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

[Inside Pitch]

47 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

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.

Yep...

When push comes to shove there is a reason saber inclined teams have taken a lead over those that aren't -- and that reason is "information is king."    The tried and true stats of yesterday have been shown for the most part to be utterly useless when it comes to predicting future performance -- WAR (regardless of version), is no different in that respect.   

The more stats try to normalize things and get a truer picture of performance the better they are...   Both for projection and evaluation of current performance.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Inside Pitch

[floplag]

49 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

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.

I dont get too caught up in that, i dont think you really can compare them accurately whether due to lack of non white players in an era or lack of best athletes playing the game in another to the changes in what matters over time.  There are guys in the hall of fame that might not be able to get jobs today due to the changes, and other that would literally laugh out loud at us valuing guys that cant hit 250. 

[floplag]

24 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

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.

i understand, you are correct, and i get that there are variances and what they are, but thats not the point.  My point is that if they are using bWAR it should say bWAR and not simply WAR.   There needs to be a standard or it hurts the legitimacy and understanding of the stat. 

[Jeremiah]

3 minutes ago, floplag said:

I dont get too caught up in that, i dont think you really can compare them accurately whether due to lack of non white players in an era or lack of best athletes playing the game in another to the changes in what matters over time.  There are guys in the hall of fame that might not be able to get jobs today due to the changes, and other that would literally laugh out loud at us valuing guys that cant hit 250. 

You’re right. Fairly-recent HOF inductee Bert Blylevin is one of the biggest critics of advanced metrics despite the fact that it was those exact metrics that got people to see just how great he really was.

[Inside Pitch]

24 minutes ago, floplag said:

i understand, you are correct, and i get that there are variances and what they are, but thats not the point.  My point is that if they are using bWAR it should say bWAR and not simply WAR.   There needs to be a standard or it hurts the legitimacy and understanding of the stat. 

That's more a case of websites/authors being lazy than it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the statistic IMO.     Still, I get the point you're making and agree they most certainly SHOULD be clear (including ESPN).   

Thankfully more and more sites now mention when they are using FGs version because there HAS been confusion in the past.   As more and more people have familiarized themselves with the statistic, they started to call out the accuracy of the information being put out in the comment sections of articles... as such, authors/sites found themselves clarifying which version they were using and in some cases explaining why they were choosing one over the other.

Anyway, we are starting to see what you want to happen.... actually happen.  But (Im guessing here), because of the how easy BBref is to access and navigate, I'm willing to wager that bWAR will continue to be the version of WAR most commonly being used as WAR. 

But yeah -- it's annoying.

We agree here more than you think.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Inside Pitch

[2112]

On 4/7/2019 at 1:03 AM, Angelsjunky said:

^Don't bag on Bonds. Dude was a total beast - the most dominant hitter I've ever seen (at least in 2001-04) and it isn't particularly close. Roids or no roids.

Just proves you shouldn't rub strange things on your butt.

[Inside Pitch]

20 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

You’re right. Fairly-recent HOF inductee Bert Blylevin is one of the biggest critics of advanced metrics despite the fact that it was those exact metrics that got people to see just how great he really was.

Sooo true.   If not for advance metrics the "he didn't even win 300 games" crowd would have kept him out of the HOF...

BTW -- recently saw this...

Rk	Name	Yrs	From	To	ASG	W	L	W-L%	ERA	G	GS	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO ▼	HBP	BK	WP	BF	WAR	Birthdate	Debut	Birthplace
1	Chuck Finley	17	1986	2002	5	200	173	.536	3.85	524	467	24	63	15	0	3197.1	3069	1517	1366	304	1332	36	2610	76	22	130	13638	58.30	Nov 26, 1962	May 29, 1986	Monroe
2	Andy Pettitte	18	1995	2013	3	256	153	.626	3.85	531	521	3	26	4	0	3316.0	3448	1572	1418	288	1031	42	2448	55	11	69	14074	60.62	Jun 15, 1972	Apr 29, 1995	Baton Rouge
3	Vida Blue	17	1969	1986	6	209	161	.565	3.27	502	473	11	143	37	2	3343.1	2939	1357	1213	263	1185	61	2175	23	13	103	13837	44.83	Jul 28, 1949	Jul 20, 1969	Mansfield
4	Ron Guidry	14	1975	1988	4	170	91	.651	3.29	368	323	23	95	26	4	2392.0	2198	953	874	226	633	24	1778	13	8	56	9794	47.82	Aug 28, 1950	Jul 27, 1975	Lafayette
5	J.R. Richard	10	1971	1980	1	107	71	.601	3.15	238	221	3	76	19	0	1606.0	1227	625	562	73	770	15	1493	17	14	92	6674	21.46	Mar 7, 1950	Sep 5, 1971	Vienna
6	Earl Wilson	11	1959	1970	0	121	109	.526	3.69	338	310	15	69	13	0	2051.2	1863	934	842	236	796	35	1452	30	5	79	8677	20.35	Oct 2, 1934	Jul 28, 1959	Ponchatoula

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 4/8/2019.

 

Most people don't realize how good a pitcher Fin was, or how amazing it was for him to have been that good for as long as he was...   It's interesting to try to speculate what his numbers may have looked like had he gone to that LHP's paradise in NY ... 

[Jeremiah]

33 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Sooo true.   If not for advance metrics the "he didn't even win 300 games" crowd would have kept him out of the HOF...

BTW -- recently saw this...

Rk	Name	Yrs	From	To	ASG	W	L	W-L%	ERA	G	GS	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO ▼	HBP	BK	WP	BF	WAR	Birthdate	Debut	Birthplace
1	Chuck Finley	17	1986	2002	5	200	173	.536	3.85	524	467	24	63	15	0	3197.1	3069	1517	1366	304	1332	36	2610	76	22	130	13638	58.30	Nov 26, 1962	May 29, 1986	Monroe
2	Andy Pettitte	18	1995	2013	3	256	153	.626	3.85	531	521	3	26	4	0	3316.0	3448	1572	1418	288	1031	42	2448	55	11	69	14074	60.62	Jun 15, 1972	Apr 29, 1995	Baton Rouge
3	Vida Blue	17	1969	1986	6	209	161	.565	3.27	502	473	11	143	37	2	3343.1	2939	1357	1213	263	1185	61	2175	23	13	103	13837	44.83	Jul 28, 1949	Jul 20, 1969	Mansfield
4	Ron Guidry	14	1975	1988	4	170	91	.651	3.29	368	323	23	95	26	4	2392.0	2198	953	874	226	633	24	1778	13	8	56	9794	47.82	Aug 28, 1950	Jul 27, 1975	Lafayette
5	J.R. Richard	10	1971	1980	1	107	71	.601	3.15	238	221	3	76	19	0	1606.0	1227	625	562	73	770	15	1493	17	14	92	6674	21.46	Mar 7, 1950	Sep 5, 1971	Vienna
6	Earl Wilson	11	1959	1970	0	121	109	.526	3.69	338	310	15	69	13	0	2051.2	1863	934	842	236	796	35	1452	30	5	79	8677	20.35	Oct 2, 1934	Jul 28, 1959	Ponchatoula

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 4/8/2019.

 

Most people don't realize how good a pitcher Fin was, or how amazing it was for him to have been that good for as long as he was...   It's interesting to try to speculate what his numbers may have looked like had he gone to that LHP's paradise in NY ... 

It’s amazing to see how he stacks up against some all-timers there. During his time with the team, he was my favorite player. I loved watching him pitch.

[Lou]

3 hours ago, Lou said:

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

btw, we're currently ranked #1 in college baseball. 

[Lou]

2 hours ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

Seems Legit...

 

discussion over 

[Jeff Fletcher]

40 minutes ago, Lou said:

 

discussion over 

What discussion was that?

[Lou]

that Bonds was a cheater. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

9 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

How about saying anyone over 34 can use steroids?

Pujols really should be able to get a waiver.

[ten ocho recon scout]

3 hours ago, Jeremiah said:

It’s amazing to see how he stacks up against some all-timers there. During his time with the team, he was my favorite player. I loved watching him pitch.

Same.

For those of us too young to remember ryan, Fin was (to me) more Mr Angel than Tim Salmon. And i love salmon. But Fin was not only one of the few bright spots, but was better than people realize.

That forkball was nasty

[ten ocho recon scout]

6 hours ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

Seems Legit...

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

I ran into Mark McGwire a few years ago. Same thing. Hes "tiny" now compared to his playing days. And not in a "i stopped lifting" way.

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I ran into Mark McGwire a few years ago. Same thing. Hes "tiny" now compared to his playing days. And not in a "i stopped lifting" way.

at least he did the honorable thing and admitted he cheated