[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Certainly, the more information the better, always.

Just know that our brains are giant fail factories, we can't possibly measure or evaluate all 2430 games each year with any objectivity, and we are riddled with biases. Plus, to even attempt to do that, you are watching it on cameras/tv with limited information (such as where were the players positioned, broadcaster influence, etc).

There is so much room for error it's rather incredible.

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. You're still not accepting the point. WAR, whether proceeded w/an r, f x,y or z, is still subject to the opinion of who is calculating it. There is no standard. It is a measurement based on the mathematician's gut. Just as a traditionalist's decision to use Triple Crown numbers comes from his gut.

Absolutely.

But even if you are coming to these debates with different inherent information, it doesn't end with WAR.


Mantle was the better hitter, but had the shorter career. Mays the better defender and much longer career.

Snider isn't in the conversation with those two.

If Air attended every single home game that Brooklyn played in 1955 for example...then he attended, at max, 6% of the games played in baseball that season. Would have seen Mays 11 times, and Mantle three times (World Series) and would be completely unqualified to discuss it at all if that is all the information being brought to the table.

Not to mention the massive bias that would exist in 1955 (Dodger fan no less), and the continued and likely extrapolated bias that would exist in 2018. Plus, holy cow the failed memory at that point.


You can discuss Mays and Mantle ad naseum, they are a fair debate with different strengths and weaknesses. Two people could have a reason for their disagreement based on information that they value more.

However, if people are just entering the debate with their minds made up and looking for relevant information to support their arguments, that's just a waste of time.

If I always used rWAR for example, and never fWAR, and then suddenly went to fWAR because it supported my argument in a particular case, you can throw me out of the conversation right there. That's just cherry picking to present an argument. It's useless.

Here, you are trying to impose rules on a fictitious "wild west" sports debate. There is no logic that is going to be used in this scenario. People are going to use whatever supports their point. It will still be a person's subjective opinion.

It's a created fact. Just like WAR is.

They are very literally the same thing in this arena.

A players rWAR won't change because someone wants to change it up or down. It's based on their output. Same as Batting Average. It's a set formula. Just because it has a sister called fWAR doesn't detract from that.

Created fact? Lol! So if I give a cashier a dollar & get a quarter back in change, if I say " I have 25% of my money returned to me" I have created a fact? It isn't just a fact? Lol! Dude! OR how about this....I get 33 answers wrong on a 100 question test, I can say the teacher's grade of 67 was their opinion, not a fact? Come on, man...........