Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/18/2017 1:21:00 PM (view original):
According to you, 2000 Brad Radke was as equally great as 2016 Max Scherzer.

Maybe you have a flawed understanding of "great"?

No, according to baseball reference, Radke's 2000 season was about as valuable as Scherzer's 2016.

For reference, wylie, tec was talking about sj's original point regarding WAR.

If we were using the fangraphs version it would be a moot point because the numbers aren't the same.


EDIT:

Here's the original post:

Quote post by sjpoker on 6/27/2017 9:06:00 AM:
Brad Radke 2000 12-16 4.45 ERA 1.376 WHIP 6.2 WAR
Max Scherzer 2016 20-7 2.96 ERA .968 WHIP 6.2 WAR
Cy Young Award
All Star
IP Leader
SO Leader

So according to WAR Radke was just as good in 2000 as Scherzer was in 2016. Ok.

Its a moot point anyway. There's no way the 2000 Radke was as good as the 2016 Scherzer regardless of what stat you show me. Anyone who thinks so is an idiot.

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?

Posted by sjpoker on 7/18/2017 1:51:00 PM (view original):


BL is at it again! Just loves to lift the cat butt up and expose it for abuse!

This

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.

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?

2000 Radke = 2016 Scherzer?

Answer the question. Is it possible?

Dude. Really?

You're trying to defend 2000 Radke = 2016 Scherzer.

This is why we all laugh at you.

It's a simple yes/no question. Why are you afraid to answer?

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?

no

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 10:48:00 PM (view original):
It's a simple yes/no question. Why are you afraid to answer?

I'm not afraid to answer. I'm just not going to, because you're trying to deflect the discussion from the stupidity of your equating of 2000 Radke to 2016 Scherzer.

You really don't understand how stupid that makes you look, do you?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/18/2017 11:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 10:48:00 PM (view original):
It's a simple yes/no question. Why are you afraid to answer?

I'm not afraid to answer. I'm just not going to, because you're trying to deflect the discussion from the stupidity of your equating of 2000 Radke to 2016 Scherzer.

You really don't understand how stupid that makes you look, do you?

I'm not trying to deflect. It's a pretty simple concept. Either you believe that a pitcher can allow more runs and, because of things like the era and ballpark he pitched in, still be more (or at least equally) valuable or you don't.

If you do, the Radke/Scherzer situation isn't odd. If you don't, well...you have an interesting "understanding" of baseball.

No, it's odd.

You are so incredibly devoid of self awareness. It's sad.

I think you're getting your *** kicked and have nothing to offer but insults.

Wow.

So sad.