My Official divorce from baseball

[Carlton]

nah...

[Carlton]

nope on this too

[ThatSeventiesGuy]

Sabermetrics...they can be useful, but you have to take 'em with a grain of salt sometimes. WAR, for instance. Can be instructive up to a point, but when there's no set formula for calculating it, you have to wonder a bit. Basically, saber stats fall into three categories: good (WHIP, OPS), mediocre (WAR/VORP), and why bother (which I won't name to avoid offending those who like 'em ). So, pretty much like old school stats. Everybody has their favorites and least favorites. The rise of sabermetrics didn't change that, it just introduced new stuff into the arguments. Let's just say that the babying of pitchers bugs me way more than any saber-stat ever introduced, if we're going into What's Wrong With The Game Today. Went to a Indianapolis Indians game last season, they pitched Gerrit Cole for only TWO FREAKING INNINGS. Come on, people. Put a dress on the poor kid, why don't you?

But yeah, I miss 80's baseball myself. I think people are always nostalgic for the era when, as kids, they got into baseball. I hope Hamilton brings back the good ol' stolen base, even if I'm not a Reds fan.

As for soccer...I'm beginning to lighten up on my disdain for it, too. New team here in town, went to go see 'em, liked it quite a bit. Except for that "added time" business at the end of each half. Seriously, WTF is up with that? When your 45 minutes are up, they should be up, period. I could maybe see it in tied games or even 1-goal margin games, but 3 or 4-goal margin games? Why? Seems kinda stupid.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by ThatSeventiesGuy

As for soccer...I'm beginning to lighten up on my disdain for it, too. New team here in town, went to go see 'em, liked it quite a bit. Except for that "added time" business at the end of each half. Seriously, WTF is up with that? When your 45 minutes are up, they should be up, period. I could maybe see it in tied games or even 1-goal margin games, but 3 or 4-goal margin games? Why? Seems kinda stupid.

Because the clock won't stop for any reason like injuries, penalties whatever. The extra minutes are intended to make up for that.

[RchW]

I find it fascinating that so many people have trouble with WAR due to some variability in how it is calculated. That doesn't change anything. Whatever WAR is used it allows something that all of us who love the history of baseball like to do. We can compare players from different eras who played in different parks, different run scoring environments and different competition. WAR doesn't change anything. It confirms something we know but often argued (how would he have done in the '20's), that great players are great every time. It helps identify some players we may have missed along the way. Go to this link and take a look. Check the top 10 by position.

First Base JAWS Leaders - Baseball-Reference.com

WAR is not a scheme to steal the precious bodily fluids of free baseball fans. It is not a communist, socialist or Kenyan plot. Just a measurement that provides context through a century and more of data.

See below for the single season and career leaders in WAR (position players) and tell me who is missing. The lists for pitchers are not radically different.

Take note that the only active player who has a reasonable chance of moving way up the career list right now is Miguel Cabrera (maybe Adrian Beltre at 35). The active leader under 30 is Evan Longoria.

I can't imagine why such comparisons don't excite people. It does me and increases my respect for the historical greats and the lesser known stars of baseball history.

[Questdog]

WAR is not a measurement, but an estimation. Let's be clear about that.....

I have no problem with WAR as a tool, but since it IS an estimation and is based on MANY assumptions that if they all turned out to be actually true would be a miracle, I have a HUGE problem with people trying to use it as the end-all-arguments magic device.

And one more thing about it:
It is a great tool for deciding what players would be best to put on your team. It estimates the overall value of a player in a neutral context. But baseball is a game where context is nearly everything, so using it to decide who had the best season in a particular year is ludicrous.

RBI's are denounced for being a context-weighted stat and justly so for evaluating who should make the roster for next season. But for showing who was productive in the context of THIS season, they are awesome and people should not discount that. Same goes for Wins by pitchers.

Context is everything, and once we KNOW the context, we can look back and see who took advantage of the situations that presented themselves. Who's hits had meaning and who's outs were harmless. But since we do not know the context for next season, WAR is a better tool for preparing for the future.

[spit ball]

What I find interesting about that chart is the huge majority of names played before about 1975. There aren't very many names that played in the last 30 years and two (that I noticed) of the top ones on the career side used performance enhancing drugs so should have an asterisk. Does that mean modern players suck? Or maybe it means the use of relief pitchers is very effective. But there are several deadball era names and pitchers had a huge advantage then. So maybe modern players really do suck. I don't know.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by spit ball

What I find interesting about that chart is the huge majority of names played before about 1975. There aren't very many names that played in the last 30 years and two (that I noticed) of the top ones on the career side used performance enhancing drugs so should have an asterisk. Does that mean modern players suck? Or maybe it means the use of relief pitchers is very effective. But there are several deadball era names and pitchers had a huge advantage then. So maybe modern players really do suck. I don't know.

There is no doubt that Modern Players as a whole are much, much better than players of the past. And since the average player is so much better, it is more difficult for someone to rise far above the crowd.

[wireman]

Originally Posted by Questdog

WAR is not a measurement, but an estimation. Let's be clear about that.....

I have no problem with WAR as a tool, but since it IS an estimation and is based on MANY assumptions that if they all turned out to be actually true would be a miracle, I have a HUGE problem with people trying to use it as the end-all-arguments magic device.

And one more thing about it:
It is a great tool for deciding what players would be best to put on your team. It estimates the overall value of a player in a neutral context. But baseball is a game where context is nearly everything, so using it to decide who had the best season in a particular year is ludicrous.

RBI's are denounced for being a context-weighted stat and justly so for evaluating who should make the roster for next season. But for showing who was productive in the context of THIS season, they are awesome and people should not discount that. Same goes for Wins by pitchers.

Context is everything, and once we KNOW the context, we can look back and see who took advantage of the situations that presented themselves. Who's hits had meaning and who's outs were harmless. But since we do not know the context for next season, WAR is a better tool for preparing for the future.

I agree that WAR is not a "magic device," if anybody's saying it is.

I do not agree that pitchers' wins are "awesome."

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by Questdog

There is no doubt that Modern Players as a whole are much, much better than players of the past. And since the average player is so much better, it is more difficult for someone to rise far above the crowd.

No doubt? You know this how?

I think there is no doubt today's players are much better athletes and they're in much better shape. But in the past, virtually all the baseball players in a decade were about the same physically. It was no easier for them to rise above the crowd than it is now. So your argument really doesn't hold up.

I think it's fair to say that, based on the WAR chart, the better players of the past were better than the better players of the present. And there were more of them. Beyond that, your statement above might be correct. Or it might not.

[Green & Gold Heart]

Originally Posted by Questdog

RBI's are denounced for being a context-weighted stat and justly so for evaluating who should make the roster for next season. But for showing who was productive in the context of THIS season, they are awesome and people should not discount that. Same goes for Wins by pitchers.

The problem with RBI is that it's a counting stat that relies too much on what other people do. Situational stats based on averages do more to tell how productive a player is. A lot of counting stats give advantages to players who have more opportunities.

I'm not a stathead by any stretch but I think understanding a lot of these concepts has enhanced my enjoyment of the game in recent years. I still watch baseball, but I feel like I understand what I'm watching more.

[John Madden]

WAR isn't "X player is better than Y player", it's "X player was worth A amount of wins above his contemporary replacements and Y player was worth B wins above his contemporary replacements". It's a very specific tool.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by Green & Gold Heart

The problem with RBI is that it's a counting stat that relies too much on what other people do. Situational stats based on averages do more to tell how productive a player is. A lot of counting stats give advantages to players who have more opportunities.

I'm not a stathead by any stretch but I think understanding a lot of these concepts has enhanced my enjoyment of the game in recent years. I still watch baseball, but I feel like I understand what I'm watching more.

WAR is also a counting stat.....

Of course, I think RBI rate per opportunity tells us a lot more about who had a good season than just RBIs. Same with any stat. Winning percentage tells you more than just wins.....but you need both the count and the rate to put the season in context.....

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by spit ball

No doubt? You know this how?

I think there is no doubt today's players are much better athletes and they're in much better shape. But in the past, virtually all the baseball players in a decade were about the same physically. It was no easier for them to rise above the crowd than it is now. So your argument really doesn't hold up.

I think it's fair to say that, based on the WAR chart, the better players of the past were better than the better players of the present. And there were more of them. Beyond that, your statement above might be correct. Or it might not.

Your own statement shows my point: Today's athlete's are much closer to the limit of conditioning. Therefore, there is less room between the baseline and the apex than there was 100 years ago, ergo there was more opportunity then to stand out.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by spit ball

No doubt? You know this how?

Athletic prowess by any measurement is better. Baseball is not immune to this.

Originally Posted by spit ball

I think there is no doubt today's players are much better athletes and they're in much better shape. But in the past, virtually all the baseball players in a decade were about the same physically. It was no easier for them to rise above the crowd than it is now. So your argument really doesn't hold up.

Not true. Segregation artificially reduced the pool of available talent so the very good players dominated.

Originally Posted by spit ball

I think it's fair to say that, based on the WAR chart, the better players of the past were better than the better players of the present. And there were more of them. Beyond that, your statement above might be correct. Or it might not.

WAR is cumulative. Another benefit of the smaller pool of the past to very good players was longer careers relative to rest of the pool, not necessarily longer vs today. The extra large pool today due to international players and strong athletic competition suppresses dominance. In one sense that can reduce enjoyment as dominant players attract casual fans.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Your own statement shows my point: Today's athlete's are much closer to the limit of conditioning. Therefore, there is less room between the baseline and the apex than there was 100 years ago, ergo there was more opportunity then to stand out.

I illustrated a clear difference between better conditioning and better baseball players. And I illustrated how the WAR chart shows there were more standouts in bygone years even though the conditioning of players in each decade was about the same. And even though the number of players was much smaller. So the opportunity to standout was about the same. Nowadays you don't see too many with the talent of a Mantle or a Mays without performance enhancing drugs. The druggies are mostly the ones who stand out. There aren't many players who don't take drugs yet stand out. So although players are in much better shape than previously, they aren't better ball players.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by RchW

Not true. Segregation artificially reduced the pool of available talent so the very good players dominated.

Like in the 50s and 60s?

Before that, had there been no segregation, you would see MORE talent from bygone years at the top of the WAR chart. Black players in the 20s and 30s would have joined the white players at the top forcing down players from the modern era. Kind of like what Mays and Aaron did in the 50s and 60s.

Originally Posted by RchW

WAR is cumulative. Another benefit of the smaller pool of the past to very good players was longer careers relative to rest of the pool, not necessarily longer vs today. The large pool today and strong competition suppresses dominance. In one sense that can reduce enjoyment as dominant players attract casual fans.

I don't see where this makes any sense. Maybe you can explain better?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Carlton

Alway like you to take a simple statement and try and twist it to patronize someone...doesn't that act get old with other people?
It's his opinion...leave it at that.

Anyone who doesn't think professional sports has always been about the money is someone who is either unaware of the history involved, rather naive, hopelessly romantic, or blinded by nostalgia.

You're the one who said, "Then that beautiful girl, "baseball" cheated on me...for money". This would seem to indicate you think money became more of an influence than it was in earlier years. History is against this view. While the amount of dollars has certainly grown, the concern for dollars has changed little.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by spit ball

I think there is no doubt today's players are much better athletes and they're in much better shape. But in the past, virtually all the baseball players in a decade were about the same physically. It was no easier for them to rise above the crowd than it is now. So your argument really doesn't hold up.

This is utterly wrong, and Steven Jay Gould, who was the smartest man in the world when died, said so.

Here's a review of Gould's book, FULL HOUSE by the almost as awesome Michael Schermer, that explains precisely why your are wrong.

Michael Shermer » Bicycles, Baseball, Bacteria & Bach

It would be presumptuous of me to attempt to summarize Gould's genius, but his specific rebuttle to your comment above is:

>>It was easier for Ted Williams to “hit ’em where they ain’t” 50 years ago than it is for Wade Boggs today, because every position in the field is manned by players whose average level of play is much better than before.<<

Please take the time to not only read the link, but go to the library and check out a copy of FULL HOUSE. Remember, Gould was a huge baseball fan and knew how to write for popular consumption, too.

[wireman]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

This would seem to indicate you think money became more of an influence than it was in earlier years. History is against this view. While the amount of dollars has certainly grown, the concern for dollars has changed little.

This is pretty sweeping for you. Do you have any data on the historical concern for dollars?How far back are you going with this?