This is why WAR confuses me...

[tribefan26]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

100%.

All add probably the most important thing that makes 2B harder, having to turn a DP. Runner coming up your back side and you can’t see.

Second is harder the RF. Don’t be silly.

I follow SABRmetrics, but I'm not a SABRmetrician. With the focus these days on launch angles and more fly balls, has OF become even less important? Seems there could be measurable difference in harder to field line drives and less opportunities for assists in the OF.

I may go google searching.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by RaceDog

I am not a big fan of WAR yet...yet.

They haven't perfected the data for defense and they also place too heavy a weight on what they do calculate for defense. When they score a slap hitting .280 above average defensive SS #9 hitter equally with a offensive stud corner OF that is average defensively, there is a problem.

You should play Stratomatic. It happens far more often than you think.

Originally Posted by hornedfrog1985

Agreed.... i see some pretty bad defense by some of these guys and they still get a boost simply for playing a premium position.

Originally Posted by rats60

This is stupid and the whole reason why WAR is worthless to compare players at different positions. Defensive value is the plays you make or not, not being a statue at a particular position. 2nd base is not a more difficult position to play than right field. This is what happens when people who never played the game decide to opine on those who play at the highest level.

It is all about making plays. Typically the best defenders play the toughest positions (hence the positional adjustment), but not always. For example, Jason Heyward has provided more defensive value than an average 2b over his career...by a lot. If you want to know who the best defenders are, add position and defensive runs saved. That's your true defensive value right there.

Originally Posted by tribefan26

I follow SABRmetrics, but I'm not a SABRmetrician. With the focus these days on launch angles and more fly balls, has OF become even less important? Seems there could be measurable difference in harder to field line drives and less opportunities for assists in the OF.

I may go google searching.

I'd think the opposite. With more balls going in the air, that's more opportunities for OF to make plays.

[rman112]

Heyward should seek out and shake every WAR enthusiast's hand. It's what got him all that money.

He's also become a case of, for other teams, "don't do what they did..".

[kyleuk21]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is stupid and the whole reason why WAR is worthless to compare players at different positions. Defensive value is the plays you make or not, not being a statue at a particular position. 2nd base is not a more difficult position to play than right field. This is what happens when people who never played the game decide to opine on those who play at the highest level.

You’re kidding right? 2b is less tough than RF? LF/RF are the easiest spots in the field with 1B not far behind. That’s why other spots are viewed as a premium. Clearly you’re in the group who has never played the game but still makes an opinion about it.

[kyleuk21]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

100%.

All add probably the most important thing that makes 2B harder, having to turn a DP. Runner coming up your back side and you can’t see.

Second is harder the RF. Don’t be silly.

Par for the course considering the source lol

[Chicharito]

A ball boy probably catches more balls than a LF/RF does in a game

[tedwilliamsfan]

WAR is only important to people who have investments in Mike Trout cards. Luckily I have a few Trout's, so go #WARmachine.

Seriously though it does help you compare players overall and through different era's. Not perfect, an assumption based off of assumptions, but the overall picture is clearer using WAR. Just my opinion, don't use WAR as gospel.

[Ottomatic]

Originally Posted by rman112

Heyward should seek out and shake every WAR enthusiast's hand. It's what got him all that money.

He's also become a case of, for other teams, "don't do what they did..".

Think a lot had to also do with his age and hope he can get back to hitting. I don't think that changes the way teams evaluate players just because he forgot how to hit. WAR enthusiasts didn't get him money, every single team is using advanced analytics, analytics won. People on forums might debate stats, but to actual teams there is no debate, it's long been over.

[SaveMeTheGum]

I like how WAR is different depending on who is modeling the calculation for the "R". Fangraphs gives you one number. Baseball Reference gives a different number. I'm actually surprised that people who pride themselves on analytics cling so tightly to a number that is theoretical. Most of the rest of the stats are based on hard fact. Objective > Subjective in my opinion.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by Ottomatic

Think a lot had to also do with his age and hope he can get back to hitting. I don't think that changes the way teams evaluate players just because he forgot how to hit. WAR enthusiasts didn't get him money, every single team is using advanced analytics, analytics won. People on forums might debate stats, but to actual teams there is no debate, it's long been over.

Back to hitting? The dude had a career OPS+ of 114 over 3400 PA the day he signed that contract. The real question is, why did a solid hitter all of a sudden turn into crap in his age 26 season?

Originally Posted by tedwilliamsfan

WAR is only important to people who have investments in Mike Trout cards. Luckily I have a few Trout's, so go #WARmachine.

Seriously though it does help you compare players overall and through different era's. Not perfect, an assumption based off of assumptions, but the overall picture is clearer using WAR. Just my opinion, don't use WAR as gospel.

WAR isn't what drives Troutmania (or anything) in the hobby. It's is AVG/HR/The fact that he's on Sportscenter every night (if that show still exists).

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

I like how WAR is different depending on who is modeling the calculation for the "R". Fangraphs gives you one number. Baseball Reference gives a different number. I'm actually surprised that people who pride themselves on analytics cling so tightly to a number that is theoretical. Most of the rest of the stats are based on hard fact. Objective > Subjective in my opinion.

Stone cold locked down nailed it.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Ottomatic

Think a lot had to also do with his age and hope he can get back to hitting. I don't think that changes the way teams evaluate players just because he forgot how to hit. WAR enthusiasts didn't get him money, every single team is using advanced analytics, analytics won. People on forums might debate stats, but to actual teams there is no debate, it's long been over.

More important than compiling numbers is the people looking at them and deciding what to do with them, ie what is and isn't valuable. Things change. The biggest example is the Astros scrapping the whole "being OK with strikeouts" philosophy.

With Heyward, his defense was simply overvalued. His hitting has stunk in Chicago, but he's also a career .262 hitter.

[rman112]

Analytics simply isn't one thing, idea, or philosophy. As of recent history, though, it has been.

[Stifle]

This is why WAR is flawed. One batter can come to the plate 4 times in a game with runners first and second each time. That batter can have 2 infield singles and 2 strikeouts and have a better WAR than a batter who comes to the plate 4 times in the same situation and hits a 3 run home run, then reaches base on a error that brings in a run and leaves runners on the corner. The next two trips that same batter hits two long fly outs that advance both runners to second and third base. The initial batter would have a higher WAR than the second batter. Not sure how two singles are valued higher than a home run or that a strike out is equal to a out that advances a runner or two. Data proves that a advanced runner has better odds of scoring but all outs are equal in WAR. Understand because I don't.

Not sure how a fielder who commits 12 errors but 11 meaningless errors that cost the team 1 win while another fielder commits 5 errors but costs the team 4 games is the better fielder.

RBI's are overrated because they are based on different factors, well 2 out RBI's with a runner in scoring position are not. Though that is a hidden fact in the Saber Metric world.

If all situations are equal then why do factors such as Leverages being utilized. WAR doesn't equate CLUTCH but high leverages, late and close and 2 out W/RISP are considered clutch situations?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by kyleuk21

You’re kidding right? 2b is less tough than RF? LF/RF are the easiest spots in the field with 1B not far behind. That’s why other spots are viewed as a premium. Clearly you’re in the group who has never played the game but still makes an opinion about it.

I can see a lot of people haven't played the game or at least 2b. From over 50 years of playing 2b is one of the easiest positions. Shortstop was my primary position and when I was moved to 2b it was like a day off. Now you are playing deep in the OF, so the ground balls are easy to field, you have short throws and you don't even have to field balls cleanly. 2b is slightly harder than 1b and LF. To play RF, you have to have the strongest OF arm. Most 2b couldn't play RF without being a liability.

The flaw of positional adjustment in WAR is exposed in Bobby Grich. He has a higher WAR than many Hofers, but only got 11 votes his 1st year on the ballot and fell of the ballot. Steve Garvey has half the WAR, yet he got over 40% of the votes. I grew up in LA in the 70s and if you would have suggested that Grich was better than Garvey, you would have been laughed at and called an idiot. There are serious flaws with WAR that need to be corrected if it is ever going to be accepted.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by rats60

I can see a lot of people haven't played the game or at least 2b. From over 50 years of playing 2b is one of the easiest positions. Shortstop was my primary position and when I was moved to 2b it was like a day off. Now you are playing deep in the OF, so the ground balls are easy to field, you have short throws and you don't even have to field balls cleanly. 2b is slightly harder than 1b and LF. To play RF, you have to have the strongest OF arm. Most 2b couldn't play RF without being a liability.

The flaw of positional adjustment in WAR is exposed in Bobby Grich. He has a higher WAR than many Hofers, but only got 11 votes his 1st year on the ballot and fell of the ballot. Steve Garvey has half the WAR, yet he got over 40% of the votes. I grew up in LA in the 70s and if you would have suggested that Grich was better than Garvey, you would have been laughed at and called an idiot. There are serious flaws with WAR that need to be corrected if it is ever going to be accepted.

WAR should listen to the many players who will talk about some of the best fielders who they ever seen who couldn't make the major leagues. Hitting is what propels a player.
The toughest skill in all sports is to hit a baseball, WAR should also take that into account but doesn't.

[lambeauleap87]

Oh good, another "Sabermetrics are evil" thread full of people that simultaneously hate them and have effectively no working understanding of them.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by lambeauleap87

Oh good, another "Sabermetrics are evil" thread full of people that simultaneously hate them and have effectively no working understanding of them.

My response to WAR was by example. I also included situations that WAR doesn't utilize in its attempt to equate value. I just wish that those who utilize WAR would at least debate the flaws that are mentioned instead of going the route of understanding. I don't understand why WAR believers shy away from critics that defy what WAR attempts to equate?
Are 2 singles that don't bring a base runner home valued higher than the 3 run home run in WAR? Please attempt to to answer why this is? If all situations are the same as WAR states. I've given a example but once again, there was zero attempt to break down what I critiqued. I gave multiple examples. This is debate.

Never stated that WAR in equating value is "Evil", just flawed.

Is hitting a baseball the toughest skill in all sports therefore hitting should receive a huge portion of equating value. My opinion.

[Chicharito]

Originally Posted by Stifle

This is why WAR is flawed. One batter can come to the plate 4 times in a game with runners first and second each time. That batter can have 2 infield singles and 2 strikeouts and have a better WAR than a batter who comes to the plate 4 times in the same situation and hits a 3 run home run, then reaches base on a error that brings in a run and leaves runners on the corner. The next two trips that same batter hits two long fly outs that advance both runners to second and third base. The initial batter would have a higher WAR than the second batter. Not sure how two singles are valued higher than a home run or that a strike out is equal to a out that advances a runner or two. Data proves that a advanced runner has better odds of scoring but all outs are equal in WAR. Understand because I don't.

Not sure how a fielder who commits 12 errors but 11 meaningless errors that cost the team 1 win while another fielder commits 5 errors but costs the team 4 games is the better fielder.

RBI's are overrated because they are based on different factors, well 2 out RBI's with a runner in scoring position are not. Though that is a hidden fact in the Saber Metric world.

If all situations are equal then why do factors such as Leverages being utilized. WAR doesn't equate CLUTCH but high leverages, late and close and 2 out W/RISP are considered clutch situations?

Originally Posted by Stifle

My response to WAR was by example. I also included situations that WAR doesn't utilize in its attempt to equate value. I just wish that those who utilize WAR would at least debate the flaws that are mentioned instead of going the route of understanding.
Are 2 singles that don't bring a base runner home valued higher than the 3 run home run in WAR? Please attempt to to answer why this is? If all situations are the same as WAR states. I've given a example but once again, there was zero attempt to break down why my example was untrue. I gave multiple examples. This is debate.

Never stated that WAR in equating value is "Evil", just flawed.

Is hitting a baseball the toughest skill in all sports therefore hitting should receive a huge portion of equating value. My opinion.

Are you confused avg vs. WAR???

WAR values runs created and XBHs more than hits if I am correct, so a palyer who hits a 3 run homer is more valuable in WAR than the palyer that hits 2 RBIless singles. So what is your argument exactly?

[lambeauleap87]

Originally Posted by Stifle

My response to WAR was by example. I also included situations that WAR doesn't utilize in its attempt to equate value. I just wish that those who utilize WAR would at least debate the flaws that are mentioned instead of going the route of understanding. I don't understand why WAR believers shy away from critics that defy what WAR attempts to equate?
Are 2 singles that don't bring a base runner home valued higher than the 3 run home run in WAR? Please attempt to to answer why this is? If all situations are the same as WAR states. I've given a example but once again, there was zero attempt to break down what I critiqued. I gave multiple examples. This is debate.

Never stated that WAR in equating value is "Evil", just flawed.

Is hitting a baseball the toughest skill in all sports therefore hitting should receive a huge portion of equating value. My opinion.

WAR is imperfect, and that's stated over and over by those that created it.

And, no, your example is incorrect, sorry. The main component of the Batting Runs Above Average (fWAR) is effectively wOBA (weighted on base average) adjusted to league/park factors. In wOBA, a home run carries a weight of 2.045. A base hit carries a value of 0.88.

One home run = 2.045
Two base hits = 1.76

WAR is context-free because it basically equates to a comparison in a vacuum.

[Stifle]

The last time I checked on WAR 2 singles were worth more than a home run but I'm glad I was incorrect there.

My other example - All outs are created equally. If a hitter bounces or flies out giving the runner a easy base to advance, Data proves that a advanced base runner has a greater odd of scoring. Shouldn't a strike out be more of a negative because the hitter isn't forcing a fielder to make a defensive play. I have asked this for years but no reply. Please reply because I've only waited years for this one.

I don't expect perfection but some say if a equation is flawed in the process then how can the outcome be accurate ?

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by lambeauleap87

Oh good, another "Sabermetrics are evil" thread full of people that simultaneously hate them and have effectively no working understanding of them.

Good lord you are correct. There is some serious nonsense going on in here since my last post. If I were going to add anything constructive to help them understand (which they probably don't want to anyways) it would be this;

A lot of the anti saber arguments are in regards to sequencing. To that I say, is the guy who hits a homerun after a walk any more talented than the guy who hits a homerun after a strikeout (or popout, or flyout, or groundout)?

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

Good lord you are correct. There is some serious nonsense going on in here since my last post. If I were going to add anything constructive to help them understand (which they probably don't want to anyways) it would be this;

A lot of the anti saber arguments are in regards to sequencing. To that I say, is the guy who hits a homerun after a walk any more talented than the guy who hits a homerun after a strikeout (or popout, or flyout, or groundout)?

Well, but that brings up an interesting question. Batters are pitched differently when there are runners on base than when the bases are empty. If one player hits most of their HR's with no one on vs. another player that hits a higher percentage of his HR's with people on base, it could be argued that the second hitter is more talented (or at least more valuable) than the first one -- similar to BA w/RISP. When dealing with highly complex modeling, such as the calculations that go into coming up with "replacement", no data is valueless data. All data gives different pieces of the whole story.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

Good lord you are correct. There is some serious nonsense going on in here since my last post. If I were going to add anything constructive to help them understand (which they probably don't want to anyways) it would be this;

A lot of the anti saber arguments are in regards to sequencing. To that I say, is the guy who hits a homerun after a walk any more talented than the guy who hits a homerun after a strikeout (or popout, or flyout, or groundout)?

If it's a pattern of not hitting well with a runner or runners on, then yes.

[rman112]

Situations matter. It's one of the things modern hitters don't understand, and apparently something teams aren't valuing either. How many hitters simply swing for the downs, no matter the count? Combine that with being passive early in the count, and K's are sky high.