I'm not thinking of them as anything but crap.

For the purposes of this discussion, "we" aren't using anything. You're using it, and you've selected the one that best suits your argument. And you're looking retarded in the process.

Saying WAR isn't a stat is like saying the unemployment rate isn't stat because there are differing opinions on how it should be calculated.

It's still a stat. We just know that the U-3 unemployment rate is measuring something different than the U-6 unemployment rate.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/18/2017 5:09:00 PM (view original):
I'm not thinking of them as anything but crap.

For the purposes of this discussion, "we" aren't using anything. You're using it, and you've selected the one that best suits your argument. And you're looking retarded in the process.

I didn't select it. I think it was sj. It was his point, I think, originally that WAR is broken because 2000Radke and 2016Scherzer were the same.

It is broken. And instead of looking at that example, applying common sense and saying "Ya, I can see where there might be a few holes in it", you defended it like a moron and claimed the two seasons were equally valuable.

WAR is not a stat. Imagine if I said "Guys, it's time to come up with a new method to determine who the best home run hitter was. We'll call it HRAR. Since all hitters play in different eras and different sized parks, only homeruns over 420 feet will count. Therefore, Babe Ruth is the new home run king, followed by Mickey Mantle and Harmon Killebrew". You'd think I was retarded.

And then imagine if someone else came along and said "Hmm, I like your idea for HRAR, but there were some huge parks back in the day. I'm going to use HRAR, but I'm going to calculate it using only 440+ foot homers. In my books, Mark McGwire and Reggie Jackson are the all-time home run kings."

Would you take "HRAR" seriously at all? I'll give you a hint: the answer is no.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/18/2017 5:18:00 PM (view original):
It is broken. And instead of looking at that example, applying common sense and saying "Ya, I can see where there might be a few holes in it", you defended it like a moron and claimed the two seasons were equally valuable.

WAR is not a stat. Imagine if I said "Guys, it's time to come up with a new method to determine who the best home run hitter was. We'll call it HRAR. Since all hitters play in different eras and different sized parks, only homeruns over 420 feet will count. Therefore, Babe Ruth is the new home run king, followed by Mickey Mantle and Harmon Killebrew". You'd think I was retarded.

And then imagine if someone else came along and said "Hmm, I like your idea for HRAR, but there were some huge parks back in the day. I'm going to use HRAR, but I'm going to calculate it using only 440+ foot homers. In my books, Mark McGwire and Reggie Jackson are the all-time home run kings."

Would you take "HRAR" seriously at all? I'll give you a hint: the answer is no.

---

It is broken. And instead of looking at that example, applying common sense and saying "Ya, I can see where there might be a few holes in it", you defended it like a moron and claimed the two seasons were equally valuable.

There's nothing broken. It was significantly more difficult to prevent runs in Radke's situation than it was in Scherzer's. So much so that an average pitcher in Radke's situation would have allowed around 6 runs per 9 IP compared to around 4 for Scherzer. If you want to argue that those calculations are wrong, I'm willing to listen. But a blanket declaration the stat is broken because you don't like what it says doesn't work.

WAR is not a stat. Imagine if I said "Guys, it's time to come up with a new method to determine who the best home run hitter was. We'll call it HRAR. Since all hitters play in different eras and different sized parks, only homeruns over 420 feet will count. Therefore, Babe Ruth is the new home run king, followed by Mickey Mantle and Harmon Killebrew". You'd think I was retarded.

WAR is a stat. Just like the unemployment rate is a stat. There are differing opinions on how to calculate unemployment and what it should measure, but it's still a stat. If you came up with a good stat to measure HR power to while accounting for differing ballpark size, that would be cool.

And then imagine if someone else came along and said "Hmm, I like your idea for HRAR, but there were some huge parks back in the day. I'm going to use HRAR, but I'm going to calculate it using only 440+ foot homers. In my books, Mark McGwire and Reggie Jackson are the all-time home run kings."

If HRAR was a stat that was widely accepted and used and everyone knew that it was calculated one of two different ways depending on the site, that wouldn't be a problem. Just like it isn't a problem with WAR.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 5:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/18/2017 5:09:00 PM (view original):
I'm not thinking of them as anything but crap.

For the purposes of this discussion, "we" aren't using anything. You're using it, and you've selected the one that best suits your argument. And you're looking retarded in the process.

I didn't select it. I think it was sj. It was his point, I think, originally that WAR is broken because 2000Radke and 2016Scherzer were the same.

Again. My point was that WAR is obviously not trustworthy to compare players between two different eras.

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.

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.

Try to keep up, idiot.

sj brought up the Radke/Scherzer/WAR issue. Not me.

Ha..BL calling me an idiot!
Maybe SJ brought up the WAR issue, but I can't find a post by him telling everyone what we are using for the purposes of this discussion. Only you tried to tell everyone what they are using

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.

So, yeah, you're an idiot.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 7:31:00 PM (view original):
So, yeah, you're an idiot.

Unfortunately for you, you're the idiot because you are agreeing that 2000 Radke = 2016 Scherzer.

Yes, you really are doing that.

Like an idiot.