Posted by tecwrg on 4/21/2014 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/21/2014 10:52:00 AM (view original):
FWIW, SAAP is a decent stat.   It's no shocker that a player who hits .300 with 23 homers is more valuable than a player who hits .237 with 9 homers.   SAAP, as I think it should be called, simply tries to quantify how much better.  But it discounts some of the things the old-timers hold dear(W, RBI, RS) because they aren't "individual" stats.    Which isn't the worst thing on earth but the SAAP disciples openly mock those stats.   So there's more pushback to SAAP than there should be.

The fail with WAR, or SAAP, or whatever you might want to call it, is that it attempts to boil performance down to a single number.  Yet it ignores those attributes of a player that either cannot be measured at all by statistics, or are measured incompletely or inaccurately.

I make fun of folks like BL (in particular) because he places so much emphasis on WAR while giving lip service acknowledgement that "it's not perfect", yet he keeps going back to the number as an indisputable measure of a player.

WAR is a stat that should be looked at in conjunction with MANY OTHER factors and weighed appropriately.  it should NOT be seen as the primary evaluating measure of a player's performance.

Attributes that can't be measured by statistics can't be measured by any stat. That doesn't mean you stop using stats. It just means that you understand that nothing is all encompassing.

I've never said that WAR was indisputable. It's just one tool that we have.

I'm still waiting for you to explain "why [you're] doing this."

You just quoted the post in which I did, Captain SlowBrain.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/18/2014 3:21:00 PM (view original):
I love it when you say things like "wins are not relevant" in baseball.  It makes me feel so dirty.

Say it again.

So you said this ^ because WAR doesn't measure things that can't be measured by stats? Good job.

I guess being stupid on accident was the right answer all along.

It's OK.  We all know you were just born that way.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/21/2014 12:01:00 PM (view original):
It's OK.  We all know you were just born that way.

Great comeback, kid in my son's first grade class.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/21/2014 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/18/2014 3:21:00 PM (view original):
I love it when you say things like "wins are not relevant" in baseball.  It makes me feel so dirty.

Say it again.

So you said this ^ because WAR doesn't measure things that can't be measured by stats? Good job.

Try this: "I make fun of folks like BL (in particular) because he places so much emphasis on WAR while giving lip service acknowledgement that "it's not perfect", yet he keeps going back to the number as an indisputable measure of a player."

Posted by tecwrg on 4/21/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/21/2014 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/18/2014 3:21:00 PM (view original):
I love it when you say things like "wins are not relevant" in baseball.  It makes me feel so dirty.

Say it again.

So you said this ^ because WAR doesn't measure things that can't be measured by stats? Good job.

Try this: "I make fun of folks like BL (in particular) because he places so much emphasis on WAR while giving lip service acknowledgement that "it's not perfect", yet he keeps going back to the number as an indisputable measure of a player."

I've never once said WAR was indisputable.

I point out in the very first post in this thread that there are issues with WAR. It's not perfect and no one says it is. Good straw man, though.

Yet, despite the lip service you constantly pay to the issues with it, you still keep going back to it as "fact", i.e. a guy with a WAR of 5.4 is "one better" than a guy with a WAR of 4.4.

Good job, Nigel Tufnel.

In general, a guy with a higher WAR is better. But I'd probably round that off to 5 and 4 and not argue if you had a reason for thinking the guy with the 4 WAR was actually better.

Your hypothetical straw man arguments are not helping you here.

"STRAW MAN, ************!!!!!"

Par for the "tec's got nothing" course.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/21/2014 11:23:00 AM (view original):
So call it something different if you want, I guess.  The stat attempts to measure how many more Wins a team had Above a Replacement level player based on how they played during the season.  It's pretty straightforward with its description.

I get what you're saying, the stat is more advanced, in that it's not as easy as "1 run scored...2 runs scored...3 runs scored...he has 3 runs scored!"  I know that scares people.

Not really how they played.   It's more "the stats they put up with no regard to the situation."    Which makes me fine with "Stats above average player" or SAAP.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/21/2014 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/21/2014 11:23:00 AM (view original):
So call it something different if you want, I guess.  The stat attempts to measure how many more Wins a team had Above a Replacement level player based on how they played during the season.  It's pretty straightforward with its description.

I get what you're saying, the stat is more advanced, in that it's not as easy as "1 run scored...2 runs scored...3 runs scored...he has 3 runs scored!"  I know that scares people.

Not really how they played.   It's more "the stats they put up with no regard to the situation."    Which makes me fine with "Stats above average player" or SAAP.

Should the batter get extra credit for a base hit because the guy ahead of him got on base? Does the run from a solo home run count less in the 2nd inning than it does in the 8th?