Somebody explain WAR already...

[NYY #23]

Tango on Baseball

I guess I can understand if you don't like the stat, but why not put it in for people that do? Seems easy enough to ignore if it is in the game. I'm sure everyone could list stats they don't look at or use, but if some people find value in them what is the harm?

[turdfurgeson]

Originally Posted by Goody

Who is Tango Tiger.....

He is among other things, a consultant for the Mariners. You might not be familiar with him, but you should be happy that the M's are using his services, in what ever capacity that is.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Goody

Who is Tango Tiger and why does his opinion get to have an effect on a statistic?

No offense, but with that level of knowledge you would do well to avoid arguments involving baseball statistics.

[turdfurgeson]

Originally Posted by Goody

Who is Tango Tiger and why does his opinion get to have an effect on a statistic?

Statistics should be just that, compiled outcomes of what happened. It seems WAR is constantly changing based on human input and evaluation.

One quick and dirty way to think about replacement level is to imagine it as a player that is freely available, would require no resources to acquire, the type of non prospects that most teams have sitting in AAA. A team built solely of replacement level players would be expected to win somewhere in the neighborhood of 44-55 games (if I remember right). Trading out nameless RF with Ichiro, for example, would project to a gain of 4-5 wins.

Those numbers are not set in stone, they are just tools to help understand what has happened.

[ryanivr]

Originally Posted by Goody

Who is Tango Tiger and why does his opinion get to have an effect on a statistic?

Statistics should be just that, compiled outcomes of what happened. It seems WAR is constantly changing based on human input and evaluation.

Why all the hate for people who spend their time trying to understand the game of baseball?

[Killing Time]

Originally Posted by Goody

Who is Tango Tiger and why does his opinion get to have an effect on a statistic?

Joe? Joe Morgan, is that you?

[Goody]

Originally Posted by NYY #23

Tango on Baseball

I guess I can understand if you don't like the stat, but why not put it in for people that do? Seems easy enough to ignore if it is in the game. I'm sure everyone could list stats they don't look at or use, but if some people find value in them what is the harm?

That is true, and I was asking myself this question as I was typing out my arguments.

I can see your point, and I applaud you for the way you went about it.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by turdfurgeson

He is among other things, a consultant for the Mariners. You might not be familiar with him, but you should be happy that the M's are using his services, in what ever capacity that is.

That is good to know, but the Mariners also obviously use a lot of intangibles when deciding what players to go with. The team is built around clubhouse chemistry right now, for instance. They brought in a couple of hot heads with talent because of this. None of that can be put into stats.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by ryanivr

Why all the hate for people who spend their time trying to understand the game of baseball?

I don't hate them. They play a part and give us a lot to think about an analyze. I just think they're no where as close to understanding the game as an intelligent player who is actually on the field at a given time.

Somebody like Jamie Moyer can probably tell you that all the statistics in the world are a useful tool, but they don't determine the next play...game...or season.

He out thinks his opponents. But hasn't as much raw talent as some. And there's varying degrees of this on every single pitch...every single play...every single match up.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

No offense, but with that level of knowledge you would do well to avoid arguments involving baseball statistics.

I started out this thread asking what WAR is, so I'm obviously not knee deep in sabermetrics or present day statistical trends. I've done well to get into this argument because I've learned a lot and now have a bit more appreciation for the stuff, despite your dismissive, condescending high-browing.

[turdfurgeson]

Originally Posted by Goody

That is good to know, but the Mariners also obviously use a lot of intangibles when deciding what players to go with. The team is built around clubhouse chemistry right now, for instance. They brought in a couple of hot heads with talent because of this. None of that can be put into stats.

That could be true. It is hard to say how they weight different factors. I will say that they have made a lot of moves that I like.


The argument for the new stats is not an all or nothing argument though. Both scouting and stats have their place. Better evaluation through stats though will help reduce some risks, and allow them to take risks in other areas. I think Z knows how to blend these two methods together.

I doubt chemistry was number one concern for getting Milton Bradley, talent was. They had the chance to swap out one headache contract for another teams, and they took it. I think they are aware it is a gamble, but not a big one. I am not sure how things would have played out if he had been a free agent.

I think the difficulty with trying to project chemistry is that human psyches are difficult to predict. Getting players because you think they will mesh, and that will create an environment that creates winning is a dangerous game. Statistical analysis does not say those are not important, but that they are hard to quantify and harder to predict.

I think many people would aim for getting the best talent and hope good chemistry will develop from winning.

[Kelric]

Well this was a fun read.

[turdfurgeson]

Originally Posted by Goody

I started out this thread asking what WAR is, so I'm obviously not knee deep in sabermetrics or present day statistical trends. I've done well to get into this argument because I've learned a lot and now have a bit more appreciation for the stuff, despite your dismissive, condescending high-browing.

The way I see statistical analysis for me is that I like the ideas, and enjoy reading the trends in it. The nuts and bolts of the math are above my head, but there are some people who do a really good job of explaining the methods and reasoning, without having to get into the formulas.

So I think I have a good understanding of the ideas and reasons for them. My best analogy is that if you took someone from 1989 and they had a walk man I could explain to them why I thought the IPOD was better. I could explain some underlying mechanics of the Ipod but I could not explain all the leaps in research and knowledge that got us to that point, and if you gave me the technology to build one I would not know where to start.

But if the walkman still plays music, and they enjoy the music just as much, then it doesn't matter if they believe the Ipod is better.

This is just an analogy to demonstrate my feelings. I don't know the inner workings of WAR, but I have read enough over the years to trust the people developing these stats to at least believe they have some value to me.

[Curtis]

It sounds as though Goody feels that baseball should be regarded as mystical, rather than calculable. It's not wrong to think that way, but it IS wrong to say that others need to think that way, which Goody also seems to be doing.

On the other paw, folks coming down on the side of calculability need to ask whether WAR accurately predicts what it claims to predict. It doesn't take into account the running game — on either side of the ball — and it gets its defensive element from UZR, which Malleus Dei's first citation points out is of debatable worth and provides inconsistent results.

If Goody had stuck with the first five lines in his initial post, he would've had a legitimate query, and some knowledge may have been imparted through the responses. The remainder of his IP, and most of his subsequent posts make it sound as though he's really conducting a 'push poll' — trying to use questions as replacements for position statements.

I come down on the side of calculability, and I've invented a couple of stats of my own, but I'm not thrilled with WAR per se. I do applaud its objective, but I question its validity.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by Curtis

It sounds as though Goody feels that baseball should be regarded as mystical, rather than calculable.

Didn't you ever see the movie Bull Durham?!

Stats are fun. They are what draws most baseball (and certainly text sim baseball) fans in. But they aren't the heart and soul of the game that should dictate every decision.

I always think of these sabermetric guys when I see that scene in the movie 61* when Maris fails to hit the bomb off of Hoyt Wilhelm the one reporter asks the snarky reporter who is dogging out Roger Maris..."Have you ever actually played baseball?"

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Goody

I started out this thread asking what WAR is, so I'm obviously not knee deep in sabermetrics or present day statistical trends. I've done well to get into this argument because I've learned a lot and now have a bit more appreciation for the stuff, despite your dismissive, condescending high-browing.

Actually I was being patient and kind to your aggressive ignorance, but you don't understand enough to be argued with on this subject. Other people can deal with your neo-Luddite attitudes, and I wish them luck.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Actually I was being patient and kind to your aggressive ignorance, but you don't understand enough to be argued with on this subject. Other people can deal with your neo-Luddite attitudes, and I wish them luck.

They already succeeded, actually. No luck needed any more but they should maybe go buy a lottery ticket and thank you later.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Goody

Didn't you ever see the movie Bull Durham?!

I always think of these sabermetric guys when I see that scene in the movie 61* when Maris fails to hit the bomb off of Hoyt Wilhelm the one reporter asks the snarky reporter who is dogging out Roger Maris..."Have you ever actually played baseball?"

Interesting; I thought you were going to reference "Field of Dreams". "Field of Dreams" and "The Natural" (my father's favorite sports movie) appeal to one type of fan, while "Eight Men Out" and "A League of Their Own" appeal to a different one. I know how to characterize fans of films like "Mr. 3000," "Mister Baseball" and even "Damn Yankees", but I really don't know how to categorize fans of "Bull Durham", "61*" and "The Bingo Long Traveling All Stars and Motor Kings".

Obviously I've gone off topic, so I'll cede the field.

[jbergey22]

I would put 'Bull Durham' and 'A League of their own' in the same category.

I think 'Eight Men Out' and '61*' have similiar characteristics. "Eight Men Out" is just better written.

You forgot about 'Major League'.

[jbergey22]

And Gordy,

The best way to describe WAR to you is that it tells you that Milton Bradley is a valuable player to have on your team when hes playing.

If you look at his common stats(Avg, HR, R, RBI) from year to year they look pretty average. However if you look at the big picture his OBP is very high along with his OPS+ making him a nice player when hes not getting himself in trouble.

WAR does a nice job of seperating the underrated(Milton Bradley types) from the over rated(Juan Pierre types)