WAR is a great shorthand because it considers offense, defense, baserunning, position played, league scoring environment, and ballpark.

No one thinks it's perfect.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/9/2016 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Quote post by sjpoker on 9/8/2016 8:23:00 PM:
WAR don't give no ***** because it doesn't consider situational stats. Which is why BL doesn't care. Again. If WAR don't use it BL don't care about it.

.

What stats do consider situations, in your opinion?

Does batting average or on-base do it? Home runs?

Again, you're bashing a stat for not doing something it's not intended to do and that essentially no stat does, other than WPA and a few others, but I can't imagine you're a fan of WPA.

Like I said. You and many other overrate WAR. Analysis - whether it is current or predictive - cannot use something like WAR alone. Jtpsops pointed that out in his statement. You are locked into WAR and although it certainly can be a useful tool, you often use it as an end all.

Think of some questions that come up among baseball fans - who is better? What team will win the WS? How will so and so do in his new home? It's bottom of the 7th and so and so is up with 2 on, 2 out, in a 2-1 game. I root for the pitcher's team. Should I be worried?

Statistics are historical performance. They should give us a lot of information to answer these questions. But they don't give us all the answers.

Look at the 1988 series. Going into it the Dodgers as a team had a 40 WAR and the A's had a 50 WAR. If we went solely on WAR, not knowing the outcome, I'd say overwhelmingly the A's would squash them. But that didn't happen. For a lot of reasons. Dodgers had a better coaching staff. Several players rose above their talent level and did some amazing stuff. A's were a young team and panicked. And of course, a gritty but injured veteran facing the greatest closer ever at the height of his powers guessed at a 3-2 pitch and hit a home run.

WAR doesn't tell us **** about how that could have occurred. In fact, I really don't know what any of your exotics could have told us how all that happened. It was all balls and strikes. Players in the moment playing above, to, and below their abilities.

That's why when I hear you prattle on about this or that stat, I know you don't watch any of the games, and probably sat the bench during your short career at Robeson Community College. None of all of that even occurs to you. Baseball to you is basically Sim League Baseball. You read only the box scores.

Like I said. You and many other overrate WAR. Analysis - whether it is current or predictive - cannot use something like WAR alone. Jtpsops pointed that out in his statement. You are locked into WAR and although it certainly can be a useful tool, you often use it as an end all.

I'm not overrating it. Like I said, it's not perfect but it's a good shorthand. If one shortstop has 85 WAR and another has 65, it's a pretty safe bet to say the first shortstop was significantly better over his career.

Think of some questions that come up among baseball fans - who is better? What team will win the WS? How will so and so do in his new home? It's bottom of the 7th and so and so is up with 2 on, 2 out, in a 2-1 game. I root for the pitcher's team. Should I be worried?

Statistics are historical performance. They should give us a lot of information to answer these questions. But they don't give us all the answers.

Those are all very different questions. Who is better is almost always best answered by stats. You could make a pretty good guess at what team will win the world series with an in-depth look at individual stats, but there's a lot of luck that also goes into that answer. The best team, in terms of talent, doesn't always win. How will so and so do could also be estimated based on stats, but you'll never be sure because no one can predict the future. NOTHING gives us all the answers.

Look at the 1988 series. Going into it the Dodgers as a team had a 40 WAR and the A's had a 50 WAR. If we went solely on WAR, not knowing the outcome, I'd say overwhelmingly the A's would squash them.

See my paragraph above. This is kind of ridiculous. You're hating on one stat because it doesn't do something that no stat does.

WAR doesn't tell us **** about how that could have occurred.

It's not trying to. Neither is batting average or home runs. They are just stats.

That's why when I hear you prattle on about this or that stat, I know you don't watch any of the games, and probably sat the bench during your short career at Robeson Community College. None of all of that even occurs to you. Baseball to you is basically Sim League Baseball. You read only the box scores.

And you say all this because I like stats? Everybody enjoys baseball for their own reasons. I love watching games. I watched almost the entire Red Sox/Padres game the other night because David Price was pitching and the Padres have a flashy young shortstop who really can't hit but fields like a stud and has been given up on by a couple teams already. And I'm a Dodger fan. I don't have a vested interest in that game. especially with the Padres 795 games out of first place.

But I also like understanding why Matt Kemp is garbage even though he's going to have 30+ home runs and 100+ RBI this year. I like understanding that Tony Gwynn and Tim Raines were pretty similar in overall career value despite the difference in reputation. WAR helps with those things.

Why did Gwynn play for one team only and Raines played for 57 different teams?

I don't know. Maybe Raines made up a story to try to trash someone and then got caught in his big fat lie?

"I'm not overrating it. Like I said, it's not perfect but it's a good shorthand. If one shortstop has 85 WAR and another has 65, it's a pretty safe bet to say the first shortstop was significantly better over his career."

Safe bet...maybe. I'll concede WAR generally lines up with the best players in the league, but I've also seen players I know WAR and other metrics flat out get wrong. I watch games, I love analyzing stats, and I look at advanced metrics, even though I don't like them. If the eye test and stats tell me a guy is bad, but WAR tells me he's average or better - chances are good WAR is wrong. If the eye test and stats tell me a guy is really good but WAR has him as average or below - chances are good WAR is wrong.

And WAR is wrong enough that I'm not willing to look at it by itself and take it as gospel. It's an approximation, nothing more, nothing less. It must be used in conjunction with other tools and numbers.

Give me an example of a player WAR gets completely wrong?

(not saying like a challenge, I'm curious. I think it gets catchers wrong all the time...or, in other words, doesn't adequately capture catcher defense)

I've gotten flack for this before (mostly from dahs) but one guy that has always been a sore spot for me is Nick Markakis. I'm not saying he's the best RF in the league by any means, but in all his years in Baltimore, I can count on one hand the number of times he missed a ball and I thought "Damn. So-and-so would have had that." He was reliable, he didn't make errors and he had a very good arm - routinely among the league leaders in OF assists. And yet most advanced metrics had him as a negative fielder during that time. My eyes and his stats tell me he was a solid-to-good fielder - average at absolute worst. The Orioles never suffered for having him in RF, but the metrics will tell you otherwise.

That's just one example that always sticks with me, but I've seen plenty of others. Even just one-season examples, like when JP Arencibia lead the majors in WAR at C, despite leading the majors in both passed balls and errors behind the plate.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/9/2016 2:50:00 PM (view original):
I don't know. Maybe Raines made up a story to try to trash someone and then got caught in his big fat lie?

More likely that Raines narced on people then denied doing so despite tons of evidence that he did.

But, getting past your tendency to cry to ADMIN, I'd say baseball people didn't view them as "about the same" or whatever the **** you said.

So should one trust your mighty WAR or the judgement of people who are fighting for their jobs?

BL you must be on the spectrum. I'm not saying WAR should do or not do more than it does. Its a flawed stat. Just like ERA and plenty of others.

I'm talking about how YOU use WAR in your arguments.

"NOTHING gives us all the answers." Thats what I said! Duh. You cannot use WAR or the exotics or any kind of other statistics as the sole reason for analysis of the game.

Thats why you trip up so badly on 'strikeouts are the same as line outs' and things like that. To you its an even in space with no bearing on other events. Wrong. The point of baseball is to win the game and win it all.

You're hung up on stats. Whether you watched the Dead Sox the other night or not, all you ever talk about in these forums is how this stat says this and that stat says that. Its ridiculous.

Quote post by Jtpsops on 9/9/2016 2:55:00 PM:
I've gotten flack for this before (mostly from dahs) but one guy that has always been a sore spot for me is Nick Markakis. I'm not saying he's the best RF in the league by any means, but in all his years in Baltimore, I can count on one hand the number of times he missed a ball and I thought "Damn. So-and-so would have had that." He was reliable, he didn't make errors and he had a very good arm - routinely among the league leaders in OF assists. And yet most advanced metrics had him as a negative fielder during that time. My eyes and his stats tell me he was a solid-to-good fielder - average at absolute worst. The Orioles never suffered for having him in RF, but the metrics will tell you otherwise.

That's just one example that always sticks with me, but I've seen plenty of others. Even just one-season examples, like when JP Arencibia lead the majors in WAR at C, despite leading the majors in both passed balls and errors behind the plate.

Think about it though. When you're watching a game on TV, how much of the right fielder do you really see? You don't usually see him until the last second or so before the ball gets to him (or gets passed him). It's tough to eye test outfield defense. How good he is really depends on things you don't see--what his break on the ball was like and how other right fielders play the same ball.

Defensive stats aren't perfect but they give us some context that we just don't have with the eye test alone because it's impossible to see and remember every play by every fielder and sort them in your brain by good, average, and bad. The cool thing is that statcast is even better. If we ever get the full data publicly, it will really erase a lot of the uncertainty surrounding fielding.

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/9/2016 2:55:00 PM (view original):
I've gotten flack for this before (mostly from dahs) but one guy that has always been a sore spot for me is Nick Markakis. I'm not saying he's the best RF in the league by any means, but in all his years in Baltimore, I can count on one hand the number of times he missed a ball and I thought "Damn. So-and-so would have had that." He was reliable, he didn't make errors and he had a very good arm - routinely among the league leaders in OF assists. And yet most advanced metrics had him as a negative fielder during that time. My eyes and his stats tell me he was a solid-to-good fielder - average at absolute worst. The Orioles never suffered for having him in RF, but the metrics will tell you otherwise.

That's just one example that always sticks with me, but I've seen plenty of others. Even just one-season examples, like when JP Arencibia lead the majors in WAR at C, despite leading the majors in both passed balls and errors behind the plate.

WAR is generally horrible at defense. No one can agree on how to measure it. A guy like Markakis might not have the speed of another RF, but may have the situational awareness to take the best route to the ball. ******* WAR won't help you with that.

And if you are sitting in the 9th inning of fame 7 of the WS with 1 out and a guy on second, do you want a guy who these exotics say is better based on some pretty cloudy methodology or a guy like Markakis who is gonna take the best route to the ball?

Will statcast really erase a lot of the uncertainty surrounding fielding?

We will never know if the pitcher was supposed to throw a fastball low and away but ended up on the outside corner. Or if the scouting report was wrong. And if you don't understand how that effects fielding, there's not much I can do for you.

Posted by sjpoker on 9/9/2016 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/9/2016 2:55:00 PM (view original):
I've gotten flack for this before (mostly from dahs) but one guy that has always been a sore spot for me is Nick Markakis. I'm not saying he's the best RF in the league by any means, but in all his years in Baltimore, I can count on one hand the number of times he missed a ball and I thought "Damn. So-and-so would have had that." He was reliable, he didn't make errors and he had a very good arm - routinely among the league leaders in OF assists. And yet most advanced metrics had him as a negative fielder during that time. My eyes and his stats tell me he was a solid-to-good fielder - average at absolute worst. The Orioles never suffered for having him in RF, but the metrics will tell you otherwise.

That's just one example that always sticks with me, but I've seen plenty of others. Even just one-season examples, like when JP Arencibia lead the majors in WAR at C, despite leading the majors in both passed balls and errors behind the plate.

WAR is generally horrible at defense. No one can agree on how to measure it. A guy like Markakis might not have the speed of another RF, but may have the situational awareness to take the best route to the ball. ******* WAR won't help you with that.

And if you are sitting in the 9th inning of fame 7 of the WS with 1 out and a guy on second, do you want a guy who these exotics say is better based on some pretty cloudy methodology or a guy like Markakis who is gonna take the best route to the ball?

JJ Hardy is another guy that fits that mold. He's slow as hell and doesn't have great range, but like Ripken, he positions himself pre-AB as well as any SS in the game. Stuff like that doesn't get reflected either.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/9/2016 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Will statcast really erase a lot of the uncertainty surrounding fielding?

We will never know if the pitcher was supposed to throw a fastball low and away but ended up on the outside corner. Or if the scouting report was wrong. And if you don't understand how that effects fielding, there's not much I can do for you.

Hopefully that takes off.

Route efficiency and max speed will now determine range, not all these "metrics".

cant wait.