[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by TheMaus2

.

If you want to take it out of context, then yeah he said it. But in the context of the conversation he means it is a poor tool if you are searching for a definitive calculation on a player/team's worth.

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

The first points, yes. The last point, no.

It's additional information. In fact, it's much better information than a person could ever create with their naked eye. By a laundry shoot.

It's much better information if added to what is seen w/the eye. But numbers w/o actually watching the games is just as insufficient as watching w/o doing the math. Neither method taken alone is an accurate way of measurement

And if you are debating with someone, and they are switching whichever WAR they want to suit their argument, that should tell you plenty about the strength of their argument and the person you are debating with.

But if what if you are debating w/2 other fans w/differing opinions? I think Willie Mays is better, you say Mickey Mantle, airdrop says Duke Snider. We are all going to pick the numbers that support our argument. So if baseball-reference supports my position, I'm going to quote them, you are going to use fan graphs cause it has Mantle higher, airdrop is going to rely on all the Dodger games he watches cause he has season tickets to Ebbets Field. Neither can be used as the definitive answer. That's the point we are trying to make. It is all subjective. So saying one of these metrics, that can be weighed according to the calculator's taste, says Mauer is a HOF isn't close to a certain reality.

Doesn't account for walks, sacrifices aren't merited against it, a home run is equal to a single, etc.

Why not count a walk as a hit? Why not count a sacrifice as an out? Why not weigh each extra base hit differently?

It's because that's how it was originally created. That's it. Sacrifices don't count against your at bats, and walks are like they never happened.

That's what makes it subjective. It's created in interpretation by Chadwick for really no reason other than how it was originally created in cricket.

That's the argument for saying it doesn't tell the whole story. That it is a flawed statistic in measuring a batter's success. But it doesn't change it from being a fact. A hit is defined. An at-bat is defined. Those are facts. Thus, the BA is defined. It is a fact. Not subjective.