Posted by wylie715 on 7/19/2017 12:23:00 PM (view original):

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.

Was 1996 Andy Pettite better than 1908 Orval Overall?

I have no idea. Other than knowing his name I don't know anything about Overall. Being a Yankee fan, I know a lot about Pettite.
Are you implying player B was better than player A? He may have been more valuable to his team, but player A still had the better season based on the limited information you posted.

I'm saying it's possible that B was better than A.

Let's say that B was pitching in the late 90's in Coors field. Allowing only 4 runs per 9 was very difficult. It's likely that he was better than A if A pitched in the early 1900's, the 60's and 70's, or even the 2010's.

well, since they don't exist, it really doesn't matter. Yes, maybe B was better than A, but from the limited information you gave it does not appear that way. regardless of your made up players, if you think its even possible that the 2000 Radke was better than the 2016 Scherzer, you're just being silly.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 12:02:00 PM (view original):

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.

Do you know what you basically just said with this reply?

"Scherzer was better. WAR is the only stat that says he wasn't. But I'm going to argue just for the sake of arguing."

You just admitted WAR is ****. Thank you.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/19/2017 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 12:02:00 PM (view original):

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.

Do you know what you basically just said with this reply?

"Scherzer was better. WAR is the only stat that says he wasn't. But I'm going to argue just for the sake of arguing."

You just admitted WAR is ****. Thank you.

But that's the point I'm arguing. WAR isn't **** because it gives an unexpected result.

Both can be true:

Scherzer was better by most measures
There's a reasonable argument that Radke's value approached (or equaled) Scherzer's when taken in the context of league run scoring/ballpark/etc.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/19/2017 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 12:02:00 PM (view original):

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.

Do you know what you basically just said with this reply?

"Scherzer was better. WAR is the only stat that says he wasn't. But I'm going to argue just for the sake of arguing."

You just admitted WAR is ****. Thank you.

But that's the point I'm arguing. WAR isn't **** because it gives an unexpected result.

Both can be true:

Scherzer was better by most measures
There's a reasonable argument that Radke's value approached (or equaled) Scherzer's when taken in the context of league run scoring/ballpark/etc.

You're the only one who would even remotely consider equating the two seasons.

Congrats. You're "special".

Congrats, you ignore context. Good job.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Congrats, you ignore context. Good job.

No, you ignore context - unless it's context that suits whatever BS you're arguing.

I gave you context earlier that you ignored. 2016 Scherzer was first in WHIP and Ks, and 8th in ERA. 2000 Radke was 34th in WHIP, 41 in ERA and 42 in Ks.

Within the CONTEXT of their two seasons, Scherzer was far superior relative to the rest of the league. Not sure what you think is "reasonable" about comparing the value of the two seasons. I'm also waiting for you to defend Lieber having a lower WAR than Radke in 2000, when it's pretty clear Lieber had the better season.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/19/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Congrats, you ignore context. Good job.

No, you ignore context - unless it's context that suits whatever BS you're arguing.

I gave you context earlier that you ignored. 2016 Scherzer was first in WHIP and Ks, and 8th in ERA. 2000 Radke was 34th in WHIP, 41 in ERA and 42 in Ks.

Within the CONTEXT of their two seasons, Scherzer was far superior relative to the rest of the league. Not sure what you think is "reasonable" about comparing the value of the two seasons. I'm also waiting for you to defend Lieber having a lower WAR than Radke in 2000, when it's pretty clear Lieber had the better season.

What about the context of the run scoring environment? The ballpark? The defense behind them?

Those things matter too, right?

Regarding you waiting for me to "defend Lieber," I'm waiting for you to answer my A/B question. I'll talk about Lieber after you answer.

I'm waiting for you to tell me what proof Russia has to take down Trump's Administration.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/19/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Congrats, you ignore context. Good job.

No, you ignore context - unless it's context that suits whatever BS you're arguing.

I gave you context earlier that you ignored. 2016 Scherzer was first in WHIP and Ks, and 8th in ERA. 2000 Radke was 34th in WHIP, 41 in ERA and 42 in Ks.

Within the CONTEXT of their two seasons, Scherzer was far superior relative to the rest of the league. Not sure what you think is "reasonable" about comparing the value of the two seasons. I'm also waiting for you to defend Lieber having a lower WAR than Radke in 2000, when it's pretty clear Lieber had the better season.

What about the context of the run scoring environment? The ballpark? The defense behind them?

Those things matter too, right?

Regarding you waiting for me to "defend Lieber," I'm waiting for you to answer my A/B question. I'll talk about Lieber after you answer.

Nope. I'm taking your approach and only looking at the context I want to. Pretty fun way to argue, isn't it?

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/19/2017 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/19/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Congrats, you ignore context. Good job.

No, you ignore context - unless it's context that suits whatever BS you're arguing.

I gave you context earlier that you ignored. 2016 Scherzer was first in WHIP and Ks, and 8th in ERA. 2000 Radke was 34th in WHIP, 41 in ERA and 42 in Ks.

Within the CONTEXT of their two seasons, Scherzer was far superior relative to the rest of the league. Not sure what you think is "reasonable" about comparing the value of the two seasons. I'm also waiting for you to defend Lieber having a lower WAR than Radke in 2000, when it's pretty clear Lieber had the better season.

What about the context of the run scoring environment? The ballpark? The defense behind them?

Those things matter too, right?

Regarding you waiting for me to "defend Lieber," I'm waiting for you to answer my A/B question. I'll talk about Lieber after you answer.

Nope. I'm taking your approach and only looking at the context I want to. Pretty fun way to argue, isn't it?

I've already acknowledged that Scherzer was better in those stats and that those stats matter. What more are you looking for?

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.

Its mindblowing that BR WAR and FG WAR can be that far apart for one player in a single year.

You have the following possibilities:
1) BR WAR is flawed
2) FG WAR is flawed
3) They are both flawed.

I vote for 3.

I would go with 3, but from what I've seen, Fangraphs numbers at least seem reasonably close to what you'd expect in most cases. B-R's are often really out of whack.