Joe Mauer...HOF yay, or nay?

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

What?

No. A replacement level player is based on league averages every year.

Basing it on the league average is an assumption in and of itself. It may be a very good assumption, but an assumption none the less.

[Airdrop01]

Originally Posted by Rain King

He had a season with 999.2, two more over 900. Why is 1,000 the arbitrary number that matters?

Because that is what, based upon my subjective opinion, is a full time load for a professional catcher. It is subjective. But look! I told you in words why it is so.

I didn’t say something like “because the CERA+/FIPxJAWWARrc says so”

I could create such a “metric” but it would be a made up thing. I choose instead to use words, based upon experiences and my personal opinion.

Our objection is that you refuse to admit or even acknowledge that all of these so called metrics you’re citing in your circular argument of hes a HOF because of x metric” is every bit as subjective or more. In a similar way, you’re obsessed with continuing to maintain that Maurer is a catcher and comparing him to catchers for purposes of determining if he is one of the greatest baseball players the universe has ever seen...which is what the HOF player should be....whether it is for doing something that had never ever been done before (Ferrell) or doing something so well, that the chances of it being done again are very small (George Brett, Robin Yount), etc.

Arguing that bathing average is not objective, by the way, indicates a lack of understanding of what subjective and objective mean. Batting Average cannot be subjective. It is a provable fact. WAR is by definition subjective or else one mans WAR computation (Say Baseball Prospectus) would be the same as another (say Fangraphs). It also cannot be objective, because it’s designed to take defenses and position into account, both of which are completely subjective evaluations despite what you want to believe.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Basing it on the league average is an assumption in and of itself. It may be a very good assumption, but an assumption none the less.

What?

The league averages numbers every year
https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.as...ter=&players=0

WAR has to have a replacement level, that's the base line.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

Because that is what, based upon my subjective opinion, is a full time load for a professional catcher. It is subjective. But look! I told you in words why it is so.

Then there were only four catchers in baseball last year.

I could create such a “metric” but it would be a made up thing. I choose instead to use words, based upon experiences and my personal opinion.

Our objection is that you refuse to admit or even acknowledge that all of these so called metrics you’re citing in your circular argument of hes a HOF because of x metric” is every bit as subjective or more. In a similar way, you’re obsessed with continuing to maintain that Maurer is a catcher and comparing him to catchers for purposes of determining if he is one of the greatest baseball players the universe has ever seen...which is what the HOF player should be....whether it is for doing something that had never ever been done before (Ferrell) or doing something so well, that the chances of it being done again are very small (George Brett, Robin Yount), etc.

Arguing that bathing average is not objective, by the way, indicates a lack of understanding of what subjective and objective mean. Batting Average cannot be subjective. It is a provable fact. WAR is by definition subjective or else one mans WAR computation would be the same as another. It cannot be objective, because it’s designed to take defenses and position into account, both of which are completely subjective evaluations despite what you want to believe.

I think you are spending more time assuming the others perspective, rather than actually reading it.

You also ignored like 90% of what I've said throughout this, so that makes sense.

It's also been repeated like 15 times what in each of these stats is objective and subjective.

The determination of what constitutes the barometers of the stats are subjective. The formulas for the stats themselves are objective.

They are the same in that regard.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

What?

The league averages numbers every year
https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.as...ter=&players=0

WAR has to have a replacement level, that's the base line.

And that base line is subjective.

.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

This entire back and forth isn't about the formulas themselves.

Yes it is. LOL! That's what the whole discussion turned into. Like I said, you want to debate what you want to debate about without considering what was actually asked.

There is nothing subjective about what creates 1.0 rWAR either. It's a set formula.

There is nothing subjective about what creates 1.0 fWAR as well. It's a set formula.

Uh..... yes there is. Why do they come up with different results? Cause rWAT is B-R's opinion on how it should be calculated, fWAR is fangraph's opinion on how to calculate it.

There is nothing subjective about what creates a .400 OBP reaching base 2 out of every 5 PA.

There is nothing subjective about what creates a .333 Batting average, getting a base hit once every 3 at bats.

EXACTLY! If you had merely posted that in the 1st place you wouldn't have wasted both of our times.

But what is subjective is what was driven and determined to create these stats and their purposes.

Which point was never questioned. Again, you are debating what you want to debate instead of answering the question.

Nobody is adjusting rWAR on a whim and based on feelings or opinions. It's a set formula, it's the same always.

Same thing with batting average.

Set formula, yes. Not adjusted according to feelings? No. Or else, there would be a standard. There are no different calculations for inches, pounds, kilometers or grams etc cause there is a standard. No one can change that because they feel like it. They can't add to it or subtract. B-R & fangraphs can change their formula today if their opinion changes.

[Cobra Mgr]

https://www.fangraphs.com/library/wa...ces-fwar-rwar/

Given that the definition for WAR is somewhat subjective, different groups of people have arrived at different calculations.

[Airdrop01]

Not gonna work. I almost put up that quote but they’ll just ignore it.

Good gif by the way.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Yes it is. LOL! That's what the whole discussion turned into. Like I said, you want to debate what you want to debate about without considering what was actually asked.

Pretty sure the discussion turned into objective vs subjective.

Uh..... yes there is. Why do they come up with different results? Cause rWAT is B-R's opinion on how it should be calculated, fWAR is fangraph's opinion on how to calculate it.

Probably because they are different stats, like batting average and on base percentage.

EXACTLY! If you had merely posted that in the 1st place you wouldn't have wasted both of our times.

You do understand, that even bolding opinion above, it's Chadwick's opinion that batting average ignore walks and sacrifices. Thus we have on base percentage.

Which point was never questioned. Again, you are debating what you want to debate instead of answering the question.

Then what's your question? Because I'm only seeing a debate now about objective vs subjective.

Set formula, yes. Not adjusted according to feelings? No. Or else, there would be a standard. There are no different calculations for inches, pounds, kilometers or grams etc cause there is a standard. No one can change that because they feel like it. They can't add to it or subtract. B-R & fangraphs can change their formula today if their opinion changes.

It's not a kink in the armor that there are different fields of thoughts.

That's literally how all science and math is created and works.


Their opinions change because they realize better and more improved ways to measure this stuff.

We don't have all the answers. Baseball isn't a perfectly measurable sport, but it's one of the easiest sports to measure. In 100 years from now, they'll have better numbers than they do today. But they won't be citing batting average or care about it.

Evolution doesn't mean things aren't better. And any time you improve upon something, there will be others who will improve upon that.

And their opinions aren't just changing because they don't like how it turns out for a player or something. It changes because they are trying and trying to correlate it to wins more accurately. Today, it's over 90% accurate. But it's not 100%, so yes, it will be changing at some point again, I'm sure.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

Not gonna work. I almost put up that quote but they’ll just ignore it.

Good gif by the way.

One can always hope.

The evolution to the "never changing" rWAR calculation.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

https://www.fangraphs.com/library/wa...ces-fwar-rwar/

Oh Jesus, you keep screaming this, but aren't hearing what Rain and I have said.

There are different versions of WAR. We all know that.

There are different versions to calculate batter value too.

On base percentage
Batting Average
Slugging
OPS
wRC+
wOBA
etc, etc,

That doesn't make them subjective. Their formulas are the same no matter who you put into the calculator.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Pretty sure the discussion turned into objective vs subjective.

Yes.........about whether WAR, you know...the formula......was objective or subjective.

Probably because they are different stats, like batting average and on base percentage.

I know. And their choice is still based on their opinion. One may use butter to make a cake, the other margarine. But it is all based on the cook's opinion on what is best.

You do understand, that even bolding opinion above, it's Chadwick's opinion that batting average ignore walks and sacrifices. Thus we have on base percentage.

So the way to calculate either never changed. His opinion didn't change BA. Because it is unchangeable until they redefine what is an @bat or hit.

Then what's your question? Because I'm only seeing a debate now about objective vs subjective.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...2&postcount=28

It's not a kink in the armor that there are different fields of thoughts.

That's literally how all science and math is created and works.


Their opinions change because they realize better and more improved ways to measure this stuff.

We don't have all the answers. Baseball isn't a perfectly measurable sport, but it's one of the easiest sports to measure. In 100 years from now, they'll have better numbers than they do today. But they won't be citing batting average or care about it.

Evolution doesn't mean things aren't better. And any time you improve upon something, there will be others who will improve upon that.

And their opinions aren't just changing because they don't like how it turns out for a player or something. It changes because they are trying and trying to correlate it to wins more accurately. Today, it's over 90% accurate. But it's not 100%, so yes, it will be changing at some point again, I'm sure.

Yada, yada yada.......all that to say you agree w/myself & airdrop all along. You just can't bring yourself to say it. Cause once more, you want to debate what you want to debate.

Sabermetrics are an opinion based on the mathematicians self made conclusions. At its core, the same way we who scoff @ Mauer being MLB's 7th best C all time formed our opinion. They used math to make form their opinion. We used our gut. And choose to believe it or not, we look @ numbers too. Just maybe not the same ones or in the same way. It is all opinion.

[Cobra Mgr]

https://www.fangraphs.com/library/wa...ces-fwar-rwar/

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

That doesn't make them subjective. Their formulas are the same no matter who you put into the calculator.

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

Not gonna work. I almost put up that quote but they’ll just ignore it.

Good gif by the way.

Like you said. If Jeff was a defense attorney, he would still be trying to convince the jury his client is innocent after defendant confessed on the witness stand.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Yes.........about whether WAR, you know...the formula......was objective or subjective.

The formula itself is objective.

Players A through Players Z have the same criteria and requirement to create 1.0 rWAR.

What's subjective is that there are different schools of thought of what WAR should be. So there are different formulas, and they are different stats. Just like batting average isn't considered perfect, so on base percentage was created.

Batting average is still there. So is the original rWAR. But instead of leaving it out there, they improved upon it. Batting average was improved upon too, but it's still there for the traditional senses.

I know. And their choice is still based on their opinion. One may use butter to make a cake, the other margarine. But it is all based on the cook's opinion on what is best.

Yup, and the same thing with batting average.

It's what Chadwick determined was a good value at the time, based on what was working cricket.

If batting average was created today....well it wouldn't be.

He ignored walks and sacrifices. Treated every hit equally etc. It was his opinion at the time.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...2&postcount=28

I guess I never saw this or it got moved into a quote and I didn't see it when responding, it wasn't intentional.

What's subjective is what was Chadwick's opinion to create that stat. He wanted a formula like they use in cricket. He brought batting average. He didn't think players should be rewarded or knocked for drawing a walk, the same for a sacrifice, so he simply omitted them.

At bats and other information would also be different today. He didn't call those at bats. But today, we wouldn't use at bats for anything other than batting average. Every thing else is qualified under plate appearances.

Yada, yada yada.......all that to say you agree w/myself & airdrop all along. You just can't bring yourself to say it. Cause once more, you want to debate what you want to debate.

Sabermetrics are an opinion based on the mathematicians self made conclusions. At its core, the same way we who scoff @ Mauer being MLB's 7th best C all time formed our opinion. They used math to make form their opinion. We used our gut. And choose to believe it or not, we look @ numbers too. Just maybe not the same ones or in the same way. It is all opinion.

I don't think Mauer is the 7th best catcher either, did you see my rankings?

JAWS is saying he had the 7th best catcher peak combo'd with his career totals.

JAWS, like WAR, isn't finite and complete. It doesn't tell the whole story, and in Mauer's case, it ignores that he moved off the position where other guys like Bench and Carter didn't. Thus my long post about breaking his career into two segments.


It's not like the numbers are only a handful of things.

Here, I'll give you an example:

Among players who played at least 50% of their games at catcher btw (for Mauer, it's 1769 career games, 920 played at catcher, so for now, he still qualifies as a catcher)

Ranks
rWAR - 8th between Dickey and Hartnett
fWAR - 11th between Cochrane and Ewing
wRC - 13th between Carter and Cochrane
wRC+ - tied for 13th best
Innings caught - 145th
Total Zone - +45
Defensive Runs Saved - +14 at catcher, +21 at first base
JAWS - 7th between Berra and Dickey
WAR7 - 5th - Between Pudge and Pudge
1 MVP (one of the 18 MVP awards by a catcher - 12 individuals)
6 time All-star (22nd)


But he moved off of catcher. So he can't be base line compared to these guys. He is knocked for playing less games and innings at catcher (WAR shows that btw, otherwise he'd be a lock right now and be pushing 60 WAR). In this group, he ranks just outside the top 10 once you adjust for his shorter time at catcher.

As a 1B/DH, he is a little more than league average.

So he needs to stick around 2-5 more years of hitting like he is now to carry himself in there.

He did plenty when he did catch. But it was relatively short. Much the way Johan Santana, a fellow Twin had an amazing peak, but it wasn't long enough. But Mauer can hang around hitting and providing value to the Twins for several years. And unlike Santana who couldn't pitch at all, there is a value there that can carry Mauer from borderline out to borderline in with enough reps and value.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Like you said. If Jeff was a defense attorney, he would still be trying to convince the jury his client is innocent after defendant confessed on the witness stand.

Here is the quote
"Given that the definition for WAR is somewhat subjective, different groups of people have arrived at different calculations."

That's right. Because there are different WAR stats. fWAR, rWAR, WARP, etc.

Just like there are different offensive value stats, like batting average, OBP, slugging, OPS, wOBA.

There are also different opinions on what's important and valuable.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Here is the quote
"Given that the definition for WAR is somewhat subjective, different groups of people have arrived at different calculations."

That's right. Because there are different WAR stats. fWAR, rWAR, WARP, etc.

Just like there are different offensive value stats, like batting average, OBP, slugging, OPS, wOBA.

There are also different opinions on what's important and valuable.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

If Jeff was a defense attorney, he would still be trying to convince the jury his client is innocent after defendant confessed on the witness stand.

......

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

I guess I never saw this or it got moved into a quote and I didn't see it when responding, it wasn't intentional.

You quoted my post and even separated my question in answering......but you never saw it..............

[rudel.dietrich]

Reading this has made my head hurt.

[TheMaus2]

[pilight]

All the haggling about WAR and it's objectivity/subjectivity is missing one very important point: Stats don't tell the whole story. They are evidence, but not proof.