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

[notin]

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.

 

The main problem is no one has ever said most of your counterarguments. I have never said the eye yest is no good because it isn't statistically based. I have said it is no good because it is incredibly subjective and nearly impossible for casual fans to use for comparisons. I have repeatedly said you can say Bradley is a good defender based onthe eye test, but you can't really say whether or not he is the best or second best based on the unequal amounts of data. My statement and yours are not the same at all.

 

Really, you're putting words into everyone else's mouth on this. It's been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that fielding metrics involve the eye test, so it can't be completely invalid. It's never been "all stats and nothing else."

 

We are posting on a thread entitled "WAR is the dumbest stat", on which several people, yourself included, tried to invalidate it. I have yet to see a thread entitled "The Eye Test Is Completely Worthless and Baseball is Stats and Stats Alone." Perhaps you can link me to it...

[notin]

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.

 

Please link me to any post where that has been said.

[S5Dewey]

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

 

Thanks. ...and your horse, too.

[S5Dewey]

The main problem is no one has ever said most of your counterarguments. I have never said the eye yest is no good because it isn't statistically based. I have said it is no good because it is incredibly subjective and nearly impossible for casual fans to use for comparisons. I have repeatedly said you can say Bradley is a good defender based onthe eye test, but you can't really say whether or not he is the best or second best based on the unequal amounts of data. My statement and yours are not the same at all.

 

Really, you're putting words into everyone else's mouth on this. It's been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that fielding metrics involve the eye test, so it can't be completely invalid. It's never been "all stats and nothing else."

 

We are posting on a thread entitled "WAR is the dumbest stat", on which several people, yourself included, tried to invalidate it. I have yet to see a thread entitled "The Eye Test Is Completely Worthless and Baseball is Stats and Stats Alone." Perhaps you can link me to it...

 

You continue to play both sides of the fence on this issue, continually "reminding" us that the eye test can't be valid because we don't see every player make every play while at the same time saying the eye test "can't be completely invalid".

 

Go back to doing your taxes. You seem to enjoy it more than baseball.

[Maxbialystock]

If you enjoy watching ball games, especially in person, the eye test is everything, and that especially applies to defense, which is the poetry of baseball. Home runs win ball games a whole lot more often than great defensive plays, but the latter are usually more exciting to watch.

 

I personally have strong memories of the brilliant defense Iglesias played in 2013. Whether keeping him was the best move or not for the team, I wanted him to stay to enjoy watching his glove, footwork, etc.

 

Instead, we have Bogaerts, who is a far cry from brilliant. And yet. He does bust his butt on defense, which he takes very seriously. He is also a much better hitter than Iglesias and this year one of our key guys in the lineup in a year when our offense is doing pretty darn good despite the weak bottom third of the order.

 

So I fall back on that dirty, rotten, stinking no good stat/approximation called WAR which says that over the past three years Iglesias has averaged 1.6 and Bogaerts 3.5 in the WAR department (pun intended).

 

And I remember something else. Iglesias started at SS for the Tigers in the 2013 ALCS when they played the Sox. He was brilliant, of course, but the Sox won that series, 4 games to 2, and they won it with a combination of solid pitching and timely (not not great--the Tigers had a good pitching staff that included Scherzer and Verlander) hitting. The announcers, as I recall, waxed rhapsodic over at least one and maybe more than one play Iglesias made. But that year Lester and Lackey were both excellent in the postseason, and the bullpen was first rate. The postseason team ERA in 2013 was 2.59 even though Peavy wasn't so hot. My point is that the defense was fine without Iglesias because the pitching was more than fine. And guess who played in 12 of the 16 games in that postseason with an OPS of .893? Xander Bogaerts, that's who. He had the third best OPS and the third most runs scored.

[notin]

You continue to play both sides of the fence on this issue, continually "reminding" us that the eye test can't be valid because we don't see every player make every play while at the same time saying the eye test "can't be completely invalid".

 

Go back to doing your taxes. You seem to enjoy it more than baseball.

 

I have said the eye test is invalid when we use it to make comparative statements, like "Bradley is the best defensive CF in the game today" or something similar. Remember when a lot of people on this board griped when he was not nominated for a Gold Glove? Well, how often did any of them see Buxton or Cain play? How can any of us know Bradley was more worthy of Buxton and Cain when we rarely saw them?

 

I also have said televised games are not really conducive to eye test because we are limited by what the director shows us. We never see the breaks outfielders get on balls, for example.

 

But that doesn't invalidate it completely, and not the same as taking both sides of the fence in the issue. For example, UZR is calculated by people watching every play by every CF and scoring them accordingly. That's a form of the eye test, but done so taking all players into account, taking pre-determined zones into account, and doing so without the same limitations we get when we watch a game on TV.

 

You seem to repeatedly accuse people who disagree with you on the issue of being lesser fans and lesser educated on these matters than yourself. "Go back to doing your taxes." Really? Despite your repeated accusations that I am nothing but a stats guy, you'd probably be hard-pressed to find any post I have ever made on the subject where I refuted observational data in lieu of advanced stats In fact, I have probably made more posts about defensive players I don't like (notably Holt, but a few others around MLB like Matt Holliday) who gets positive defensive ratings.

 

Eye test is fine for observations about players. Eye test tells me Holt is completely clueless about taking throws from the outfield when trying to prevent a double. Eye test doesn't really work when I want to decide who is the better defensively from other teams. And eye test can't tell us anything about what happens when the camera is pointing elsewhere (except for with disciplined season ticket holders).

 

Is that clear about how that is NOT both sides of the fence?

 

Now let's talk about your "acceptance" of advanced stats? Beyond point out WAR is flawed, what other commentary have you made about it? Have you ever embraced it in any way? I only see you disputing it, for example when you questioned by Bradley was closer to the middle of the pack defensively?

[notin]

If you enjoy watching ball games, especially in person, the eye test is everything, and that especially applies to defense, which is the poetry of baseball. Home runs win ball games a whole lot more often than great defensive plays, but the latter are usually more exciting to watch.

 

I personally have strong memories of the brilliant defense Iglesias played in 2013. Whether keeping him was the best move or not for the team, I wanted him to stay to enjoy watching his glove, footwork, etc.

 

Instead, we have Bogaerts, who is a far cry from brilliant. And yet. He does bust his butt on defense, which he takes very seriously. He is also a much better hitter than Iglesias and this year one of our key guys in the lineup in a year when our offense is doing pretty darn good despite the weak bottom third of the order.

 

So I fall back on that dirty, rotten, stinking no good stat/approximation called WAR which says that over the past three years Iglesias has averaged 1.6 and Bogaerts 3.5 in the WAR department (pun intended).

 

And I remember something else. Iglesias started at SS for the Tigers in the 2013 ALCS when they played the Sox. He was brilliant, of course, but the Sox won that series, 4 games to 2, and they won it with a combination of solid pitching and timely (not not great--the Tigers had a good pitching staff that included Scherzer and Verlander) hitting. The announcers, as I recall, waxed rhapsodic over at least one and maybe more than one play Iglesias made. But that year Lester and Lackey were both excellent in the postseason, and the bullpen was first rate. The postseason team ERA in 2013 was 2.59 even though Peavy wasn't so hot. My point is that the defense was fine without Iglesias because the pitching was more than fine. And guess who played in 12 of the 16 games in that postseason with an OPS of .893? Xander Bogaerts, that's who. He had the third best OPS and the third most runs scored.

 

And Stephen Drew was brilliant defensively in that series as well.

[mvp 78]

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.

 

No, but you did say the eye test from a group of retirees (simply because of the amount of time spent on their couches) is more reliable than someone who uses a combination of stats and their own beliefs.

[mvp 78]

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

 

Traditional stats aren't good at showing things like baserunning or fielding, which WAR attempts to utilize.

[mvp 78]

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.

 

If that's your definition of eloquent, I'm not sure what to say.

[illinoisredsox]

If you enjoy watching ball games, especially in person, the eye test is everything, and that especially applies to defense, which is the poetry of baseball. Home runs win ball games a whole lot more often than great defensive plays, but the latter are usually more exciting to watch.

 

I personally have strong memories of the brilliant defense Iglesias played in 2013. Whether keeping him was the best move or not for the team, I wanted him to stay to enjoy watching his glove, footwork, etc.

 

Instead, we have Bogaerts, who is a far cry from brilliant. And yet. He does bust his butt on defense, which he takes very seriously. He is also a much better hitter than Iglesias and this year one of our key guys in the lineup in a year when our offense is doing pretty darn good despite the weak bottom third of the order.

 

So I fall back on that dirty, rotten, stinking no good stat/approximation called WAR which says that over the past three years Iglesias has averaged 1.6 and Bogaerts 3.5 in the WAR department (pun intended).

 

And I remember something else. Iglesias started at SS for the Tigers in the 2013 ALCS when they played the Sox. He was brilliant, of course, but the Sox won that series, 4 games to 2, and they won it with a combination of solid pitching and timely (not not great--the Tigers had a good pitching staff that included Scherzer and Verlander) hitting. The announcers, as I recall, waxed rhapsodic over at least one and maybe more than one play Iglesias made. But that year Lester and Lackey were both excellent in the postseason, and the bullpen was first rate. The postseason team ERA in 2013 was 2.59 even though Peavy wasn't so hot. My point is that the defense was fine without Iglesias because the pitching was more than fine. And guess who played in 12 of the 16 games in that postseason with an OPS of .893? Xander Bogaerts, that's who. He had the third best OPS and the third most runs scored.

 

Looking back, Iglesias made 2 huge errors in that series. The first was in the 9th inning of game 2 and put the winning run on base. The second was just before Victorino's grand slam in Game 6 when he booted a probable double play ball that would have ended the inning.

[notin]

Traditional stats aren't good at showing things like baserunning or fielding, which WAR attempts to utilize.

 

Traditional stats for fielding are essentially useless. It's basically errors and fielding percentage. Even the early advanced stats for fielding, like Range Factor, were just extensions of these stats and turned out to be useless unless you were comparing two players on the same team.

 

Baserunning was limited to what? Stolen bases? There is A LOT more to baserunning that than. That's like rating cars solely based on radio reception...

[mvp 78]

If you enjoy watching ball games, especially in person, the eye test is everything, and that especially applies to defense, which is the poetry of baseball. Home runs win ball games a whole lot more often than great defensive plays, but the latter are usually more exciting to watch.

 

I personally have strong memories of the brilliant defense Iglesias played in 2013. Whether keeping him was the best move or not for the team, I wanted him to stay to enjoy watching his glove, footwork, etc.

 

Instead, we have Bogaerts, who is a far cry from brilliant. And yet. He does bust his butt on defense, which he takes very seriously. He is also a much better hitter than Iglesias and this year one of our key guys in the lineup in a year when our offense is doing pretty darn good despite the weak bottom third of the order.

 

So I fall back on that dirty, rotten, stinking no good stat/approximation called WAR which says that over the past three years Iglesias has averaged 1.6 and Bogaerts 3.5 in the WAR department (pun intended).

 

And I remember something else. Iglesias started at SS for the Tigers in the 2013 ALCS when they played the Sox. He was brilliant, of course, but the Sox won that series, 4 games to 2, and they won it with a combination of solid pitching and timely (not not great--the Tigers had a good pitching staff that included Scherzer and Verlander) hitting. The announcers, as I recall, waxed rhapsodic over at least one and maybe more than one play Iglesias made. But that year Lester and Lackey were both excellent in the postseason, and the bullpen was first rate. The postseason team ERA in 2013 was 2.59 even though Peavy wasn't so hot. My point is that the defense was fine without Iglesias because the pitching was more than fine. And guess who played in 12 of the 16 games in that postseason with an OPS of .893? Xander Bogaerts, that's who. He had the third best OPS and the third most runs scored.

 

I remember Iggy booting a few balls in the ALCS that year. Really helped us out!

[notin]

Looking back, Iglesias made 2 huge errors in that series. The first was in the 9th inning of game 2 and put the winning run on base. The second was just before Victorino's grand slam in Game 6 when he booted a probable double play ball that would have ended the inning.

 

Yeah but you had to love that pop fly hit by Ortiz that he caught in shallow LF from the shift. Even though it hurt the Sox, it was a thing of beauty.

 

But yes, he did make a key error in the 9th inning that lead to Saltalamacchia completing the comeback win...

[mvp 78]

Traditional stats for fielding are essentially useless. It's basically errors and fielding percentage. Even the early advanced stats for fielding, like Range Factor, were just extensions of these stats and turned out to be useless unless you were comparing two players on the same team.

 

Baserunning was limited to what? Stolen bases? There is A LOT more to baserunning that than. That's like rating cars solely based on radio reception...

 

It just comes down to people not liking new stuff. They are worried about the game passing them by every time Speier walks onto a NESN set. There are a lot of things to like and not like about a Sox presentation these days. Sure, the analytics can be overwhelming. However, there are lots of other things people don't like: Eckisms (cheese), Wally (back in my day the Sox didn't have blah blah blah), Sweet Caroline (but what if they are losing badly in the 8th), the k zone (makes us too critical of umpires who are great Americans and we should love them for the wonderful service they provide and they surely need their own national holiday), instant replay, baggy baseball unis (and other accoutrements) and all the other BS shown on the screen during a game (crawl on the bottom, Mid 5th report, etc.). There's always something that you probably need to ignore just for your own sanity. Or just be miserable. Either way. Whatever.

[kenmeister]

Looking back, Iglesias made 2 huge errors in that series. The first was in the 9th inning of game 2 and put the winning run on base. The second was just before Victorino's grand slam in Game 6 when he booted a probable double play ball that would have ended the inning.

 

Oh I remember that! I'm still in shock.

[cp176]

Please link me to any post where that has been said.

 

Your kidding right notin? one - whether it has been said or not it sure as s*** has been implied numerous times. two- you are forgetting who you are dealing with I'm afraid. Remember me - I could care less what you think or what you say. I have no intention of going back through reams of talksox pages to prove any particular point. three - I was communicating with a forum board friend not you. four - I would repeat what I previously said before but it would take me too much time.

[S5Dewey]

Your kidding right notin? one - whether it has been said or not it sure as s*** has been implied numerous times. two- you are forgetting who you are dealing with I'm afraid. Remember me - I could care less what you think or what you say. I have no intention of going back through reams of talksox pages to prove any particular point. three - I was communicating with a forum board friend not you. four - I would repeat what I previously said before but it would take me too much time.

 

Gee, I wish I'd said that.

[Maxbialystock]

And Stephen Drew was brilliant defensively in that series as well.

 

Maybe not brilliant, but pretty darn good.

[Maxbialystock]

Looking back, Iglesias made 2 huge errors in that series. The first was in the 9th inning of game 2 and put the winning run on base. The second was just before Victorino's grand slam in Game 6 when he booted a probable double play ball that would have ended the inning.

 

Baloney. this is my story and we have to go by what I remember.

 

Great catch, thanks. I did in fact forget about those errors. And I forgot that Drew was a more than adequate defensive SS. Bogie played 3B.

[jd98]

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.

but the traditional offensive stats including fielding% and SB numbers is still good enough 99.5% (I made this number up) of the time to discern what would be a 2 WAR difference between players. And my other points are still valid.

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

 

but it's so appropriate:D. Sorry, I had only seen it mentioned once, and I think it was in a different thread.

[notin]

Your kidding right notin? one - whether it has been said or not it sure as s*** has been implied numerous times. two- you are forgetting who you are dealing with I'm afraid. Remember me - I could care less what you think or what you say. I have no intention of going back through reams of talksox pages to prove any particular point. three - I was communicating with a forum board friend not you. four - I would repeat what I previously said before but it would take me too much time.

 

I would counter by saying it hasn't even been implied.

 

Most of these WAR arguments start with someone saying how useless the new statistics are because they don't agree with them for one reason or another, including this very thread. Some do start with other logic, such as when people were angry omit the omission of Bradley from the Gold Glove, and UZR and dWAR were brought into it. But the arguments against Bradley for Gold Glove all had the same flaw that had NOTHING to do with sabermetrics or advanced stats - none of us had seen enough of the other candidates to refute their nominations.

 

The problem is, the non-sabermetric crowd to me appears to be taking the stance "I don't like these new stats because they don't always agree with what I see." And they ignore the obvious reason for that - because they see more. Many of them are based on floating baselines of replacement level or league average. But rather than taking the opportunity to enhance the appreciation of the subtleties of the game that they can capture with their own eyes, or look at certain aspects of the game in a new way, or using them to decide to explore seeing other players (Andrelton Simmons became a must-see for me after I saw how he was destroying MLB with defensive metrics, and wow. The man does not disappoint.), it instead turns into a giant pissing match with a bunch of fans deciding they know more than the stats and stats guys, and already have their pants down, rulers out., with their high school baseball war stories at the ready to back them up. And heresy to anyone who dare try and bring up these new-fangled numbers. Their very existence is a personal insult to my expertise!!

 

And oh my God, try and explain some of these advantages of new stats over traditional stats and over eye test. I think Galileo had an easier time with heliocentricity.

 

The Backfire Effect in full force...

[mvp 78]

I think Galileo had an easier time with heliocentricity.

 

Some would say Galileo had a 99.5% easier time.

[notin]

Gee, I wish I'd said that.

 

Well, I guess accusing and deflecting would be easier than actually answering the questions I keep posing in this debate...

[notin]

Maybe not brilliant, but pretty darn good.

 

His offense was so abysmal that series. Let's let his defense be brilliant. He needs that much...

[Spudboy]

Your kidding right notin? one - whether it has been said or not it sure as s*** has been implied numerous times. two- you are forgetting who you are dealing with I'm afraid. Remember me - I could care less what you think or what you say. I have no intention of going back through reams of talksox pages to prove any particular point. three - I was communicating with a forum board friend not you. four - I would repeat what I previously said before but it would take me too much time.

 

Gee, I wish I'd said that.

 

Go get'em Coach!

[Kimmi]

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.

 

It's not just the missed calls. Think of all the borderline calls that could go either way. There is a great deal of subjectivity that goes into calling balls and strikes.

 

As far as comparisons of defensive plays, I don't think it's nearly as impossible as you think it is. Actually, with all the technology available these days, it's very possible.

[Kimmi]

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

 

No one in the history of baseball has ever said that the eye test, ie scouting, is not valuable.

[Kimmi]

The main problem is no one has ever said most of your counterarguments. I have never said the eye yest is no good because it isn't statistically based. I have said it is no good because it is incredibly subjective and nearly impossible for casual fans to use for comparisons. I have repeatedly said you can say Bradley is a good defender based onthe eye test, but you can't really say whether or not he is the best or second best based on the unequal amounts of data. My statement and yours are not the same at all.

 

Really, you're putting words into everyone else's mouth on this. It's been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that fielding metrics involve the eye test, so it can't be completely invalid. It's never been "all stats and nothing else."

 

We are posting on a thread entitled "WAR is the dumbest stat", on which several people, yourself included, tried to invalidate it. I have yet to see a thread entitled "The Eye Test Is Completely Worthless and Baseball is Stats and Stats Alone." Perhaps you can link me to it...

 

Post of the year.

[Kimmi]

Please link me to any post where that has been said.

 

Runner up for post of the year.