WAR in the show

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by cardinalbird7

There are simplified calculations out there for WAR. I calculated my RTTS SS WAR for a few seasons and had near a 10 WAR season my MVP season. Obviously the most difficult and controversial aspect of WAR is the defensive measurements. The simplified calculator just used a 1-10 scale. It was not perfect by any means, but it still gave me a quick and accurate WAR (IMO). I was a SS that hit 66 HR's with a 1.200 OPS and 100+ SB's witha 95+ pct. Anyways, my point is that they could definitely add a simplified version of WAR or add their own version if they wish. They already do have some sabermetric stats in the game. My main concern is that they need to allow you to view these stats once the season is over.

I'd prefer they have their own metric since it would likely have to use some of the player ratings in it's calculation, mostly for defense and baserunning value. A player does not have to have a ton of SBs to be valuable. Speed plays on the bases in any scenario, even if the player sucks at stealing bases. Not many ways the game can put a value on that since it lacks advanced stat tracking.

I'd assume that whatever metric (ShowWAR, ShowValue, etc) they can come up with would be a combination of stats the game tracks and player skill ratings (i.e. speed, fielding, etc.).

[cardinalbird5]

Quote: Originally Posted by HozAndMoose

I disagree. Id rather have no WAR than a WAR that isnt like real life. I guess it doesnt really matter though. I wouldnt have to look at it if it didnt want to.

That is probably because most of the KC Royals value comes from their defense , so I understand your point. Like I said, it won't be perfect, especially for defense. But I'd still like to see it in the game as it is a big component of MLB and GM's are definitely looking at WAR these days over simple baseball card stats.

[JoeCoolMan24]

Quote: Originally Posted by nomo17k

I think you are not getting my main point... obviously WAR and OVR are entirely different in how they are computed, but the fact that they are both used to *summarize* the value of a player does not change. I can similarly argue that OVR is a summary of player's value over a season, just that it's more stable for obvious reasons that his innate ability is not likely to fluctuate as much as random statistical fluctuation that a stat like WAR is always subject to... In any case, this isn't really the point of the thread as I understand. And if you are actually arguing that the introduction of a metric like WAR is more desired because of its nature as an *estimate* of a player's value (as opposed to OVR which basically exposes exactly the innate ability of players in the game... something you cannot do in real life), then the issue is whether to hide the (true) attribute values from gamers and add some variance to what we can see (as in subjective scout reports) and/or just purely go by stats. In either case, WAR is not an absolute necessity to add that kind of element to the game.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. OVR summarizes the skill level of a player, WAR summarizes the value of a player's individual season. We clearly don't agree on that idea.

I see 0 reason to not include WAR in The Show (other than technical limitations, of course), so we may as well be arguing which color the dress is at this point. FYI, it's light blue and gold.

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeCoolMan24

This is where we fundamentally disagree. OVR summarizes the skill level of a player, WAR summarizes the value of a player's individual season. We clearly don't agree on that idea. I see 0 reason to not include WAR in The Show (other than technical limitations, of course), so we may as well be arguing which color the dress is at this point. FYI, it's light blue and gold.

I would actually argue that the effort it takes to include WAR should be better spent on improving other aspects of the game, so there are many reasons not to prioritize on including WAR in the game. But again, there is no point in arguing when things come down to preference as you say.