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.)