MLB Off-Topic
Collapse
Recommended Videos
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
The stat takes the stats that you feel are important and weighs them objectively. It shows Trout as superior. Is there any reason why your weighting of doubles, homers, etc is more valid than wRC+'s?"Twelve at-bats is a pretty decent sample size." - Eric ByrnesComment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
lol, on Jimmy Fallon, at the end of the show, he goes in the audience to give people high fives and stuff. On a recent show, he missed one guy sitting in one of the aisle seats.
The reason it was worth mentioning here, is cause that guy was Joe Biagini of the Jays. His own teammates started making fun of him for that.
So today, Fallon invited Biagini back onto the show so they could get it right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUzY0-fbDjc
lol ya, "you know it's offseason when...."Last edited by Majingir; 11-19-2016, 02:16 PM.Comment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
WAR seems to be very subjective so that's why I don't put much stock into it.
I thought I had read an article that stated .OPS was pretty bang-on when looking at wins and losses per team, while WAR was not.
If you added up everyone's WAR, it almost never equated to a teams WIN total by years end.
*This could be me simply not fully understanding WAR though. Which is probably why I like looking at old school stats instead of all these fancy metrics.
I like stats and I've read too many books that most would probably find incredibly boring ("The Only Rule is it has to Work" is a fantastic read. When I explained the premise to my wife she nearly fell asleep, haha).
But as much as I like books on the subject, I still always go back to the 'Big 3' as the standard for judging a players hitting ability.Comment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
WAR has a very strong relationship to team win total. I can post something later when I'm not running out the house ... or you can take my word for it
Lol it's not perfect correlation but yeah it is a good indicator."Twelve at-bats is a pretty decent sample size." - Eric ByrnesComment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
lol, on Jimmy Fallon, at the end of the show, he goes in the audience to give people high fives and stuff. On a recent show, he missed one guy sitting in one of the aisle seats.
The reason it was worth mentioning here, is cause that guy was Joe Biagini of the Jays. His own teammates started making fun of him for that.
So today, Fallon invited Biagini back onto the show so they could get it right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUzY0-fbDjc
lol ya, "you know it's offseason when...."Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club
"Baseball is the most important thing that doesn't matter at all" - Robert B. ParkerComment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
The thing with advanced statistics based on formulas is every team has their own.
And because they don't share their data, sites like br and fangraphs have their own data to determine these formulas.
It's like one company feeling as if a 25% off coupon is valuable to get people into the store while another feels it's better to do a buy one get one 50% off. Different theories create different ideas on which statistics hold more value.
But the important thing is that whatever br rates Trout in WAR it is weighing all players the same way. Fangraphs has a different formula but it's comparing Trout to everyone using the same formula.
It doesn't matter that the formulas are different. It just matters where the player stands among his peers. And writers get to pick which formula they prefer based on their preferences which is why we have so many voters.
If we didn't want opinion to be a part of the voting, one guy would make the decision."It may well be that we spectators, who are not divinely gifted as athletes, are the only ones able to truly see, articulate and animate the experience of the gift we are denied. And that those who receive and act out the gift of athletic genius must, perforce, be blind and dumb about it -- and not because blindness and dumbness are the price of the gift, but because they are its essence." - David Foster Wallace
"You'll not find more penny-wise/pound-foolish behavior than in Major League Baseball." - Rob NeyerComment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
I propose that we create a new "Brian Kenny WARrior of the Year Award" so those that fawn over WAR can have their award, and those who watch the game can have theirs. Everybody wins...Rangers - Cowboys - Aggies - Stars - Mavericks
Comment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
I really have no problem with people using advanced statistics, but to base an opinion award on one stat is absurd.Rangers - Cowboys - Aggies - Stars - Mavericks
Comment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
Stats are important. They've been part of the game for over a hundred years, and will be for hundreds more. The problem is that there is a good number of people that think WAR is the be all end all, when SABRmatricisns can't even come up with one number for WAR. A home run is a home run. A strikeout is a strike out. There are many ways to come up with "WAR" and nobody really wants to standardize it.
I really have no problem with people using advanced statistics, but to base an opinion award on one stat is absurd.Originally posted by G PericoIf I ain't got it, then I gotta take it
I can't hide who I am, baby I'm a gangster
In the Rolls Royce, steppin' on a mink rug
The clique just a gang of bosses that linked upComment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
It's getting to the point where if the player who doesn't have the highest WAR looses, then there is a riot and vote shaming. The guy who voted for Adrian Beltre got drilled, but the fact of the matter is that the BBWAA asked for his opinion and gave it. It's not like Beltre is Soup Can Larry; he is a great player. It's getting to the point where one advanced statistic is dominating the game, and I think we are being shortsighted in this.
EDIT: For the record, my top thee would have been Trout, Altuve, and Betts in that order.Last edited by Perfect Zero; 11-19-2016, 06:29 PM.Rangers - Cowboys - Aggies - Stars - Mavericks
Comment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
I don't understand your question. This is an opinion award. If it was to be based solely on WAR then it would be the WAR Champion Award. There is more to most valuable player than one stat that has no real world value. I think WAR should be used in concert with more traditional stats and the eyeball test.
It's getting to the point where if the player who doesn't have the highest WAR looses, then there is a riot and vote shaming. The guy who voted for Adrian Beltre got drilled, but the fact of the matter is that the BBWAA asked for his opinion and gave it. It's not like Beltre is Soup Can Larry; he is a great player. It's getting to the point where one advanced statistic is dominating the game, and I think we are being shortsighted in this.
EDIT: For the record, my top thee would have been Trout, Altuve, and Betts in that order.
If your argument is there's more to the game than one stat, then WAR is, ironically, the perfect single stat to display that."It may well be that we spectators, who are not divinely gifted as athletes, are the only ones able to truly see, articulate and animate the experience of the gift we are denied. And that those who receive and act out the gift of athletic genius must, perforce, be blind and dumb about it -- and not because blindness and dumbness are the price of the gift, but because they are its essence." - David Foster Wallace
"You'll not find more penny-wise/pound-foolish behavior than in Major League Baseball." - Rob NeyerComment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
WAR is far from the be all end all, but it is the most reliable current way to judge players.
Is there a difference between a 4.7 and a 4.5? Meh, the numbers (especially defensive) are fungible to a point where players close to each other can be argued. So a 4.7 and 4.5 could be argued between but a 7.0 and a 3.5 are in different leagues.
It's not "oh trout had a higher WAR but lost" in those years, it was "oh trout was by far the best player in baseball and lost" those years he did.
WAR was part of the supporting evidence, not the argument.badComment
-
Re: MLB Off-Topic
I find it hilarious when people think that analyst-types don't actually watch baseball. Two of my friends work for teams in an analytical-type capacity that you deride. I promise you they watched more baseball than you could imagine this summer. They scout prospects, they watch their teams, they study targets, and they watch for fun. One literally built a program that, long story short, includes hundreds of hours of nothing but video. They are obsessive.
Whether your way of enjoying the game is correct at the end of the day is completely irrelevant. It is your way. No one insults you for it. So why do you choose to chide those who simply think differently about the same game, putting them down, acting as if your way is vastly superior and that they must not even watch the sport?Last edited by AC; 11-19-2016, 11:20 PM."Twelve at-bats is a pretty decent sample size." - Eric ByrnesComment
Comment