Article: BREAKING: Red Sox Sign Walker Buehler To One-Year Contract

[notin]

On 12/31/2024 at 1:06 PM, dgalehouse said:

Notin, The same argument could be used both ways. I could say that one guy had better numbers in most categories, but the award went to the other guy because the baseball writers valued his wins. And playing on a winner always helps, just as in the MVP voting. And I am not by any means saying that wins and losses are the only thing to go by. Just saying that wins have been pretty much disregarded by most of the analytics folks. And I disagree with that. 

Clearly the writers did value Colon’s win total.  But Santana was the far better pitcher.  The only thing Colon had going for him is the ALCS runner up Angels were better than a Twins team that didn’t make the post season at all.  But Colon wasn’t the difference.  The Angels were 73-56 in games Colon didn’t even appear in; the Twins were 59-70 when Santana didn’t pitch. 

The problem with MVP comparisons is the interpretation of that award.  What does “valuable” mean? To many, it means biggest contributor to his team’s success.  And that means the team has to have some success to contribute to.  If so, players like Andre Dawson and Alex Rodriguez, who both won the award for last place teams, make no sense.  What did either contribute to?  In both cases, their teams could have finished last without them.  But Cy Young has no such ambiguity; it just goes to the best pitcher of the year.  So team success should be irrelevant.  And if team success is irrelevant, team stats like “wins” shouldn’t matter.  Pitchers like Santana and Félix Hernandez were big factors in changing this perception with BBWAA as they de-emphasized the win stat when determining awards.

Of course, this doesn’t mean they collectively replaced it with WAR.  Some probably did.  But some writers are like you and very hesitant with these fad stats that often get replaced quickly.

To me, the only argument for the wins stat is it’s been there all along and everyone can relate to it.  It has its uses, but it used to be relied on much more. In the das before ERA, that made a lot of sense.  But I still think it need not be emphasized…

[Bellhorn04]

I will say this - WAR is proving to be pretty useless as far as a barometer for the Cy Young, simply because the two main WAR calculators can come up with vastly different results - one based on "what actually happened" and one on "what should have happened".  

[mvp 78]

13 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I will say this - WAR is proving to be pretty useless as far as a barometer for the Cy Young, simply because the two main WAR calculators can come up with vastly different results - one based on "what actually happened" and one on "what should have happened".  

For past results, (i.e. the year that just ended) it should be what actually happened or bWAR. If we want to project going forward, it should be what should (could?) have happened or fWAR. 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

57 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I will say this - WAR is proving to be pretty useless as far as a barometer for the Cy Young, simply because the two main WAR calculators can come up with vastly different results - one based on "what actually happened" and one on "what should have happened".  

Like... the bomb Hitler's officers planted under his table was positioned six inches over on the other side of the thick table leg at the meeting; that could've led to an earlier end of WAR and saved countless lives.

[moonslav59]

15 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

For past results, (i.e. the year that just ended) it should be what actually happened or bWAR. If we want to project going forward, it should be what should (could?) have happened or fWAR. 

Yes, they both have their uses. fWAR can also show that a certain pitcher should have done better (or worse) than his bWAR showed. That could tip the balance in a tight award, if the players are tied or near tied in bWAR.

[notin]

16 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I will say this - WAR is proving to be pretty useless as far as a barometer for the Cy Young, simply because the two main WAR calculators can come up with vastly different results - one based on "what actually happened" and one on "what should have happened".  

I think most writers/voters/media use fWAR when they  refer to WAR…

[mvp 78]

7 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Yes, they both have their uses. fWAR can also show that a certain pitcher should have done better (or worse) than his bWAR showed. That could tip the balance in a tight award, if the players are tied or near tied in bWAR.

I don't think the "should have" really tips the balance for me. I think actuals are more important when you are looking at annual awards. 

[mvp 78]

6 hours ago, notin said:

I think most writers/voters/media use fWAR when they  refer to WAR…

IDK, bWAR is the baseball card stat. 

[Bellhorn04]

6 hours ago, notin said:

I think most writers/voters/media use fWAR when they  refer to WAR…

Why do you think that?

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

I don't think the "should have" really tips the balance for me. I think actuals are more important when you are looking at annual awards. 

To me, it's like FIP and BAbip, stats you use often.

I do think fWAR counts more for awards. If the race is close, I think bWAR can be used to make the final call. 

[mvp 78]

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/red-sox-add-walker-buehler-to-talented-risk-filled-rotation/