S5Dewey

I don't horribly dislike the current playoff format but IMO having 3 divisions in each league is ridiculous. Split 'em into two divisions, East & West. Play each team in your own division the same number of times & throw in two or three teams in the other division - whatever it takes to make the numbers work. When the playoffs come take the top 2 in each division and let them play off. 1 vs. 2 and the winners play for the DC. No wild card. The WC makes for 5 (or 6) teams, making playoff scheduling cumbersome. But if you insist on the WC have the #2's play the 3's in a one-game showdown. Too simplistic?

I think when we start comparing WAR with the theory of relativity we're on very thin ice. BTW, it's nice to hear from you. I thought you probably had me blocked after our last dust-up. I want to be very clear where I stand on WAR: I completely understand what WAR is trying to measure and say and I think they do a fair-to-good job of it. Not an excellent job, but a fair-to-good job. I have no intent to 'throw this baby out with the bathwater' but at the same time when I (and others) see things that make me say, "Huh? Really?" I have to challenge what I'm seeing. It's not anything personal toward you, it's just that I'm not one to see something that makes no sense to me and just accept it. Then when I see Moon, Notin, and others (who are one heck of a lot smarter than I am) pointing out flaws it makes me wonder how many other flaws there are. And that brings into question the entire process. I think that's reasonable. As they say, "Your results may vary".

Thanks, Manny!

And you do???? Hahaha I'm 2-for-3 in your criteria. I understand what it's trying to measure and what it's trying to say, which leaves you and me in exactly the same position. If you fully understand the process; the calculations, complexities and permutations of WAR you're the ONLY person here who does. And maybe the only person in the continental United States!

A man was sent to prison and on his first night there he was mystified by what he heard. Somewhere someone said "14" and everyone broke out laughing. "22". More laughter. "43". More laughter again. And it went on like that for over an hour with someone calling out a number and everyone laughing. The next day he asked his cellmate what that was all about. "We've all been here a long time and we've heard the same jokes over and over so rather than tell the entire joke we've numbered them. When someone calls out a number it reminds everyone else of the joke and we all laugh." "Hmmm", the new guy thinks, "I want to fit in here so I'll try that tonight". And the next night he does. "57" he calls out. Silence. "83" More silence "77" More silence, and he gives up. The next day he asked his cellmate why nobody laughed at his jokes and his cellmate said...... "Sometimes it's all in the delivery"

Yes. Thank you. I agree with you (and Bellhorn). Now if we can only remember that when we talk about different player's WAR.

I apologize for continually finding flaws in WAR. Are you sure I said that? I've posted a lot here and I guess it's possible but that doesn't even sound like my phraseology. If you can point it out I'll believe I said it but I have too much of a life outside of TalkSox to take the time to go back and find out.

I think you replied to the wrong person with your post. I'm not the one who said it was abstract.

Wrong yet again. It's the sabre-folks who want everyone to believe what they have to say because "the numbers say so" and completely discounting what not only posters but people who have played the game professionally say. I'd venture a guess that if you ask ANY professional baseball players what they think about "protection", "clutch" and "choke" an overwhelming majority of them would say they exist. At least that's been my experience from listening to them. Are they ALL wrong??? But.... Thank you for reaffirming what I said here: One of my complaints with this board is that there is increasingly no respect for those of us who've played or coached. It's now becoming a numbers game here with the sabre-people having with the condescending attitude of, "I've got the numbers to support my position. Do YOU???" Obviously we don't because we're relying on personal experience - which is invariably trumped by numbers. In many arenas the sabre-people haven't made believers out of us - they've just shut us up.

I know. I said at the time that I wasn't going to get baited back into this discussion again and yet.... :-( And then when I saw someone saying that numbers don't mean what they say they mean I couldn't resist. I'm ashamed.

Have you even been reading these forums???? Statistics end debate. Those of us who have been advocating for the human element in baseball have been buried under a barrage of statistics and data "proving" that 1) Protection doesn't exist, 2) "Clutch" doesn't exist, and 3) It was only after a lengthy discussion that some begrudgingly agreed that "choke" might exist. The attitude is that if you can't prove something statistically then it doesn't exist, and if one has the numbers to "prove" something it does exist. One of my complaints with this board is that there is increasingly no respect for those of us who've played or coached. It's now becoming a numbers game here with the sabre-people having with the condescending attitude of, "I've got the numbers to support my position. Do YOU???" Obviously we don't because we're relying on personal experience - which is invariably trumped by numbers. In many arenas the sabre-people haven't made believers out of us - they've just shut us up. In the ongoing debate over whether JBJ is the best CF in the league for example, many of us think he just might be that. However, when we say so what we hear is that JBJ's dwar is 'X.xx', Kiermyer's dWAR is higher. When we start to talk about the idiosyncrasies of Fenway Park and why it's difficult to play there we're told that that's all accounted for in the range factor. When we question Range Factor we're told that we're old-fashioned and we need to get with the system. When we question the system we're told that these people are trained observers and you're not - so what you think doesn't mean s***. (paraphrasing a bit there) Statistics end discussions. If you'd like some idea of how ridiculous WAR can be at times, are you aware that according to BR, for 2018 JBJ's oWAR is higher than is dWAR? Yep. That's right. According to BR, JBJ's offense is more valuable than is defense. We have an entire thread dedicated to whether we should trade him because he's a streak hitter and yet they rate his hitting higher than his defense - and he's GG caliber defensively. But, of course, that has to be the way it is because his defense is rated by "trained observers". The more I see about WAR the more I realize that it's not as meaningful as most people think it is.

If I were coming up from Louisiana I'd have tickets in hand or have them reserved. Personally I've had good luck with ACE tickets but other's experiences may vary. The quintessential Red Sox bar is The Cask & Flagon just across the street from the park, but get there early. Sometimes it seems like everyone who is going to the game stops there for a beer first. The grandstand section of Fenway has a lot of obstructed vision seats where you're unable to see some part of the infield and the right field section of box seats has seats that seem to be perpendicular to the foul line. That means you'll be turning your head to the left to see every pitch and everything that happens in the infield. I'd recommend that you try to find the exact seats you're buying before you purchase them, then go to http://www.preciseseating.com/fenwaypark2.php. You'll be able to enter the exact seat numbers you're considering and they'll show you the view from those seats. I'm sure you'll get help from others here too. We're a friendly bunch.

That is absolutely untrue. I'll say again what I said on the previous page. Some people (like me) think 17% is big. Some don't. My issue is when someone points out a difference of .2 or .3 (or even .5 as the numbers get bigger) as proof that one player is better than another and it ends the debate.

You tell me. I didn't do it!! But it's nice to see that you're coming over to the 'light' side with your comment about WAR being an abstract and unprovable concept. That paraphrases what I've been saying all along!

Yes. If Cora is going to put JDM in RF he should do it in someone else's park.

Yes. Thank you. The rub comes in the definition of "big". Some people (like me) think 17% is big. Some don't. My issue is when someone points out a difference of .2 or .3 (or even .5 as the numbers get bigger) as proof that one player is better than another and it ends the debate.

You need to be careful here. Them's fightin' words to some folks!

This has to be one of the craziest debates I've ever been in. Fangraphs says that when the value is 6 they are approximately within one point either way of the value they assigned. You can call it "margin of error" or "approximate to within" but however you shake it they are saying that it's within 17% (or 16.6666666... to be precise) of that 6. The only thing I did was the math. I don't expect you to back down on this. You've got too much invested in it now. But this is pretty simple stuff!

I agree with that. His inability to pitch regularly is also what keeps him from making $20MM/year - which I would think would be a big problem for HIM too! But.. I'd rather have a guy whom I think will go out and get me a WHIP of 1.2 - 1.3 over a half season for the league minimum than try to sign someone else without Buch's ability to be a #4 or 5 for the same money.If/When Buch goes down, THEN go out and get your #4-5 guy.

because of the way I did this the forum is making me put in at least three characters. This is them.

I don't think you want to say that it helps his (Ramirez) case. It says what I said above, that the people voting for the MVP award are "most people".

That's OK with me. I'm sticking with "not as valuable as most people think it is". IMHO when "most people" see a list of 3 players, one with a WAR of 3.50, one with a WAR of 4.00 and a third with a WAR of 4.50 they don't say, "Let's see, 4.0 plus or minus 17% is a range of 3.32 to 4.68 so these three players are all statistically the same." Instead, "most people" are going to assume that the player with the 4.5 WAR is a better player than the 3.5 player. At least I would, and I think I'm like most people. Not as valuable as "most people" think it is.

No thank you. I'm exhausted on this topic. Some people think its great in spite of the big margin of error and I don't. I'm good with that. I'll even use WAR in a discussion occasionally but that doesn't mean I have a lot of faith in it. It's just, as you implied, I can't identify anything better. But I will say that "not able to identify anything better" is a pretty low bar. If Fangraphs admitted to a 50% margin of error would you still like it? How about 80%? At what point would YOU say it's "not as useful as most people think it is"?

I've always said that Buch has ace stuff, could have been had for about half the cost of an ace, and he'd pitch half a season. I'd rather have had him for that half season and dumpster-dive (if necessary) for the other half.

Couldn't have happened to a better guy.