Owners Want to Use WAR to Determine Salary Replacing Arbitration

[bluesky5]

To be fair I thought Bluesky answered when he responded:


Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
We go round and round on this issue of analytics. If teams shouldn't use analytics then how should team evaluate players then?


"Accurate records of observable events like we always used before the hypothetical stats that are purposely easily manipulated and purposely difficult for the average person to understand- like WAR."

Yea that was my response.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Yea that was my response.

Ok, what accurate records are you referring to? Be specific.

[bluesky5]

Ok, what accurate records are you referring to? Be specific.

Be specific? The stats dude. Hits, runs, doubles, triples, average, on-base, etc.

[scottmitchell74]

Be specific? The stats dude. Hits, runs, doubles, triples, average, on-base, etc.

That would be weird.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Be specific? The stats dude. Hits, runs, doubles, triples, average, on-base, etc.

So just raw stats? How do raw stats given any sort of "projections" or idea what a player may do in the future?

[willshad]

To be fair I thought Bluesky answered when he responded:


Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
We go round and round on this issue of analytics. If teams shouldn't use analytics then how should team evaluate players then?


"Accurate records of observable events like we always used before the hypothetical stats that are purposely easily manipulated and purposely difficult for the average person to understand- like WAR."

The thing about WAR is that the more you look closely at it, the more you realize how much of it is subjective. Replacement value, positional value, base running, and every aspect of fielding are all highly subjective, and can change a player's 'value' tremendously if manipulated enough. Pretty much every aspect of value besides hitting that these stats try to place numerical value on should be taken with a huge grain of salt; that is why I am very skeptical of guys who aren't great hitters, but who end up looking like greats according to WAR.

Heck, even WARs hitting values are highly suspicious. I remember pointing out that Derek Jeter has 353 Rbat and Robin Yount has just 233 Rbat despite the fact that hitting-wise they were virtually identical (both quality and quantity). The best explanation I could get was 'well that's what WAR felt like giving them'. Again, a totally subjective thing that makes a HUGE difference in their WAR totals.

[scottmitchell74]

I'm skeptical when a very good athlete has these wildly varying defensive scores from year to year.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I'm skeptical when a very good athlete has these wildly varying defensive scores from year to year.

I've always wondered about this. Can defense vary from year to year like offense? A .271 hitter can go crazy one year and hit .361 like Norm Cash. And a Wade Boggs can hit .259 for a season during his prime.

[bluesky5]

So just raw stats? How do raw stats given any sort of "projections" or idea what a player may do in the future?

I never considered they couldn’t be projected? Why not?

[scottmitchell74]

[QUOTE=bluesky5;n3675391]

I never considered they couldn’t be projected? Why not?[/QUOT


Yep.

I present for your consideration: Eddie Murray


Ruth, Aaron, Schmidt, 70's Carew, 80s Boggs, and others will do as well.

[bluesky5]

Yep.

I present for your consideration: Eddie Murray


Ruth, Aaron, Schmidt, 70's Carew, 80s Boggs, and others will do as well.

Not sure what you mean Scott? HWR asked how we can project traditional counting and rate stats. I said I didn’t see why we couldn’t. We’d be able to project for anyone, naturally.

[scottmitchell74]

Not sure what you mean Scott? HWR asked how we can project traditional counting and rate stats. I said I didn’t see why we couldn’t. We’d be able to project for anyone, naturally.

I'm supporting you: those players were known to be consistent and I'm saying consistent is synonymous-ish with projectable.

[bluesky5]

I'm supporting you: those players were known to be consistent and I'm saying consistent is synonymous-ish with projectable.

I see, I thought we agreed just wasn’t exactly sure what you were saying.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I propose the following to evaluate players. No stats needed. All players must fit under one of these categories.

1. Professional hitter
2. Proven Veteran
3. Proven Winner
4. The Gamer
5. Clubhouse Cancer
6. Pete Rose

I still think this is the best way to evaluate ballplayers.

[bluesky5]

I still think this is the best way to evaluate ballplayers.

What if we add a Jose Canseco just to mix it up?