Posted by tecwrg on 7/20/2017 2:57:00 PM (view original):
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.

Um, ok. Wouldn't all that mean the hitters were better?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 12:19:00 PM (view original):

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?

yes, I did. If you want to go back and find it, go ahead.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 12:55:00 PM (view original):

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.

Which is why it cannot reliably tell us who had the better season. Or I guess it can tell us a narrow part of the picture which we know to be imperfect.

We have a program at my job that is supposed to be the end-all audit program. It looks at every type of situation, even if it's customized for a specific client, and gives us a perfect audit - even telling us specifically what is off.

Well I should say that's what it is supposed to do. And that is what I'm told it does. But it doesn't. You end up having to run three or four other reports and you have to know what the inconsistencies are so that you can adjust it so it does tell you what you need.

I actually added some commented out code in the header today unofficially calling it the "Bad Luck WAR" report. Because that's what it is. You can't rely on it to do what everyone says it should do unless you use other inputs.

( I'm fairly certain that the other coder that works on the program is going to think that I have lost my ****. )

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/20/2017 2:57:00 PM (view original):
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.

Um, ok. Wouldn't all that mean the hitters were better?

Not necessarily.

Are you aware that the game evolves over time? That the approach to pitching and hitting today is somewhat different than it was in 2000, primarily due to the increased influence of SABRmetrics in today's game? Are you aware that 2000 was also smack dab in the middle of the steroid era, where all the numbers were skewed via pharmaceuticals?

Are are you so blinded by raw statistics that you're unaware of such context, or unable to wrap said context around numbers?

Hmm, this all sounds familiar. "It's like deja vu, all over again"

So I'll ask you again . . . do you believe hitters were better in 2000 than they are today? I'm not talking merely about stats. I'm talking about a holistic approach to the game.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/20/2017 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/20/2017 2:57:00 PM (view original):
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.

Um, ok. Wouldn't all that mean the hitters were better?

Not necessarily.

Are you aware that the game evolves over time? That the approach to pitching and hitting today is somewhat different than it was in 2000, primarily due to the increased influence of SABRmetrics in today's game? Are you aware that 2000 was also smack dab in the middle of the steroid era, where all the numbers were skewed via pharmaceuticals?

Are are you so blinded by raw statistics that you're unaware of such context, or unable to wrap said context around numbers?

Hmm, this all sounds familiar. "It's like deja vu, all over again"

So I'll ask you again . . . do you believe hitters were better in 2000 than they are today? I'm not talking merely about stats. I'm talking about a holistic approach to the game.

Whether or not approaches changed or players (including pitchers) were (or still are) on performance enhancing drugs, offenses scored runs at a much higher rate in 2000 when compared to 2016.

There are two possible explanations for this (or a combination of the two):

hitters were better
pitchers were worse

I wouldn't have a problem with an argument in either direction

It's as simple as that? "Hitters were better", or "pitchers were worse"?

There is no other context necessary to explain anything, in your opinion. Is that correct?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/20/2017 4:10:00 PM (view original):
It's as simple as that? "Hitters were better", or "pitchers were worse"?

There is no other context necessary to explain anything, in your opinion. Is that correct?

This is the way I look at it, let's say, for the sake of argument, the offenses scored more runs because all the hitters (and none of the pitchers) were on steroids. In 2016, hitters are no longer on steroids.

The steroids allowed the 2000 offenses to score more runs, in other words, perform better. They were better. I'm not making some sort of ethical judgement on them. I'm not saying that they would have been better absent PEDs. I'm saying they were better as a matter of fact. They scored more runs. That makes them better.

It's all about stats with you. There is no critical thought. There is no context. It's just numbers in a spreadsheet.

This is why you're regarded as a clown in these forums.

I don't understand your problem with me saying offenses in 2000 were better (scored runs as a higher rate) than offenses in 2016.

It's a fact. If you want to talk about why they were better, that's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that they were better.

Do you believe that lowering the mound could affect pitching/hitting stats?

Do you think facing 4 pitchers in a game instead of one could affect pitching/hitting stats?

Do you believe the Tooth Fairy, the Rock TF, could beat the Easter Bunny in a cage fight?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/20/2017 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Do you believe that lowering the mound could affect pitching/hitting stats?

Do you think facing 4 pitchers in a game instead of one could affect pitching/hitting stats?

Do you believe the Tooth Fairy, the Rock TF, could beat the Easter Bunny in a cage fight?

Are you still trying to ask me questions after dodging mine?

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

If Baby Jesus played QB for the Jets, would they make the Super Bowl?

This is still continuing?!?!? WOW

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/20/2017 4:42:00 PM (view original):
If Baby Jesus played QB for the Jets, would they make the Super Bowl?

If the Red Sox scored more runs than MikeT23 and eight 7-year-olds, would tec admit that the Red Sox were a better offense or would he continue to argue just for the sake of arguing?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/20/2017 4:42:00 PM (view original):
If Baby Jesus played QB for the Jets, would they make the Super Bowl?

If the Red Sox scored more runs than MikeT23 and eight 7-year-olds, would tec admit that the Red Sox were a better offense or would he continue to argue just for the sake of arguing?

If tec stopped arguing with you, would you wither and die?