Jackie Bradley

[Slasher9]

 

More agmes played does add value. WAR is not meant to judge who is the best when they play, although you can get that number by dividing by games played. It is meant to measure how much value a player produced over a period of time.

 

If Trout misses 40 games, he might still be the best player when playing, but he might not have had the as much value as someone who played 158 games at near Trout value.

 

this entire reply is why WAR is a terrible tool to use. and especially to use explicitly.

[moonslav59]

 

Ah! But the rub here is that we've been conditioned to believe NUMBERS when we see them. We've been told that 2>1 so when we see a 2 we automatically assume that its value is greater than something (or someone) with a value of 1. Notin has talked a lot about bias and there is a strong numbers bias to assume that a player with a WAR of 6 is more valuable than another player with a value of 5. (And I use 6 & 5 because Fangraphs has said that a player with a WAR of 6 may be no better or worse than a player of 5).

 

And that doesn't begin to get into one of my pet peeves that there is more than one entity calculating WAR - and they come up with a different result! [i know. They use different formulas. So how do different entities use different formulas and then each of the pass their results off as being "right" by using the same term???

There's only one way to calculate BA, OPS, SLG, WHIP, ERA, etc., etc. and it's accepted. But for some reason WAR is different. They can calculate it any way they want to and say it's a player's WAR. Which one are we supposed to have faith in???

 

I have no issues with bWAR being different than fWAR. They both measure different things and place values differently. I can see how this can favor the argument that WAR is not perfect, but again, nobody is saying it is. I thinbk everyone knows a .333 BA means one hit every 3 ABs. It is a solid number, although some debate could be made about what are called hits vs reach on errors or ballpark dimensions and strength of opponents playing into it. WAR is not a solid or perfect number, and maybe those conditioned to know 2>1 have a harder time understanding the numbers are not a result of a perfect process like dividing 3 ABs into 1 hit, but that doesn't mean we have to throw the whole process out. It just means take the number with a grain of salt and use as you wish.

 

I choose to use it as one tool in my tool box. It's not even my #1 tool, but it's right up there near the top.

[notin]

 

Ah! But the rub here is that we've been conditioned to believe NUMBERS when we see them. We've been told that 2>1 so when we see a 2 we automatically assume that its value is greater than something (or someone) with a value of 1. Notin has talked a lot about bias and there is a strong numbers bias to assume that a player with a WAR of 6 is more valuable than another player with a value of 5. (And I use 6 & 5 because Fangraphs has said that a player with a WAR of 6 may be no better or worse than a player of 5).

 

And that doesn't begin to get into one of my pet peeves that there is more than one entity calculating WAR - and they come up with a different result! [i know. They use different formulas. So how do different entities use different formulas and then each of the pass their results off as being "right" by using the same term???

There's only one way to calculate BA, OPS, SLG, WHIP, ERA, etc., etc. and it's accepted. But for some reason WAR is different. They can calculate it any way they want to and say it's a player's WAR. Which one are we supposed to have faith in???

 

WAR is a more ambitious adventure than BA or SLG or ERA, all of which have their own flaws and misrepresentations themsleves. Sure there is probably not much difference between a 5 WAR and a 6 WAR player. There also isn't much difference between a .240 hitter and a .280 hitter, but that difference is also viewed with equal disparity. Sportswriters even often do stories about this .240 hitter needs to be replaced with that .280 hitter, despite the difference being hits in a whopping 4% of at-bats.

 

And a lot of those stats where there is "only one way to calculate them," do you think that was ALWAYS the case? Batting average has so many weird conditions, you have to think a few of them were added after the first iteration of the stat. After all batting average represents "the percentage of times a batter gets a hit in a plate appearance where he does not draw a walk, get hit by a pitch, give himself up in an obvious and willing attempt to bunt a runner over, or hit a routine flyball to the outfield with a runner on third and less than two out, allowing the runner to score." You think all of that was in there the first few times someone started calculating batting average? And even then, after all that, it's still glitchy, Why is a sac fly not an at bat that counts towards BA, but it is if the runner gets thrown out at home? Did having a slow runner on third make the hitter somehow worse at the plate? Why is sac fly not an at-bats but an RBI ground out is? These flaws don't seem bother you in BA, but they do bother you in WAR.

 

And check out the number of changes to the SAVE stat over the years. Now THERE is a stat that has had FAR MORE than one way to calculate it. And some of them are still stupid to this day.

 

The only real difference is since most of us grew up with this stats, we accept them, flaws and all. And we believe that they are what they always were, because we have never known them as anything else. WAR is this whole new scary stat we didn't grow up with, and therefore it has to pass the test of being as perfect as the old ones are, even if it is still in it's infancy, and those other stats are really not as perfect as we really think they are.

 

There is more than one entity calculating WAR, which is why many people differentiate the two as though they were different stats. But that is really the fault of one of them unimaginatively naming the stat. No one really ever confused WARP (Wins Above Replacement Player) with VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) with WAR, despite all essentially doing the same thing, but they at least had different names. Plenty of people preferred WARP over VORP or vice versa for whatever reason, or liked some other stat entirely. And I left out slasher's personal favorite of WAA (Wins Above Average) and Bellhorn's favorite WAFL (Wins Above Felipe Lopez). OK, that last one is not published anywhere and was a joke of mine back on BDC. But all these stats tried to do the same thing.

 

Sure it has flaws. What doesn't? Giving credence to WAR despite that it does not always agree with what we see is like giving credence to science. Science is often viewed as fact, despite what it really is is "today's best educated guess" and any part of it can be refuted or disproved tomorrow. The same is actually true for WAR. Or WARP. Or WAA.

 

But not WAFL, which was perfect.

 

Until Felipe retired.

[moonslav59]

Can't we find the next Felipe?

[notin]

Can't we find the next Felipe?

 

There is no substitute for Felipe Lopez.

 

The modern day equivalent is Jed Lowrie, but then the stat name is nowhere near as cool...

[moonslav59]

There is no substitute for Felipe Lopez.

 

The modern day equivalent is Jed Lowrie, but then the stat name is nowhere near as cool...

 

How about wins above Gorkys?

 

WAG

[Kimmi]

And certainly never answer one with a command.

 

Actually I think answering a question with a question is a good thing. It’s better to teach people to think than just recite rote facts...

 

As a teacher, I often answer a question with a question.

[Kimmi]

Thanks JBj for all the good memories and helping bring us a parade.

i had a blast for the 4 seasons i tracked you daily vs your NYY CF counterpart.

best of luck to you and your beautiful family wherever you end up next season. i will always be a fan and root for you to keep doing you.

the kids in the Boston area hospitals will miss your frequent visits and the streets around the Fens will miss your scooter.

Stay Humble.

 

If JBJ is in fact gone, I echo your sentiments.

 

I will miss him.

[Kimmi]

 

this entire reply is why WAR is a terrible tool to use. and especially to use explicitly.

 

Not at all. A large part of the value of a player is being able to stay healthy and stay on the field.

 

That said, as with any stat, one must understand the context surrounding the stat.

[moonslav59]

Not at all. A large part of the value of a player is being able to stay healthy and stay on the field.

 

That said, as with any stat, one must understand the context surrounding the stat.

 

Yes, WAR rewards players who stay on the field, and that's not a bad thing as long as you recognize the context of WAR and what it represents.

 

Perhaps a WAR/gm or Inning played/pitched could become a metric used to value who is better when they are on the field. This would be more like the stats people are used to using, like OBP, SLG, BA...

 

All things being equal, a .400 OBP guy who plays 160 games is better than a .400 OBP guy who plays 130.

 

 

[notin]

Not at all. A large part of the value of a player is being able to stay healthy and stay on the field.

 

That said, as with any stat, one must understand the context surrounding the stat.

 

 

Which is true for all stats. It’s not like we look at a closer with a 2.00 ERA as being equal to a starter with a 2.00 ERA...

[Kimmi]

Yes, WAR rewards players who stay on the field, and that's not a bad thing as long as you recognize the context of WAR and what it represents.

 

Perhaps a WAR/gm or Inning played/pitched could become a metric used to value who is better when they are on the field. This would be more like the stats people are used to using, like OBP, SLG, BA...

 

All things being equal, a .400 OBP guy who plays 160 games is better than a .400 OBP guy who plays 130.

 

 

Understanding the context is a big part of any stat.

 

RBI is a stat that is not only largely dependent on playing time, but it's also largely dependent on the rest of the team. And yet, many of the same people who argue against WAR accept RBIs as a good stat and don't consider it to be flawed. If we say that a player has 50 RBIs, do we not want to look at how many games said player has played in? Why is it any different for WAR?

[Kimmi]

Which is true for all stats. It’s not like we look at a closer with a 2.00 ERA as being equal to a starter with a 2.00 ERA...

 

Exactly.

 

Stat geeks unite!

[Bellhorn04]

Which is true for all stats. It’s not like we look at a closer with a 2.00 ERA as being equal to a starter with a 2.00 ERA...

 

Plus you want to look at innings pitched, WHIP, K's & BB's etc.

[moonslav59]

I've been JBJ's biggest fan and supporter.

 

I've defended him for years.

 

I'd love to have him back, and I hope we can get him back, if we non tender him, but I would not pay $10-11M for his last arb salary.

 

I'll miss him, if he goes.

 

I'll hope we get a great defensive CF'er to replaced him.

 

I'll wish him well where ever he goes.

[notin]

Plus you want to look at innings pitched, WHIP, K's & BB's etc.

 

Or just the K/BB, if you’re JoeBreidey....

[moonslav59]

For SP'ers I like (in order):

 

ERA- (or ERA+)

OPS against

WHIP

K/BB

fWAR

 

Far behind are

xFIP

FIP

ERA

W-L

 

For RP'ers:

OPS against

WHIP

K/BB

fWAR

ERA-

 

For everyday players:

OPS+ or wRC+

WAR

OPS (I use this most often since it is easier to understand)

OBP

SLG

UZR/150

 

Far behind are...

BA

SG or SB%

RBI

Runs

OPS Late & Close or high leverage

DRS

 

(These aren't set in stone, but it's roughly how I see it.)

[S5Dewey]

How about wins above Gorkys?

 

WAG

 

I can certainly support WAR being changed to WAG.

[S5Dewey]

As a teacher, I often answer a question with a question.

 

Ummm...yeah... I think there's a difference between the relationship between a student and a teacher and two adults having a discussion.

[moonslav59]

I can certainly support WAR being changed to WAG.

 

We've reached consensus!

[cp176]

Ummm...yeah... I think there's a difference between the relationship between a student and a teacher and two adults having a discussion.

 

What - you don't like being treated like one of "my" students? As a teacher, I always felt pretty good when my students asked and answered their own questions. It tended to eliminate any personal bias coming from the front of the room.

[S5Dewey]

What - you don't like being treated like one of "my" students? As a teacher, I always felt pretty good when my students asked and answered their own questions. It tended to eliminate any personal bias coming from the front of the room.

 

That works fine in a teacher/student relationship. I find it to be condescending when it happens between two adults in a discussion.

[jad]

That works fine in a teacher/student relationship. I find it to be condescending when it happens between two adults in a discussion.

 

But why? Answer me that? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[notin]

How about wins above Gorkys?

 

WAG

 

Gorkys might be retired...

[Bellhorn04]

Gorkys might be retired...

 

Wins Above Sam Horn (or any S.H.) would be WASH

Wins Above Steve Pearce would be WASP

[notin]

Wins Above Sam Horn (or any S.H.) would be WASH

Wins Above Steve Pearce would be WASP

 

Pearce has potential. Horn has far too much of an undeserved legacy already...

[cp176]

That works fine in a teacher/student relationship. I find it to be condescending when it happens between two adults in a discussion.

 

ditto!

[notin]

That works fine in a teacher/student relationship. I find it to be condescending when it happens between two adults in a discussion.

 

It's not so much to be condescending as to make people think and overcome some of their own personal biases. Especially when it was used the way I employed it - by trying to draw a parallel to another similar situation where no similar questions were asked despite there being a similarity.

 

Now what is condescending is saying things like "Don't answer a question with a question" or "I don't know. You tell me." But I usually don't point that stuff out (apparently until now) because I also get that on text-only message boards a lot can be lost...

[S5Dewey]

It's not so much to be condescending as to make people think and overcome some of their own personal biases. Especially when it was used the way I employed it - by trying to draw a parallel to another similar situation where no similar questions were asked despite there being a similarity.

 

Now what is condescending is saying things like "Don't answer a question with a question" or "I don't know. You tell me." But I usually don't point that stuff out (apparently until now) because I also get that on text-only message boards a lot can be lost...

 

More condescention. Sometimes you get what you give. But thank you.

Edited November 6, 2019 by S5Dewey

[vegasbob]

Just the case of being a sports team's "fan" includes an inherent personal bias affecting clear thinking about their situation. Add to that personal emotions about one player's performance vs another further clouds clear thinking. Hence, the clarity of advanced analytics. If only someone would tell the players to consistently exceed their historical performance level personnel decisions would be much easier.