Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 10:44:00 AM (view original):
You still didn't answer. Is it possible for B to be more valuable than A?

I do not believe it's possible for a pitcher with the numbers of 2000 Radke to be more valuable than a pitcher with the numbers of 2016 Scherzer, regardless of era.

Forget Radke and Scherzer for a second. Is it possible for B to be more valuable than A?

For example, if A pitched in 1908 and B pitched in 1996, it's not only possible but likely that B was more valuable, agree?

BL, playing the "desperate for attention" card.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 10:59:00 AM (view original):
Forget Radke and Scherzer for a second. Is it possible for B to be more valuable than A?

For example, if A pitched in 1908 and B pitched in 1996, it's not only possible but likely that B was more valuable, agree?

Your example is irrelevant, especially since you're going to apply it to Radke/Scherzer, when their numbers were much further apart. I'm not engaging you in this. We're discussing Radke and Scherzer, not some fictitious and irrelevant example.

I do not think it's possible for a pitcher with 2000 Radke's numbers to be more valuable than a pitcher with 2016 Scherzer's numbers, regardless of when they pitched.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/19/2017 11:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 10:59:00 AM (view original):
Forget Radke and Scherzer for a second. Is it possible for B to be more valuable than A?

For example, if A pitched in 1908 and B pitched in 1996, it's not only possible but likely that B was more valuable, agree?

Your example is irrelevant, especially since you're going to apply it to Radke/Scherzer, when their numbers were much further apart. I'm not engaging you in this. We're discussing Radke and Scherzer, not some fictitious and irrelevant example.

I do not think it's possible for a pitcher with 2000 Radke's numbers to be more valuable than a pitcher with 2016 Scherzer's numbers, regardless of when they pitched.

The reason it is relevant is because we have to agree on whether or not it's even possible for B to be more valuable. If we don't agree on that, Radke or any other pitcher with a higher runs allowed rate can never be more valuable than a pitcher with a lower runs allowed rate.


FWIW, I'd take 2016 Scherzer over 2000 Radke for all the reasons you guys have listed. But the idea that their WARs are the same isn't out of line if we understand what WAR measures and the context of each year.

It is out of line, at least if you're going to stick with B-R's WAR values. This debate probably wouldn't have raged on this long if you'd gone with Fangraphs. You might get some argument that Radke wasn't a 4.2 WAR in 2000, but it's still 1.4 behind 2016 Scherzer's 5.6.

As I've repeatedly stated, Lieber's 3.6 WAR in 2000 according to B-R is another flaw you're ignoring. Two pitchers from the same year - Lieber was statistically better than Radke, yet B-R has him with a lower WAR. Fangraphs at least gives him an edge: 4.4 to 4.2.

For the record, no one here is saying "WAR IS NEVER RIGHT MAN!!" People are pointing out how massively flawed and inconsistent WAR is, which is why it shouldn't be taken as gospel. Yet you repeatedly shout "WAR!!!!!!!!!!!" from the rooftops, even when presented with an example where WAR is clearly wrong.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/19/2017 11:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 10:59:00 AM (view original):
Forget Radke and Scherzer for a second. Is it possible for B to be more valuable than A?

For example, if A pitched in 1908 and B pitched in 1996, it's not only possible but likely that B was more valuable, agree?

Your example is irrelevant, especially since you're going to apply it to Radke/Scherzer, when their numbers were much further apart. I'm not engaging you in this. We're discussing Radke and Scherzer, not some fictitious and irrelevant example.

I do not think it's possible for a pitcher with 2000 Radke's numbers to be more valuable than a pitcher with 2016 Scherzer's numbers, regardless of when they pitched.

The reason it is relevant is because we have to agree on whether or not it's even possible for B to be more valuable. If we don't agree on that, Radke or any other pitcher with a higher runs allowed rate can never be more valuable than a pitcher with a lower runs allowed rate.


FWIW, I'd take 2016 Scherzer over 2000 Radke for all the reasons you guys have listed. But the idea that their WARs are the same isn't out of line if we understand what WAR measures and the context of each year.

If WAR says that 2000 Radke and 2016 Scherzer are equivalent in value within the context of their respective years, then WAR is massively flawed.

Everybody but you seems to understand that.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/19/2017 11:32:00 AM (view original):
It is out of line, at least if you're going to stick with B-R's WAR values. This debate probably wouldn't have raged on this long if you'd gone with Fangraphs. You might get some argument that Radke wasn't a 4.2 WAR in 2000, but it's still 1.4 behind 2016 Scherzer's 5.6.

As I've repeatedly stated, Lieber's 3.6 WAR in 2000 according to B-R is another flaw you're ignoring. Two pitchers from the same year - Lieber was statistically better than Radke, yet B-R has him with a lower WAR. Fangraphs at least gives him an edge: 4.4 to 4.2.

For the record, no one here is saying "WAR IS NEVER RIGHT MAN!!" People are pointing out how massively flawed and inconsistent WAR is, which is why it shouldn't be taken as gospel. Yet you repeatedly shout "WAR!!!!!!!!!!!" from the rooftops, even when presented with an example where WAR is clearly wrong.

Well, I didn't pick BR, sj did.

My point is simply this:

Because contextual things like the league run scoring environment, team defense, and park effects can vary dramatically, it's not unexpected that a pitcher with more runs allowed in a given year would be equally as valuable as a pitcher in a different year/ballpark/team with less runs allowed.

Radke/Scherzer isn't even the most extreme example. 1996 Pettite was way more valuable than 1908 Overall despite Overall having only a 1.92 ERA compared to Pettite's 3.87.

Most of us were watching baseball in both 2000 and 2016, and most of us (except for BL) seem to understand that 2016 Scherzer >>>>> 2000 Radke. Despite what somebody's precious little numbers might say.

Which is why it's important to watch the games.

BL's grandson, 50 years from now, may look back at 2000 Radke's and 2016 Scherzer's WAR and conclude "Hmm, looks like they were equally effective pitchers despite their vastly different stats." And BL's grandson would be very, very wrong.

Which is why context is important.

And also why BL cannot understand why Catfish Hunter is in the Hall of Fame.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/19/2017 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Most of us were watching baseball in both 2000 and 2016, and most of us (except for BL) seem to understand that 2016 Scherzer >>>>> 2000 Radke. Despite what somebody's precious little numbers might say.

Which is why it's important to watch the games.

BL's grandson, 50 years from now, may look back at 2000 Radke's and 2016 Scherzer's WAR and conclude "Hmm, looks like they were equally effective pitchers despite their vastly different stats." And BL's grandson would be very, very wrong.

Which is why context is important.

And also why BL cannot understand why Catfish Hunter is in the Hall of Fame.

I'd take Scherzer over Radke. bWAR is just one stat. Every other stat goes in Scherzer's favor.

My point, again, is that it isn't out of line to argue that they had equal value based on runs allowed. Because when you account for the context of when and where they pitched, the gap closes significantly. If they switched places, Scherzer would have given up more runs and Radke would have given up less.

Also, let's drop the myth that watching a start or two from a pitcher is enough to understand his complete value that year. I can't imagine you watched Radke throw more than two or three times in 2000 and I doubt even more that you remember anything at all about his specific starts.

It's not just "watching a start or two". It's following the game in general during the seasons in question.

In 2016, Scherzer was considered one of the best pitchers in MLB. (Much like Catfish Hunter was during the 70's).

In 2000, Radke was considered "the decent pitcher from the Twins who had a pretty good season a few years ago".

That's context.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 8:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 7/18/2017 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/18/2017 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/18/2017 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 2:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/18/2017 1:48:00 PM (view original):
You mentioned runs allowed. Seems to me ERA+ is a fairly good way to measure how effective pitchers from different eras were at preventing runs. Though it's obvious you only favour the "stats" that support your argument.

They are two different stats.

If WAR was the same as ERA+, we wouldn't need one or the other.

WAR isn't a stat.

Um...well...I hate to break it to you, but it is.

I hate to break it to you, but it's not. A "stat" isn't calculated differently by different outlets, allowing people to choose the formula/value they want to go with.

To use your Radke/Scherzer example:

Fangraphs: 2000 Radke - 4.2, 2016 Scherzer - 5.6
B-R: 2000 Radke - 6.2, 2016 Scherzer - 6.2

This is why people think WAR is a joke. It's subjective - and it's not a stat.

I feel like we've had this discussion before. Think of those as two different stats, fWAR and bWAR. Fangraphs bases their calculation on FIP and BR uses RA. For the purpose of this discussion, we are using the stat from BR.

there you go again...telling people what we are discussing. Maybe for the purposes of this discussion YOU are using WAR from BR. You can't decide what other people are using, although I'm not sure who, besides you, is using WAR from anywhere for this discussion.

So you were wrong here?

No. as usual, you were telling everyone what they were discussing and what "stats" they were using to discuss it. You don't get to tell everyone what they are discussing. Well, you can tell them, but you are wrong.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/19/2017 12:15:00 PM (view original):
It's not just "watching a start or two". It's following the game in general during the seasons in question.

In 2016, Scherzer was considered one of the best pitchers in MLB. (Much like Catfish Hunter was during the 70's).

In 2000, Radke was considered "the decent pitcher from the Twins who had a pretty good season a few years ago".

That's context.

Is it possible that you don't remember much at all about Radke's 2000 season?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/18/2017 9:42:00 PM (view original):
Most people who are proponents of WAR would look at the Radke/Scherzer comparison, apply a common sense filter, and conclude "yeah, there's something ****** up with this" and try to distance themselves away from it.

Not BL. He dives head first into it and defends it. Because it's his favorite, infallible stat.

And that's why he's the stupidest person on the internet.

Let's say you have two pitchers:

A) 200 IP; 3 runs allowed per 9
B) 200 IP; 4 runs allowed per 9

One pitcher pitched in year X, the other pitched in year Y.

Is it possible that B was more valuable than A?

more valuable, yes. Better, no. And of course it depends on your definition of valuable. If player A's team came in last place, player A was not all that valuable. They could have come in last place without him.
If player B's team made the wild card by one game, then player B was most likely pretty valuable to the team. Doubtful they would have won the wild card spot without him.
However, player A still had the better season, regardless of value.