2022 Spring Training

[Bellhorn04]

It only ends them because it makes one party stop talking.

 

Heck the difference between bWAR and fWAR is debatable. Personally, I like bWAR better but the problem is Fangraphs has just made fWAR so much more accessible and user-friendly on their site.

 

The difference between bWAR and fWAR with pitchers can be pretty large. Rick Porcello being a prime example. His fWAR is about 50% better.

[notin]

It only ends them because it makes one party stop talking.

 

Heck the difference between bWAR and fWAR is debatable. Personally, I like bWAR better but the problem is Fangraphs has just made fWAR so much more accessible and user-friendly on their site.

 

 

As I reply to myself here.

 

The interesting thing is the best counter argument against WAR is the calculations (which both sites now publish). There is a lot of interpretation and, frankly, behind-the-scenes-voodoo many people either don’t understand or simply don’t wish to pursue.

 

So this debate about “how too many just use WAR as a fact and you can’t debate them” is the exact debate to counter them.

 

Myself, I admit, I can’t defend the calculations of WAR. I just see similar flaws in every other stat that people actually do think are based on concrete evidence. Is WAR flawed? Very likely. But don’t tell me BA, ERA, RBIs, etc. are not…

[Old Red]

That's one reason I have both on ignore.

 

I love it when a plan comes together.

[Old Red]

Regardless, there's a lot of metric talk out there too. Globe writers like Speier and Finn quote the metrics a lot. Peter Abraham makes use of them. Shaughnessy avoids them like the plague. There's room for all of it.

 

That’s what I’ve been saying from the beginning that there is room for my way, and your way, but you seem to go overboard with trying to convince people that your opinion is the right one when there is no right, or wrong answer to the opinion.

[notin]

The difference between bWAR and fWAR with pitchers can be pretty large. Rick Porcello being a prime example. His fWAR is about 50% better.

 

EXactly.

 

fWAR is based on FIP. not sure about bWAR, but it uses something. THe problem with FIP is it typically favors pitchers with any or multiple of high K rates, low BB rates or low home run rates. (Porcello was often at least good for low BB rates and had some good low HR rate seasons.

 

I actually like FIP as it simple DIPS, but I am not so sure it should be the basis for WAR...

[Old Red]

And that comment wasn't directed at you, it was directed at jad and Dewey.

 

Got it🙈.

[notin]

That’s what I’ve been saying from the beginning that there is room for my way, and your way, but you seem to go overboard with trying to convince people that your opinion is the right one when there is no right, or wrong answer to the opinion.

 

This might be a little more accepted if you were not the exact reverse. Not like you have expressed any acceptance of the sabermetric stats...

[moonslav59]

Naw. Most of the advanced metrics don't bother me at all. When I look at B/R and see all of those numbers I just ignore them. I don't need all of that extraneous stuff in my life in order to enjoy baseball.

 

I'll admit that WAR is a pet peeve of mine though. When we consider that there are at least two entities that calculate WAR and they frequently get different totals WAR has to be considered an "inexact science." You're a numbers guy so you know that a small difference in the beginning of an equation can result in a big difference in the end. There are just too many moving parts in WAR (either one) for me to accept it as a true value.

 

That's not to say that I think WAR is useless. I just think that most discrepancies that show up in WAR also show up to the naked eye, and those that don't show up don't matter. I'm just here to enjoy the game.

 

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it!!

 

Nobody "accepts" fWAR or bWAR as true value, and I can understand that seeing some wide differences in a few selective players can make one feel like these guys are just stabbing at it in the dark, but they are actually using some pretty sophisticated and scientific methods based on what value certain acts done in baseball lead to runs or allowed runs.

 

To me, I'm thinking they do a better job at determining the whole value player A vs player B than I can do in my head, based on just my own limited observation and a few crude stats that often miss the mark, too.

 

I remember when RF/9 first came into popularity. It was certainly eye-opening to see one SS could make 100-150 more plays than another in the same amount of innings, but then people started saying, but player B plays on a team with a lot of strike out or fly out pitchers, so it's skewed. (They were right to a certain degree.)

 

Now, fielders are observed by trained and calibrated professionals. Does that make it perfect or fool-proofed? Hell, no, but at least someone is watching every play of every games- something I don't even reach 1/29th of over a season. They measure how many playable balls are hit to a player and how many times an out is recorded. They measure difficulty factors and error rates. It has to be better than what I or any one person can do in their head by just watching 162-maybe 300 games a year.

 

It's far from perfect but, to me, it beats the hell out of my own observations. I try to watch every single play of every single Sox game, every season. I rarely watch any other games, so I just see the opposing players vs our own players. One observation I have made is about fielding- something I loved and was good at when I played the game for a couple decades. I notice when the opponents make spectacular play after spectacular play at SS mush more than ours does. I'm thinking, to myself, man-o-man, I wish we had a SS who could have the range and athletic ability these other teams have. Then, I look at UZR/150 and DRS, and my observations are confirmed. It doesn't mean I think my opinion is 100% fact, but I do convince myself that I was right all along.

 

I try hard to not sound like I am stating something that is not up for debate, but that does not mean I don't hold some opinions I think can not be changed. I assume everyone feels the same way about some of their beliefs, and some of those beliefs might be polar opposites to mine, I'm fine with that and actually welcome that. I love a healthy debate based on logic, reason and evidence. I have changed my opinion on a few things. At first, I thought Ellsbury and Nomar were obvious plus defenders, but over time and deeper observations, I came to realize they were not. Actually, Nomar was okay early in his career and Ellsbury turned into a plus defenders after a few years, but I do realize I can and have been wrong many times over and will be again.

[moonslav59]

The difference between bWAR and fWAR with pitchers can be pretty large. Rick Porcello being a prime example. His fWAR is about 50% better.

 

I think it comes down to FIP, something I think has value but can skew some good pitchers numbers, if they have low K rates but consistently get weak hit outs.

[Old Red]

I do find it funny that a lot of these older fans idolize Bob Gibson for never wanting to come out (largely due to his surly disposition, which he gets admired for for some odd reason. And then we deride today’s starters for only going through the e lineup twice.

 

Do we extend this admonishment of reduced roles to other sports? Is Tom Brady really the GOAT? I mean, good ol’ Sammie Baugh played QB and CB and returned kicks!! He never left the field. In fact he once lead the NFL in TD passes and interceptions (as a CB!) and I believe return yards. Is Tom Brady “soft” because he doesn’t play like Sammie Baugh?

 

(These are all facts about Baugh. Not extreme possibilities to make a point. He really did this stuff.)

 

Is Tom Brady the goat,because he won more championships? Is Bill Russell the goat, because he won more championship?

[moonslav59]

But your entire argument is that these new school stats are “flawed assumptions” and the old school ones are concrete fact.

 

But are they? Aren’t there a ton of assumptions built into batting average? Like that hitters face equal pitching? Or hit into equal defense? Or play in parks with equal effect? And in front of official scorers with equal interpretations? And that, due to the large sample size, all of this equals out and creates a level playing field?

 

And sure, BA is a nice, simple consistent, easy-to-understand formula. Except it isn’t. And it hasn’t even always been calculated the same way.

 

One thing that will always bug me about BA is sac flies are not at bats. I get why sac bunts are not, but sac flies.

 

Well, from 1908 to 1931, they didn’t. Sac flies were at bats. In 1939, they were not at bats again. But from 1940 to 1954 hitters were suddenly charged with an at bat on a run scoring fly ball. This latter stretch shows the impact, as it has a major overlap with the career of Ted Williams.

 

If Williams played under the same rules as players before him, his legendary .406 in 1941 would have been .419. Williams also lost the 1949 triple crown because slap-hitting George Kell hit .0002 better. While I don’t have sac fly data for 1949, it’s not the most ridiculous assumption that Mr. Production Comes From Hitting The Ball In The Air had more than enough sac flies to win another triple crown.

 

And this same logic goes for a lot more old school stats. But we use them because 1) they’re relatable and 2) we always have. But none of that means there aren’t assumptions built in and they are perfect…

 

One more thing about BA, and you've brought this up about fielding percentage, too. Who calls an error an error? A subjective person, so if one player gets a hit on a certain play, but another gets an error on the exact same play, their BAs would be skewed.

 

Now, it all is supposed to work out over a long period of time, but errors are judged by the home team's scorer, not some unbiased person, so some players might be helped or hurt over the long run.

 

Of course, one could and should argue the observers used in UZR/150 are subjective and biased, too, and they'd be right, but at least they are trained and calibrated and rotated.

[notin]

Is Tom Brady the goat,because he won more championships? Is Bill Russell the goat, because he won more championship?

 

I live in Chicago, where “six rings” is the reason EVERYONE agrees Jordan is the GOAT. Of course, the argument changes rapidly when I start talking about “11 rings”…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It only ends them because it makes one party stop talking.

 

Heck the difference between bWAR and fWAR is debatable. Personally, I like bWAR better but the problem is Fangraphs has just made fWAR so much more accessible and user-friendly on their site.

 

For me, BB-Ref is more accessible and user-friendly because when I click on any team from any season in history, I instantly see photos of the top 12 WAR players in order, L to R. And when I click on any guy, I get his entire career.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Fangraphs makes me type in names for searches (BB-ref also has this option).

[moonslav59]

This might be a little more accepted if you were not the exact reverse. Not like you have expressed any acceptance of the sabermetric stats...

 

Like Old Red never goes "overboard" when defending his positions- many as warped as warped can be, I might add.

 

It's only when he disagrees with an opinion that he:

 

1) assumes you are stating your opinion as fact (wrong)

2) going "overboard" defending it by actually using facts, data, and worst of all sabermetrics (wrong)

3) then, when you get him corners, he says something like "that's when I change the question" or some absurd catch phrase he likes.

[notin]

One more thing about BA, and you've brought this up about fielding percentage, too. Who calls an error an error? A subjective person, so if one player gets a hit on a certain play, but another gets an error on the exact same play, their BAs would be skewed.

 

Now, it all is supposed to work out over a long period of time, but errors are judged by the home team's scorer, not some unbiased person, so some players might be helped or hurt over the long run.

 

Of course, one could and should argue the observers used in UZR/150 are subjective and biased, too, and they'd be right, but at least they are trained and calibrated and rotated.

 

All of baseball is “some guy’s opinion”. Strikes. Balls. Outs. Hits. And for a long time, fair and foul.

 

We even have myths we believe as fans, like “tie goes to the runner” or “the runner is safe when the catcher drops the ball.” Sure many umpires use these guidelines, but do so by choice. The rulebook effectively states “you’re out when the ump says you’re out.” End of rule…

[moonslav59]

For me, BB-Ref is more accessible and user-friendly because when I click on any team from any season in history, I instantly see photos of the top 12 WAR players in order, L to R. And when I click on any guy, I get his entire career.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Fangraphs makes me type in names for searches (BB-ref also has this option).

 

fangraphs is better for time periods (to the day, if you wish, which B-R can do under only the game log's page) and advanced individual team stats.

[notin]

For me, BB-Ref is more accessible and user-friendly because when I click on any team from any season in history, I instantly see photos of the top 12 WAR players in order, L to R. And when I click on any guy, I get his entire career.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Fangraphs makes me type in names for searches (BB-ref also has this option).

 

B-R has its advantages in many, many other ways. Want to know how a player did over the last 3 years? On B-R, it’s a breeze. It’s fun. On Fangraphs? Total nightmare.

 

B-R’s interactive feature on game logs are incredible, too. They must have some serious copyright protection because I can’t think of any reason no one else has added their features…

[Old Red]

I live in Chicago, where “six rings” is the reason EVERYONE agrees Jordan is the GOAT. Of course, the argument changes rapidly when I start talking about “11 rings”…

 

What did Russell say about Lebron, and his Mt. Rushmore?

[moonslav59]

All of baseball is “some guy’s opinion”. Strikes. Balls. Outs. Hits. And for a long time, fair and foul.

 

We even have myths we believe as fans, like “tie goes to the runner” or “the runner is safe when the catcher drops the ball.” Sure many umpires use these guidelines, but do so by choice. The rulebook effectively states “you’re out when the ump says you’re out.” End of rule…

 

And to think subjectivity does not play a role and that BA and other traditional stats are solid, concrete facts, and then accuse others of using WAR in the same way, which nobody does, is baffling, to me.

[S5Dewey]

But your entire argument is that these new school stats are “flawed assumptions” and the old school ones are concrete fact.

 

But are they? Aren’t there a ton of assumptions built into batting average? Like that hitters face equal pitching? Or hit into equal defense? Or play in parks with equal effect? And in front of official scorers with equal interpretations? And that, due to the large sample size, all of this equals out and creates a level playing field?

 

And sure, BA is a nice, simple consistent, easy-to-understand formula. Except it isn’t. And it hasn’t even always been calculated the same way.

 

One thing that will always bug me about BA is sac flies are not at bats. I get why sac bunts are not, but sac flies.

 

Well, from 1908 to 1931, they didn’t. Sac flies were at bats. In 1939, they were not at bats again. But from 1940 to 1954 hitters were suddenly charged with an at bat on a run scoring fly ball. This latter stretch shows the impact, as it has a major overlap with the career of Ted Williams.

 

If Williams played under the same rules as players before him, his legendary .406 in 1941 would have been .419. Williams also lost the 1949 triple crown because slap-hitting George Kell hit .0002 better. While I don’t have sac fly data for 1949, it’s not the most ridiculous assumption that Mr. Production Comes From Hitting The Ball In The Air had more than enough sac flies to win another triple crown.

 

And this same logic goes for a lot more old school stats. But we use them because 1) they’re relatable and 2) we always have. But none of that means there aren’t assumptions built in and they are perfect…

No again. The "flawed assumption " you refer to was the attack on the veracity of Bill James' quote. And I still don't understand why anyone would take the time and energy to debate a clever, tongue-in-cheek statement.

I don't disagree (much) with the rest of your post though. Had you started there rather than by 'going after' James' quote this whole dust-up could have been avoided.

[notin]

One thing I do HATE about B-R is how unforgiving it is on searches.

 

Type in “Mike Wacha” and it looks at you like “Who? Did he play baseball? Never heard of him.”

 

Type in “Michael Wacha” and suddenly it’s “Here you go. Was that so hard? Why didn’t you just say Michael Wacha in the first place?”

[notin]

No again. The "flawed assumption " you refer to was the attack on the veracity of Bill James' quote. And I still don't understand why anyone would take the time and energy to debate a clever, tongue-in-cheek statement.

I don't disagree (much) with the rest of your post though. Had you started there rather than by 'going after' James' quote this whole dust-up could have been avoided.

 

It’s not a “dust up”. It’s a friendly debate. Not like I’ve been tossing names around at you

 

But with that quote, first time you used it I pointed out the origin which does really change the meaning. Context matters. First time I thought “he might not know. But you keep insisting on using it like it was James’ own words. Now if you like the quote, it’s not hard to say “as Bill James once said on The Simpsons,” but you don’t. Probably because it does potentially alter the impact and meaning. However, it would increase your credibility…

[a700hitter]

Naw. Most of the advanced metrics don't bother me at all. When I look at B/R and see all of those numbers I just ignore them. I don't need all of that extraneous stuff in my life in order to enjoy baseball.

 

I'll admit that WAR is a pet peeve of mine though. When we consider that there are at least two entities that calculate WAR and they frequently get different totals WAR has to be considered an "inexact science." You're a numbers guy so you know that a small difference in the beginning of an equation can result in a big difference in the end. There are just too many moving parts in WAR (either one) for me to accept it as a true value.

 

That's not to say that I think WAR is useless. I just think that most discrepancies that show up in WAR also show up to the naked eye, and those that don't show up don't matter. I'm just here to enjoy the game.

 

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it!!

Are you saying that you don’t fret about payroll limitations several years down the road? How is that enjoyable?

[Old Red]

Like Old Red never goes "overboard" when defending his positions- many as warped as warped can be, I might add.

 

It's only when he disagrees with an opinion that he:

 

1) assumes you are stating your opinion as fact (wrong)

2) going "overboard" defending it by actually using facts, data, and worst of all sabermetrics (wrong)

3) then, when you get him corners, he says something like "that's when I change the question" or some absurd catch phrase he likes.

 

Going to the Old fallback, with your warped opinions quote. I’ve seen some of your opinions before, and people might think you didn’t know halfway near as much about baseball as you think you do. I know you think your a super scout, and have seen every inning of every game, and can judge all the SS on who’s good, and who’s bad, and not to mention your medical practice that from afar you diagnosed that Bogey is under so much mental strain from knowing that Story plays better D than he does. It must have been a fact, because you didn’t say it was an opinion, so talk about warped that is warped as warped can be. I still have it framed where you apologized to me for saying I hated Cora, which was a total lie on your part. I know you think you have a clean unblemished record on here, but you can’t get further from the truth.

[notin]

It’s not a “dust up”. It’s a friendly debate. Not like I’ve been tossing names around at you

 

But with that quote, first time you used it I pointed out the origin which does really change the meaning. Context matters. First time I thought “he might not know. But you keep insisting on using it like it was James’ own words. Now if you like the quote, it’s not hard to say “as Bill James once said on The Simpsons,” but you don’t. Probably because it does potentially alter the impact and meaning. However, it would increase your credibility…

 

Also I didn’t “attack the veracity” of the James’ quote. I provided the citation. I added the footnote and put it in the bibliography. You were a teacher, right? (For some reason I think you were, but maybe it’s someone else.). Would you look at a citation and source as an “attack on the veracity? Heck, it’s closer to being a stamp of authentication…

[a700hitter]

I don’t mind stats, but please keep Alex Speier off Red Sox telecasts. He adds nothing and is undeserving of the cool nickname that Eck dropped on him. It’s snooze fest time when he is on.

[jad]

What's the dWAR of your little league kid? or for each of the starting 9 of your local h.s. team? (I'm guessing every one of them knows their BA.)

[moonslav59]

What's the dWAR of your little league kid? or for each of the starting 9 of your local h.s. team? (I'm guessing every one of them knows their BA.)

 

lmao

[notin]

What's the dWAR of your little league kid? or for each of the starting 9 of your local h.s. team? (I'm guessing every one of them knows their BA.)

 

Really?

 

Ask a 10 year old bis BA. Ask him how many hits he got.

 

If you're going to use this as an example, bear in mind that for a lot of kids, grounding out to SS counts as a "hit" simpy because they hit the ball. And certainly none of these kids consider whether or not it was an error on that horrible Little League "throw" to first base,

 

And adults get weird when they try to apply MLB stats and logic to kids' games. When my daughter hit her first home run in softball, I told her uncle how it went down. "She ripped a line drive between the right fielder and certer fielder and it kept going." He actually kept calling it an "inside the park home run" and acted like it was a cheaper version of a home run. ("So it was just an inside the park home run." How can it be an "inside the park" home run when you play on a park district field with no fences?!?! There's no "park" to hit it out of! And he kept repeatedly defending this label on her home run. WTF? She hit her second home run two at bats later and ripped it clear over the left fielder's head, but, hey, it didn;t clear the non-existant fence, so I guess that was one of those cheap inside-the-park home runs. too...

[jad]

Really?

 

Ask a 10 year old bis BA. Ask him how many hits he got.

 

If you're going to use this as an example, bear in mind that for a lot of kids, grounding out to SS counts as a "hit" simpy because they hit the ball. And certainly none of these kids consider whether or not it was an error on that horrible Little League "throw" to first base,

 

And adults get weird when they try to apply MLB stats and logic to kids' games. When my daughter hit her first home run in softball, I told her uncle how it went down. "She ripped a line drive between the right fielder and certer fielder and it kept going." He actually kept calling it an "inside the park home run" and acted like it was a cheaper version of a home run. ("So it was just an inside the park home run." How can it be an "inside the park" home run when you play on a park district field with no fences?!?! There's no "park" to hit it out of! And he kept repeatedly defending this label on her home run. WTF? She hit her second home run two at bats later and ripped it clear over the left fielder's head, but, hey, it didn;t clear the non-existant fence, so I guess that was one of those cheap inside-the-park home runs. too...

 

That's true. The 10-year-olds on the team I coached years ago counted FC's as hits and their long-division was shaky. The 13 yr-olds were probably the first ones really to know and care about their 'stats.' (Although no one knew their fielding % or ERA). But BA? and no. of HR's? Oh yeah. Most knew.