S5Dewey

Actually I said a while back that I was done with this argument. It's too frustrating. We keep going around and around and around with the same things. Ask away, but I have no obligation to answer a question just because you asked it.

Gee, I wish I'd said that.

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.

Thanks. ...and your horse, too.

I don't want Pedey back at second in the worst way. That would be playing like Nunez! ::jus' bein' a dick.:: LOL

No s***, Mr. Obvious!! LOL

That's one of the things I find amusing because much of the minutiae is so specific. For example, when they say that 'Hanley is 6 for 8 when hitting 3rd in the order and Mookie is on 1B and he's facing a 2-2 count after he's fouled off three pitches in a row'..how much does that really mean?? LOL That may be why I liked Vin Scully so much. When Vin said something it was worth listening to and not just "amusing".

Whether it's statistically provable or not I'm still a big fan of "solid up the middle". The jury is still out on whether or not Pedey can be what we're hoping for but IMO he'll be better than what Nunez has provided recently.

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.

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.

Thanks. I respect your opinions too.

Did the umpire call a balk on him?

No more than some posters here who say that they don't completely discount the eye test but take every opportunity to drive home their point that the stats are more meaningful than the eye test. I guess I'm just not someone who's willing to take someone else's (flawed) calculations as the be-all, end-all.

They work better when they work but they're not as reliable. I don't doubt that WAR works fine in some instances, the problem is that we don't know which instances.

How many cumulative years of experience do those of us who post here and don't completely buy into WAR have? That many years of experience.

Hey, don't ask me. I'm not one of those "trained observers" or even a sabermetriciain. Since I haven't seen every player play every game I'm not qualified to say. Which puts me in the same group with just about everyone else. All I'm doing is pointing out that maybe we should be paying a little more attention to they eye test and our instincts and less attention to a hodgepodge of flawed statistics which get rolled into another flawed statistic... or data.. or whatever. I respect the statistics and WAR - for what they are - but at the same time I think there's a lot to be said for the years of experience too.

When two (or three) different sources give differing values for WAR for a player saying "It's better than anything else", that's a pretty low bar. As you said, every calculation that gets put into WAR is flawed in one way or another so I'll ask it again. When does it become "garbage in, garbage out"? Even though every site that calculates WAR says that it's not an exact science they also can't (or won't) give a margin of error. That makes me believe that they don't even know what that margin of error is. And yet we're supposed to have faith in the calculation.

And again... Yes, I know that both Fangraphs and Baseball Reference acknowledge that their formula isn't perfect but is there anyone among us who, when they see that Player A has a WAR of 1.0 and Player B has a WAR of 1.3, they don't assume that Player B is the better player? We've become so enamored with statistics and numbers that we believe that when one number is larger than another it must be showing a disparity between the two, and that not only may not be true but Fangraphs and BR both say it's not true. Yet we continue to use BR as a defining metric. I can't conclusively say that Mookie is better this year than Trout because I haven't seen Trout play much but nearly every metric that goes into WAR says it's true, and yet when one looks at BR they're going to assume that Trout is having the better year because WAR says so. Shouldn't that in itself bring into question the validity of WAR?

So here's what I've gathered from previous conversations regarding the eye test and WAR: 1) Since WAR passes the eye test it must be right. 2) The eye test is unreliable because those people conducting the 'eye test' don't see every player playing every inning and making every play. Therefore WAR must be a correct calculation.

This brings us around to my skepticism about WAR to begin with. Every statistic is flawed to some degree, whether it's BA, OPS, CS, SLG, etc. etc. etc. and yet when all these flawed statistics are poured into one calculation the outcome is accepted at being gospel. At what point does it become "garbage in, garbage out"? Yes, I know that both Fangraphs and Baseball Reference acknowledge that their formula isn't perfect but is there anyone among us who, when they see that Player A has a WAR of 1.0 and Player B has a WAR of 1.3, they don't assume that Player B is the better player?

Actually WAR was around long before Mike Trout, but I'm fairly certain that if WAR didn't prove that he's the best player in baseball they'd adjust their formulas so he would be.

Wow. It seems like not many things "are as important as most people think they are." But it's nice to know that hustle is accounted for "in some form or another" in the WAR calculations, which is the same as saying, "I don't know if it is or not but since I'm a proponent of WAR I'm going to say it is."

NOBODY has said that. NOBODY. All that's said is that moving Beni to CF would weaken the OF in two positions. Which is true.

Did you even look? This is the first one listed when I typed in "Alex cora bad baserunning" https://nesn.com/2018/05/alex-cora-details-how-hes-trying-to-fix-red-soxs-irresponsible-baserunning/