All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > WAR question
8/16/2013 5:02 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 8/16/2013 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2013 3:51:00 PM (view original):
No.  Like there are no Atheist organizations. 
I literally had never heard of one. I didn't think they existed.

Pretty sure I didn't spend 30 pages arguing the point with you, though. Unlike you...cough...the deficit...cough.
No, you spent 30 pages telling biz that there were none and demanding he list one.

It's like neither of you had ever heard of the internet.      It's a place you can look stuff up.  Like the meaning of "Imperfect".   Had you done that, you'd know it literally means "flawed".
8/16/2013 5:04 PM
"Both have the same idea- break down balls in play by type, location, velocity." 

How is it measuring velocity?  I know that a human determines where the ball lands.  (Am I wrong? I suppose I could be. I'd put a little more stock into this if we had computer tracking the ball.)

"Defensive metrics are less reliable than offensive metrics"  

By reliable, do we mean accurate?  If a batter bats .300, I know he has 3 hits every 10 atbats, and can make an assumption on how productive he was to his team.  If a player has a UZR of 10, can I assume he saved his team 10 runs to the average fielder?  I'm not sure you can say yes.  I can say with some confidence that Trout did not save his team 3 runs over the past few games, compared to the average center fielder.  If you believe he has, share with me why you feel this way.

Over the past 4 games against the Yankees, Trout went 5 for 14, walked 3 times, hit a homer, drove in 5 runs, got hit by a pitch, and stole a base.  I can look at these numbers and tell you he was very productive based on the results of his actions playing offense.  Do you feel confident that you can say the same re: his defense?  If no, then it would be unfair to use UZR as a means to tell me how productive he was defensively.  And for statnerds who go "BUT WARRRR" when it comes to arguments of who the best player is, you should reconsider.
8/16/2013 5:05 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2013 5:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/16/2013 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2013 3:51:00 PM (view original):
No.  Like there are no Atheist organizations. 
I literally had never heard of one. I didn't think they existed.

Pretty sure I didn't spend 30 pages arguing the point with you, though. Unlike you...cough...the deficit...cough.
No, you spent 30 pages telling biz that there were none and demanding he list one.

It's like neither of you had ever heard of the internet.      It's a place you can look stuff up.  Like the meaning of "Imperfect".   Had you done that, you'd know it literally means "flawed".
I spent 30 pages arguing that Atheism isn't a religion. Because it isn't.

Spending 30 pages arguing with bis is stupid, though.
8/16/2013 5:06 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/16/2013 5:05:00 PM (view original):
"Both have the same idea- break down balls in play by type, location, velocity." 

How is it measuring velocity?  I know that a human determines where the ball lands.  (Am I wrong? I suppose I could be. I'd put a little more stock into this if we had computer tracking the ball.)

"Defensive metrics are less reliable than offensive metrics"  

By reliable, do we mean accurate?  If a batter bats .300, I know he has 3 hits every 10 atbats, and can make an assumption on how productive he was to his team.  If a player has a UZR of 10, can I assume he saved his team 10 runs to the average fielder?  I'm not sure you can say yes.  I can say with some confidence that Trout did not save his team 3 runs over the past few games, compared to the average center fielder.  If you believe he has, share with me why you feel this way.

Over the past 4 games against the Yankees, Trout went 5 for 14, walked 3 times, hit a homer, drove in 5 runs, got hit by a pitch, and stole a base.  I can look at these numbers and tell you he was very productive based on the results of his actions playing offense.  Do you feel confident that you can say the same re: his defense?  If no, then it would be unfair to use UZR as a means to tell me how productive he was defensively.  And for statnerds who go "BUT WARRRR" when it comes to arguments of who the best player is, you should reconsider.
BIS tracks batted ball data with computers - they measure speed, height, distance, angles, etc.
8/16/2013 5:14 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 8/16/2013 5:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/16/2013 5:05:00 PM (view original):
"Both have the same idea- break down balls in play by type, location, velocity." 

How is it measuring velocity?  I know that a human determines where the ball lands.  (Am I wrong? I suppose I could be. I'd put a little more stock into this if we had computer tracking the ball.)

"Defensive metrics are less reliable than offensive metrics"  

By reliable, do we mean accurate?  If a batter bats .300, I know he has 3 hits every 10 atbats, and can make an assumption on how productive he was to his team.  If a player has a UZR of 10, can I assume he saved his team 10 runs to the average fielder?  I'm not sure you can say yes.  I can say with some confidence that Trout did not save his team 3 runs over the past few games, compared to the average center fielder.  If you believe he has, share with me why you feel this way.

Over the past 4 games against the Yankees, Trout went 5 for 14, walked 3 times, hit a homer, drove in 5 runs, got hit by a pitch, and stole a base.  I can look at these numbers and tell you he was very productive based on the results of his actions playing offense.  Do you feel confident that you can say the same re: his defense?  If no, then it would be unfair to use UZR as a means to tell me how productive he was defensively.  And for statnerds who go "BUT WARRRR" when it comes to arguments of who the best player is, you should reconsider.
BIS tracks batted ball data with computers - they measure speed, height, distance, angles, etc.
So it's a computer.  That's cool.

At the end of the day, if you need a very large sample size to be accurate, then there shouldn't be too much stock put into it.  It takes 3 years of defensive data to compare to 1 year of offensive data?  It's kinda like saying if a batter gets 125 RBI for a season, that doesn't necessarily mean he was much more productive than anyone else, he could have just been in a better position to drive in those runs.  But if he hits 125 RBI over the course of 3 consecutive seasons?  Yea, he's probably a great hitter.
8/16/2013 5:16 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/16/2013 5:05:00 PM (view original):
"Both have the same idea- break down balls in play by type, location, velocity." 

How is it measuring velocity?  I know that a human determines where the ball lands.  (Am I wrong? I suppose I could be. I'd put a little more stock into this if we had computer tracking the ball.)

"Defensive metrics are less reliable than offensive metrics"  

By reliable, do we mean accurate?  If a batter bats .300, I know he has 3 hits every 10 atbats, and can make an assumption on how productive he was to his team.  If a player has a UZR of 10, can I assume he saved his team 10 runs to the average fielder?  I'm not sure you can say yes.  I can say with some confidence that Trout did not save his team 3 runs over the past few games, compared to the average center fielder.  If you believe he has, share with me why you feel this way.

Over the past 4 games against the Yankees, Trout went 5 for 14, walked 3 times, hit a homer, drove in 5 runs, got hit by a pitch, and stole a base.  I can look at these numbers and tell you he was very productive based on the results of his actions playing offense.  Do you feel confident that you can say the same re: his defense?  If no, then it would be unfair to use UZR as a means to tell me how productive he was defensively.  And for statnerds who go "BUT WARRRR" when it comes to arguments of who the best player is, you should reconsider.
"I can say with some confidence that Trout did not save his team 3 runs over the past few games"

Why not? I have no evidence that he did. But someone who gets paid to do this sat down, watched his defense, calculated the balls he did and didn't get to, and decided that he did.

I'm curious, do you look at defensive runs saved as situations where the fielder actually save a run from scoring? For example, CF made a great diving catch with 2 outs and a runner on 3rd, saving a run.

Because that's not what is being said when you say so and so was 3 runs better than average.
8/16/2013 5:20 PM
No, I understand it's something along the lines of "if a ball lands here it leads to an average of 0.4 additional runs."
8/16/2013 5:24 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/16/2013 5:20:00 PM (view original):
No, I understand it's something along the lines of "if a ball lands here it leads to an average of 0.4 additional runs."
Ok, then I don't see how you could say that Trout definitely didn't save 3 runs over average in the last few days.
8/16/2013 5:36 PM
I don't think it's that complicated to "do the work" on batted balls.     One can  figure out the velocity of a ball hit 273 feet that lands in 2.2 seconds.   And how far away the fielder was when it was struck.  I suppose, with enough data, one could figure out what the "average" is of those balls being caught.

Seems like a lot of tiring work.   But it could be done. 
8/16/2013 5:42 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/16/2013 1:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by trsnoke on 8/16/2013 10:56:00 AM (view original):

"Thus, a SS with a UZR of zero is exactly average as compared to a SS in the same year and in the same league."  Understand more about UZR before you rave about its merits.

Is that bolded part for me?  Hyperbole much?
You and BL, yea.  I said I had issues with it and you guys are arguing for it, so, yea, understand what it is before you tell me that it's a good stat.
I have not argued for it, though I am intrigued by it, so I certainly haven't raved about its merits.  I do wish I understood it better.  You've got some valid reasons why you don't like it, there's no need to make stuff up and exaggerate others to sell your points.
8/16/2013 5:46 PM
It's the internet.   Making up stuff and exaggerating the rest is required on the internet.
8/16/2013 5:48 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2013 5:36:00 PM (view original):
I don't think it's that complicated to "do the work" on batted balls.     One can  figure out the velocity of a ball hit 273 feet that lands in 2.2 seconds.   And how far away the fielder was when it was struck.  I suppose, with enough data, one could figure out what the "average" is of those balls being caught.

Seems like a lot of tiring work.   But it could be done. 
If you could collect that data and then sell it to teams who each have hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, it would probably be worth it, right?
8/16/2013 5:52 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 8/16/2013 5:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2013 5:36:00 PM (view original):
I don't think it's that complicated to "do the work" on batted balls.     One can  figure out the velocity of a ball hit 273 feet that lands in 2.2 seconds.   And how far away the fielder was when it was struck.  I suppose, with enough data, one could figure out what the "average" is of those balls being caught.

Seems like a lot of tiring work.   But it could be done. 
If you could collect that data and then sell it to teams who each have hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, it would probably be worth it, right?
Not when it's considered flawed.  Or imperfect. 

Honestly, there's a lot one can see with the eye that really doesn't require millions of dollars or years of data.   I'm an old ******* softball player.  I can tell which guys take bad angles after about 3 plays.   

Seriously, did you need computer data to tell you Cabrera isn't all that good at 3B? 
8/16/2013 5:55 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2013 5:46:00 PM (view original):
It's the internet.   Making up stuff and exaggerating the rest is required on the internet.

True.  I know I can't say I've never done it.

8/16/2013 6:05 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2013 5:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/16/2013 5:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2013 5:36:00 PM (view original):
I don't think it's that complicated to "do the work" on batted balls.     One can  figure out the velocity of a ball hit 273 feet that lands in 2.2 seconds.   And how far away the fielder was when it was struck.  I suppose, with enough data, one could figure out what the "average" is of those balls being caught.

Seems like a lot of tiring work.   But it could be done. 
If you could collect that data and then sell it to teams who each have hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, it would probably be worth it, right?
Not when it's considered flawed.  Or imperfect. 

Honestly, there's a lot one can see with the eye that really doesn't require millions of dollars or years of data.   I'm an old ******* softball player.  I can tell which guys take bad angles after about 3 plays.   

Seriously, did you need computer data to tell you Cabrera isn't all that good at 3B? 
Nope. But you don't need stats to be able to tell that Cabrera is a good hitter, that Chris Stewart is an awful hitter, that Kershaw is a great pitcher, and that Phil Hughes is a bad pitcher, either.

But if you want to know how much better or how much worse player A is compared to player B because you're about to sign one for millions of dollars, quantifying their performance is incredibly important.
of 12
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > WAR question

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.