If we look at their runs allowed in a vacuum, it doesn't make sense. When we consider the context of the run scoring in each year, it does.

If you looked at 2000 Radke's and 2016 Scherzer's WAR in a vacuum, would you assume they had similarly effective seasons?

In other words, put 2000 Radke on the 2016 Nats and 2016 Scherzer on the 2000 Twins, they would each still put up a 6.2 WAR because of their relative abilities to limit runs?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 6:46:00 AM (view original):
If you looked at 2000 Radke's and 2016 Scherzer's WAR in a vacuum, would you assume they had similarly effective seasons?

In other words, put 2000 Radke on the 2016 Nats and 2016 Scherzer on the 2000 Twins, they would each still put up a 6.2 WAR because of their relative abilities to limit runs?

The answer is definitively no.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 6:46:00 AM (view original):
If you looked at 2000 Radke's and 2016 Scherzer's WAR in a vacuum, would you assume they had similarly effective seasons?

In other words, put 2000 Radke on the 2016 Nats and 2016 Scherzer on the 2000 Twins, they would each still put up a 6.2 WAR because of their relative abilities to limit runs?

If we looked at each pitcher's season in a vacuum, obviously Scherzer was better. But in reality, their seasons were equally valuable because baseball doesn't exist in a vacuum.

In the same way, if a pitcher in 1910 had the exact same line as a pitcher in 2000, their seasons weren't equally valuable in reality, despite being equally valuable in a vacuum.

Adding context allows us to see that preventing runs was a much harder task in 2000.

It was harder in 2000 because it was the steroid era. I agree but Mad Max is still a much better pitcher than Radke. Again Radke was not garbage he earned $60Mil+ in his career.

Part of the problem is that BL keeps using phrases like "in a vacuum" and "WAR" when he clearly doesn't understand them...

And then the rest of you guys keep finding exceptions to his WAR arguments (or Trump arguments or Edgar arguments or Mussina arguments), and wind him up again like one of those cymbal-clapping monkeys and the rest of us have to deal with the annoying rhythm of his stupidity.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 9:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 6:46:00 AM (view original):
If you looked at 2000 Radke's and 2016 Scherzer's WAR in a vacuum, would you assume they had similarly effective seasons?

In other words, put 2000 Radke on the 2016 Nats and 2016 Scherzer on the 2000 Twins, they would each still put up a 6.2 WAR because of their relative abilities to limit runs?

If we looked at each pitcher's season in a vacuum, obviously Scherzer was better. But in reality, their seasons were equally valuable because baseball doesn't exist in a vacuum.

In the same way, if a pitcher in 1910 had the exact same line as a pitcher in 2000, their seasons weren't equally valuable in reality, despite being equally valuable in a vacuum.

Adding context allows us to see that preventing runs was a much harder task in 2000.

But again, most people use WAR to compare players across eras WITHOUT context. In fact you yourself have argued many times that context means nothing with many stats based on the logic/mathematics.

If WAR needs subjective analysis for cross year comparisons then it's a much weaker stat than many think.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/28/2017 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 9:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 6:46:00 AM (view original):
If you looked at 2000 Radke's and 2016 Scherzer's WAR in a vacuum, would you assume they had similarly effective seasons?

In other words, put 2000 Radke on the 2016 Nats and 2016 Scherzer on the 2000 Twins, they would each still put up a 6.2 WAR because of their relative abilities to limit runs?

If we looked at each pitcher's season in a vacuum, obviously Scherzer was better. But in reality, their seasons were equally valuable because baseball doesn't exist in a vacuum.

In the same way, if a pitcher in 1910 had the exact same line as a pitcher in 2000, their seasons weren't equally valuable in reality, despite being equally valuable in a vacuum.

Adding context allows us to see that preventing runs was a much harder task in 2000.

But again, most people use WAR to compare players across eras WITHOUT context. In fact you yourself have argued many times that context means nothing with many stats based on the logic/mathematics.

If WAR needs subjective analysis for cross year comparisons then it's a much weaker stat than many think.

I'm not sure I follow your argument.

I've never argued that context means nothing. Context is important and WAR helps provide it. When you compare players across eras using WAR, you get a measurement that has already taken into account the fact that, for instance, it was much harder to prevent runs in the year 2000 than it was to prevent runs in the year 1910 or the year 2016.

I don't think WAR needs subjective analysis. We didn't do a subjective analysis in the Radke/Scherzer comparison. We saw a number that looked weird and dug into it. If WAR (or any other stat) only confirmed what we already knew from looking at ERA (or WHIP, or SO, or whatever), it wouldn't have a purpose.

"There is no one way to determine WAR. There are hundreds of steps to make this calculation, and dozens of places where reasonable people can disagree on the best way to implement a particular part of the framework. We have taken the utmost care and study at each step in the process, and believe all of our choices are well reasoned and defensible. But WAR is necessarily an approximation and will never be as precise or accurate as one would like"

Radke's similar pitchers: B. Arroyo, J. Lieber, K. Tapani, K. Lohse, T. Belcher, B. Gullickson, D. Haren, S. Erickson, S. Sanderson, D. Drabek
Hunter's similar pitchers: L. Tiant, M. Pappas, O. Hershiser, V. Blue, K. Brown, B. Welch, D. Drysdale, T. Hudson, J. Perry, B. Pierce
Max Max similar pitchers: D. Price, A. Wainwright, J. Cueto, J. Santana, D. McLain, C. Kershaw, J. Lester, J. Tudor, G. Nolan, S. Maglie


Hunter --- 8x All Star, 5 WS rings....maybe you can argue stats but you can't argue championships AND stats.

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
It was harder in 2000 because it was the steroid era. I agree but Mad Max is still a much better pitcher than Radke. Again Radke was not garbage he earned $60Mil+ in his career.

how much he earned doesn't make him a good pitcher. Marvin Bernard earned over $13 million in a 9 year career. He sucked.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 9:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 6:46:00 AM (view original):
If you looked at 2000 Radke's and 2016 Scherzer's WAR in a vacuum, would you assume they had similarly effective seasons?

In other words, put 2000 Radke on the 2016 Nats and 2016 Scherzer on the 2000 Twins, they would each still put up a 6.2 WAR because of their relative abilities to limit runs?

If we looked at each pitcher's season in a vacuum, obviously Scherzer was better. But in reality, their seasons were equally valuable because baseball doesn't exist in a vacuum.

In the same way, if a pitcher in 1910 had the exact same line as a pitcher in 2000, their seasons weren't equally valuable in reality, despite being equally valuable in a vacuum.

Adding context allows us to see that preventing runs was a much harder task in 2000.

If I understand your argument . . . context is not important, unless it is, but then again it might not be. Unless you need it.

And the factor that determines whether or not context is needed is how badly you've argued yourself into a corner with an unsupportable statement, and the only way out is to change direction by adding or removing"context".

I think the only vacuum here is the one between your ears.

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 1:21:00 PM (view original):
"There is no one way to determine WAR. There are hundreds of steps to make this calculation, and dozens of places where reasonable people can disagree on the best way to implement a particular part of the framework. We have taken the utmost care and study at each step in the process, and believe all of our choices are well reasoned and defensible. But WAR is necessarily an approximation and will never be as precise or accurate as one would like"

Radke's similar pitchers: B. Arroyo, J. Lieber, K. Tapani, K. Lohse, T. Belcher, B. Gullickson, D. Haren, S. Erickson, S. Sanderson, D. Drabek
Hunter's similar pitchers: L. Tiant, M. Pappas, O. Hershiser, V. Blue, K. Brown, B. Welch, D. Drysdale, T. Hudson, J. Perry, B. Pierce
Max Max similar pitchers: D. Price, A. Wainwright, J. Cueto, J. Santana, D. McLain, C. Kershaw, J. Lester, J. Tudor, G. Nolan, S. Maglie


Hunter --- 8x All Star, 5 WS rings....maybe you can argue stats but you can't argue championships AND stats.

The thing about Hunter is that his stats weren't very good. He had three dominant years. And everything else was meh.

Hank Bauer has seven world series rings. Frankie Crosetti has EIGHT. That doesn't make them Hall of Famers.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 9:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 6:46:00 AM (view original):
If you looked at 2000 Radke's and 2016 Scherzer's WAR in a vacuum, would you assume they had similarly effective seasons?

In other words, put 2000 Radke on the 2016 Nats and 2016 Scherzer on the 2000 Twins, they would each still put up a 6.2 WAR because of their relative abilities to limit runs?

If we looked at each pitcher's season in a vacuum, obviously Scherzer was better. But in reality, their seasons were equally valuable because baseball doesn't exist in a vacuum.

In the same way, if a pitcher in 1910 had the exact same line as a pitcher in 2000, their seasons weren't equally valuable in reality, despite being equally valuable in a vacuum.

Adding context allows us to see that preventing runs was a much harder task in 2000.

If I understand your argument . . . context is not important, unless it is, but then again it might not be. Unless you need it.

And the factor that determines whether or not context is needed is how badly you've argued yourself into a corner with an unsupportable statement, and the only way out is to change direction by adding or removing"context".

I think the only vacuum here is the one between your ears.

Context is important. When have I ever said it wasn't?

Posted by wylie715 on 6/28/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
It was harder in 2000 because it was the steroid era. I agree but Mad Max is still a much better pitcher than Radke. Again Radke was not garbage he earned $60Mil+ in his career.

how much he earned doesn't make him a good pitcher. Marvin Bernard earned over $13 million in a 9 year career. He sucked.

$9M vs. $60M stop it!

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 1:21:00 PM (view original):
"There is no one way to determine WAR. There are hundreds of steps to make this calculation, and dozens of places where reasonable people can disagree on the best way to implement a particular part of the framework. We have taken the utmost care and study at each step in the process, and believe all of our choices are well reasoned and defensible. But WAR is necessarily an approximation and will never be as precise or accurate as one would like"

Radke's similar pitchers: B. Arroyo, J. Lieber, K. Tapani, K. Lohse, T. Belcher, B. Gullickson, D. Haren, S. Erickson, S. Sanderson, D. Drabek
Hunter's similar pitchers: L. Tiant, M. Pappas, O. Hershiser, V. Blue, K. Brown, B. Welch, D. Drysdale, T. Hudson, J. Perry, B. Pierce
Max Max similar pitchers: D. Price, A. Wainwright, J. Cueto, J. Santana, D. McLain, C. Kershaw, J. Lester, J. Tudor, G. Nolan, S. Maglie


Hunter --- 8x All Star, 5 WS rings....maybe you can argue stats but you can't argue championships AND stats.

The thing about Hunter is that his stats weren't very good. He had three dominant years. And everything else was meh.

Hank Bauer has seven world series rings. Frankie Crosetti has EIGHT. That doesn't make them Hall of Famers.

I said both stats AND rings. I would argue he had 5 great yrs:

71: 21 - 11 --- 16 CGs and 4 SHO
72: 21 - 7 --- 16 CGs and 5 SHO
73: 21 - 5 -- 11 CGs and 3 SHO
74: 25 - 12 (led the league in wins) --- 23 CGs and 6 SHO
75: 23 - 14 (led the league in wins) -- 30 CGs and 7 SHO

That's 111 - 49 over a five yr stretch with 96 CGs and 25 SHO!!

Add to this 8x ALL STAR; 5x WS Champ and 1 yr Cy Young

Bauer was only on 3 all star teams and had pedestrian #s and hit .245 in the post season.
Crosetti was a below average hitter and stumbled upon his 6 WS titles.

Hunter was critical to the successes of his teams. He is no Nolan Ryan but he is also much better than a pedestrian pitcher and was paid as such as at the time he signed the richest contract in baseball history. I can see your argument but your utter dismissal of mine is puzzling.