Posted by burnsy483 on 1/9/2014 10:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by byeags25 on 1/9/2014 10:01:00 AM (view original):
So you have 2 players, player A and player B. Each play 20 seasons. Every year, player A has about 1 WAR more than player B. Every year, you look at them and say player A is a little better, but not significantly. Then, at the end of their careers, you look at them and say Player A was significantly better than player B because he had 20 more WAR than him over the course of their careers?
You look at the guy who went 7 for 21 over the course of a week and think he's not much better than the guy who went 6 for 21. But over the course of a season, that might be 30 more hits. It's a difference of .047 in BA. Over the course of a 15 year career, it might be 450 hits. Clearly one of them had a better career.
I see your point and I think anybody will say that a .333 hitter is better than a .286 hitter, but if you want to break it down by week, that's fine. The 1 WAR per season breaks down to 0.03 WAR per week. As BL said earlier, we should round that number down, so it becomes 0. Then there is no difference between the 2 players. When you break it down that granular, everything is going to be distorted, so I think we need to keep this to seasons and careers