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

[notin]

And if you believe in the human element of the game based on your experiences, you really shouldn’t believe in clutch or choke. Especially based on high school games.

 

These guys in MLB are not the ones we played with in high school; they are a different breed entirely. They are among the best in the world at what they do and even the worst player in MLB is better at baseball than any of us are at anything (by “baseball”, in am referring to the sport in general, not MLB). They also all know it. I don’t think you can even get to MLB without levels of confidence and ego most of us cannot fathom. Whatever any of us experienced in high school and college baseball is immaterial comparatively, due to the watered down talent level from “normies”.

[sk7326]

I apologize for continually finding flaws in WAR.

 

Are you sure I said that? I've posted a lot here and I guess it's possible but that doesn't even sound like my phraseology. If you can point it out I'll believe I said it but I have too much of a life outside of TalkSox to take the time to go back and find out.

 

No need to apologize. WAR IS FLAWED - so is everything else. WAR gets closer to an all-in-one approximation of overall player value than anything else publicly available (teams probably are making their own more precise versions of it) ... that's all. Now - it is silly for us to EXPECT that there would be a unified "stat" which would be 100% accurate. There would be no need for player evaluation if that were true! But if you look at 17% (if that's what you want) ... that means you can take everybody within a win or so Jose Ramirez' 8 and put them in the MVP soup ... and that's pretty good.

 

Personally, with regards to awards and such - I think WAR is useful for identifying the tiers ... and then you have to dive further after that.

[Bellhorn04]

No need to apologize. WAR IS FLAWED - so is everything else. WAR gets closer to an all-in-one approximation of overall player value than anything else publicly available (teams probably are making their own more precise versions of it) ... that's all. Now - it is silly for us to EXPECT that there would be a unified "stat" which would be 100% accurate. There would be no need for player evaluation if that were true! But if you look at 17% (if that's what you want) ... that means you can take everybody within a win or so Jose Ramirez' 8 and put them in the MVP soup ... and that's pretty good.

 

Personally, with regards to awards and such - I think WAR is useful for identifying the tiers ... and then you have to dive further after that.

 

This says it well, thanks.

[S5Dewey]

No need to apologize. WAR IS FLAWED - so is everything else. WAR gets closer to an all-in-one approximation of overall player value than anything else publicly available (teams probably are making their own more precise versions of it) ... that's all. Now - it is silly for us to EXPECT that there would be a unified "stat" which would be 100% accurate. There would be no need for player evaluation if that were true! But if you look at 17% (if that's what you want) ... that means you can take everybody within a win or so Jose Ramirez' 8 and put them in the MVP soup ... and that's pretty good.

 

Personally, with regards to awards and such - I think WAR is useful for identifying the tiers ... and then you have to dive further after that.

 

Yes. Thank you. I agree with you (and Bellhorn).

 

Now if we can only remember that when we talk about different player's WAR.

[notin]

Yes. Thank you. I agree with you (and Bellhorn).

 

Now if we can only remember that when we talk about different player's WAR.

 

Was there something there I didn’t say?

[Bellhorn04]

And if you believe in the human element of the game based on your experiences, you really shouldn’t believe in clutch or choke. Especially based on high school games.

 

These guys in MLB are not the ones we played with in high school; they are a different breed entirely. They are among the best in the world at what they do and even the worst player in MLB is better at baseball than any of us are at anything (by “baseball”, in am referring to the sport in general, not MLB). They also all know it. I don’t think you can even get to MLB without levels of confidence and ego most of us cannot fathom. Whatever any of us experienced in high school and college baseball is immaterial comparatively, due to the watered down talent level from “normies”.

 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But I also think that the guys who reach MLB are exposed to new types of pressure that just don't exist at the lower levels. I believe that choking at the MLB level is very plausible. Those large egos can take some pretty heavy blows when a player fails to perform over a period of time or in a big moment. In the worst case scenario they can end up in a Rogues Gallery for all time with the likes of Bill Buckner and Calvin Schiraldi and Donnie Moore (citing 3 examples from just 1 postseason).

[S5Dewey]

Was there something there I didn’t say?

 

A man was sent to prison and on his first night there he was mystified by what he heard. Somewhere someone said "14" and everyone broke out laughing.

 

"22". More laughter.

 

"43". More laughter again. And it went on like that for over an hour with someone calling out a number and everyone laughing.

 

The next day he asked his cellmate what that was all about.

 

"We've all been here a long time and we've heard the same jokes over and over so rather than tell the entire joke we've numbered them. When someone calls out a number it reminds everyone else of the joke and we all laugh."

 

"Hmmm", the new guy thinks, "I want to fit in here so I'll try that tonight". And the next night he does.

 

"57" he calls out.

 

Silence.

 

"83"

 

More silence

 

"77"

 

More silence, and he gives up.

 

The next day he asked his cellmate why nobody laughed at his jokes and his cellmate said......

 

"Sometimes it's all in the delivery"

[notin]

A man was sent to prison and on his first night there he was mystified by what he heard. Somewhere someone said "14" and everyone broke out laughing.

 

"22". More laughter.

 

"43". More laughter again. And it went on like that for over an hour with someone calling out a number and everyone laughing.

 

The next day he asked his cellmate what that was all about.

 

"We've all been here a long time and we've heard the same jokes over and over so rather than tell the entire joke we've numbered them. When someone calls out a number it reminds everyone else of the joke and we all laugh."

 

"Hmmm", the new guy thinks, "I want to fit in here so I'll try that tonight". And the next night he does.

 

"57" he calls out.

 

Silence.

 

"83"

 

More silence

 

"77"

 

More silence, and he gives up.

 

The next day he asked his cellmate why nobody laughed at his jokes and his cellmate said......

 

"Sometimes it's all in the delivery"

 

I’m ok with the notion that he explained it better. I do agree with what he said. Heck, I’ve been quoting his previous posts...

[sk7326]

Yes. Thank you. I agree with you (and Bellhorn).

 

Now if we can only remember that when we talk about different player's WAR.

 

My rules of thumb have been 1) don't get hung up on fractions of wins when comparing players, 2) be skeptical of WAR built on defense or heavy platooning

[notin]

My rules of thumb have been 1) don't get hung up on fractions of wins when comparing players, 2) be skeptical of WAR built on defense or heavy platooning

 

WAR also gives larger defensive credit to players who have played multiple positions and potentially inflating their WAR value. I have (unsuccessfully) tried to have this process called “Zobristing”.

 

On the one hand, I can understand the value of their versatility. But on the other hand, I don’t think I agree with the amount of WAR inflation it seems to lead to...

[moonslav59]

To me, the most useful part of stats and WAR is the area that has been discussed many times before. Most of us watch only the Sox game with maybe a few others here and there plus playoff games that we are not a part of.

 

We may not even see some players for one inning on TV. Others we may see for 3 games on TV. Others six. Some we see live 1-2 games and on TV another 15-16 times, if they happen to play in the AL east. We see Sox players 100-162 games a year.

 

It's nearly impossible, with any degree of certainty, to know or claim our guy is better than theirs. I know I'd be more than 17% off, if I had to just use my own observations to rank and value players with a single number by myself.

 

We all look at a player we've never seen, who is hitting .320 45 120, and we know he's a damn good player. How do we know that? We rely on stats and data. When it comes to defense, it gets a little more hazy, because FLG% is a horrible measure for defensive greatness or ineptitude. While I realize UZR/150 is flawed, it is light years better than my own observations and fldg% by themselves. I do see other great plays by CF'ers in Sox games. I see some on Sports Center. I know other great defenders are out there. How good are they? How do they compare to JBJ? Nobody know for sure. Even if a single person watched every play by CF'ers one very team over a given year, there would still be bias.

 

For arguments sake, lets say there was a metric that was 100% accurate for evaluating a CF'er's defense. Then, we ask each of us to numerically place a value on each MLB CF'er. How far off do you think we'd be? How would I ever know how to value the Padre CF'er, of the Diamondback CF'er, and on and on...? I'd be 80% off on some, for sure. I'd be much more than 17% on just about everyone, except maybe a few Sox players and AL east players, for sure.

 

I try not use UZR/150 like the Bible, but I know I have come across like that at times. I do trust it more than my own observations, even if I think JBJ might be slighted by it.

 

I'm happy to know he is a top 5-10 defensive CF'er and know his defense brings so much value to the team that his offense is not a concern to me. I'm glad UZR/150 and WAR back up my belief by always rating him a plus. While I don't need metrics to tell me JBJ is a big plus, I do use it to know about other players with a certain degree of confidence.

 

I guess some of us have more "confidence" than others, and I understand why some feel slighted when WAR and UZR are continuously thrown in their faces, but I have to say that I probably sometimes feel the same way when someone who obviously does not watch every CF play by every player in MLB can claim that JBJ is the best defensive CF'er in MLB in a way that sounds like he is so sure of it.

 

Maybe JBJ is the best defensive Sox CF'er in each of our own generation. That claim makes more sense, because it may be likely we've seen close to every play made by a Sox CF'er in decades, but I think it is more folly to claim, by observation only, that he is the best CF'er in MLB today than to use UZR/150 to claim he is the 5th best defensive CF'er. Neither method is perfect, but it seems clear to me, one is better than the other.

 

[notin]

To me, the most useful part of stats and WAR is the area that has been discussed many times before. Most of us watch only the Sox game with maybe a few others here and there plus playoff games that we are not a part of.

 

We may not even see some players for one inning on TV. Others we may see for 3 games on TV. Others six. Some we see live 1-2 games and on TV another 15-16 times, if they happen to play in the AL east. We see Sox players 100-162 games a year.

 

It's nearly impossible, with any degree of certainty, to know or claim our guy is better than theirs. I know I'd be more than 17% off, if I had to just use my own observations to rank and value players with a single number by myself.

 

We all look at a player we've never seen, who is hitting .320 45 120, and we know he's a damn good player. How do we know that? We rely on stats and data. When it comes to defense, it gets a little more hazy, because FLG% is a horrible measure for defensive greatness or ineptitude. While I realize UZR/150 is flawed, it is light years better than my own observations and fldg% by themselves. I do see other great plays by CF'ers in Sox games. I see some on Sports Center. I know other great defenders are out there. How good are they? How do they compare to JBJ? Nobody know for sure. Even if a single person watched every play by CF'ers one very team over a given year, there would still be bias.

 

For arguments sake, lets say there was a metric that was 100% accurate for evaluating a CF'er's defense. Then, we ask each of us to numerically place a value on each MLB CF'er. How far off do you think we'd be? How would I ever know how to value the Padre CF'er, of the Diamondback CF'er, and on and on...? I'd be 80% off on some, for sure. I'd be much more than 17% on just about everyone, except maybe a few Sox players and AL east players, for sure.

 

I try not use UZR/150 like the Bible, but I know I have come across like that at times. I do trust it more than my own observations, even if I think JBJ might be slighted by it.

 

I'm happy to know he is a top 5-10 defensive CF'er and know his defense brings so much value to the team that his offense is not a concern to me. I'm glad UZR/150 and WAR back up my belief by always rating him a plus. While I don't need metrics to tell me JBJ is a big plus, I do use it to know about other players with a certain degree of confidence.

 

I guess some of us have more "confidence" than others, and I understand why some feel slighted when WAR and UZR are continuously thrown in their faces, but I have to say that I probably sometimes feel the same way when someone who obviously does not watch every CF play by every player in MLB can claim that JBJ is the best defensive CF'er in MLB in a way that sounds like he is so sure of it.

 

Maybe JBJ is the best defensive Sox CF'er in each of our own generation. That claim makes more sense, because it may be likely we've seen close to every play made by a Sox CF'er in decades, but I think it is more folly to claim, by observation only, that he is the best CF'er in MLB today than to use UZR/150 to claim he is the 5th best defensive CF'er. Neither method is perfect, but it seems clear to me, one is better than the other.

 

 

In fact, defense is also tough to judge by watching games on TV. How can you tell what kind of jump an outfielder gets, for example? On my TV, by the time the camera cuts to Bradley, he’s already in motion and sometimes already under the ball. (On rare occasions the camera behind the catcher is used, I can sometimes see the middle infielders and CF at the start of the play. But again, rare occasions.)

 

Now physically being at Fenway or your local park of choice is another matter...

[cp176]

So when Baseball America lists JBJ as the best defensive center fielder playing today, I should ignore this because they did not list the incredible number of statistical sources they used to come up with this rating? Just checking ...

[sk7326]

So when Baseball America lists JBJ as the best defensive center fielder playing today, I should ignore this because they did not list the incredible number of statistical sources they used to come up with this rating? Just checking ...

 

Of course not - Baseball America is using its own assessment (and probably cross checking with the metrics)

 

Also of course the metrics are largely range based - which does shortchange someone who has an exceptional throwing arm. Bradley I suspect is shortchanged by the metrics for having a similarly superb player to his left. (Betts who has lapped the field in DRS in RF the last 2 seasons)

 

Bradley is an exceptional defender who has made some of the most amazing plays I have ever seen in CF. (for the record, that Austin Jackson catch last year was the best catch I've ever seen made at Fenway)

[cp176]

Of course not - Baseball America is using its own assessment (and probably cross checking with the metrics)

 

Also of course the metrics are largely range based - which does shortchange someone who has an exceptional throwing arm. Bradley I suspect is shortchanged by the metrics for having a similarly superb player to his left. (Betts who has lapped the field in DRS in RF the last 2 seasons)

 

Bradley is an exceptional defender who has made some of the most amazing plays I have ever seen in CF. (for the record, that Austin Jackson catch last year was the best catch I've ever seen made at Fenway)

 

I saw that catch by Jackson last year, I'm thinking that I might agree with you. Although I really did like Yaz's catch in '67 when Rohr was pitching for the no-no quite a bit. I'm pretty sure that you do understand where I am coming from here. I'm really not as interested in the advanced metrics that some hang their hats on. I love trying to defend my observations and feelings based upon what I have seen and what I see as opposed to quoting something so finite. I'm probably wrong but folklore is written by people like me. That is what baseball is to me. It is an incredible game. Take the human element and perspective out of it and not so much. I still like umpires. I didn't at one time but now I do. lol

[cp176]

I saw that catch by Jackson last year, I'm thinking that I might agree with you. Although I really did like Yaz's catch in '67 when Rohr was pitching for the no-no quite a bit. I'm pretty sure that you do understand where I am coming from here. I'm really not as interested in the advanced metrics that some hang their hats on. I love trying to defend my observations and feelings based upon what I have seen and what I see as opposed to quoting something so finite. I'm probably wrong but folklore is written by people like me. That is what baseball is to me. It is an incredible game. Take the human element and perspective out of it and not so much. I still like umpires. I didn't at one time but now I do. lol

 

 

Oh - and thank you for responding.

Obviously SK that was meant for you and not me.

Edited August 25, 2018 by cp176

[sk7326]

I saw that catch by Jackson last year, I'm thinking that I might agree with you. Although I really did like Yaz's catch in '67 when Rohr was pitching for the no-no quite a bit. I'm pretty sure that you do understand where I am coming from here. I'm really not as interested in the advanced metrics that some hang their hats on. I love trying to defend my observations and feelings based upon what I have seen and what I see as opposed to quoting something so finite. I'm probably wrong but folklore is written by people like me. That is what baseball is to me. It is an incredible game. Take the human element and perspective out of it and not so much. I still like umpires. I didn't at one time but now I do. lol

 

My defense of numbers guys is "I love baseball so much I am doing dorky math stuff about it". It is complementary to the eye stuff. And it gives me some perspective since of course just watching the Sox means my opinions are skewed in both directions.

 

That Jackson catch becomes exponentially more impressive with the wide angle view and you saw just how far he ran and tracked that.

[cp176]

My defense of numbers guys is "I love baseball so much I am doing dorky math stuff about it". It is complementary to the eye stuff. And it gives me some perspective since of course just watching the Sox means my opinions are skewed in both directions.

 

That Jackson catch becomes exponentially more impressive with the wide angle view and you saw just how far he ran and tracked that.

 

Your comments and observations really do make an impression. It is interesting too because I am relying on my memory with respect to that catch. I like what I remember about it so much that I don't want to see it on video - if that makes any sense. Statistics at the highest level available are intrinsic to this game. That being said what I love about the game is what I remember about it. Sometimes I really don't want my mind changed by any type of replay. Was Evan's classic catch in right really that great? Do we see Mays's catch duplicated every year? We might but at the time these were incredible plays. You see baseball is very much about memories to me. I'm certainly no Yankees fan, but I would take the play of Bobby Richardson at second base even up with anyone's I have seen and for the record if the statistics could prove my belief wrong, I might not care. I love the memories. It is simply entertainment for me.

[User Name]

WAR also gives larger defensive credit to players who have played multiple positions and potentially inflating their WAR value. I have (unsuccessfully) tried to have this process called “Zobristing”.

 

On the one hand, I can understand the value of their versatility. But on the other hand, I don’t think I agree with the amount of WAR inflation it seems to lead to...

 

Actually, it really doesn't. The issue isn't how many positions they play, it's that certain position have higher defensive value than others. 1B and LF provide a lower positional adjustment (even negative in the case of 1B) than the value provided by up-the-middle positions.

[User Name]

I apologize for continually finding flaws in WAR.

 

Are you sure I said that? I've posted a lot here and I guess it's possible but that doesn't even sound like my phraseology. If you can point it out I'll believe I said it but I have too much of a life outside of TalkSox to take the time to go back and find out.

 

That's not it. Everyone knows it's flawed. The problem is that a lot of the "flaws" you find are based on the fact that you actually don't understand the stat's measurement process, what it's trying to measure, or what it's trying to say.

[S5Dewey]

That's not it. Everyone knows it's flawed. The problem is that a lot of the "flaws" you find are based on the fact that you actually don't understand the stat's measurement process, what it's trying to measure, or what it's trying to say.

 

And you do???? Hahaha

 

I'm 2-for-3 in your criteria. I understand what it's trying to measure and what it's trying to say, which leaves you and me in exactly the same position.

 

If you fully understand the process; the calculations, complexities and permutations of WAR you're the ONLY person here who does. And maybe the only person in the continental United States!

[Bellhorn04]

And you do???? Hahaha

 

I'm 2-for-3 in your criteria. I understand what it's trying to measure and what it's trying to say, which leaves you and me in exactly the same position.

 

If you fully understand the process; the calculations, complexities and permutations of WAR you're the ONLY person here who does. And maybe the only person in the continental United States!

 

The Theory of Relativity isn't the easy thing to grasp either, but you don't hear people calling Einstein a quack.

[Kimmi]

That's not it. Everyone knows it's flawed. The problem is that a lot of the "flaws" you find are based on the fact that you actually don't understand the stat's measurement process, what it's trying to measure, or what it's trying to say.

 

I have found that for the most part, people are opposed to advanced stats for one of two reasons:

 

1. They don't understand the stat correctly.

2. The stat does not support their opinion of something, therefore the stat must be bad.

[S5Dewey]

The Theory of Relativity isn't the easy thing to grasp either, but you don't hear people calling Einstein a quack.

 

I think when we start comparing WAR with the theory of relativity we're on very thin ice.

 

BTW, it's nice to hear from you. I thought you probably had me blocked after our last dust-up.

 

I want to be very clear where I stand on WAR:

I completely understand what WAR is trying to measure and say and I think they do a fair-to-good job of it. Not an excellent job, but a fair-to-good job.

 

I have no intent to 'throw this baby out with the bathwater' but at the same time when I (and others) see things that make me say, "Huh? Really?" I have to challenge what I'm seeing. It's not anything personal toward you, it's just that I'm not one to see something that makes no sense to me and just accept it.

 

Then when I see Moon, Notin, and others (who are one heck of a lot smarter than I am) pointing out flaws it makes me wonder how many other flaws there are. And that brings into question the entire process. I think that's reasonable. As they say, "Your results may vary".

[cp176]

I think when we start comparing WAR with the theory of relativity we're on very thin ice.

 

BTW, it's nice to hear from you. I thought you probably had me blocked after our last dust-up.

 

I want to be very clear where I stand on WAR:

I completely understand what WAR is trying to measure and say and I think they do a fair-to-good job of it. Not an excellent job, but a fair-to-good job.

 

I have no intent to 'throw this baby out with the bathwater' but at the same time when I (and others) see things that make me say, "Huh? Really?" I have to challenge what I'm seeing. It's not anything personal toward you, it's just that I'm not one to see something that makes no sense to me and just accept it.

 

Then when I see Moon, Notin, and others (who are one heck of a lot smarter than I am) pointing out flaws it makes me wonder how many other flaws there are. And that brings into question the entire process. I think that's reasonable. As they say, "Your results may vary".

 

To not totally embrace the world of advanced metrics, does not necessarily mean that someone does not see their value either. It just isn't something that I am particularly interested in. For the most part, I am very content with what I see through observation coupled with some basic statistical evidence to formulate my own opinions. I like to share and discuss what I believe to be true. Many of the things that I absolutely believe in I truly believe cannot be statistically proven or disproven. I don't think that this makes me anti- Copernican not an anti Darwinist. I honestly feel that often times people become so adamant in their beliefs on both sides of the aisle that they choose to not believe in anything other than what they "know" to be true. It is entertainment - that is it.

[moonslav59]

I think when we start comparing WAR with the theory of relativity we're on very thin ice.

 

BTW, it's nice to hear from you. I thought you probably had me blocked after our last dust-up.

 

I want to be very clear where I stand on WAR:

I completely understand what WAR is trying to measure and say and I think they do a fair-to-good job of it. Not an excellent job, but a fair-to-good job.

 

I have no intent to 'throw this baby out with the bathwater' but at the same time when I (and others) see things that make me say, "Huh? Really?" I have to challenge what I'm seeing. It's not anything personal toward you, it's just that I'm not one to see something that makes no sense to me and just accept it.

 

Then when I see Moon, Notin, and others (who are one heck of a lot smarter than I am) pointing out flaws it makes me wonder how many other flaws there are. And that brings into question the entire process. I think that's reasonable. As they say, "Your results may vary".

 

I, for one, see many more flaws in traditional stats and trying to place value of league-wide rankings based solely on personal observations and a few flawed stats.

 

Although I realize the flaws in WAR, I believe they are less than other methodologies I know about.

[User Name]

I think when we start comparing WAR with the theory of relativity we're on very thin ice.

 

BTW, it's nice to hear from you. I thought you probably had me blocked after our last dust-up.

I want to be very clear where I stand on WAR:

I completely understand what WAR is trying to measure and say and I think they do a fair-to-good job of it. Not an excellent job, but a fair-to-good job.

 

I have no intent to 'throw this baby out with the bathwater' but at the same time when I (and others) see things that make me say, "Huh? Really?" I have to challenge what I'm seeing. It's not anything personal toward you, it's just that I'm not one to see something that makes no sense to me and just accept it.

 

Then when I see Moon, Notin, and others (who are one heck of a lot smarter than I am) pointing out flaws it makes me wonder how many other flaws there are. And that brings into question the entire process. I think that's reasonable. As they say, "Your results may vary".

 

I highly doubt you do, judging by the points you are actually trying to make, but let's agree to disagree. When you scoffed if "I do" above, well mostly yes, you'd be surprised at how deeply I've looked into what both sites are trying to do with their respective take on the stat, and why I think the FG version is superior. But that's an argument for someone else and some other time.

[sk7326]

I highly doubt you do, judging by the points you are actually trying to make, but let's agree to disagree. When you scoffed if "I do" above, well mostly yes, you'd be surprised at how deeply I've looked into what both sites are trying to do with their respective take on the stat, and why I think the FG version is superior. But that's an argument for someone else and some other time.

 

Personally, I tend to use fWAR more as far as making inferences about the future ... they try to control for things which are (in part) lucky.

 

I prefer bWAR for stuff like awards - the normalization is a bit more grounded in things which actually happened. (like how bWAR starts with runs allowed for pitchers, as opposed to FIP) And for pitchers, they seem to be more precise in normalizing for the lineups the pitcher actually faced.

[Slasher9]

And you do???? Hahaha

 

I'm 2-for-3 in your criteria. I understand what it's trying to measure and what it's trying to say, which leaves you and me in exactly the same position.

 

If you fully understand the process; the calculations, complexities and permutations of WAR you're the ONLY person here who does. And maybe the only person in the continental United States!

 

i believe he's actually in the DR so would be outside of the continental US scope. but your point stands. no one fully understands it or can fully explain it.

FTR.....WAA >>>>>>WAR