a conclusion, doing as little thinking as possible in the process.

In the past, this proved ineffective, since stats like batting average and RBIs were flawed tools for comparisons. WAR is a good stat, like the author admits, but it's also imperfect (as almost any stat ever used will be). The dangerous thing about WAR is that since it does attempt to cover every aspect of the game, people are less likely to question it. Once people accept a stat and constantly use it, they begin to forget what it actually means. This is especially true for a stat already derived from a pretty complicated formula. Better stat or not, once we fall into the trap of comparing players only by stacking one number up against another, we're failing to properly evaluate performance.

A lot of you are already making the point "anybody smart enough to use WAR, would never use the stat in such an inappropriate or simple manner", but you're wrong. The people who used these kind of stats in the beginning may have been smart and understanding of the ideas behind WAR, because they were the innovators. But like any trend, eventually it spreads to the early and late majority. These are the same people who fell in love with RBIs and will eventually do the same with WAR, not because they understand the stat, but because other, greater minds have determined that it's the better stat, and they want to come off as knowledgeable. It seems that some of the saber stats are already spreading to those groups of people. I've seen people comment on articles cite WAR and make no other intelligent points to back up their argument. It's not "So-and-so is lacking in this compared to so-and-so, which is reflected in their WAR", it's "So-and-so has a higher WAR than so-and-so!".

Rylinkus
09-06-2011, 11:07 PM
I'm pretty sure I get it... not exactly rocket science. But, please, educate me.

I do not think most people understand how the flaws in UZR work.

sexicano31
09-06-2011, 11:08 PM
That's the biggest problem IMO. Most of us recognize that UZR, while useful, can also be full of ****. When you realize WAR uses UZR, the problems carry over.

This is the problem with "compound" stats. In order to have real value, the base stats have to be valid, and the have to be put in the proper relation to each other (hello OPS).

Correct me if Im wrong, but only Fangraphs WAR uses UZR, right?

Mr Haha
09-06-2011, 11:08 PM
I do not think most people understand how the flaws in UZR work.

...please, continue.

BrianWestKins
09-06-2011, 11:14 PM
How dare anyone insult WAR

VRP723
09-06-2011, 11:15 PM
My main problem with WAR is that is weighs strikeouts too heavily. The fact of the matter is, strikeouts are the best outs besides those that advance runners because the double play is eliminated one hundred percent of the time unless a runner is stealing, and in the rare case you can get on and runners can advance.

That's misleading. Technically, with a runner on first you'd rather strike out then hit into a double play, but if you put the ball in play you at least have a chance to get on base. BABIP says 30% of the balls you put in play get you on base. 0% of K's get you on base.

Rylinkus
09-06-2011, 11:16 PM
...please, continue.

Half of the "examples" of UZR not working boils down to sample size. No different than me claiming player X is better than player Y based on 30 games. UZR is a stat that takes more than a season to gauge. And, it DOES NOT work for 1st base and catcher. So a lot of examples of it not working properly go out the window.

I think WAR is a reasonable stat. But it is like every stat. It needs context. No stat is perfect. RBI is a stat with multiple issues. Batting Average has issues. Most stats do. But there is something to stats like UZR, OPS, wOBA, etc.

Mr Haha
09-06-2011, 11:20 PM
Half of the "examples" of UZR not working boils down to sample size. No different than me claiming player X is better than player Y based on 30 games. UZR is a stat that takes more than a season to gauge. And, it DOES NOT work for 1st base and catcher. So a lot of examples of it not working properly go out the window.

I think WAR is a reasonable stat. But it is like every stat. It needs context. No stat is perfect. RBI is a stat with multiple issues. Batting Average has issues. Most stats do. But there is something to stats like UZR, OPS, wOBA, etc.

OK, well, I'm pretty sure I knew all that, but... thanks for setting me straight.

sexicano31
09-06-2011, 11:20 PM
That's misleading. Technically, with a runner on first you'd rather strike out then hit into a double play, but if you put the ball in play you at least have a chance to get on base. BABIP says 30% of the balls you put in play get you on base. 0% of K's get you on base.

What about dropped 3rd strikes where the batter reaches first?

Mr. Hangman
09-06-2011, 11:23 PM
What about dropped 3rd strikes where the batter reaches first?

So, more like 1%.

Mell413
09-06-2011, 11:37 PM
My main problem with WAR is that is weighs strikeouts too heavily. The fact of the matter is, strikeouts are the best outs besides those that advance runners because the double play is eliminated one hundred percent of the time unless a runner is stealing, and in the rare case you can get on and runners can advance.

Does it really weigh strikeouts at all?

ManningToTyree
09-07-2011, 12:12 AM
WAR, what is it good for?

EaglesJackson10
09-07-2011, 12:31 AM
WAR isn't perfect by any means. The fielding metrics are obviously slightly flawed but at the same time it's still a decent measure of a players value. Even if it is flawed don't compare it to RBIs. That's a joke. That's almost like comparing FIP or xFIP to wins. It's ridiculous.

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 12:35 AM
WAR isn't perfect by any means. The fielding metrics are obviously slightly flawed but at the same time it's still a decent measure of a players value. Even if it is flawed don't compare it to RBIs. That's a joke. That's almost like comparing FIP or xFIP to wins. It's ridiculous.

I'd agree with this. WAR certainly has a place within the mosaic of information a serious person would use to evaluate a player. The inclusion of UZR sort of brings it down for me, but it doesn't make it meaningless. I also agree with what you say about the RBI.

Still, I think it's a joke that so many people have come in here and said they never use WAR as an end-all, when anyone who visits this site regularly sees people do that on a daily basis.

EaglesJackson10
09-07-2011, 12:48 AM
I'd agree with this. WAR certainly has a place within the mosaic of information a serious person would use to evaluate a player. The inclusion of UZR sort of brings it down for me, but it doesn't make it meaningless. I also agree with what you say about the RBI.

Still, I think it's a joke that so many people have come in here and said they never use WAR as an end-all, when anyone who visits this site regularly sees people do that on a daily basis.

Well I'm not here to defend the people who do use it that way. There was a point in time where I might have but since then I have learned more and now understand the flaws in it. I also think that most people understand it's not perfect.

On a side note I wish that for pitchers WAR FanGraphs would use xFIP as opposed to FIP.

1908_Cubs
09-07-2011, 01:15 AM
The problem is that a lot of people do not understand how to properly use WAR or what it is actually determining. WAR is a good quick metric statistic but it also needs to be qualified - UZR is a very violently fluctuating statistic and one that figures in heavily to WAR, as is the scale of the position (for example, many 2b are seeing a slight hike in WAR this season based on how awful the position has been offensively on the year).

It's a great quick reference though, and for the most part, does demonstrate value of one player over another. Just don't be stupid and think it's a silver bullet type statistic. There is none. Those who are so opposed to using WAR, more than likely, are the ones who are taking the statistic far too literally, or simply don't understand what the statistic is measuring.

ugafan
09-07-2011, 01:22 AM
UZR isn't THAT flawed(it's not perfect but it's better than most of the alternatives), the WAR model is flawed(in a sense). 1 year of UZR data isn't enough to jump to conclusions but at the same time using 3+ years of fielding data(which is what seems like a 'safe' sample size) isn't measuring how a player actually performed in a certain year.

1908_Cubs
09-07-2011, 01:27 AM
UZR isn't THAT flawed(it's not perfect but it's better than most of the alternatives), the WAR model is flawed(in a sense). 1 year of UZR data isn't enough to jump to conclusions but at the same time using 3+ years of fielding data(which is what seems like a 'safe' sample size) isn't measuring how a player actually performed in a certain year.

This.

NYKNYGNYY
09-07-2011, 01:40 AM
im going to keep it 100...idk what war is , and i follow sports thoroughly...watching the yankee game as we speak

KingPosey
09-07-2011, 02:56 AM
Some people on PSD take WAR like its the 11th commandment. Its a nice helper stat, but its flawed.

RangersMets
09-07-2011, 05:18 AM
We all know that WAR has it's flaws. This guy is simply arguing against an enemy that isn't there because the people that would argue that WAR is the "be all, end all stat" simply don't understand any form of statistics - let alone WAR. Also, let's take note of the people that actually get paid to use and measure these statistics to fit their needs - the Front Office's.

The simple fact is that WAR and UZR are a couple of the best current statistics we have to argue a players value.

No statistic in the world is perfect, but for now WAR is a good starting point for assessing a player's skill.

The SF Giant
09-07-2011, 05:55 AM
Well I'm not here to defend the people who do use it that way. There was a point in time where I might have but since then I have learned more and now understand the flaws in it. I also think that most people understand it's not perfect.

On a side note I wish that for pitchers WAR FanGraphs would use xFIP as opposed to FIP.

xFIP only goes back to 2002.

FIP goes back to the beginning of time.

Pinstripe pride
09-07-2011, 08:43 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7V6FAoTLc

Jeffy25
09-07-2011, 09:57 AM
Man, whatever happened to watching the game and making a determination on a player based on his performance. Don't get me wrong, advanced stats are helpful, but the best way to judge a baseball player is to (shocked gasp) watch him play baseball.

Because no human being can possibly watch each game and every play and make an accurate and unbiased judgment on all players effectiveness.


I watch a **** ton of games in my man-cave, but I can't possibly watch enough and keep up with each game well enough to know without a shadow of a doubt what players are superior, statistics can either support/confirm or challenge what I suspect. A good combination of both is great, but the mathematical statistics are going to be a better evaluation over any human and their eyes.



No not at all.

I am, however, amazed at how emotional people get while defending sabrstats. It's as if by critiquing a stat I am bashing someone's religion.

It's OK not to know everything.

Usually, it's because you always fill the discussion with insults, personal attacks, and cursing.

You don't criticize the statistics as much the idea of them. If you wanted to actually be critical of the statistics with an eye to the future on how to potentially improve the information and knowledge we have, then I believe you would find a lot more positive feedback and discussion.



My main problem with WAR is that is weighs strikeouts too heavily. The fact of the matter is, strikeouts are the best outs besides those that advance runners because the double play is eliminated one hundred percent of the time unless a runner is stealing, and in the rare case you can get on and runners can advance.

A strike out is the most valuable thing a pitcher can do, while a walk is one of the least. In terms of what creates the best likelihood of producing runs. When a pitcher creates a strike out, there is zero chance (other than on a dropped third strike) of that runner producing a run. A pitcher can control their strike outs, but once a ball is put into play, they rely on their defense to help them out. Even the double play yields less success, because of the possibility that that same ground ball can be a base hit. A strike out just has a lot of value for a pitcher because it creates an out without an opportunity for a base runner to reach (other than a dropped third strike). I see the value of it at least in WAR (more so fWAR)

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 12:13 PM
Because no human being can possibly watch each game and every play and make an accurate and unbiased judgment on all players effectiveness.


I watch a **** ton of games in my man-cave, but I can't possibly watch enough and keep up with each game well enough to know without a shadow of a doubt what players are superior, statistics can either support/confirm or challenge what I suspect. A good combination of both is great, but the mathematical statistics are going to be a better evaluation over any human and their eyes.




Usually, it's because you always fill the discussion with insults, personal attacks, and cursing.

You don't criticize the statistics as much the idea of them. If you wanted to actually be critical of the statistics with an eye to the future on how to potentially improve the information and knowledge we have, then I believe you would find a lot more positive feedback and discussion.




A strike out is the most valuable thing a pitcher can do, while a walk is one of the least. In terms of what creates the best likelihood of producing runs. When a pitcher creates a strike out, there is zero chance (other than on a dropped third strike) of that runner producing a run. A pitcher can control their strike outs, but once a ball is put into play, they rely on their defense to help them out. Even the double play yields less success, because of the possibility that that same ground ball can be a base hit. A strike out just has a lot of value for a pitcher because it creates an out without an opportunity for a base runner to reach (other than a dropped third strike). I see the value of it at least in WAR (more so fWAR)

Quite often, I do get great feedback. However, there are a few hyper sensitive folks in here who can't stand being refuted, and I have little patience for their girlishness, hence some of the insults I can't help but let fly.

avrpatsfan
09-07-2011, 12:39 PM
Obviously WAR isn't an end all to be all stat. No stat is. But it's an excellent judge of a players value. Though I don't like fgWAR for pitchers as I feel FIP is a flawed stat. brWAR is the way to go.

ugafan
09-07-2011, 01:14 PM
Well I'm not here to defend the people who do use it that way. There was a point in time where I might have but since then I have learned more and now understand the flaws in it. I also think that most people understand it's not perfect.

On a side note I wish that for pitchers WAR FanGraphs would use xFIP as opposed to FIP.

That would be measuring what "should" have happened rather than what actually happened. Some pitchers consistently out-pitch their xFIPs because they just don't give up a lot of home runs(for whatever reason).

Twitchy
09-07-2011, 01:22 PM
That would be measuring what "should" have happened rather than what actually happened. Some pitchers consistently out-pitch their xFIPs because they just don't give up a lot of home runs(for whatever reason).

If we're going to be technical, FIP is also measuring what should have happened. ERA is what happened. FIP is what should have happened. Straight from FG (http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/fip/) definition:


Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) measures what a player’s ERA should have looked like over a give time period, assuming that performance on balls in play and timing were league average.

I have to agree with him that XFIP is more accurate than FIP, and would be better for pitching WAR. That being said, neither of them is going to be effective for a pitcher who is on the extreme (GB or FB side). Extreme GB pitchers are underrated by FIP, and extreme FB pitchers are overrated by the same degree. But for the majority of the cases it's effective.

The problem with using FIP, is that it's designed to predict what is going to happen, as opposed to telling us what has happened. If you really wanted to know what happened, you'd use ERA for WAR. But because of all the noise in ERA with ballpark factors and fielders and batted ball types, FIP/XFIP end up being the best one's available.

Which is one of the reasons I absolutely hate WAR for pitchers. rWAR is worse than fWAR for pitchers, but I really try to avoid using it for pitchers because it's a contradiction. WAR tells us what has happened, and FIP tells us what should happen in the future.

Edit: The original article was pretty much wrong about everything. Poorly written. Batting WAR is pretty solid, but I think the UZR needs to be averaged over a 3 year period. That fixes a lot of problems. The only real issue is C/1B defense, and that's disappointing that they haven't found an accurate solution to that one. The fact he equates Tulo's defense to Carlos Lee's shows he doesn't understand how UZR works. Because this is how it works:

Tulo = 9 fielding runs above average (FOR HIS POSITION) + 7.5 for positional adjustment (PLAYING SS) = 16.5
Carlos Lee = 9 fielding runs above average (COMPARED TO LF/1B) + (-7.5) positional adjustment (PLAYING LF) = 1.5 runs.

So Tulo is 14 runs better defensively than Lee, when accounting for position. Anybody still think that's wrong? Cause that looks pretty accurate to me. 1-2 wins better on defense for Tulo.

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 01:33 PM
If we're going to be technical, FIP is also measuring what should have happened. ERA is what happened. FIP is what should have happened. Straight from FG (http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/fip/) definition:



I have to agree with him that XFIP is more accurate than FIP, and would be better for pitching WAR. That being said, neither of them is going to be effective for a pitcher who is on the extreme (GB or FB side). Extreme GB pitchers are underrated by FIP, and extreme FB pitchers are overrated by the same degree. But for the majority of the cases it's effective.

The problem with using FIP, is that it's designed to predict what is going to happen, as opposed to telling us what has happened. If you really wanted to know what happened, you'd use ERA for WAR. But because of all the noise in ERA with ballpark factors and fielders and batted ball types, FIP/XFIP end up being the best one's available.

Which is one of the reasons I absolutely hate WAR for pitchers. rWAR is worse than fWAR for pitchers, but I really try to avoid using it for pitchers because it's a contradiction. WAR tells us what has happened, and FIP tells us what should happen in the future.

Edit: The original article was pretty much wrong about everything. Poorly written. Batting WAR is pretty solid, but I think the UZR needs to be averaged over a 3 year period. That fixes a lot of problems. The only real issue is C/1B defense, and that's disappointing that they haven't found an accurate solution to that one. The fact he equates Tulo's defense to Carlos Lee's shows he doesn't understand how UZR works.

But can't a lot happen to a player to effect his defensive prowess in three years? Age? Injury?

Twitchy
09-07-2011, 01:38 PM
But can't a lot happen to a player to effect his defensive prowess in three years? Age? Injury?

If a player is aging then the past few years will show a decline. Just like how a hitters OPS drops, the fielding runs will too. Maybe not this dramatic, but 10 - 8 - 6.5 gets you 8.17. Which is reasonable - above average, but clearly losing a step and not as good as he was a few years ago. If in the fourth year he drops to 5.5, it's 6.67. And so on.

If a guy is playing through an injury or had his season shortended with an injury, you include the results. Can't ignore what happened. But when you compare players, you can put a * beside it and say "Well, X got hurt and so it's likely that his true talent is closer to the other years than the injury year".

With defense, more information is always better. 1500 defensive innings (ie 150 or so games played) is like 300 at bats. So it's always better to add in more years.

Jeffy25
09-07-2011, 02:46 PM
Obviously WAR isn't an end all to be all stat. No stat is. But it's an excellent judge of a players value. Though I don't like fgWAR for pitchers as I feel FIP is a flawed stat. brWAR is the way to go.

And that itself is a great discussion.

brWAR (rWAR) for pitchers is at the mercy of runs allowed, which can be at the fault of bad defense. Guys with low ERA's have great rWAR.

fgWAR (fWAR) is FIP based, you are dead on correct. But I think I prefer that now, when I used to be more supportive of rWAR for pitching.

For me, I would rather the pitcher get the WAR I feel he deserved, rather than the WAR he earned.

One is more result based, the other is more 'predictive/earned'

But I can certainly see the argument for both, so I tend to try to use a healthy combination of both to get a decent round figure.

An interesting season to discuss this was Curt Schilling's 1998.

Now we don't have xFIP for this season, but we can see that his strike/walk ratio was dominant to an extreme 10/2. He also pitched the most inning that season, and had 15 complete games helping his way to 300 strike outs.

But his 15-14 record look fairly weak and his 3.25 ERA while very good, wasn't as dominant as some other pitchers that season.

So a guy throws 15 complete games, has 15 wins and a solid ERA and his rWAR is 6.0. But I think compiling the innings and the strike outs were more valuable to his team at his rate of success than a 6.0 can earn him.

He managed to post a 2.77 FIP because he struck out 10 per 9 innings and only walked 2. On top of that the guy only gave up 23 home runs in 268 innings pitched. While his HR/9 ratio isn't amazing, it's solid enough.

Schillings ERA and rWAR are somewhat dependent on the success of his defense to help him out. But in his fWAR and FIP it's what he is responsible for. Strike outs, walks, home runs and innings pitched.

His fWAR is 8.6

Those that struggle with fWAR, I fully understand, the job of the pitcher is not allow runs in the first place, so they shouldn't be rewarded when runs are scored against them. But for that, they often times need their defense to help them out. In fWAR, it's simply judging how well the pitcher does at controlling what they can control. And I don't know why people would want xFIP in fWAR instead of FIP. Does a pitcher not control their home runs allowed at all?



Anyway, it's a fair, and interesting discussion, and should be talked about since a lot of the difficulty people have with WAR is that the two more popular statistical websites seem to disagree on how to properly calculate WAR (value).

Jeffy25
09-07-2011, 02:49 PM
That being said, neither of them is going to be effective for a pitcher who is on the extreme (GB or FB side). Extreme GB pitchers are underrated by FIP, and extreme FB pitchers are overrated by the same degree. But for the majority of the cases it's effective.


I agree with this full heartedly.

Victory Faust
09-07-2011, 03:56 PM
The problem I've always had with WAR is, it flattens unique situations into a two-dimensional statistical mean.

What, exactly, is "value"? It depends on the unique circumstances of each team.

Would a halfway decent starting pitcher have had "value" on the 1990s Atlanta Braves? Sure...but his "value" wouldn't be nearly that as that same pitcher on a team with no pitching.

How much "value" does a good-glove, no-hit shortstop have? On a team full of similar players, he would probably have less value than a team full of sluggers whose defense is shoddy.

And that isn't even delving into the non-statistical issues. For instance, if you look at Victor Martinez's stats this year, they're good. But ask anyone close to the Tigers and they'll gush about how he's a clubhouse leader, helps the young guys, etc. Even though you can't put a number on it, that kind of stuff has "value."

Keeping with the same team, Kenny Rogers had a good year in 2006, but his value extended beyond his stats. He acted as another pitching coach, helping out youngsters like Verlander and Bonderman.

Therein lies my main problem with sabermetrics in general. You can't take a three-dimensional game like baseball and try to lump everything into one pile and then derive conclusions based on a statistical mean. BABIP suffers from this very issue: It treats a pitched ball by Roy Halliday equally as one thrown by some tomato can. Both are thrown into the pile and lent equal weight -- and yet, anyone with any sense knows there's a world of difference between a Greg Maddux pitch running in on the hands of a hitter who tops a weak grounder to short, vs. a lollipop thrown by Jeff Tabaka.

Victory Faust
09-07-2011, 03:59 PM
A strike out is the most valuable thing a pitcher can do



Actually, a triple play is the most valuable thing a pitcher can do. But that would hurt his BABIP.

CityofTreez
09-07-2011, 04:00 PM
edit: wrong thread!

Victory Faust
09-07-2011, 04:05 PM
Man, whatever happened to watching the game and making a determination on a player based on his performance. Don't get me wrong, advanced stats are helpful, but the best way to judge a baseball player is to (shocked gasp) watch him play baseball.


That's not what Billy Beane said -- and look at all the success he's had.


Oh, wait.

The_Jamal
09-07-2011, 04:09 PM
What's most staggering on PSD is the lack of understanding of how to apply stats. It's impossible to use 1 stat to determine if Player A is better than Player B. But using a stat like WAR along with stats like Slug % OBP% K% will you give an excellent picture when comparing player

Victory Faust
09-07-2011, 04:11 PM
No not at all.

I am, however, amazed at how emotional people get while defending sabrstats. It's as if by critiquing a stat I am bashing someone's religion.

It's OK not to know everything.


Because it IS religion...or, rather, a cult. They pretend to be scientists, but whenever something happens that throws a monkey wrench into one of their theories, they engage in all kinds of pretzel logic.

One key example of this is defense. I think it was Pete Palmer who said defense was just 6% of baseball (or whatever the number is; the actual figure escapes me, but his point was, defense was a small percentage of the game).

So for years, we had sabers telling us non-believers that defense didn't matter much. Now? They're saying the opposite.

Whenever you call them on it, they'll say something like, "Well, science is always evolving." Which is fine -- as long as you don't act like a know-it-all and claim you have some kind of esoteric knowledge non-sabers can't fathom. And this does happen -- often. "You just don't understand," is an oft-repeated mantra.

miller74
09-07-2011, 04:14 PM
god no

Victory Faust
09-07-2011, 04:15 PM
What's most staggering on PSD is the lack of understanding of how to apply stats. It's impossible to use 1 stat to determine if Player A is better than Player B. But using a stat like WAR along with stats like Slug % OBP% K% will you give an excellent picture when comparing player


I agree with this. The more info, the better. That includes saber stats, non-saber stats, looking at a player with one's own eyes, listening to what teammates say, and anything else you can get your hands on.

What was Milton Bradley's WAR? Pretty good -- but even a dyed-in-the-wool saberist like Jack Z finally determined that the negatives he brought to the table outweighed the stats he put up.

If someone just looked at Bradley's stats, he'd come to the conclusion that any GM who got rid of him was an idiot. And yet, nobody wants to touch that guy.

RTL
09-07-2011, 04:17 PM
A lot of saberheads think they know it all but all they know how to do is copy/paste. Frustrating trying to discuss baseball with people with no original thought. I'm just a former player who is the son of a former scout/coach. I value what happens on the field more than what shows up on a stat sheet.

miller74
09-07-2011, 04:20 PM
A lot of saberheads think they know it all but all they know how to do is copy/paste. Frustrating trying to discuss baseball with people with no original thought. I'm just a former player who is the son of a former scout/coach. I value what happens on the field more than what shows up on a stat sheet.

:clap:

fresh prince
09-07-2011, 04:30 PM
The problem I've always had with WAR is, it flattens unique situations into a two-dimensional statistical mean.



Therein lies my main problem with sabermetrics in general. You can't take a three-dimensional game like baseball and try to lump everything into one pile and then derive conclusions based on a statistical mean. BABIP suffers from this very issue: It treats a pitched ball by Roy Halliday equally as one thrown by some tomato can. Both are thrown into the pile and lent equal weight -- and yet, anyone with any sense knows there's a world of difference between a Greg Maddux pitch running in on the hands of a hitter who tops a weak grounder to short, vs. a lollipop thrown by Jeff Tabaka.

This is a great point. If Maddux were pitching today many SABRS would credit his success to having a luckily low BABIP. When in fact the most important part of his success was creating weak contact. The low BABIP is just a product of the guys skill set in this case.

Twitchy
09-07-2011, 04:35 PM
This is a great point. If Maddux were pitching today many SABRS would credit his success to having a luckily low BABIP. When in fact the most important part of his success was creating weak contact. The low BABIP is just a product of the guys skill set in this case.

Actually nobody would say that, and in fact they would suggest that anybody who could do that for a prolonged period of time would appear to have some control over it.

How do I know? Because not even a week ago the same comment was made about Jamie Moyer, having some degree of being able to control his BABIP.

And given how talented Maddux was, you'd get the exact same answer you're looking for about him - that he showed an ability to limit some of his BABIP, keeping it lower than expected.

Victory Faust
09-07-2011, 04:55 PM
Actually nobody would say that, and in fact they would suggest that anybody who could do that for a prolonged period of time would appear to have some control over it.

How do I know? Because not even a week ago the same comment was made about Jamie Moyer, having some degree of being able to control his BABIP.

And given how talented Maddux was, you'd get the exact same answer you're looking for about him - that he showed an ability to limit some of his BABIP, keeping it lower than expected.


This still doesn't address my point: Any system that treats all pitches thrown equally is severely flawed. And BABIP does just that. A Randy Johnson pitch is lent equal weight as a pitch thrown by Joe Slobotnick.

Twitchy
09-07-2011, 05:00 PM
This still doesn't address my point: Any system that treats all pitches thrown equally is severely flawed. And BABIP does just that. A Randy Johnson pitch is lent equal weight as a pitch thrown by Joe Slobotnick.

Well you're not going to find a single stat that does.

Batting average isn't going to show you whether it's a hit off Johnson or Carlos Silva. Does that make it severely flawed too? Shouldn't a guy get a bonus for hitting off Randy Johnson? He's a lot tougher to hit against than Silva.

BrianWestKins
09-07-2011, 05:07 PM
A lot of saberheads think they know it all but all they know how to do is copy/paste. Frustrating trying to discuss baseball with people with no original thought. I'm just a former player who is the son of a former scout/coach. I value what happens on the field more than what shows up on a stat sheet.

Amen

Victory Faust
09-07-2011, 05:13 PM
Well you're not going to find a single stat that does.

Batting average isn't going to show you whether it's a hit off Johnson or Carlos Silva. Does that make it severely flawed too? Shouldn't a guy get a bonus for hitting off Randy Johnson? He's a lot tougher to hit against than Silva.


Right. So we're on the same page: BABIP is severely flawed.

Same with UZR. And BA. And all stats.

So the next time someone stares you in the eye and says, "you don't understand; such-and-such sucks because of his (insert mondo new stat here)," just say two words:

Jason Bay. How many sabers screamed and screamed about how terrible his defense was ... only to have the formula "tweaked" and...voila! He's not so bad with the glove, after all.

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 05:19 PM
Because it IS religion...or, rather, a cult. They pretend to be scientists, but whenever something happens that throws a monkey wrench into one of their theories, they engage in all kinds of pretzel logic.

One key example of this is defense. I think it was Pete Palmer who said defense was just 6% of baseball (or whatever the number is; the actual figure escapes me, but his point was, defense was a small percentage of the game).

So for years, we had sabers telling us non-believers that defense didn't matter much. Now? They're saying the opposite.

Whenever you call them on it, they'll say something like, "Well, science is always evolving." Which is fine -- as long as you don't act like a know-it-all and claim you have some kind of esoteric knowledge non-sabers can't fathom. And this does happen -- often. "You just don't understand," is an oft-repeated mantra.


This is the most annoying part of it all. If you look a few pages back, some guy said something similar, so I asked him to explain "what I didn't get" in detail. He proceeded to say nearly nothing. I encourage more people to call out those smug types who proclaim that "you just don't get it."

Victory Faust
09-07-2011, 05:26 PM
[/B]

This is the most annoying part of it all. If you look a few pages back, some guy said something similar, so I asked him to explain "what I didn't get" in detail. He proceeded to say nearly nothing. I encourage more people to call out those smug types who proclaim that "you just don't get it."


Dig it. In the "Moneyball" thread, the prevailing answer to Beane's crappy recent record is "the league caught up with him." But they never explain how this is so; we're supposed to accept, on faith, that Beane is a genius, and that the league caught up with his methods.

The irony of it is, these guys pretend to use a scientific approach, when in fact, it's pretty much like a cult. That doesn't mean there's no value in advanced stats. But I'm sick of being shouted down every time I mention that such-and-such has had a good season because he had 100 RBI.

Many sabers love to focus on the flaws of traditional stats, while ignoring the equal flaws in "their" stats. It's the furthest thing from science.

That said, there is a small minority of highly-intelligent sabers who keep an open mind, don't sneer at others whose worldview doesn't match theirs, and are able to engage in discussions without being a-holes about it. Unfortunately, those are in the minority.

sexicano31
09-07-2011, 05:31 PM
This is a great point. If Maddux were pitching today many SABRS would credit his success to having a luckily low BABIP. When in fact the most important part of his success was creating weak contact. The low BABIP is just a product of the guys skill set in this case.

No. If a pitcher has a low BABIP against in his career, then its not luck. Same goes for Jeter. He has a high career BABIP, thats not luck

fingerbang
09-07-2011, 05:33 PM
No. If a pitcher has a low BABIP against in his career, then its not luck. Same goes for Jeter. He has a high career BABIP, thats not luck

So in other words, it takes 15 years to tell if BABIP is actually an indicator of luck in certain cases.

Jeffy25
09-07-2011, 05:34 PM
This is a great point. If Maddux were pitching today many SABRS would credit his success to having a luckily low BABIP. When in fact the most important part of his success was creating weak contact. The low BABIP is just a product of the guys skill set in this case.

That was even more so Glavine than it was Maddux.

Maddux also had the K's and the BB's to benefit his enormous success, but he also had extremely weak contact. But we know all this as a fact.

Glavine had weak contact, and he consistently beat his peripherals, which I believe all sabr heads would agree becomes a talent after consistently doing it.

Not to mention, anyone that is going to actually attribute any values and discuss babip needs to look at K%, LD%, GB%, FB% because they all factor. A guy with a 30% GB% is expected to have a different babip than a guy with a 55 GB%.

Weak contact does exist, and is factored.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking babip is simply luck, but a large number of players can control it better than others.



Right. So we're on the same page: BABIP is severely flawed.

Same with UZR. And BA. And all stats.

So the next time someone stares you in the eye and says, "you don't understand; such-and-such sucks because of his (insert mondo new stat here)," just say two words:

Jason Bay. How many sabers screamed and screamed about how terrible his defense was ... only to have the formula "tweaked" and...voila! He's not so bad with the glove, after all.

I believe we have all made it obvious that the more information the better when it comes to statistics

My first post in this thread




As with anything, more information is better, and WAR does provide a very good baseline for information as a starting point. But you need a lot more than just WAR to answer who is a better player.

WAR is a good statistic though, it's intent is to find the run value of a player above whatever the league replacement level player is on that particular season. It's a good barometer for combining true offensive and a defensive value to a player. It has it's flaws, but it's a great stat for a snap shot look.

Anyone that uses it as the final answer for a debate isn't very bright, they likely only barely know what the stat is and what it calculates.

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 05:48 PM
Yeah in this thread you happen to not be so condescending, Jeffy. And I know what you'll say next, that you'd rather be that than dumb, as if the two were mutually exclusive...

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 05:50 PM
That was even more so Glavine than it was Maddux.

Maddux also had the K's and the BB's to benefit his enormous success, but he also had extremely weak contact. But we know all this as a fact.

Glavine had weak contact, and he consistently beat his peripherals, which I believe all sabr heads would agree becomes a talent after consistently doing it.

Not to mention, anyone that is going to actually attribute any values and discuss babip needs to look at K%, LD%, GB%, FB% because they all factor. A guy with a 30% GB% is expected to have a different babip than a guy with a 55 GB%.

Weak contact does exist, and is factored.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking babip is simply luck, but a large number of players can control it better than others.




I believe we have all made it obvious that the more information the better when it comes to statistics

My first post in this thread

This is where subjectivity kicks in. I know you aren't too good with this term, so let me pose it in the easiest way I can:

What constitutes "weak" contact? A ball hit 15mph or below? 35mph? 85? And who decides which contact is weak and which isn't? Is it the same person every time?

Victory Faust
09-07-2011, 05:53 PM
My first post in this thread:


WAR is a good statistic though, it's intent is to find the run value of a player above whatever the league replacement level player is on that particular season. It's a good barometer for combining true offensive and a defensive value to a player. It has it's flaws, but it's a great stat for a snap shot look.


Again, my problem with this is, different circumstances dictate what a player's "value" is. If you're saying you just use WAR as a loose "snapshot look" then I agree with you. That's what it does: provide a snapshot, albeit flawed, as are all stats.

But if you're going to sit here and try to tell me that large numbers of sabers don't act like WAR is the end-all, be-all...then you're just not being truthful.

sexicano31
09-07-2011, 05:59 PM
So in other words, it takes 15 years to tell if BABIP is actually an indicator of luck in certain cases.

No...did I ever say that? Dont think so. YAY for putting words in other peoples mouths!

Victory Faust
09-07-2011, 06:01 PM
Be careful, ye of little saber faith. For some unfathomable reason, I've been given a warning for the stuff I've posted today. Mind you, I've said absolutely nothing that would warrant such a warning. But I was warned anyway.

I'll probably be banned for posting this. But I don't care; anyone who would warn me for posting things in a perfectly respectable manner needs to be called out.

Here's the warning I received:



Dear Victory Faust,

You have received a warning at ProSportsDaily.com.

Reason:
-------
Trolling

Hey there,

You haven't posted in 5 months, and now you're bringing back threads from 6 months ago, and solely posting in threads related to sabermetrics. While that would be fine on it's own, you're doing it in a was to cause disruptive arguments, and this is crossing the line known as trolling.

Please watch your language and try to avoid causing disruptions in the future. This isn't the first time, and I hope it's the last.
-------

Original Post:
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19119668

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheezombie
Are you really that dense that you don't understand this concept?



Ahhh, yes. Saber snark.

And people wonder why you're portrayed as snide know-it-alls.

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
ProSportsDaily.com


So someone can call me "dense," and I turn around and call him out for it ... and I get a warning?

You know what, guys? Keep your ****ed up forum. There's a reason I haven't posted here in months.

I'm outta here. Seeya...have fun with your spreadsheets.

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 06:05 PM
Be careful, ye of little saber faith. For some unfathomable reason, I've been given a warning for the stuff I've posted today. Mind you, I've said absolutely nothing that would warrant such a warning. But I was warned anyway.

I'll probably be banned for posting this. But I don't care; anyone who would warn me for posting things in a perfectly respectable manner needs to be called out.

Here's the warning I received:




So someone can call me "dense," and I turn around and call him out for it ... and I get a warning?

You know what, guys? Keep your ****ed up forum. There's a reason I haven't posted here in months.

I'm outta here. Seeya...have fun with your spreadsheets.

Just so gutless and sad that they do this... They must have such insecurity issues. Just pathetic. This is like censorship, except that it's only about baseball and only a few people are getting their egos hurt by being disagreed with.

Victory Faust
09-07-2011, 06:08 PM
Just so gutless and sad that they do this... They must have such insecurity issues. Just pathetic. This is like censorship, except that it's only about baseball and only a few people are getting their egos hurt by being disagreed with.



I know. How dare I question sabermetrics "in a (way) to cause disruptive arguments"?

Listen, folks, there's no way possible to refute sabermetrics without causing "disruptive arguments." That's because anyone who questions that cult gets their intelligence questioned by those who are so much smarter than the great unwashed masses.

Jeffy25
09-07-2011, 06:11 PM
This is where subjectivity kicks in. I know you aren't too good with this term, so let me pose it in the easiest way I can:

What constitutes "weak" contact? A ball hit 15mph or below? 35mph? 85? And who decides which contact is weak and which isn't? Is it the same person every time?

You can consider it however you want, better than league average as a whole. Guys not having a very high line drive percentage, guys that don't give up a lot of fly balls, but rather in field pop ups and ground balls.

Glavine did that, Maddux did that. A lot of players do that. I believe everyone can agree that is a skill by the pitcher and not considered luck.

Jeffy25
09-07-2011, 06:15 PM
Again, my problem with this is, different circumstances dictate what a player's "value" is. If you're saying you just use WAR as a loose "snapshot look" then I agree with you. That's what it does: provide a snapshot, albeit flawed, as are all stats.

But if you're going to sit here and try to tell me that large numbers of sabers don't act like WAR is the end-all, be-all...then you're just not being truthful.

As said earlier, anyone that thinks WAR is the be-all, end-all statistic isn't use the stat correctly. It's a great barometer, but the people that use the stat should be the same people that best understand that the more information the better. The stat is flawed, but it has less flaws than a lot of other statistics.

If you tell me that Player A has a 6.4 WAR and Player B has a 6.1 WAR and that means that Player A is better and that's that, then you wouldn't have provided enough information to support that claim. No single stat, ever, will ever answer everything we need to know to decide who is the most effective on a baseball field. But we can utilize a lot of statistical information to have a pretty strong idea.

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 06:17 PM
You can consider it however you want, better than league average as a whole. Guys not having a very high line drive percentage, guys that don't give up a lot of fly balls, but rather in field pop ups and ground balls.

Glavine did that, Maddux did that. A lot of players do that. I believe everyone can agree that is a skill by the pitcher and not considered luck.

But what is the definition of a line drive? Who determines that? Is their a radar gun that makes sure a ball that is a "line drive" goes over a certain mph?

RTL
09-07-2011, 06:17 PM
LD% is a subjective stat. Once saw where a batter hit a flare off the hands to the first baseman who caught it at his shoelaces count as a line drive. Not one intelligent baseball person would count that as a line drive but the powers that be did. If that happened once, no telling how many times this has happened. Over the course of a season I'm sure the difference is only a few percentage points but the fact remains it's subjective.

sexicano31
09-07-2011, 06:18 PM
K bye. Cya never

Jeffy25
09-07-2011, 06:22 PM
But what is the definition of a line drive? Who determines that? Is their a radar gun that makes sure a ball that is a "line drive" goes over a certain mph?

While I do know that every ball put into play in a MLB game is actually speed measured and tracked, I don't know what exactly constitutes a line drive in the eyes of a site like Fan-graphs that tracks it for every player.

I wish I knew, a short link though

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/batted-ball/

Jeffy25
09-07-2011, 06:25 PM
LD% is a subjective stat. Once saw where a batter hit a flare off the hands to the first baseman who caught it at his shoelaces count as a line drive. Not one intelligent baseball fan would count that as a line drive but the powers that be did. If that happened once, no telling how many times this has happened. Over the course of a season I'm sure the difference is only a few percentage points but the fact remains it's subjective.

I'm pretty sure duck-farts count as fly balls, and that worm burners are ground balls.

Either way, there is a mean '18%' for league average, and it's at least something to pay attention to. It's also not the only batted ball statistic to measure.

So if a guy has 20% Line drive percentage, it's probably safe to assume he is around league average at giving up hard hit line drives.

Then how is his home run/fly ball ratio, how are his fly ball to in field pop ups etc. It goes on from there. I don't know specifically how they measure a line drive vs a fly ball, but I imagine it's a fair guess for league wide data. And I would assume they are consistent.

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 06:26 PM
While I do know that every ball put into play in a MLB game is actually speed measured and tracked, I don't know what exactly constitutes a line drive in the eyes of a site like Fan-graphs that tracks it for every player.

I wish I knew, a short link though

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/batted-ball/

So there is no way to measure it, and what you're telling me is that we are relying on the good old eye test of some anonymous person?

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 06:28 PM
I'm pretty sure duck-farts count as fly balls, and that worm burners are ground balls.

Either way, there is a mean '18%' for league average, and it's at least something to pay attention to. It's also not the only batted ball statistic to measure.

So if a guy has 20% Line drive percentage, it's probably safe to assume he is around league average at giving up hard hit line drives.

Then how is his home run/fly ball ratio, how are his fly ball to in field pop ups etc. It goes on from there. I don't know specifically how they measure a line drive vs a fly ball, but I imagine it's a fair guess for league wide data. And I would assume they are consistent.

Nice. Resort to sarcasm when we are trying to ask you legitimate questions. That screams of maturity.

And I thought we are supposed to be data driven scientists, yet we are relying upon assumptions? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

TheRuckus
09-07-2011, 06:32 PM
What I find amusing is that the typical argument against advanced/SABR/new/whatever you want to call them metrics and statistics boils down to two main tenets:

1. A lot of people who emphasize them act like arrogant, know-it-all *******s who belong to a "cult".
2. Stats don't tell the whole story....so watch the games, you ****ing nerd.

Not only do many people who decry sabermetrics display a number of misconceptions about how they should be used (or outright, sometimes willfull ignorance), they display the exact sort of arrogance and pettiness that they so loathe in SABR proponents. There's a term for this sort of argumentative tactic; it's called "ad hominem".

There are plenty of people who are snarky dicks about being inclined toward sabermetrics. There are just as many people acting like jerks on the other side of the debate. If you're going to use the conduct of the opposition as a reason for not agreeing with them (which is monumentally stupid on pretty much every level), you should at least try not be a hypocrite simultaneously.

Disagreements are inevitable, especially on a damn Internet message board. Maybe grow up and realize that not everyone thinks exactly the same way as you do, no matter what you believe.

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 06:36 PM
What I find amusing is that the typical argument against advanced/SABR/new/whatever you want to call them metrics and statistics boils down to two main tenets:

1. A lot of people who emphasize them act like arrogant, know-it-all *******s who belong to a "cult".
2. Stats don't tell the whole story....so watch the games, you ****ing nerd.

Not only do many people who decry sabermetrics display a number of misconceptions about how they should be used (or outright, sometimes willfull ignorance), they display the exact sort of arrogance and pettiness that they so loathe in SABR proponents. There's a term for this sort of argumentative tactic; it's called "ad hominem".

There are plenty of people who are snarky dicks about being inclined toward sabermetrics. There are just as many people acting like jerks on the other side of the debate. If you're going to use the conduct of the opposition as a reason for not agreeing with them (which is monumentally stupid on pretty much every level), you should at least try not be a hypocrite simultaneously.

Disagreements are inevitable, especially on a damn Internet message board. Maybe grow up and realize that not everyone thinks exactly the same way as you do, no matter what you believe.

I'm just trying to get some answers man. A lot of folks on here have told me these are the most objective stats available, and yet they appear to be exactly the opposite under scrutiny. Just trying to figure out how to measure a line drive without relying upon someone's eye test, which any sabr guy will tell you, is a terrible way to measure something.

RTL
09-07-2011, 07:02 PM
I'm pretty sure duck-farts count as fly balls, and that worm burners are ground balls.

Either way, there is a mean '18%' for league average, and it's at least something to pay attention to. It's also not the only batted ball statistic to measure.

So if a guy has 20% Line drive percentage, it's probably safe to assume he is around league average at giving up hard hit line drives.

Then how is his home run/fly ball ratio, how are his fly ball to in field pop ups etc. It goes on from there. I don't know specifically how they measure a line drive vs a fly ball, but I imagine it's a fair guess for league wide data. And I would assume they are consistent.
Duck snorts are indeed flyballs and worm burners are indeed groundballs but I can see your point. Nothing changes the fact that LD% is subjective.

As for asking for consistency, you have more faith than I.

TheRuckus
09-07-2011, 07:31 PM
I'm just trying to get some answers man. A lot of folks on here have told me these are the most objective stats available, and yet they appear to be exactly the opposite under scrutiny. Just trying to figure out how to measure a line drive without relying upon someone's eye test, which any sabr guy will tell you, is a terrible way to measure something.

Wasn't really directed at you, or anyone in particular. Just fed up with the whole "SABR vs. traditional" debate in general.

When you get right down to it, almost everything in sports and in life is, on some level, dependent upon a subjective interpretation. That's a bias that simply cannot be eliminated with any degree of certainty. Insofar as batted ball data and such is concerned, my attitude is as follows: It may not be absolutely precise or perfect, but I'd rather put stock in a measurement developed and maintained by people who do it for a living and are "experts" than in the much more subjective opinion of a random fan.

The sad fact is, I can't watch every play of every baseball game. This sport, unlike pretty much any other, can be quantified with an impressive amount of accuracy using only statistics. But they must be used in context, and in combination with other metrics. Nobody who points to one statistic as their sole argument, whether it's RBI or WAR or whatever else, is anything other than a fool.

Statistics may not tell the "whole story," but they sure as hell tell almost all of it if you're using them in the proper manner. And it's true that certain measurements fall out of favor in the sabermetric community, but I fail to see that as a strike against the enterprise. If anything, it's a point in their favor that they're willing to admit that something they previously put a lot of stock into was actually incorrect, and that this particular metric (like literally any other) was flawed in some way. In my experience, people who defend traditional measurements tend not to do this often.

That's why I find the smug attitudes and blanket statements irritating. While I'm not immune to this myself, I do make a conscious effort to be as open-minded and nonconfrontational as possible, and if the person who's challenging my stance approaches the conversation in a similar manner, I'll even try to explain to them why I feel the way I do. Any jerkoff can copy and paste numbers from Fangraphs. I would rather explain the context of those numbers, and try to do so in a manner which is less "nerdy" and more relatable to on-field events.

As for the "eye test" thing...visual data is only useful when the person who's watching and interpreting it knows what the hell they're looking at and talking about. Many fans simply do not. Frankly, I don't trust anyone who isn't a scout to tell me anything beyond basic observations.

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 08:19 PM
I would just like to know, simply, how to precisely measure what a line drive is and what a line drive isn't. If it's not something that can be measured, let's just all agree the statistic is subjective and move on.

Mr Haha
09-07-2011, 08:28 PM
anyone? no?

bklynny67
09-07-2011, 11:07 PM
No. WAR sucks!

LongIslandIcedZ
09-08-2011, 01:59 PM
Can anyone that is big on these advanced stats let me know how Chien Ming Wang was valued during his 2 great years with the Yanks. I'm not too big on these crazy formula stats and probably never will be, I'm just curious. Thanks.


RBI'z 4 lyfe

Jeffy25
09-08-2011, 04:41 PM
06 - rWAR of 5.4
07 - rWAR of 3.9

06 - fWAR - 4.6
07 - fWAR - 4.4

That puts both of those seasons at or near all-star caliber. His value was not given up the big fly and getting ground balls coupled with a lot of innings. But he also didn't strike anybody out.

Mr Haha
09-08-2011, 05:31 PM
06 - rWAR of 5.4
07 - rWAR of 3.9

06 - fWAR - 4.6
07 - fWAR - 4.4

That puts both of those seasons at or near all-star caliber. His value was not given up the big fly and getting ground balls coupled with a lot of innings. But he also didn't strike anybody out.

Even though the statistic has a chance of being wrong 15% either way, by admission of its creators, we can still use it as a stand alone stat that defines whether someone should be an allstar? Seems unscientific to me.

hoggin88
09-08-2011, 05:46 PM
Even though the statistic has a chance of being wrong 15% either way, by admission of its creators, we can still use it as a stand alone stat that defines whether someone should be an allstar? Seems unscientific to me.

That's why he said it puts the seasons "at or near" all star level. As in, give or take a little.

You don't have to try so hard to stir things up.

Jeffy25
09-08-2011, 06:07 PM
Even though the statistic has a chance of being wrong 15% either way, by admission of its creators, we can still use it as a stand alone stat that defines whether someone should be an allstar? Seems unscientific to me.

He literally asked for me to post the information

"Can anyone that is big on these advanced stats let me know how Chien Ming Wang was valued during his 2 great years with the Yanks"

And I said 'at or near' that level. As in somewhere in the range or near that all-star caliber level.

Now you are simply trying too hard to be argumentative

KingPosey
09-08-2011, 06:27 PM
That was a bad season, but Joe Carter was hardly a "replacement level player". Hopefully he meant that season in a vacuum.

KingPosey
09-08-2011, 06:32 PM
A lot of saberstats are extremely flawed, yet people on PSD think they are argument enders. They do help tell more of a story, they do help strengthen an argument, but many of them are subjective still at best.

"Ace"ves
09-08-2011, 06:48 PM
What I find amusing is that the typical argument against advanced/SABR/new/whatever you want to call them metrics and statistics boils down to two main tenets:

1. A lot of people who emphasize them act like arrogant, know-it-all *******s who belong to a "cult".
2. Stats don't tell the whole story....so watch the games, you ****ing nerd.

Not only do many people who decry sabermetrics display a number of misconceptions about how they should be used (or outright, sometimes willfull ignorance), they display the exact sort of arrogance and pettiness that they so loathe in SABR proponents. There's a term for this sort of argumentative tactic; it's called "ad hominem".

There are plenty of people who are snarky dicks about being inclined toward sabermetrics. There are just as many people acting like jerks on the other side of the debate. If you're going to use the conduct of the opposition as a reason for not agreeing with them (which is monumentally stupid on pretty much every level), you should at least try not be a hypocrite simultaneously.

Disagreements are inevitable, especially on a damn Internet message board. Maybe grow up and realize that not everyone thinks exactly the same way as you do, no matter what you believe.

I like this... and you, mostly cause of your breaking bad avatar... but your logic is awesome too

KingPosey
09-08-2011, 07:03 PM
I'm pretty sure duck-farts count as fly balls, and that worm burners are ground balls.

Either way, there is a mean '18%' for league average, and it's at least something to pay attention to. It's also not the only batted ball statistic to measure.

So if a guy has 20% Line drive percentage, it's probably safe to assume he is around league average at giving up hard hit line drives.

Then how is his home run/fly ball ratio, how are his fly ball to in field pop ups etc. It goes on from there. I don't know specifically how they measure a line drive vs a fly ball, but I imagine it's a fair guess for league wide data. And I would assume they are consistent.
Your whole last paragraph is where the problem lies with a lot of saber stats. There is too much assumption and speculation involved in the stat.

Say what you want about some old school flawed stats, but if a guy drove in 105 runs, he drove in 105 runs, thats the number, no room for speculation. I think that is what people like, the pretty much concrete result of a number with no sliding margin that opens up personal opinion, or semantics.

VladTheImpaler
09-08-2011, 07:05 PM
He makes a semi-decent point. Understanding or not, people do try and use WAR that way, tons of people do. A lot of what people will bring to the table is simply the WAR numbers, and even worse yet, the dollar values attached to them(this is so flawed it isn't even funny). Perhaps they don't understand it, but when the stat is designed to be a "be all, end all" stat, people will use it that way.

It's no where close to RBI, mainly because RBI only tries to tell you one thing and WAR tries to tell you many, but it might be closer than some give it credit for. RBI can actually be a bit useful when you look past it and look at the performance of the guys batting ahead of him and whatnot, and that player's other stats. What it can tell you is, when given the opportunity, how a guy performs(BA w/ RISP does that too, but excludes people on first and the batter himself) and how he drives in runs. Still, though, no where close.

As for WAR, IMO it's decent, but only for a quick view and has many flaws. The obvious one is the reliability of the defensive side, but another one is how much you're rewarded for simply being healthy. Rickie Weeks in 2008 is very telling about how flawed WAR can be, considering he was a 2.6 WAR player(not great, but still pretty decent) despite having an offense and defense that were not only low, but almost cancelled each other out (3.6 and -3.0). But still, it's a nice little stat that isn't what many think it to be.

Jeffy25
09-08-2011, 08:10 PM
Your whole last paragraph is where the problem lies with a lot of saber stats. There is too much assumption and speculation involved in the stat.

Say what you want about some old school flawed stats, but if a guy drove in 105 runs, he drove in 105 runs, thats the number, no room for speculation. I think that is what people like, the pretty much concrete result of a number with no sliding margin that opens up personal opinion, or semantics.

Were talking about more in depth information here, we aren't trying to skim the surface for factual stats, we are trying to gauge the frequency or effectiveness of a certain player as opposed to his opponent. We are trying to find different information, usually as a predictive measure for future performance.

Just because a guy drives in 105 runs one season, that in no way can measure if they have any likelihood of doing that again. We are looking at more information to help draw educated conclusions and estimations to predict future performance.

"Ace"ves
09-08-2011, 09:19 PM
Were talking about more in depth information here, we aren't trying to skim the surface for factual stats, we are trying to gauge the frequency or effectiveness of a certain player as opposed to his opponent. We are trying to find different information, usually as a predictive measure for future performance.

Just because a guy drives in 105 runs one season, that in no way can measure if they have any likelihood of doing that again. We are looking at more information to help draw educated conclusions and estimations to predict future performance.

And thats good for future prediction, but for yearly awards id go with the result

Mell413
09-08-2011, 11:35 PM
I don't think WAR will ever become what the RBI stat is now. It's not the end all be all stat, but it's a good snapshot of a player. My biggest complain is using it across positions. You shouldn't do it

KingPosey
09-09-2011, 03:15 AM
Were talking about more in depth information here, we aren't trying to skim the surface for factual stats, we are trying to gauge the frequency or effectiveness of a certain player as opposed to his opponent. We are trying to find different information, usually as a predictive measure for future performance.

Just because a guy drives in 105 runs one season, that in no way can measure if they have any likelihood of doing that again. We are looking at more information to help draw educated conclusions and estimations to predict future performance.

I know what the overall goal is Jeffy, and I like that it happens. There is just too much assumption for me to fully dive in as things are now. And when it comes to someone deciding whether or not it was a line drive, was that a ball a player should have gotten to, etc, who is that guy? What are his qualifications?

How many people agree with his point of view?

What saber stats try and achieve is exactly what I want to know, but they are flawed. They are more sound in research and data, which usually leads to more accurate conclusions though.

Its really hard for me to decide what theory I subscribe to. Im not gonna sit back on rbis and wins/loses as a great indicator though. IDK, its a rough time to be a stat guy lol

KingPosey
09-09-2011, 03:28 AM
and rbis are mostly useless but not completely. If you look at a guy with a high rbi total, and he also has a high "average" with runners in scoring position, you can make some educated assumptions about his ability to drive runs home, as well as some opinions on how important he is to his team.

But again, thats also flawed. Stats now, are where cars were in the late 80s, tons of promise, future is bright, it sure as **** is better than the 15 years before it, but who wants an 88 almost anything lol?

Jeffy25
09-09-2011, 04:43 AM
I know what the overall goal is Jeffy, and I like that it happens. There is just too much assumption for me to fully dive in as things are now. And when it comes to someone deciding whether or not it was a line drive, was that a ball a player should have gotten to, etc, who is that guy? What are his qualifications?

How many people agree with his point of view?

What saber stats try and achieve is exactly what I want to know, but they are flawed. They are more sound in research and data, which usually leads to more accurate conclusions though.

Its really hard for me to decide what theory I subscribe to. Im not gonna sit back on rbis and wins/loses as a great indicator though. IDK, its a rough time to be a stat guy lol


They are just created as barometers toward the league averages or as a separation from career averages as a tipping point to look for or predict change.

It's still consistent. Some pitchers always out pitch certain league averages.

We aren't talking about each specific type of hit and the frequency of that hit. If Pitcher A gives up a ball that is hit 165 feet into left field that left the bat at a speed of 95 MPH and it traveled for 'X' seconds then we can answer if that was a line drive or a fly ball. And if Pitcher B gives up that same hit ball at the same speed and that same height of travel, he will be given the same line drive/fly ball result in his batted ball statistics. Regardless if the ball lands for an out or not may be dependent on defense or positioning or even the situation, but it's still consistent across the board that that same hit will count the same.

It's just used as a barometer. If the league average pitcher gives up 18.1% of line drives, and a pitcher you are evaluating is measured at 12.5% LDs, you can take a solid, educated guess that he might give up weak contact. And then move down the list. Does he give up a lot of ground balls? How does that compare to the league average? What about fly balls, strike outs, in field pop ups, fly ball outs etc. You can measure this pitchers contact ratio, and you can get a pretty good idea if the pitcher has been a victim of bad defense, benefitted from great defense, been neutral, etc etc etc. and use this as a starting point to predict future performance based on a number of other things.

There is a lot to learn and understand, of course, and no direction is the perfect result, because you can't 100% predict anything, especially something that is played by human beings. But you can exploit opportunities when you have more information.

Just as an example, you have a team with a great infield defensively, and you need to add a 5th starter at the trade deadline for a push run. A good fit might be a guy that has a higher than average ground ball percentage. That should be a more glaring factor to you as this teams GM rather than what his W-L, ERA, FIP or anything else is. How would this pitcher fit into our make-up as a ball club? And then obviously contract and other information. Does he have good batted ball numbers, or does he get slapped around and saved by his current defense? What if he has a terrible defense, could he become a great pitcher with our defense? Is this a high strike out guy? Well how efficient is he? Does he walk a lot of guys? Control vs command, does he have either, lack both, or have one or the other?

There is a lot to it. But statistics can help you get you this information so that you can make a more informed decision.

WAR has it's flaws, but those flaws really only exist because people treat it, or sometimes act like it's supposed to be this perfect stat. I certainly don't think it is. It is a great snap-shot indicator of how well a player performed overall (offensively and defensively) for a quick measurement. It is also useful when having discussions that you don't feel like being as in depth as the above situations would require. If another poster really wanted to break down a trade, or something along those lines, I can be so ridiculously in depth that you wouldn't even read the entire post. But when it comes to online posting, sometimes it's just easier to post 2-4 stats with WAR being one of them to give a general overview of who was probably the better performer.

Jeffy25
09-09-2011, 04:48 AM
and rbis are mostly useless but not completely. If you look at a guy with a high rbi total, and he also has a high "average" with runners in scoring position, you can make some educated assumptions about his ability to drive runs home, as well as some opinions on how important he is to his team.

But again, thats also flawed. Stats now, are where cars were in the late 80s, tons of promise, future is bright, it sure as **** is better than the 15 years before it, but who wants an 88 almost anything lol?

I know another guy on a different forum that always posts his slash lines for players like this.


.286/.345/.467/.295


Batting average/on base percentage/slugging percentage/batting average with RISP

That would be a lot more telling than RBI's if that is all the information I had.

Gigantes4Life
09-09-2011, 01:42 PM
Even though the statistic has a chance of being wrong 15% either way, by admission of its creators, we can still use it as a stand alone stat that defines whether someone should be an allstar? Seems unscientific to me.

That's not what a 15% margin of error means.

LongIslandIcedZ
09-09-2011, 02:59 PM
I cant wait till there are advanced statistics for baseball classes in college. I'm gonna stick to the basic stats and watch games to figure out whose good and whose not.

Mr Haha
09-09-2011, 03:08 PM
He literally asked for me to post the information

"Can anyone that is big on these advanced stats let me know how Chien Ming Wang was valued during his 2 great years with the Yanks"

And I said 'at or near' that level. As in somewhere in the range or near that all-star caliber level.

Now you are simply trying too hard to be argumentative

I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I was trying to prove a point (which obviously went over well seeing as how touchy you people are getting). You need to handle dissention a little better. I'm not criticizing you as a person by disagreeing with you. It's OK to not be right about everything 100% of the time.

Jeffy25
09-09-2011, 04:52 PM
Last time I admitted I didn't know something, you became overly critical of me not knowing enough about it and assuming they were consistent with how they gauged the information.

I wish I could quote it, but ManRam deleted it for 'insults' I guess. Our four posts above.


I admit when I don't know something, and you wanted to know how to measure a line drive, I said I didn't know specifically the criteria, but that I'm sure they have a consistent measurement and that you could ask the guys at Fan-Graphs. And then you came after me for not knowing about it and making an assumption about how it is produced, even though I had a long post describing what they likely do.

Here was my post


I'm pretty sure duck-farts count as fly balls, and that worm burners are ground balls.

Either way, there is a mean '18%' for league average, and it's at least something to pay attention to. It's also not the only batted ball statistic to measure.

So if a guy has 20% Line drive percentage, it's probably safe to assume he is around league average at giving up hard hit line drives.

Then how is his home run/fly ball ratio, how are his fly ball to in field pop ups etc. It goes on from there. I don't know specifically how they measure a line drive vs a fly ball, but I imagine it's a fair guess for league wide data. And I would assume they are consistent.

And you said I was being sarcastic lol

You are absolutely ridiculous. You are just picking arguments anywhere you can, and are completely ignoring entire posts to pull out a single sentence and picking a new fight with it acting like no one understands what you are saying. You strawman all over the place, just stop. You 'get off' by trying to stir people up and you don't even stay on topic. Do you even know what we are discussing in this thread? Do you have to go back, read, and look what the thread is about to find out?


And I need to handle the discussion better? At least I describe things, and try to stay on topic. I mean a guy asks about how valuable Chin-Ming-Wang was in his two dominant seasons, I gave up the information he literally asked for, and I need to handle dissention a little better? I get along very well with a lot of people that disagree with me on topics (RTL, Jilly Bohnson, Twitchy, Bagwell, etc.) but they actually talk about the topic, and don't resort to strawman arguments, sling insults, curse, and say the topics go 'over my head' and then criticize me for being too stubborn to accept not knowing everything when I did exactly the opposite of that in the very thread we are discussing.


That's what the 'lol' was for btw, because I don't feel like responding to you when you are absolutely ridiculous.

RTL
09-09-2011, 05:31 PM
As the person Jeffy was responding to, I never got the impression Jeffy was being sarcastic.

Mr Haha
09-10-2011, 01:34 AM
Last time I admitted I didn't know something, you became overly critical of me not knowing enough about it and assuming they were consistent with how they gauged the information.

I wish I could quote it, but ManRam deleted it for 'insults' I guess. Our four posts above.


I admit when I don't know something, and you wanted to know how to measure a line drive, I said I didn't know specifically the criteria, but that I'm sure they have a consistent measurement and that you could ask the guys at Fan-Graphs. And then you came after me for not knowing about it and making an assumption about how it is produced, even though I had a long post describing what they likely do.

Here was my post



And you said I was being sarcastic lol

You are absolutely ridiculous. You are just picking arguments anywhere you can, and are completely ignoring entire posts to pull out a single sentence and picking a new fight with it acting like no one understands what you are saying. You strawman all over the place, just stop. You 'get off' by trying to stir people up and you don't even stay on topic. Do you even know what we are discussing in this thread? Do you have to go back, read, and look what the thread is about to find out?


And I need to handle the discussion better? At least I describe things, and try to stay on topic. I mean a guy asks about how valuable Chin-Ming-Wang was in his two dominant seasons, I gave up the information he literally asked for, and I need to handle dissention a little better? I get along very well with a lot of people that disagree with me on topics (RTL, Jilly Bohnson, Twitchy, Bagwell, etc.) but they actually talk about the topic, and don't resort to strawman arguments, sling insults, curse, and say the topics go 'over my head' and then criticize me for being too stubborn to accept not knowing everything when I did exactly the opposite of that in the very thread we are discussing.


That's what the 'lol' was for btw, because I don't feel like responding to you when you are absolutely ridiculous.

What I was responding to was ABSOLUTELY on topic. I displayed quite clearly that you go on blind assumption with these stats, and the only reason you prefer them is because you like to feel superior. OK, I was wrong about you being sarcastic, but not the rest of it.

And about your "lol"? You ALWAYS respond to me because I challenge you, but instead of addressing my critiques, you get all butt-hurt and write overly emotional responses like the one above.

Try not to curse or call me vulgar names in your response so it doesn't get deleted like your last couple.

Shlumpledink
09-10-2011, 05:47 AM
I see so many people use war as the main stat when determining value. It may not be the end all be all but its the one they emphasize the most and point to and bold and underline. I've seen a few people in this topic use it in such a fashion

Victory Faust
09-12-2011, 11:06 AM
Here's an interesting discussion on another site about the limitations of WAR:

http://www.motownsports.com/forums/detroit-tigers/92900-espn-insider-cc-deserves-cy-young-over-verlander.html


The folks on this site are mostly sabermetricians, and even they acknowledge that something isn't quite right about Fangraphs' version of WAR. Here are the most poignent posts on the subject:


After evaluating FIP and WAR for the past week or so this is pretty much the conclusion I have drawn as well. Its really tough, at times, to rely on the saber stats, there seems to be too much static.


WAR shouldn't even be regarded as a stat. It's a process rather than a stat. It is somebody's best guess at a player's overall value. Those who are interested in advanced stats should try to understand WAR and tweak it anyway they want. If you don't like the defensive stats, take those out of WAR and just use the offensive part of it. That would be OWAR on B-R. If you think catcher's are underrated, give them a little boost in your WAR. If you think clutch hitting should be part of it, use one of the clutch hitting stats instead of batting runs.

If you're not comfortable with advanced stats, WAR is probably not the best place to get started. It's pretty complex and it gets misused a lot.

bagwell368
09-12-2011, 11:31 AM
Here's an interesting discussion on another site about the limitations of WAR:

http://www.motownsports.com/forums/detroit-tigers/92900-espn-insider-cc-deserves-cy-young-over-verlander.html


The folks on this site are mostly sabermetricians, and even they acknowledge that something isn't quite right about Fangraphs' version of WAR. Here are the most poignent posts on the subject:

Last year after studying over a couple of dozen players, and several teams in the same league/year I can to the conclusion that I like BR WAR better then FG WAR as it related to what I studied.

WAR - FG or BR is not an absolute index to a given player. There are variances on defense for hitters and for pitchers, and park corrections which means that at best one should say Player A is worth ~5.0 in 2011, with the variance understood to be 0 to say 7.5% with some cases out at perhaps 15%.

Now that's a very valuable measure, and since I never saw a single game before mid summer 1965, if I want to get into historical comparisons I have to read those that were there at the time, get some film, or look them up.

I could look at say Andre Dawson's MVP year (and I have), and regardless of even the grossest WAR error of all time, know for a fact that he never should have been near an MVP.

How about now? Say Cabrera and Gonzalez tie in WAR this year. Look at the DWAR, it says that Gonzalez is a lot better. Is that true? He's very good, not sure he's that good. Cabrera is pretty poor, is he that bad? I don't see him more then 4-5 games a year. Maybe.

It's a tool, and I'm sure the creators say it's the be all and end all. I'm sure like the guys behind other systems that have come and gone, they expect to be supplanted some day.

The big news here is that baseball is alive and kicking and people care enough to figure out more and more in the stats and more and more in the observation of the game. I can't imagine understanding or enjoying the game w/o both.