hey BL, is Radke your uncle or something? That's the only reason I can come up with for you saying his 2000 season was comparable to Scherzer's 2016 season.

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?

Did you ever answer this, wylie?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/20/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Except when it's not? Like when it says Radke/Schrezer were comparable?

In terms of runs allowed, when accounting for context, they were comparable.

So you agree that 2000 Radke and 2016 Schrezer were comparable?

Posted by wylie715 on 7/20/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
hey BL, is Radke your uncle or something? That's the only reason I can come up with for you saying his 2000 season was comparable to Scherzer's 2016 season.

There's another, much more obvious reason, why BL would make such a claim.

Does it start with W?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/20/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Except when it's not? Like when it says Radke/Schrezer were comparable?

In terms of runs allowed, when accounting for context, they were comparable.

In terms of runs allowed, based on the very narrow definition that BR WAR constrains it to, then perhaps. But it - really - doesn't tell us that Scherzer is a better pitcher than Radke. And we can't reliably assume that if the pitchers were switched, that they would perform relatively the same in each of the other's era/team.

Posted by sjpoker on 7/20/2017 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/20/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Except when it's not? Like when it says Radke/Schrezer were comparable?

In terms of runs allowed, when accounting for context, they were comparable.

In terms of runs allowed, based on the very narrow definition that BR WAR constrains it to, then perhaps. But it - really - doesn't tell us that Scherzer is a better pitcher than Radke. And we can't reliably assume that if the pitchers were switched, that they would perform relatively the same in each of the other's era/team.

That's all that WAR measures. In terms of runs allowed, accounting for context, how good was the pitcher? It doesn't measure how the would perform, it only measures how he did perform.

We can reliably infer that a 2016 NL pitcher would give up more runs in 2000 AL than he did in 2016. And vice versa, if 28 year old Pedro Martinez popped up in 2016 instead of 2000, he probably would have been even more dominating.

Only looking at those factors is not reliable. Scherzer would have done better than Radke in Radke's environment simply because of K's alone.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/20/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):
Only looking at those factors is not reliable. Scherzer would have done better than Radke in Radke's environment simply because of K's alone.

Maybe. Or maybe he would have had less K's because he was facing better hitters.

WAR is just a piece of the picture. Obviously we should rely on things like ERA/ERA+, K's, BB, and IP in addition to WAR. But it is useful. Especially when we're comparing pitchers from different eras or who had different roles (high inning relief pitcher/modern day starter/starter in the 30's/etc).

Do you think anyone who followed baseball over, let's say the last 20 years, would say "Radke is 2000 was comparable to Schrezer in 2016"?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/20/2017 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Do you think anyone who followed baseball over, let's say the last 20 years, would say "Radke is 2000 was comparable to Schrezer in 2016"?

Do you think concrete evidence of actual Trump campaign collusion with Russia will be problematic for Trump?

OK, bad_pussy, you win.

Wanna talk about a cage match between the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy? Because, until there's some real evidence, I'm not interested in your stupid "What if......?" game.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/20/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):
Only looking at those factors is not reliable. Scherzer would have done better than Radke in Radke's environment simply because of K's alone.

Maybe. Or maybe he would have had less K's because he was facing better hitters.

WAR is just a piece of the picture. Obviously we should rely on things like ERA/ERA+, K's, BB, and IP in addition to WAR. But it is useful. Especially when we're comparing pitchers from different eras or who had different roles (high inning relief pitcher/modern day starter/starter in the 30's/etc).

Just because the hitting stats were inflated in 2000 over what we have in 2016/17, are you concluding that 2000 was full of "better hitters"?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/20/2017 2:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/20/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):
Only looking at those factors is not reliable. Scherzer would have done better than Radke in Radke's environment simply because of K's alone.

Maybe. Or maybe he would have had less K's because he was facing better hitters.

WAR is just a piece of the picture. Obviously we should rely on things like ERA/ERA+, K's, BB, and IP in addition to WAR. But it is useful. Especially when we're comparing pitchers from different eras or who had different roles (high inning relief pitcher/modern day starter/starter in the 30's/etc).

Just because the hitting stats were inflated in 2000 over what we have in 2016/17, are you concluding that 2000 was full of "better hitters"?

What do you mean by "hitting stats were inflated?"

WHY THE **** DO YOU HAVE TO RESPOND TO A SIMPLE QUESTION WITH A QUESTION?????

"Hitting stats were inflated" = higher AVG, higher OBP, higher SLG, higher runs per game.

Good lord, you are dumb.