My main issue with the WAR stat...(Trout)

[zenmaster]

I still think we should have another version of MLB that encourages roid use and used aluminum bats. Players can choose which league they want to be in. 750 foot homers but we'd need nets surrounding the whole field.

 

How far could Trout hit a 100mph fastball with an aluminum bat? Or would the bat blow up or something?

[floplag]

My issue with it is that it varies from site to site at times, it really should be standardized if its going to be a referable stat. 

[Amazing Larry]

2 hours ago, fan_since79 said:

I still feel cheated that the only time I saw Bonds in person (in a game in SF) they walked him three times. On another AB he swung at a curve ball and grounded weakly to third.

I was dating a girl who wen t to Berkeley at the time so I saw a boat load of Bonds AB's when he was chasing the record. My gf always thought I was coming up to the bay area to see her lol.

[Inside Pitch]

7 minutes ago, floplag said:

My issue with it is that it varies from site to site at times, it really should be standardized if its going to be a referable stat. 

It's really not difficult to reference whether it's bWAR or fWAR. 

Most people familiar with the stat understand the differences between the two versions.   Knowing what they measure and how means it's easy to understand what their limitations or flaws are -- essentially the same as every other statistic out there.  ESPN and most places that track stats tend to use the BBRef version. 

Personally, my issues with WAR regardless of the version stem from the shortcomings associated with defensive metrics.  Doesn't matter which version people prefer, the reliance on that defensive data makes both flawed.  

For pure offensive performance I prefer wOBA.

[Jeff Fletcher]

36 minutes ago, zenmaster said:

I still think we should have another version of MLB that encourages roid use and used aluminum bats. Players can choose which league they want to be in. 750 foot homers but we'd need nets surrounding the whole field.

How about saying anyone over 34 can use steroids?

[Lou]

Bonds is an Ahole. 

(and not the cool kind)

[Jeremiah]

15 minutes ago, floplag said:

My issue with it is that it varies from site to site at times, it really should be standardized if its going to be a referable stat. 

I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. As the game evolves, statistical measures need to evolve with it so that we can continue to measure players without context and narrative muddying things up.

[floplag]

Just now, Jeremiah said:

I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. As the game evolves, statistical measures need to evolve with it so that we can continue to measure players without context and narrative muddying things up.

perhaps but if were going to call it WAR that should have the same meaning from one stats listing to another.  

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

It's really not difficult to reference whether it's bWAR or fWAR. 

Most people familiar with the stat understand the differences between the two versions.   Knowing what they measure and how means it's easy to understand what their limitations or flaws are -- essentially the same as every other statistic out there.  ESPN and most places that track stats tend to use the BBRef version. 

Personally, my issues with WAR regardless of the version stem from the shortcomings associated with defensive metrics.  Doesn't matter which version people prefer, the reliance on that defensive data makes both flawed.  

For pure offensive performance I prefer wOBA.

True, but not the point.
You visit various sites they simply list it as WAR.  ESPN for example doesn't typically match FG or BA as weve had happen here in more than one discussion.   
 

[Jeremiah]

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

perhaps but if were going to call it WAR that should have the same meaning from one stats listing to another.  

I understand what you’re saying. As fans we need stats that are easily accessible and understood so that we can discuss them like we do here. WAR isn’t perfect, and I haven’t read anyone saying it is, but it is still a very solid measure of how good players are without park effects, etc. I do think the differences in measuring it, largely due to defense I think, show that people are trying to perfect it.

[Jeremiah]

2 hours ago, zenmaster said:

I still think we should have another version of MLB that encourages roid use and used aluminum bats. Players can choose which league they want to be in. 750 foot homers but we'd need nets surrounding the whole field.

 

How far could Trout hit a 100mph fastball with an aluminum bat? Or would the bat blow up or something?

I think that’s almost college baseball already.

[Tank]

6 hours ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

He injured the part of his brain that gave him the ability to hit a baseball. 

wrong. he injured his back.

[Lou]

33 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

I think that’s almost college baseball already.

you haven't watched college baseball in a while, have you? 

[Angel Oracle]

37 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

I think that’s almost college baseball already.

Except for LB State (See deadball era offense definition.)

[Angel Oracle]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 9:15 AM, Lhalo said:

Roids help strength. Strength helps bat speed.

Mongo deduct that roids help bat speed.

Mongo like balloons too.

[Angel Oracle]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 10:35 AM, Taylor said:

Bonds' late seasons were all manufactured by steroids. No one can put up those kinds of numbers at age 40 without chemicals.

But yes, he was a HOF-caliber player before his roid-infused late seasons.

I liked him much better as a Pirates OF, no cheating.

[floplag]

54 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

I understand what you’re saying. As fans we need stats that are easily accessible and understood so that we can discuss them like we do here. WAR isn’t perfect, and I haven’t read anyone saying it is, but it is still a very solid measure of how good players are without park effects, etc. I do think the differences in measuring it, largely due to defense I think, show that people are trying to perfect it.

There really isnt a perfect stat right now.  They keep trying and settle on something like WAR, then someone splinters it off into 3 sub WARs, or someone comes up with something new.
I get what many of the composite stats are trying to do, simplify player performance measurement. but there always seems to be examples of things that just dont make sense egging up the process.  How many times have we seen a player that literally noone would put above another is somehow statistically better or on par with the other... it hurts the legitimacy of the process. 
There needs to be something, but the game got along for over 100 years without it being taken to this extreme statistically, i sometimes wonder if it wasnt better off. 

[Angelsfan1984]

2 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

How about saying anyone over 34 can use steroids?

They should allow the "designated hitter" to use roids and an aluminum bat. they could even add incentives to the game, if 3 straight players reach base your DH gets to automatically bat again next.

[Angelsfan1984]

1 hour ago, Tank said:

wrong. he injured his back.

 

[Angelsfan1984]

Seems Legit...

[Jeremiah]

28 minutes ago, floplag said:

There really isnt a perfect stat right now.  They keep trying and settle on something like WAR, then someone splinters it off into 3 sub WARs, or someone comes up with something new.
I get what many of the composite stats are trying to do, simplify player performance measurement. but there always seems to be examples of things that just dont make sense egging up the process.  How many times have we seen a player that literally noone would put above another is somehow statistically better or on par with the other... it hurts the legitimacy of the process. 
There needs to be something, but the game got along for over 100 years without it being taken to this extreme statistically, i sometimes wonder if it wasnt better off. 

You’re right, there isn’t. And I can agree to a point that sometimes we may be overdoing it statistically, which can sometimes make the game feel too clinical, dispassionate. There are some stats that do belong in the dustbin of history, though: pitcher wins, rbi’s, saves. I think even batting average has outlived its real usefulness. Fletcher has said baseball people don’t even use pitcher ERA anymore as a measure of performance. These are good things to have learned.

New stats allow for better comparisons of players across eras. AJ just posted some numbers comparing Trout to many of the past greats. That would be harder to do without the different types of WAR.

I think as we’re more exposed to these statistics, the more comfortable we will all become with them.

From a nostalgic perspective, it’s fun to compare rbi’s and wins among the greats, though.

[UndertheHalo]

So what.  He mainlined fu*cking horse hormones to make bazillion dollars.  I’d do it. 

It’s a beautiful example of human/horse synergy and I respect it. 

Edited April 8, 2019 by UndertheHalo

[Lou]

7 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

So what.  He mainlined fu*cking horse hormones to make bazillion dollars.  I’d do it. 

It’s a beautiful example of human/horse synergy and I respect it. 

I expect you to be in Saratoga Springs for his induction ceremony 

[Inside Pitch]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

True, but not the point.
You visit various sites they simply list it as WAR.  ESPN for example doesn't typically match FG or BA as weve had happen here in more than one discussion.   
 

The point I made is that if you know what version of WAR is being used then there really isn't any difference between it or any other statistic out there.   Knowing what bWAR measures is no different than knowing what RBI are.

ESPN has in the past used bWAR, as I said previously most of the catch all sports sites out there do.   The reason you may see a difference between bWAR and ESPN is because ESPN has to wait for BBRef to update it's numbers before it can follow suit -- there can be a delay.... currently they aren't even tracking WAR, choosing instead for the stat to have a larger sample size and thus -- a better indicator of performance.  Fangraphs has always used their own version, much like BB Prospectus has it's own system named BWARP.   Despite having been one of the earliest saber-sites, very few people reference BWARP these days -- their site is a bit clunky IMO.

Anyway while bWAR is the most commonly used version, more often than not publications will reference FGs when they use theirs  -- at least that's become the norm in recent years.  The fact that people here will at times try to slant their arguments by using the version that suits their argument doesn't mean they aren't valid -- it means people are either trying to be slick or aren't aware that you can't cross compare the two different stats.

[Angel Oracle]

Don't let him anywhere nears Santa Anita Park though.