SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
WAR and More (...what is it good for)
|
Post by rjp313jr on Aug 21, 2018 12:10:30 GMT -5
You could test this theory: has there been a greater decline in interest in baseball on the East Coast than the West Coast? I'm skeptical, but it would be interesting to see. I'm also skeptical of these theories about how there are so many walks and strikeouts the game's gotten more boring. The walk rate has been basically steady since the 1920s, despite those sabermetric kids and their infernal meddling. The strikeout rate has been steadily rising since the '80s, but there have nonetheless basically been the same number of hits per game since at least the '60s. I don't think baseball helps itself by being composed of a bunch of fuddy duddies who have a temper tantrum if anyone shows emotion by flipping a bat or whatever, for reasons Chris Rock makes clear. (He's talking about black interest in baseball, but the implications run broader than that.) Totally agree about bat flips etc. It is entertainment. That is another problem: star development. Baseball doesn’t do a great job marketing its stars. Personally, I also think this is a problem (in one area) with all the relief pitching. I don’t tune in to see Heath Hembree, you know? It’s like if NFL teams put in backups for the third quarter. But on marketing... JFC, I saw Tony Romo in a commercial the other day... a retired never-was! How do guys like Mookie and Trout not have a bit more cultural cache? Mike Trout has no desire to do a lot of marketing. He turns it down a lot. Manfred has even commented on this. He’s said they’ve offer him opportunities but he’d rather spend his free time doing other things. Trout is smart. He gets to play his sport, make a ton of money and not have to deal with the same game as other athletes. He can probably go to the mall in most places without being noticed. He probably likes being able to be low key and live life some what normally but as a Uber millionaire.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,380
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Aug 21, 2018 12:28:23 GMT -5
Totally agree about bat flips etc. It is entertainment. That is another problem: star development. Baseball doesn’t do a great job marketing its stars. Personally, I also think this is a problem (in one area) with all the relief pitching. I don’t tune in to see Heath Hembree, you know? It’s like if NFL teams put in backups for the third quarter. But on marketing... JFC, I saw Tony Romo in a commercial the other day... a retired never-was! How do guys like Mookie and Trout not have a bit more cultural cache? Mike Trout has no desire to do a lot of marketing. He turns it down a lot. Manfred has even commented on this. He’s said they’ve offer him opportunities but he’d rather spend his free time doing other things. Trout is smart. He gets to play his sport, make a ton of money and not have to deal with the same game as other athletes. He can probably go to the mall in most places without being noticed. He probably likes being able to be low key and live life some what normally but as a Uber millionaire. Fair enough. Just meant as an example. Lindor, altuve... anyone?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 21, 2018 13:19:34 GMT -5
Just for a second think if a really crappy pitcher starts 25 games and has a ton of 2, 3, 4 inning games and the effect it would have on the Mets over other games. You are overlooking the value of a great starter that pitches a lot of innings and thinking a replacement level guy only impacts games he pitches in. Which is wrong, he could ruin the bullpen and cause loses down the road. You think or need this to be black and white, but its not. Agreed. Huge problem. Does it factor in that pitcher throwing those innings? Is a replacement pitcher pegged at a 2-4 inning guy? I’m a huge inning-eater fan, actually. Personally, I don’t like seeing comparisons between contemporary starters vs. guys who used to pitch double-digit complete games without emphasis on that difference. Indeed,I think we actually under-value older pitchers (for example, if you look at a guy like Jim Palmer, who has a relatively low career WAR (behind Rick Reuschel), but was doing things in the mid-1970s we’ll never see again. To your point: a starter who completes games is potentially wirth more than one replacement, in that he’s starting and eliminating the need for relievers. But it nakes eras hard to cross compare. Clayton Kershaw had a bWAR of 5.8 in 2016 having started only 21 games and thrown 149 innings. Palmer had a bWAR of 5.3 in 1972 when he had 18 complete games(!) and 274.1 innings. Both had sick numbers additionally. A replacement level pitcher is for sure going to have short really bad starts that kills the bullpen. Your example of trying to compare Kershaw and Palmer is why advanced stats was developed. While the naked stats look similar, by looking at ERA+ you see a massive difference. 100 is league average, Kershaw was at 237, Palmer was at 149. Look at the WHIP and strikrouts. You can't just look at ERA between era's without looking at the average. Palmer was 49% better, Kershaw was 137%. To put that in context Pedro's 2000 season usually called the best of this era his ERA+ was 291 or 191% better than league average. Advanced stats along with injuries is why pitchers don't pitch that many innings anymore. It's more effective for them to pitch less and use relievers. Palmer was 4th in the league in ERA that year, Kershaw if he wasn't injured would have been tops by a huge margin. You can think war doesn't translate well, but in 1972 the Cy Young winner Gaylord Perry had a bwar of 10.8, which is a higher number than only Pedro's best season.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,380
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Aug 21, 2018 14:45:59 GMT -5
Agreed. Huge problem. Does it factor in that pitcher throwing those innings? Is a replacement pitcher pegged at a 2-4 inning guy? I’m a huge inning-eater fan, actually. Personally, I don’t like seeing comparisons between contemporary starters vs. guys who used to pitch double-digit complete games without emphasis on that difference. Indeed,I think we actually under-value older pitchers (for example, if you look at a guy like Jim Palmer, who has a relatively low career WAR (behind Rick Reuschel), but was doing things in the mid-1970s we’ll never see again. To your point: a starter who completes games is potentially wirth more than one replacement, in that he’s starting and eliminating the need for relievers. But it nakes eras hard to cross compare. Clayton Kershaw had a bWAR of 5.8 in 2016 having started only 21 games and thrown 149 innings. Palmer had a bWAR of 5.3 in 1972 when he had 18 complete games(!) and 274.1 innings. Both had sick numbers additionally. A replacement level pitcher is for sure going to have short really bad starts that kills the bullpen. Your example of trying to compare Kershaw and Palmer is why advanced stats was developed. While the naked stats look similar, by looking at ERA+ you see a massive difference. 100 is league average, Kershaw was at 237, Palmer was at 149. Look at the WHIP and strikrouts. You can't just look at ERA between era's without looking at the average. Palmer was 49% better, Kershaw was 137%. To put that in context Pedro's 2000 season usually called the best of this era his ERA+ was 291 or 191% better than league average. Advanced stats along with injuries is why pitchers don't pitch that many innings anymore. It's more effective for them to pitch less and use relievers. Palmer was 4th in the league in ERA that year, Kershaw if he wasn't injured would have been tops by a huge margin. You can think war doesn't translate well, but in 1972 the Cy Young winner Gaylord Perry had a bwar of 10.8, which is a higher number than only Pedro's best season. I don’t think those comps are without value, but they are flawed on the same way comparing a reliever ‘s ERA+ to a starter would be. Jim Palmer threw 118 complete games on 3 days rest in his career. Kershaw, in 309 career starts has never pitched a regilar season game on 3-day’s rest — and has 25 CGs. So... I’d love to know what his ERA would be if he were on that schedule. Now, on one level, that is equalized by the adjustment... Palmer’s peers were doing the same, and Kershaw’s peers are going shorter on more rest, too. But it still makes it tough to compare on another level. It is hard to make the case that Kershaw would have his same success if he were pitching on Palmer’s schedule. Yes, it makes sense to pitch less... that is separate. The way Kershaw is handled is wise for a fragile, costly investment. But it also means it is hard to compare to guys who were pitching with different expectations. The rise in Ks must be at least partly attributable to the fact that guys don’t have to go long or hold back. EDIT: It is fascinating, and in this area I’m open to what advanced stats can tell us. But I think complete games can be under appreciated. I was looking at the Sox in the mid-1970s. For example, 1974, when Tiant and Lee pitched 593.2 innings out of 1455.1 for the team. Spaceman had an ERA+ of 111, which is ok. But ALL their relievers were under 100. So... the team was better off with a tired Lee than a rested... anyone. And this might mean his numbers suffer, too. Anyway... the numbers can be read a lot of ways, but it is fascinating. Lee struck out 95 guys in 282 innings! Those were the days!
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 21, 2018 16:24:43 GMT -5
It's not really flawed, its the best we have. You'd have a great point if the best in 1972 had a way lower war than Kershaw, but he wasn't . It was an all-time great war. You can't play the what if games because no one knows. Sure overall I'd expect them to do better, but maybe a bunch of those guys best features were just pitching a lot of innings. Look at Porcello or a guy like Wakefield if you drop there innings they would lose value and I don't think you'd see much improvement in there numbers. What ifs are fun to talk about, but you can never know. Hence comparing every year to a replacement level. Heck maybe Papelbon was great because he was a reliever or maybe he would have been better as a starter. The farther he got away from starting, the worst he got. He stopped using all his pitches, seems to have lost arm strength and almost became a one pitch pitcher. We will just never know.
So we compare people to the generation they played in. Palmer in 1972 looks crazy impressive to todays pitchers, but he didn't come close to Perry that year. He wasn't better in almost any stat and was what 4th in the CY Young voting. Kershaw was dominate, if he made 30 plus starts he was the CY young winner. Its like if Perry only made 21 starts that year, yet he was even more dominant at limiting runs, hits and walks. For a guy that has lead is league in ERA 5 times and WHIP 4 times, those 21 starts were better than he had ever done before. Yet his war was still half as good as Perrys. So I'd say war does just fine with the old timers.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,380
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Aug 21, 2018 16:45:35 GMT -5
It's not really flawed, its the best we have. You'd have a great point if the best in 1972 had a way lower war than Kershaw, but he wasn't . It was an all-time great war. You can't play the what if games because no one knows. Sure overall I'd expect them to do better, but maybe a bunch of those guys best features were just pitching a lot of innings. Look at Porcello or a guy like Wakefield if you drop there innings they would lose value and I don't think you'd see much improvement in there numbers. What ifs are fun to talk about, but you can never know. Hence comparing every year to a replacement level. Heck maybe Papelbon was great because he was a reliever or maybe he would have been better as a starter. The farther he got away from starting, the worst he got. He stopped using all his pitches, seems to have lost arm strength and almost became a one pitch pitcher. We will just never know. So we compare people to the generation they played in. Palmer in 1972 looks crazy impressive to todays pitchers, but he didn't come close to Perry that year. He wasn't better in almost any stat and was what 4th in the CY Young voting. Kershaw was dominate, if he made 30 plus starts he was the CY young winner. Its like if Perry only made 21 starts that year, yet he was even more dominant at limiting runs, hits and walks. For a guy that has lead is league in ERA 5 times and WHIP 4 times, those 21 starts were better than he had ever done before. Yet his war was still half as good as Perrys. So I'd say war does just fine with the old timers. You are playing what-if too .... Kershaw is Cy Young if he pitches 30 games. You assume as the innings pile up his performance won’t suffer. I am not making case Palmer was the best that year... indeed, that he wasn’t is all the better. Looking at the Orioles starting staff, guys like Palmer and Cuellar, Grimsley are throwing most of their innings. I don’t think Kershaw could do that. As it is, he struggles to make it through seasons. The reason he wasn’t Cy Young is he broke down. I guess all I am saying is that maybe WAR as a comp undervalues having so high a % of innings being pitched by your best pitchers. Come to think of it, maybe a pitcher’s WAR should suffer for games he misses that feature a lesser pitcher. I mean, Yu Darvish’s negative value this season far exceeds just the bad games he pitched. I just think about the Sox if Sale, Price, and Porcello regularly got into the 8th inning and then handed it to Kimbrel. Then... no Hembree, Pomeranz, Thornburg (or Thornburg trade!) etc etc. But a lot of this is what-if (like the what-if of a replacement’s real life performance).
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Sept 11, 2018 15:11:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 12, 2018 1:04:33 GMT -5
I prefer this name. After all, most stats are transparent. We all know what a hit is, on-base etc. in the case of WAR, a win is really some unit — it is not really an actual win (surely we don’t really think we know the Mets would be 3-22 in games started by a AAA pitcher or whatever?). If people want to use the homunculus replacement abstraction, ok. I would like to see the stat EW+/- as part of that. That is “Ed Whitson + or -“ — can you hack it somewhere else? Players are not strato-o-matic cards. Trying to abstract out all the factors that go into playing a particular game — or even play — eliminates a huge part of what matters most. If you want to draft Carl Crawford for rotisserie league — great idea. You want to bring him to a big market? Check his EW+/-. Or... is Cole Hamels finished? Naw, he just needs the juice of a pennant race. So what you're looking for is kind of the opposite of WAR, a stat which measures a player's relationship to his own team's won-loss record, giving credit for events which contribute to team's winning. The stat you are looking for is: Proportional Exhibitions of Ability to Contravene Externalities Total opposite of WAR. Idk how to measure it, but the above-replacement-comment value on this one is incredible. It’s a two-run dinger on an 0-2 count with a man on first and down a run in the bottom of the ninth equivalent if WPA is your flavor du jour.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 11, 2018 16:13:05 GMT -5
Hosmer had 14.2 bwar over 7 years, Bogaerts has 14.8 bwar in 6 years. So another 3.8 bwar season and he's 4.4 bwar over Hosmer. Certainly better, he'll get more but 200 million? Heyward had 4 5 plus bwar seasons, heck he had two 6 plus bwar seasons. So if it happens it will be a first, which is kinda my point. If what reports are saying about the Yankees and Dodgers planning not to spend it's going to be hard to get massive bidding war for Bogaerts. I'm saving my 200 million deals for generational talents, not just really good players. Lets see what happens a year ago everyone was worried about how to pay Pomeranz and Kimbrel now no one wants them back. One of the seasons you're counting for Bogaerts was 18 games when he was only 20 years old (Hosmer was in single A at age 20). Also fWAR rates Xander way higher than bWAR. He has 17.5 fWAR in his last 4 seasons. I use bwar, I don't switch back and fourth. Which I think is the way you have to be, pick one and stick with it. At the same time I do think Bogaerts true value is somewhere in between. The problem with adjusting him, I'd have to adjust every player and I'm not doing that. I think bwar might be a little low on his D and fwar a little high. He's clearly below average defensively, the debate is how far below.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 11, 2018 16:43:58 GMT -5
One of the seasons you're counting for Bogaerts was 18 games when he was only 20 years old (Hosmer was in single A at age 20). Also fWAR rates Xander way higher than bWAR. He has 17.5 fWAR in his last 4 seasons. I use bwar, I don't switch back and fourth. Which I think is the way you have to be, pick one and stick with it. At the same time I do think Bogaerts true value is somewhere in between. The problem with adjusting him, I'd have to adjust every player and I'm not doing that. I think bwar might be a little low on his D and fwar a little high. He's clearly below average defensively, the debate is how far below. I think most people here who use WAR as a tool look at multiple sources and consider averages. That’s the most informative approach.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 11, 2018 17:52:45 GMT -5
I use bwar, I don't switch back and fourth. Which I think is the way you have to be, pick one and stick with it. At the same time I do think Bogaerts true value is somewhere in between. The problem with adjusting him, I'd have to adjust every player and I'm not doing that. I think bwar might be a little low on his D and fwar a little high. He's clearly below average defensively, the debate is how far below. I think most people here who use WAR as a tool look at multiple sources and consider averages. That’s the most informative approach. Yea in theory that is great. I don't think I've seen anyone on here give us averages when using war stats. Who has the time? Sure teams might because they have whole departs with people who can do that 40 hours a week. I've spent way more time than I should comparing stats and I prefer bwar. Nevermind with Bogaerts it doesn't change a whole lot, he's still never been a 5 war player and the average moves him like .5 war this year for example. I will say I hate people that go back and fourth using the lowest to slam a guy and the highest one to talk up a guy. That makes zero sense to me. While using the sameone creates a level field that is equal. Yea it's not perfect, but war isn't perfect either. Just a quick easy tool to compare players.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 11, 2018 18:03:18 GMT -5
I think most people here who use WAR as a tool look at multiple sources and consider averages. That’s the most informative approach. Yea in theory that is great. I don't think I've seen anyone on here give us averages when using war stats. Who has the time? Sure teams might because they have whole departs with people who can do that 40 hours a week. I've spent way more time than I should comparing stats and I prefer bwar. Nevermind with Bogaerts it doesn't change a whole lot, he's still never been a 5 war player and the average moves him like .5 war this year for example. I will say I hate people that go back and fourth using the lowest to slam a guy and the highest one to talk up a guy. That makes zero sense to me. While using the sameone creates a level field that is equal. Yea it's not perfect, but war isn't perfect either. Just a quick easy tool to compare players. The weird thing in this case is that fangraphs has Hosmer at 10.3 fWAR in 7 seasons while b-ref has him at 14.2 bWAR and for Xander, it's 17.6 fWAR in 5+ seasons, but only 14.8 bWAR. That's a pretty huge swing and it seems to be mostly defense. Most comparisons aren't that extreme. I personally think that DRS is more broken than UZR so I lean towards fangraphs. I like bWAR better for pitchers though. But in any case, Xander is still a lot better than Hosmer and should be paid more, even though Hosmer didn't deserve the contract he got anyway. The big miss was counting Xander's 50 plate appearances in 2013 as a full season.
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Nov 11, 2018 19:31:28 GMT -5
Yea in theory that is great. I don't think I've seen anyone on here give us averages when using war stats. Who has the time? Sure teams might because they have whole departs with people who can do that 40 hours a week. I've spent way more time than I should comparing stats and I prefer bwar. Nevermind with Bogaerts it doesn't change a whole lot, he's still never been a 5 war player and the average moves him like .5 war this year for example. I will say I hate people that go back and fourth using the lowest to slam a guy and the highest one to talk up a guy. That makes zero sense to me. While using the sameone creates a level field that is equal. Yea it's not perfect, but war isn't perfect either. Just a quick easy tool to compare players. The weird thing in this case is that fangraphs has Hosmer at 10.3 fWAR in 7 seasons while b-ref has him at 14.2 bWAR and for Xander, it's 17.6 fWAR in 5+ seasons, but only 14.8 bWAR. That's a pretty huge swing and it seems to be mostly defense. Most comparisons aren't that extreme. I personally think that DRS is more broken than UZR so I lean towards fangraphs. I like bWAR better for pitchers though. But in any case, Xander is still a lot better than Hosmer and should be paid more, even though Hosmer didn't deserve the contract he got anyway. The big miss was counting Xander's 50 plate appearances in 2013 as a full season. The hosmer contract will go down as a horrible contract as will a Xander contract if the Red Sox are dumb enough to sign him for that term and money.
|
|
|
Post by marrcus on Nov 11, 2018 21:36:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 11, 2018 22:49:25 GMT -5
I use bwar, I don't switch back and fourth. Which I think is the way you have to be, pick one and stick with it. At the same time I do think Bogaerts true value is somewhere in between. The problem with adjusting him, I'd have to adjust every player and I'm not doing that. I think bwar might be a little low on his D and fwar a little high. He's clearly below average defensively, the debate is how far below. I think most people here who use WAR as a tool look at multiple sources and consider averages. That’s the most informative approach. This. I don't see why you wouldn't look at as much data as you can to get a better feel. No one WAR provider claims to be the only correct stat - I recommend listening to this podcast if you haven't yet: www.baseballprospectus.com/podcasts/episode-13-wins-above-replacement-discussion-with-sean-forman-bwar-david-cameron-fwar-greg-matthews-openwar-rob-mcquown-and-jonathan-judge-warp/ It features guys from FG, BRef, BP, and openWAR getting in deep talking about their respective formulas. It's kind of unreal how different the various calcuations are. Just check out www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained_comparison.shtml . If you listen to that podcast above, the point is that you shouldn't take small differences between players to be incredibly meaningful. It's more of a ballparking tool if anything. 4 WAR vs. 2 WAR is meaningful. 4.2 WAR versus 4.1 WAR is not meaningful.
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Nov 12, 2018 8:36:19 GMT -5
No disagreement here sad part plenty of sox fans wanted him back. At least the yanks got one year of production out him lol.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 12, 2018 13:12:02 GMT -5
Yea in theory that is great. I don't think I've seen anyone on here give us averages when using war stats. Who has the time? Sure teams might because they have whole departs with people who can do that 40 hours a week. I've spent way more time than I should comparing stats and I prefer bwar. Nevermind with Bogaerts it doesn't change a whole lot, he's still never been a 5 war player and the average moves him like .5 war this year for example. I will say I hate people that go back and fourth using the lowest to slam a guy and the highest one to talk up a guy. That makes zero sense to me. While using the sameone creates a level field that is equal. Yea it's not perfect, but war isn't perfect either. Just a quick easy tool to compare players. The weird thing in this case is that fangraphs has Hosmer at 10.3 fWAR in 7 seasons while b-ref has him at 14.2 bWAR and for Xander, it's 17.6 fWAR in 5+ seasons, but only 14.8 bWAR. That's a pretty huge swing and it seems to be mostly defense. Most comparisons aren't that extreme. I personally think that DRS is more broken than UZR so I lean towards fangraphs. I like bWAR better for pitchers though. But in any case, Xander is still a lot better than Hosmer and should be paid more, even though Hosmer didn't deserve the contract he got anyway. The big miss was counting Xander's 50 plate appearances in 2013 as a full season. You say you like Fangraphs because of D, so how do you look at those numbers? Do you think a guy that has won 4 GG is a horrible defender? Career UZR of-26.5, been negative six out of 8 years. Bogaerts career-1.2, been positive half the time. Do you think Bogaerts is an above average defender? That he has been one 3 out of the last six years? That overall he's basically an average defender? Those numbers are crazy different because bwar has Hosmer as a much better defender, the guy with four GG, above average range numbers and Bogaerts as a worse defender and he has below average range factors. I will admit I think DRS are a little too low, I don't think he was that bad, at the sametime I don't think he was above average either. Then you look and both have Benny as below average defensively. I don't watch as much Baseball as I used too, but from what I've seen he's very good defensively. Look at the catch to save Kimbrel. So I don't know, I think both are horrible. Yet in this case Baseball Refrence seems to match better with what I see. You are 100% right the difference is D and its a crazy difference.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 12, 2018 16:13:23 GMT -5
Agreed and laughingly so. The MFNYY have stolen another Red Sox stalwart.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 12, 2018 16:43:57 GMT -5
Yeah, I started focusing on using multiple sources to form my opinions when I first started understanding FIP/xFIP calculations, and realized how fundamentally different fWAR and bWAR are for pitchers (including the bWAR defensive adjustments that theoretically aren’t necessary for fWAR). I try to remember to note WAR source with prefix when quoting numbers, because it really is sometimes very different, especially defensive quantification. I do think UMass has a good point in that, while I wouldn’t say I hate the *people* who cherry-pick for the sake of argument, I do hate the behavior. It’s obfuscating, and I dislike trying to have a good-faith discussion based on evidence against someone whose behavior suggests that being right, and kinda being a dick about it, is more important than exploring and talking about all this interesting stuff we have to explore. If there’s anything graduate school taught me, it’s that, of the three realms of knowledge: what I know, what I know I don’t know, and what I don’t know I don’t know...the last is so infinitely vast that I’m probably best served by approaching most arguments as an exploration of that territory. Not that I don’t focus on the first, or voice speculations about the second...but I’ve learned so much on, and because of, this site, that I realize that’s been most of the fun of it for me.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 12, 2018 17:23:13 GMT -5
Yeah, I started focusing on using multiple sources to form my opinions when I first started understanding FIP/xFIP calculations, and realized how fundamentally different fWAR and bWAR are for pitchers (including the bWAR defensive adjustments that theoretically aren’t necessary for fWAR). I try to remember to note WAR source with prefix when quoting numbers, because it really is sometimes very different, especially defensive quantification. I do think UMass has a good point in that, while I wouldn’t say I hate the *people* who cherry-pick for the sake of argument, I do hate the behavior. It’s obfuscating, and I dislike trying to have a good-faith discussion based on evidence against someone whose behavior suggests that being right, and kinda being a dick about it, is more important than exploring and talking about all this interesting stuff we have to explore. If there’s anything graduate school taught me, it’s that, of the three realms of knowledge: what I know, what I know I don’t know, and what I don’t know I don’t know...the last is so infinitely vast that I’m probably best served by approaching most arguments as an exploration of that territory. Not that I don’t focus on the first, or voice speculations about the second...but I’ve learned so much on, and because of, this site, that I realize that’s been most of the fun of it for me. I haven't seen anyone cherry picking WAR values based on what they're trying to argue. I always use fangraphs because I find the site much easier to use than b-ref. You always know that WAR is on the right most side of the top season stats section, while for b-ref, you have to scroll down a section and find the WAR value in one of the middle columns. I find the interface to b-ref to be way more difficult to navigate.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 12, 2018 17:54:27 GMT -5
Yeah, I started focusing on using multiple sources to form my opinions when I first started understanding FIP/xFIP calculations, and realized how fundamentally different fWAR and bWAR are for pitchers (including the bWAR defensive adjustments that theoretically aren’t necessary for fWAR). I try to remember to note WAR source with prefix when quoting numbers, because it really is sometimes very different, especially defensive quantification. I do think UMass has a good point in that, while I wouldn’t say I hate the *people* who cherry-pick for the sake of argument, I do hate the behavior. It’s obfuscating, and I dislike trying to have a good-faith discussion based on evidence against someone whose behavior suggests that being right, and kinda being a dick about it, is more important than exploring and talking about all this interesting stuff we have to explore. If there’s anything graduate school taught me, it’s that, of the three realms of knowledge: what I know, what I know I don’t know, and what I don’t know I don’t know...the last is so infinitely vast that I’m probably best served by approaching most arguments as an exploration of that territory. Not that I don’t focus on the first, or voice speculations about the second...but I’ve learned so much on, and because of, this site, that I realize that’s been most of the fun of it for me. I haven't seen anyone cherry picking WAR values based on what they're trying to argue. I always use fangraphs because I find the site much easier to use than b-ref. You always know that WAR is on the right most side of the top season stats section, while for b-ref, you have to scroll down a section and find the WAR value in one of the middle columns. I find the interface to b-ref to be way more difficult to navigate. I don’t think many people on here do cherry-pick. I’ve seen it occasionally. The vast majority of regular posters don’t go there. And my inclination is very similar to yours; I simply prefer the fg setup to B-R. But I do try to check bWAR semi-regularly just to see the degree of agreement. For the vast majority of data, I use fg. It’s just much more accessible to me. I try to fold in Brooks and other sources if I’m looking for rationales for why data look the way they do, or if I want verification on certain data. I think it makes the most sense to use as many sources as reasonably possible (without going down the rabbit hole too deep). And a big part of that for me is that I’ve been exposed to new data through other people exploring and reporting from those sources. I’d prefer more data to inform my opinions rather than specific data to fit them.
|
|
|