Posted by jrd_x on 2/27/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Todd, I disagree.  In general, WAR gives you a quick glance idea of how valuable a player was over the course of their career.

I think you need more context than just WAR, since (for Fangraphs calculation at least) they are just adding UZR and wRAA.  It's like if someone told you that they thought player X was a hall of famer.  You glance at his batting average and see that it was .205 for his career.  It's probably pretty easy at that point to eliminate him as a candidate.  Swap WAR for BA and 25 for .205 and you get the same result for people who prefer advanced metrics over batting average.  Sure there's more to that player's story than just his WAR or BA but at the extremes you really don't need much more.

WAR, UZR, and wRAA.  Not to mention FIP, BAPIP and so on.

I'm surprised that MLB was able to survive before Bill James had his epiphany at the pork and beans factory.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/27/2012 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Just to play devil's advocate here - aren't all the people now arguing against "stat nerds" the same ones who wanted people thrown out of the hall? It's somewhat contradictory, as all players were voted in by guys who saw them play and thus shouldn't be "tossed" based on their numbers.

Now if we want to debate selections of the Veterans Committee, who likely just vote their good, deserving buddies in, that's a different story.

I think eligibility should be reduced to 10 years, max, and the vet committee scrapped. The only reason a guy gets in on his 10th try or later is because public opinion has eventually swayed a voter who was on the fence and leaning towards a "no" vote. If it takes you 10+ tries, you are NOT a HOFer

Two problems with the HOF selections:

1)  The Veterans Committee - historically has had massive problems with cronysim . . . these are the guys who should be looked at to determine if they truly are deserving

2)  BBWAA selections - the problem here is the "Lowest Common Denominator" issue . . . a borderline deserving player already in the HOF now becomes the benchmark or standard of HOF qualification . . . "if Kirby Puckett is in, then Don Mattingly should be in because he was at least just as good as Puckett".

True, but that's up to the voters. If a guy didn't vote for Puckett or Mattingly, and his peers vote in Puckett, I doubt he's gonna suddenly say "Ah well, what the hell...have at it, Don!"

I like that more and more writers are publishing their selections and giving explanations for them though. It at least shows they're acknowledging public opinion and not just throwing out picks based on their "elite" or "superior" sports knowledge.

It's not that I'm necessarily arguing against stat-nerds as much as I don't think a player can be defined by a couple "advanced metrics".     I'd no sooner look at OBP and say "Nope" than I would WAR.    In fact, WAR might be worse because it's designed to create a number that tells you the value of the player.    If nothing else, OBP will almost "force" you to look at other stats whereas too many would say "His WAR sucks" and move on.   It's almost dangerous for player evaluation.   Like FIP.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/27/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Todd, I disagree.  In general, WAR gives you a quick glance idea of how valuable a player was over the course of their career.

I think you need more context than just WAR, since (for Fangraphs calculation at least) they are just adding UZR and wRAA.  It's like if someone told you that they thought player X was a hall of famer.  You glance at his batting average and see that it was .205 for his career.  It's probably pretty easy at that point to eliminate him as a candidate.  Swap WAR for BA and 25 for .205 and you get the same result for people who prefer advanced metrics over batting average.  Sure there's more to that player's story than just his WAR or BA but at the extremes you really don't need much more.

WAR, UZR, and wRAA.  Not to mention FIP, BAPIP and so on.

I'm surprised that MLB was able to survive before Bill James had his epiphany at the pork and beans factory.

I'm trying to decide if you're so bitter because you don't understand advanced stats or because the advanced stats show that 13 years of Roger Clemens is better than 8 years.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ADVANCED METRICS!!!!!

And 13 $10 bills is better than 8 $20 bills. We get it.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/27/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):
And 13 $10 bills is better than 8 $20 bills. We get it.

Or, in this case, 8 $20 bills vs 8 $20 bills plus 5 $10 bills.

Well at least you're finally starting to get that the additional years aren't as good in quality as the core years. That's a start.

I'm gonna have to admit that I don't understand this at all.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/27/2012 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/27/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Todd, I disagree.  In general, WAR gives you a quick glance idea of how valuable a player was over the course of their career.

I think you need more context than just WAR, since (for Fangraphs calculation at least) they are just adding UZR and wRAA.  It's like if someone told you that they thought player X was a hall of famer.  You glance at his batting average and see that it was .205 for his career.  It's probably pretty easy at that point to eliminate him as a candidate.  Swap WAR for BA and 25 for .205 and you get the same result for people who prefer advanced metrics over batting average.  Sure there's more to that player's story than just his WAR or BA but at the extremes you really don't need much more.

WAR, UZR, and wRAA.  Not to mention FIP, BAPIP and so on.

I'm surprised that MLB was able to survive before Bill James had his epiphany at the pork and beans factory.

I'm trying to decide if you're so bitter because you don't understand advanced stats or because the advanced stats show that 13 years of Roger Clemens is better than 8 years.

I understand words like "hypothetical" and phrases like "assume they are different players", and I also understand how "more" does not mean "better".

Three things you seem to have comprehension problems with.  Maybe Voros McCracken can write a blog about such things so that you can be enlightened.

BTW, did you know that four current writers for Baseball Prospectus are members of the BBWAA?  I would have to assume they are hacks and that you would dismiss anything they have to say.

I never said all baseball writers are hacks. Many are great writers and really know baseball.

In your hypothetical, pitcher A pitched exceptionally well for 8 years then stopped. Pitcher B had the exact same stats for those 8 years and then pitched 5 more very good years.

And you said pitcher A was the better pitcher.

For pitchers, more is a component of better.

Only the ones from the 70s are hacks?

Posted by jrd_x on 2/27/2012 3:56:00 PM (view original):
I never said all baseball writers are hacks. Many are great writers and really know baseball.

In your hypothetical, pitcher A pitched exceptionally well for 8 years then stopped. Pitcher B had the exact same stats for those 8 years and then pitched 5 more very good years.

And you said pitcher A was the better pitcher.

For pitchers, more is a component of better.

In my hypothetical, there is no way to determine that B had the exact same stats as A for eight seasons.  How did you deduce that before I told you who A and B were?

You can't apply facts that you learned after I gave you A and B as part of your rationale for your decision making before that point.  Unless you're Mr. Peabody and have a Wayback machine, or you drive a DeLorean that goes 88 MPH.