Gee, I wonder which statement people are more likely to think is true:

a) BL said "I don't need to watch the games, I have the stats"

or

b) Tec said"I don't know anything at all about baseball, and my diet consists primarily of used toilet paper".

Just be assured that you said it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2016 5:22:00 PM (view original):
Forcing the runner to get down is a standard part of baseball. We were taught that as soon as we started learning to turn double plays. Throw thru the runner if he decides to remain standing.

oh yer a baseball player now?

yer a softball schlub with a keg in yer trunk

Posted by bad_luck on 5/19/2016 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Nothing wrong with relying on one stat as a quick shorthand for total value and expanding if deeper analysis is needed.

I'll be assured that I said it just like you should be assured that you admitted that you don't know anything at all about baseball. You should also be assured that you said your diet is primarily composed of used toilet paper.

You - and ANYONE for that matter - need to stop referring to WAR as a "stat". It's a metric. It's a man-made formula that plugs in stats in an attempt to create one "catch-all" number to define a player's value. It's subjective and has its flaws. Hell, not everyone even agrees on how to calculate it.

If a guy hits 20 homers - it's a fact, he has 20 homers. Everyone agrees on that. If a guy gets 3 hits in 10 ABs, it's a fact that he's hitting .300 - everyone agrees on that. Those are measurable. WAR is not.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/14/2016 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/19/2016 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Nothing wrong with relying on one stat as a quick shorthand for total value and expanding if deeper analysis is needed.

I'll be assured that I said it just like you should be assured that you admitted that you don't know anything at all about baseball. You should also be assured that you said your diet is primarily composed of used toilet paper.

You - and ANYONE for that matter - need to stop referring to WAR as a "stat". It's a metric. It's a man-made formula that plugs in stats in an attempt to create one "catch-all" number to define a player's value. It's subjective and has its flaws. Hell, not everyone even agrees on how to calculate it.

If a guy hits 20 homers - it's a fact, he has 20 homers. Everyone agrees on that. If a guy gets 3 hits in 10 ABs, it's a fact that he's hitting .300 - everyone agrees on that. Those are measurable. WAR is not.

When you say, "it's subjective," what do you mean?

I was wondering that too. It's not subjective at all. But Jtp is pretty dumb, he probably hasn't really tried to understand how WAR is calculated.

You don't understand what "subjective" means, yet I'm dumb? Subjective means it's not always calculated the same way - there is room for interpretation/manipulation.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained.shtml

"There is no one way to determine WAR. There are hundreds of steps to make this calculation, and dozens of places where reasonable people can disagree on the best way to implement a particular part of the framework. We have taken the utmost care and study at each step in the process, and believe all of our choices are well reasoned and defensible. But WAR is necessarily an approximation and will never be as precise or accurate as one would like."

I'm pretty sure you are the one that doesn't understand what subjective means...

Or maybe we just didn't understand what you were trying to say. Is the way the stat is calculated somewhat subjective? I guess yes. But the implementation is not subjective. Every player is graded on the same scale, so to speak.

But when you say this - "Subjective means it's not always calculated the same way - there is room for interpretation/manipulation" - I suspect you just don't know what you're talking about. There are 2 major calculations of WAR, but each is calculated in the same way for every player/season consistently. I wouldn't call anything in the WAR calculation "manipulation."

Exactly. The methods used to measure the run values are always being refined and reasonable people can disagree. But the methods apply equally to all players.

It's not like the formula gets tweaked to give a certain player a better result.

So if there are 2 major ways, how many "minor" ways are there?

I agree jtpops is dumb but his point is pretty simple. No matter who you ask, no matter what system they use, Babe Ruth had 714 home runs. Can you ask any advanced metric nerd what Ruth's WAR is and always get the same answer?

I never said each method isn't applied equally to all players. But if different methods are used, players are not always going to fall at the same ranking in each method. And if each method produces different numbers for each player or doesn't produce results ranking players in the exact same order, then clearly it's not something that is 100% reliable and must be taken with a grain of salt.

There are concrete, measurable stats (BA, OBP, homers, runs, etc.) that are finite - you can't calculate them differently and come up with a different result. Metrics like WAR leave room for discrepancy. By and large, they give you a good approximation of who the best players are, but there are flaws since it is not a concrete stat.

Do you know how WAR is actually calculated?

Things like doubles and home runs and outs have run values. WAR basically just adds the run values of each of those events up.