WAR is the dumbest stat known to mankind (Trout vs. Betts)

[Kimmi]

1. WAR does use the "eye test" but against a standard. Many many fans advocate the Eye Test, but not one I have ever heard of has any sort of standard. In fact, too often the eye test degenerates into "I saw that guy make a couple errors once." Sometimes, it just evolves into the Reputation Test, where you hear a guy is an excellent defender so if he does nothing wrong when you watch him, hey, it must be true.

 

2. Using your instincts leaves you with quantifiable opinions, right? If I asked you who is the best defensive CF, you might say Bradley or Pillar or Buxton or Cain or some other candidate. What would you say if I asked you to support that opinion? Even i I asked you to support Benentendi/Bradley/Betts OF over Martinez/Benintendi/Betts OF, how would you support the opinion - probably shared by many including me - that it was better? This isn't an attack on you or anyone. It's the nature of what we see when watching games and how we all watch them given the massive imbalances in the players we see.

 

3. WAR most definitely has flaws, but it still is absolutely more encompassing than we are fans are able to achieve by watching games. Especially watching games on TV, where you don't have any option on what part of the play you watch. I see plenty of people talk about the jump an outfielder gets on flyballs - good or bad. That type of evaluation - important for defense - is something you rarely if ever can see from a televised game.

 

4. In the past, you have often said WAR has too many moving parts, and any system that has more moving parts is more likely to break down. Maybe true, But look around your house. I bet you have a car and not a horse. I bet you have a washing machine and not a washboard. I bet you have a refrigerator and not an icehouse. I bet you have an oven and not a rotatiing spit over a flame pit. I bet you have an air conditioner and not a hand-held fan. Every device I mentioned has more moving parts than predecessor I compared it to. Every device I mentioned is more likely to break down than its predecessor. Yet they all have another thing in common - they all work better than their predecessor, too.

 

Excellent post, Notin.

[Kimmi]

Like RBI

 

RBI is a fine stat, as long as it's taken in context.

[Kimmi]

Probably two of the simplest stats are Ks and BBs, or variations of them like K%, K/BB ratio, etc., for both pitchers and batters. Everyone uses them without much of a second thought, probably because they've been around forever. At the same time, Ks and BBs are probably the most subjective stat there is, far more subjective than defensive metrics. Not only do umpires have different strike zones, but how often do they miss calls? Additionally, it has been proven that umpires have biases.

[Kimmi]

Also, confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

 

The data collectors at BIS have checks and measures in place to eliminate most of the bias.

[notin]

Like RBI

 

Absolutely nothing wrong with RBI.

 

I don't consider it a skill for an individual player, but certainly leading the league can get a player consideration for MVP...

[MADSTORK]

For the love of god, take this analytical garb and flush it!

[S5Dewey]

But are they more reliable than the eye test? The entire crux of your argument about WAR is that it is flawed. Are you saying the eye test isn't?

 

NEVER have I said that the eye test isn't flawed. All I've ever said about the eye test is that it has value, something that seems to be disputed by the stats people.

Forgive me, but I just get really tired of posting observations and being told that they're not valid because a bunch of numbers says so. I believe the eye test is valid to some degree just as I believe the statistics are valid to some degree.

 

For example, I've observed that JBJ's swing is bigger when he's swinging at a pitch on the outside edge of the plate but it's smaller when the pitch is on the inside. There may be stats to dispute that but I've had enough experience to recognize a large swing and a smaller swing when I see it and if someone has a statistic that disagrees with that I'm going to believe my eyes and my experience.

[moonslav59]

NEVER have I said that the eye test isn't flawed. All I've ever said about the eye test is that it has value, something that seems to be disputed by the stats people.

Forgive me, but I just get really tired of posting observations and being told that they're not valid because a bunch of numbers says so. I believe the eye test is valid to some degree just as I believe the statistics are valid to some degree.

 

For example, I've observed that JBJ's swing is bigger when he's swinging at a pitch on the outside edge of the plate but it's smaller when the pitch is on the inside. There may be stats to dispute that but I've had enough experience to recognize a large swing and a smaller swing when I see it and if someone has a statistic that disagrees with that I'm going to believe my eyes and my experience.

 

Can you give another example of someone bashing one of your observations.

 

The one you gave seems spot on and probably can be backed up with data.

[notin]

..

deleted post

[notin]

Moo

NEVER have I said that the eye test isn't flawed. All I've ever said about the eye test is that it has value, something that seems to be disputed by the stats people.

Forgive me, but I just get really tired of posting observations and being told that they're not valid because a bunch of numbers says so. I believe the eye test is valid to some degree just as I believe the statistics are valid to some degree.

 

For example, I've observed that JBJ's swing is bigger when he's swinging at a pitch on the outside edge of the plate but it's smaller when the pitch is on the inside. There may be stats to dispute that but I've had enough experience to recognize a large swing and a smaller swing when I see it and if someone has a statistic that disagrees with that I'm going to believe my eyes and my experience.

 

I am fairly certain no one has ever used WAR or any other stat to dispute swing mechanics. Especially when discussing defense.

 

I've listed several flaws with eye test defense. What are the flaws you find with WAR?

[notin]

They work better when they work but they're not as reliable. I don't doubt that WAR works fine in some instances, the problem is that we don't know which instances.

 

I'm 100% certain WAR is still more reliable than eye test when it comes to evaluating defense...

[a700hitter]

Moo

 

I am fairly certain no one has ever used WAR or any other stat to dispute swing mechanics. Especially when discussing defense.

 

I've listed several flaws with eye test defense. What are the flaws you find with WAR?

Not to put words in Dewey's mouth, but that is why he says the eye test has value-- because there is no stat for that.

[notin]

Not to put words in Dewey's mouth, but that is why he says the eye test has value-- because there is no stat for that.

 

No stat for the swing? True. That is why observations like that go unchallenged. Or go challenged by someone with dissimilar observations.

 

Defense? There are a lot of stats for that.

[a700hitter]

I'm 100% certain WAR is still more reliable than eye test when it comes to evaluating defense...

Does it support keeping Bradley on the MLB roster and not exercising his minor league option due to his terrible offensive performance?

[a700hitter]

No stat for the swing? True. That is why observations like that go unchallenged. Or go challenged by someone with dissimilar observations.

And that is why the eye test is valuable. Stats can't tell you that.

[jd98]

WAR isn't a stat, as evidenced by the fact it differs depending on what website you're using. Maybe bWAR is a stat, and fWAR is another stat, and WARP, and eWAR (if ESPN has a WAR), and whoever else wants to create their own WAR, but I don't consider those as stats either.

 

If Player A has a 5.0 WAR and Player B has a 5.3 WAR, I wouldn't necessarily say that either player is better or worse. I would say they are comparable. However, if Player C has a 3.0 WAR, I'd assume that A and B are far superior to C. WAR is just a way to compare players from different teams and different positions for the overall value they provide to a team. Is the calculation the greatest thing in the world? No, but I'm not sure there is one silver bullet stat or metric that is the end all be all. However, stats at least try to mitigate the biases that hurt the value of the "eye test."

 

You could also tell that Player C is inferior just by glancing at the traditional stats, and you'd get a lot more information in doing so. If you just look at Player C's WAR and see it's 3, what do you specifically learn about his abilities from that? Pretty much nothing. Actually, you can't even assume Player C is inferior from looking only at WAR. Since it's cumulative, he could be a slightly better player than A and B, but was injured for half the season. Something you would see by looking at his stat line. So yeah, War, huh, good god/ What is it good for/ Absolutely nothing, listen to me

[Maxbialystock]

Probably two of the simplest stats are Ks and BBs, or variations of them like K%, K/BB ratio, etc., for both pitchers and batters. Everyone uses them without much of a second thought, probably because they've been around forever. At the same time, Ks and BBs are probably the most subjective stat there is, far more subjective than defensive metrics. Not only do umpires have different strike zones, but how often do they miss calls? Additionally, it has been proven that umpires have biases.

 

Meh. These days we complain about a missed call that is maybe an inch or two off. The vast majority of calls are correct, and that doesn't include the bad pitches that are swung on. Speaking of which, the first and third base umps have the additional duty of determining whether a batter swung or not. My impression of watching endless pitch counts is that the calls are remarkably consistent.

 

On the other hand, I consider reliable comparisons of defensive plays to be borderline impossible.

[cp176]

I'm wondering if there is a stat that measures the number of times that a catcher (Leon or Vazquez) moves (frames) a pitched ball that is literally on the black of the strike zone to influence an umpire's decision? It really looks to me that we have had a number of pitches that could very well have been called strikes that perhaps weren't because of that slight movement. Of course it is important to have catchers that are good at framing pitches but sometimes it looks to me that it might be over done by both of our guys. There might be a few umps out there who won't call what looks to be a strike if that ball is moved.

[S5Dewey]

I think I need to recuse myself from this debate because it's going no place.

 

Me: WAR is not as important as most people think it is. They eye test is equally as valuable.

 

Others: War is good. Nothing statistical can come from the eye test because it's not statistically based.

 

Me: And that's the problem. The human element - the eye test - has to be considered in considering the value of a player, too.

 

Others: Baseball is based in statistics and nothing statistical can come from the eye test because it's not statistically based.

 

Me: And that's the problem. The human element - the eye test - has to be considered in considering the value of a player, too.

 

Others: Baseball is based in statistics and nothing statistical can come from the eye test because it's not statistically based.

 

Me: And that's the problem. The human element - the eye test - has to be considered in considering the value of a player, too.

 

..and so, ad infinitum. You folks have a nice time dragging baseball down to the point where it's "about as much fun as doing your taxes". I'm going to enjoy the games for what they are, human beings playing a game I've come to love.

[Bellhorn04]

WAR isn't a stat, as evidenced by the fact it differs depending on what website you're using. Maybe bWAR is a stat, and fWAR is another stat, and WARP, and eWAR (if ESPN has a WAR), and whoever else wants to create their own WAR, but I don't consider those as stats either.

 

 

 

You could also tell that Player C is inferior just by glancing at the traditional stats, and you'd get a lot more information in doing so. If you just look at Player C's WAR and see it's 3, what do you specifically learn about his abilities from that? Pretty much nothing. Actually, you can't even assume Player C is inferior from looking only at WAR. Since it's cumulative, he could be a slightly better player than A and B, but was injured for half the season. Something you would see by looking at his stat line. So yeah, War, huh, good god/ What is it good for/ Absolutely nothing, listen to me

 

Wrong. For starters, there are no 'traditional stats' for defense, other than errors and fielding %, or base running, other than base stealing #s.

 

So your post is good for nothing.

 

And please stop using that song. It might have been funny the first 500 times...

 

[Bellhorn04]

I think I need to recuse myself from this debate because it's going no place.

 

Me: WAR is not as important as most people think it is. They eye test is equally as valuable.

 

Others: War is good. Nothing statistical can come from the eye test because it's not statistically based.

 

Me: And that's the problem. The human element - the eye test - has to be considered in considering the value of a player, too.

 

Others: Baseball is based in statistics and nothing statistical can come from the eye test because it's not statistically based.

 

Me: And that's the problem. The human element - the eye test - has to be considered in considering the value of a player, too.

 

Others: Baseball is based in statistics and nothing statistical can come from the eye test because it's not statistically based.

 

Me: And that's the problem. The human element - the eye test - has to be considered in considering the value of a player, too.

 

..and so, ad infinitum. You folks have a nice time dragging baseball down to the point where it's "about as much fun as doing your taxes". I'm going to enjoy the games for what they are, human beings playing a game I've come to love.

 

Nah, you'll be back. The countdown started at 8:24.

[cp176]

I think I need to recuse myself from this debate because it's going no place.

 

Me: WAR is not as important as most people think it is. They eye test is equally as valuable.

 

Others: War is good. Nothing statistical can come from the eye test because it's not statistically based.

 

Me: And that's the problem. The human element - the eye test - has to be considered in considering the value of a player, too.

 

Others: Baseball is based in statistics and nothing statistical can come from the eye test because it's not statistically based.

 

Me: And that's the problem. The human element - the eye test - has to be considered in considering the value of a player, too.

 

Others: Baseball is based in statistics and nothing statistical can come from the eye test because it's not statistically based.

 

Me: And that's the problem. The human element - the eye test - has to be considered in considering the value of a player, too.

 

..and so, ad infinitum. You folks have a nice time dragging baseball down to the point where it's "about as much fun as doing your taxes". I'm going to enjoy the games for what they are, human beings playing a game I've come to love.

 

You said this eloquently. I wish that I had. I love the basic statistics of the game just not so much with the advanced metrics. I don't believe that it has to turn into a discussion that leads anyone to believe that if something cannot be proven statistically that it just can' t be real. I'm like you I guess in that I don't think that an overdose in statistical minutia leads to an enhancement of the game. In my opinion, there is still something very special in just sitting back and watching and developing an opinion based upon what you see.

[Bellhorn04]

Nobody's forcing anybody to buy into any stats, be they old ones or new ones.

 

You can watch the games and ignore stats to your heart's content.

 

Well, that's not quite true. If you're watching games on TV you're going to get assaulted with the minutiae. That's the one thing I object to. It's too bad you didn't have the option of filtering out the information you aren't interested in.

[cp176]

Nobody's forcing anybody to buy into any stats, be they old ones or new ones.

 

You can watch the games and ignore stats to your heart's content.

 

Well, that's not quite true. If you're watching games on TV you're going to get assaulted with the minutiae. That's the one thing I object to. It's too bad you didn't have the option of filtering out the information you aren't interested in.

 

Really Bellhorn - Who said anything about ignoring all statistics? That is not the point. I think that we all know that if you love the game you have to have an appreciation for that statistics of it as well. The point for me is that we all have something to contribute and that no one is ever completely right nor completely wrong. Do you think that someone who chooses to ignore the all things metrically quantifiable approach doesn't have an appreciation for the basic statistics of the game? You know better than that.

[S5Dewey]

Nobody's forcing anybody to buy into any stats, be they old ones or new ones.

 

You can watch the games and ignore stats to your heart's content.

 

Well, that's not quite true. If you're watching games on TV you're going to get assaulted with the minutiae. That's the one thing I object to. It's too bad you didn't have the option of filtering out the information you aren't interested in.

That's one of the things I find amusing because much of the minutiae is so specific. For example, when they say that 'Hanley is 6 for 8 when hitting 3rd in the order and Mookie is on 1B and he's facing a 2-2 count after he's fouled off three pitches in a row'..how much does that really mean?? LOL

 

That may be why I liked Vin Scully so much. When Vin said something it was worth listening to and not just "amusing".

[SoxnCycles]

Jesus, someone tell the old dudes that they're still wicked smaht, so they'll stop crying...

[Bellhorn04]

Really Bellhorn - Who said anything about ignoring all statistics? That is not the point. I think that we all know that if you love the game you have to have an appreciation for that statistics of it as well. The point for me is that we all have something to contribute and that no one is ever completely right nor completely wrong. Do you think that someone who chooses to ignore the all things metrically quantifiable approach doesn't have an appreciation for the basic statistics of the game? You know better than that.

 

I didn't say anything about appreciating or not appreciating. All I'm saying is you can ignore whatever you want to ignore.

[notin]

Does it support keeping Bradley on the MLB roster and not exercising his minor league option due to his terrible offensive performance?

 

It really comes down to how you want to interpret it.

 

Overall, absolutely not. This season, it certainly does look that way given his negative value. However, historically he has established himself as a solid major league regular and this one quarter season sample size doesn't mean he necessarily isn't.

[notin]

And that is why the eye test is valuable. Stats can't tell you that.

 

True, but it is also a different argument. There are no stats for hustle, either. But just because WAR or any other stat doesn't cover that does not invalidate the stats...

[moonslav59]

Me: WAR is not as important as most people think it is. They eye test is equally as valuable.

 

Others: War is good. Nothing statistical can come from the eye test because it's not statistically based.

 

 

The problem with the "eye test" is not because it is not stat based. To me, the problem is that no one person observes every play of every player being compared. Sample sizes of non Sox player observations are too small for any definitive comparative evaluation.

 

Although I try like hell to not be biased when I observe our own players and compare them to our opponents' players in any given game or in the totality of all games I watch, I know that bias has to creep into my final judgement based on observations alone.

 

I know many people think I look at the numbers more than the game, or that I let the numbers form my opinions, that's not actually true most of the time. Usually, I observe something, formulate my opinion, and then check if the data supports my opinion. When it does not, I try to observe more closely and see if the data appears wrong to me or if perhaps my initial observations were faulty. For example, when Ellsbury first came up, I thought he was a great fielder. I was shocked to see his numbers did not support my opinion. I started watching more closely and realized he often got late breaks, took wrong angles and as I always knew, had a noddle for an arm. I then started arguing against posters who I used to be on their side with. Then, as time went by, Ellsbury actually started improving, and I had to change my opinion again based on my observations and the data. (In my opinion, he never became a significant plus on defense, although some data said he was.)

 

Now, back to observations. We both love defense, and I respect you for that and also your opinions that I do not always agree with. I have no issues with anyone saying, "JBJ is a great OF'er" based on what you see and no data what so ever. To me, the problem arises when someone wants to say JBJ is top 5 or 10 or 15 based on just personal observations. I just don't think that opinion is valid, even if that person might watch a lot of games without the Sox playing in them. I don't think that someone using data to say that JBJ is just the 10th or 14th best CF'er in MLB necessarily negates personal observations that indicate he is great. There very well might be 15 great defensive OF'ers in MLB today, and there is a chance JBJ is somewhere between the 10th and 15th best. In my heart, I don't think that's true, but I have seen a lot of great defensive OF'ers in games vs the Sox, and the assorted numbers seem to show JBJ is somewhere between 8th best and 14th best over a large enough sample size of 2-4 years. I'm okay with that. It doesn't bother me that the data looks a little off. It just makes me look more closely, or maybe think the data might be a little skewed, although not enough to render them useless. To me, UZR/150, DRS and the Fielding Bible are all vastly superior to Flg%, RF/9, CS% and all the other old data we used to use to supplement our opinions. They are all not perfect, but they are based on something one person cannot do: they are based on human observations of every play in every MLB game. Yes, bias can play a factor in this data. Yes, how the data is weighted and formulated might be somewhat flawed. Yes, it should never be used to definitively value a player with no arguments allowed. I apologize, if I have ever used data in a way that makes someone knowledgeable of the game feel like their opinion is not valued or respected. I know I throw numbers around in ways that may be taken as obliterating someone else's point of view, but I do not intend to come across like that.

 

We all know a good player when we see one. The eye test is not without value. The tough part comes when we try to compare a player to others we barely watch.