Posted by AlCheez on 1/21/2015 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2015 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Yes, I agree. I don't see how he's possibly better, or equal. But in the same way where a pitcher with a 1.10 WHIP could be obviously worse than one with a 1.15 WHIP. Or 20 wins to 18 wins. Or a 3.00 ERA to a 3.15 ERA. Doesn't mean the stat itself is trash.

I'm not anti-WAR, but there's a big difference between all these stats you're talking about and a metric like WAR.  These other stats are simply quantitative measures.  They don't offer any particular inherent judgment they just are.  If pitcher A had a 1.10 WHIP and B had a 1.15, that actually happened, there's no disputing it.  What value you assign, if any, to that happening is up to you.  There's nothing about WHIP that's inherently meant to say Pitcher A > Pitcher B.

WAR, on the other hand, tries to take all the base quantitative measures and quantify the overall value of a player.  So if those comparisons consistently don't pass the smell test, then that's potentially a big deal.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/21/2015 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2015 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Another thing to consider - Higuera faced Boston twice in 86, and Clemens faced Milwaukee twice. Clemens won those two games against Milwaukee, allowing 1 run in 18 innings. Higuera never got the opportunity to face Milwaukee, but did have to pitch against Boston. Maybe that adds to it.

Looking at the BR calculations, it looks like Higuera faced tougher offenses (RA9opp was slightly higher), in front of a worse defense (RA9def was lower), in tougher ballparks (PPFp was higher).

The average pitcher pitching against the same offenses, in front of the same defenses, and in the same ballparks as Higuera would have allowed an estimated 5.35 RA9. Compared to his actual RA9 of 3.04, Higuera was 63 runs better than average, 88 runs better than replacement.

Compared to Clemens RA9 of 2.73, the average pitcher (same offenses, same defenses, same ballparks) gives up an estimated 4.82 RA9, making him 58 runs better than average and 83 runs better than replacement.

It certainly isn't perfect, but it isn't ridiculous to say that those two had similar seasons, relative runs allowed, when you account for the quality of their opponents, the skill of the defenses behind them, and the ballparks they pitched in.

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2015 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 1/21/2015 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2015 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Yes, I agree. I don't see how he's possibly better, or equal. But in the same way where a pitcher with a 1.10 WHIP could be obviously worse than one with a 1.15 WHIP. Or 20 wins to 18 wins. Or a 3.00 ERA to a 3.15 ERA. Doesn't mean the stat itself is trash.

I'm not anti-WAR, but there's a big difference between all these stats you're talking about and a metric like WAR.  These other stats are simply quantitative measures.  They don't offer any particular inherent judgment they just are.  If pitcher A had a 1.10 WHIP and B had a 1.15, that actually happened, there's no disputing it.  What value you assign, if any, to that happening is up to you.  There's nothing about WHIP that's inherently meant to say Pitcher A > Pitcher B.

WAR, on the other hand, tries to take all the base quantitative measures and quantify the overall value of a player.  So if those comparisons consistently don't pass the smell test, then that's potentially a big deal.

I understand. I would argue that anyone who would use WAR as "See! This says this guy is better! He must be better." is kinda dumb. 

WAR is also something that "actually happened." It does try to evaluate the overall value of a player, you're right, and the formula is much more complex than WHIP or ERA. But it's still using data based on things that actually happened to figure that out. 

In the same way that most players with a lower WHIP are better than those with a higher WHIP, players with a higher WAR are better than those with a lower WAR.

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2015 2:24:00 PM (view original):
As far as runs scored, 7 runs over a course of a season isn't a huge amount.  And if baseballreference doesn't look at other statistics aside from runs allowed when determining pitcher WAR, like baserunners allowed, etc then you have to look past the statistic in determining how well the pitcher pitched.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/21/2015 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2015 2:24:00 PM (view original):
As far as runs scored, 7 runs over a course of a season isn't a huge amount.  And if baseballreference doesn't look at other statistics aside from runs allowed when determining pitcher WAR, like baserunners allowed, etc then you have to look past the statistic in determining how well the pitcher pitched.

If you believe that "how well a pitcher pitched," is measured by more than just how many runs did he allow, then, sure, you probably want to use something other than bWAR for micro analysis (which of these two very similar seasons was better). fWAR is better for that and both are fine for getting a big picture view.

Posted by AlCheez on 1/21/2015 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2015 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 1/21/2015 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2015 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Yes, I agree. I don't see how he's possibly better, or equal. But in the same way where a pitcher with a 1.10 WHIP could be obviously worse than one with a 1.15 WHIP. Or 20 wins to 18 wins. Or a 3.00 ERA to a 3.15 ERA. Doesn't mean the stat itself is trash.

I'm not anti-WAR, but there's a big difference between all these stats you're talking about and a metric like WAR.  These other stats are simply quantitative measures.  They don't offer any particular inherent judgment they just are.  If pitcher A had a 1.10 WHIP and B had a 1.15, that actually happened, there's no disputing it.  What value you assign, if any, to that happening is up to you.  There's nothing about WHIP that's inherently meant to say Pitcher A > Pitcher B.

WAR, on the other hand, tries to take all the base quantitative measures and quantify the overall value of a player.  So if those comparisons consistently don't pass the smell test, then that's potentially a big deal.

I understand. I would argue that anyone who would use WAR as "See! This says this guy is better! He must be better." is kinda dumb. 

WAR is also something that "actually happened." It does try to evaluate the overall value of a player, you're right, and the formula is much more complex than WHIP or ERA. But it's still using data based on things that actually happened to figure that out. 

In the same way that most players with a lower WHIP are better than those with a higher WHIP, players with a higher WAR are better than those with a lower WAR.

I'm with you on anyone using WAR as definitive - but the point is that WAR does presume to establish who was actually the better player, or rather who provided the most value.

And, no, I'm sorry - WAR is not something that actually happened.  Your last sentence is true - it's BASED on what actually happened.  A player with a 1.100 WHIP gave hits/walks at a ratio of 1.1 per innings pitched.  That's indisputable.  WAR is taking a bunch of indisputable things that actually happened, and using a formula to assign them a value (wins) that may or may not be valid.  If WAR actually happened, there wouldn't be competing formulas that calculate it.

My point is that if WHIP, or ERA, or wins or whatever basic stat you want to pull out doesn't provide you real insight into whether Player A is better than Player B, it's not a problem with the stat itself, the stat just might not be that useful.  If WAR doesn't pass the smell test, the stat itself could actually be ****.  (Again, I'm not arguing that it is.)

Just saying that if WHIP doesn't consistently, accurately tell you that Pitcher A > Pitcher B, it doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with WHIP.  WHIP doesn't inherently seek to answer that question, it just documents something that happened, we assign whatever value to that happening we deem appropriate.  WAR does seek to answer the A> B question, it assigns the value in it's formula, so if it's getting it wrong regularly, that would mean the stat itself was bad.

Posted by AlCheez on 1/21/2015 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Don't disagree with any of that. 

Just saying that if WHIP doesn't consistently, accurately tell you that Pitcher A > Pitcher B, it doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with WHIP.  WHIP doesn't inherently seek to answer that question, it just documents something that happened, we assign whatever value to that happening we deem appropriate.  WAR does seek to answer the A> B question, it assigns the value in it's formula, so if it's getting it wrong regularly, that would mean the stat itself was bad.

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/22/2015 1:30:00 PM (view original):
If you allow close to 3 more baserunners per 9 innings, I'd argue you're a little lucky to only allow 7 more runs for the whole season.