315 replies to this topic

[Pedro Cerrano]

Well I didn't know that WAR could drop.  In a way that sort of makes it like a rate stat in that once you've achieved a certain threshold you can still fall from it. 

 

This all makes sense now.

[Matt_P]

Well I didn't know that WAR could drop.  In a way that sort of makes it like a rate stat in that once you've achieved a certain threshold you can still fall from it. 

 

This all makes sense now.

 

It's a counting stat that counts a number of rate stats. Three of its components are based on rate stats. The fourth component is based on an actual counting stat.

 

I can give you an example but it's awfully confusing. Maybe it's better to give you an example that's made up but is clearer.

 

Suppose the league average OPS is .720. Suppose a player had an .800 OPS for his first hundred PAs and a .600 OPS for his second hundred PAs.

 

His batting value would have been positive for his first hundred PAs and negative for his second hundred PAs. When you average them together then his batting value after his first hundred PAs would have been positive but for his first two hundred PAs would be negative.

 

This is a case where giving a player more playing time would hurt his value rather than increase it. But mostly more playing time equals larger value.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Yes, I understand now.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Yeah, I understand - but I don't know if I agree with the methodology either. Pearce clearly isn't a .900 OPS guy... but because Buck has used him sparingly, he gets treated as such via WAR? I just can't get behind that.

[Matt_P]

Yeah, I understand - but I don't know if I agree with the methodology either. Pearce clearly isn't a .900 OPS guy... but because Buck has used him sparingly, he gets treated as such via WAR? I just can't get behind that.

 

Batting WAR measures how a player has performed. Pearce has been a .900 OPS guy this year. Production is production even if it isn't likely to continue happening.

 

The people who created WAR would tell you that even though he's worth 3.1 fWAR this year that doesn't mean you should necessarily think he'll be that good next year.

 

That's why projection systems like ZiPs were created.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Batting WAR measures how a player has performed. Pearce has been a .900 OPS guy this year. Production is production even if it isn't likely to continue happening.

 

The people who created WAR would tell you that even though he's worth 3.1 fWAR this year that doesn't mean you should necessarily think he'll be that good next year.

 

That's why projection systems like ZiPs were created.

 

Yeah, I just disagree with it still. I mean, clearly an every day player OPS'ing .800 is a ton more valuable than a guy with a 3rd of the AB's OPS'ing .900.

[Mike in STL]

So what's 1.0 WAR worth, $6-7M or something? Is Pearce a $20M a year guy?

[mweb08]

Yeah, I understand - but I don't know if I agree with the methodology either. Pearce clearly isn't a .900 OPS guy... but because Buck has used him sparingly, he gets treated as such via WAR? I just can't get behind that.

Well can you get behind OPS since it treats him like a .900 OPS player? What do you want WAR to do here, actually lower his batting production because it would likely decrease with more AB's? His limited number of at bats is reflected in his WAR. I wouldn't call him the team MVP either, so I can see the complaint here, but at least fWAR is more in line with most of our thoughts and I'm perfectly fine with not being a slave to WAR despite what some think.

[mweb08]

So what's 1.0 WAR worth, $6-7M or something? Is Pearce a $20M a year guy?

Well that's the worth on the free agent market, which is inflated compared to how much all players are being paid. Anyway, for this season he's been very valuable, but no one would pay him expecting a repeat performance.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Well can you get behind OPS since it treats him like a .900 OPS player? What do you want WAR to do here, actually lower his batting production because it would likely decrease with more AB's? His limited number of at bats is reflected in his WAR. I wouldn't call him the team MVP either, so I can see the complaint here, but at least fWAR is more in line with most of our thoughts and I'm perfectly fine with not being a slave to WAR despite what some think.

 

Well a lot of Stat heads are a slave to WAR... and if they don't watch O's gams, they would go to BBref and say Pearce has been our best player... This is probably more of a complaint about how WAR is used/referenced than it is about the stat itself. This conversation has been enlightening to say the least.

[mweb08]

I think most stat heads would look at a lot more stats than just WAR, and even with WAR, they generally aren't going to just use rWAR.

[SportsGuy]

Yeah, I just disagree with it still. I mean, clearly an every day player OPS'ing .800 is a ton more valuable than a guy with a 3rd of the AB's OPS'ing .900.

I don't see what you can really disagree with though.

 

All WAR is doing is measuring exactly what he is doing on the field.  

 

A stat like FIP is measuring hat the future says should happen(essentially)...I can see a bigger issue with that than a stat that says, this is what they are actually doing right now.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Well can you get behind OPS since it treats him like a .900 OPS player? What do you want WAR to do here, actually lower his batting production because it would likely decrease with more AB's? His limited number of at bats is reflected in his WAR. I wouldn't call him the team MVP either, so I can see the complaint here, but at least fWAR is more in line with most of our thoughts and I'm perfectly fine with not being a slave to WAR despite what some think.

 

It is very safe to say that you use WAR more than any other stat when you're evaluating a player.  It's also frequently the first stat you reference.

 

So no, you aren't slave to it, but it's your favorite flavor of ice cream.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I think most stat heads would look at a lot more stats than just WAR, and even with WAR, they generally aren't going to just use rWAR.

 

Either way, whenever I hear WAR referenced, it seems to be in the context of how valuable a player is. My point here is that you can't say tha Pearce, with half the AB's as Jones, is even remotely close to as valuable.

[Mike in STL]

 
Well a lot of Stat heads are a slave to WAR... and if they don't watch O's gams, they would go to BBref and say Pearce has been our best player... This is probably more of a complaint about how WAR is used/referenced than it is about the stat itself. This conversation has been enlightening to say the least.

Maybe there is a problem with the equation and how it is calculated. Maybe you should be deducted points for games you dont play at all so that people dont mistake Pearce for MVO

[Pedro Cerrano]

Ricker's point isn't that complicated.

 

If you look solely at WAR, it would tell you Pearce has more "value" than Jones.  This is obviously poppeycock.  The worst kind of poppeycock.  It's just another strike against advanced metrics.  Ho hum.

[SportsGuy]

I think most stat heads would look at a lot more stats than just WAR, and even with WAR, they generally aren't going to just use rWAR.

Yea...I don't recall seeing anyone(anywhere) say, player X has a higher WAR than player Y, therefore he is better.

 

There are a ton of factors.

 

What I think is really wrong is people who just assume that "stat heads" are a slave to WAR and not really paying attention to the entire argument.  IMO, there are way more of those types of people out there than those saying this guy has a better WAR, so he's obviously better.

 

Now, sometimes WAR is just the only talked about in a post or a sentence or something like that...its just a shorthand way of talking about production.

This reminds me of the old OH argument with RShack vs Drungo about OPS or how RSHack used to hand the words "blow it up".  

its not like there wasn't more to it than just saying that but sometimes, you dont always feel the need to type out the same thing over and over again, so its just a short hand way of saying something...that difference should be obvious IMO.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Yea...I don't recall seeing anyone(anywhere) say, player X has a higher WAR than player Y, therefore he is better.

 

There are a ton of factors.

 

What I think is really wrong is people who just assume that "stat heads" are a slave to WAR and not really paying attention to the entire argument.  IMO, there are way more of those types of people out there than those saying this guy has a better WAR, so he's obviously better.

 

Now, sometimes WAR is just the only talked about in a post or a sentence or something like that...its just a shorthand way of talking about production.

This reminds me of the old OH argument with RShack vs Drungo about OPS or how RSHack used to hand the words "blow it up".  

its not like there wasn't more to it than just saying that but sometimes, you dont always feel the need to type out the same thing over and over again, so its just a short hand way of saying something...that difference should be obvious IMO.

 

Well it may not have been said, but it was certainly very much implied by some in the Cabrera v. Trout MVP thread.

 

Whatever, this whole going in circles thing gets us nowhere.  WAR is not a completely useless stat, most of the great players end up with the highest WAR.  And I agree that if you use it in conjunction with other stuff it gets you somewhere.

 

I just find it amusing that the stat, taken by itself, is telling us that Pearce is more valuable than Jones. 

[Pedro Cerrano]

BTW, not to bring his name up again, but any time you listen to Brian Kenny on MLB Network, I guarantee you WAR is the stat that he mentions as much, if not more, than anything else.

 

He's very smart because he knows how to type two names into baseball reference and can tell us which number is higher.  Screw Harold Reynolds.

[JordanKough]

Yea...I don't recall seeing anyone(anywhere) say, player X has a higher WAR than player Y, therefore he is better.

 

It's not saying that he's better, but it's saying he's done more to help the O's win games than anyone with less than him through this season.

 

That's just kind of hard to believe when comparing Pearce and Jones.  If you took them both off the team and replaced them with full replacement level guys at their respective spots it seems as though Jones would add way more value to the team, no?