Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mike Donlin - Potential?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    No, nothing like that, and I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. But without casting any aspersions on anyone, for the time being I'll stick with stats that are calculated only one way, with no possible difference of opinion. Because to me, until there's a consensus on how to calculate the damned thing, that's what it is-an opinion.
    Every stat is an opinion

    Balls and strikes are opinions
    Hits are opinions
    Errors are opinions
    Foul balls are opinions
    Home runs are opinions
    Stolen bases are opinions.


    And there is a consensus on how to calculate FanGraph's WAR

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
      No, nothing like that, and I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. But without casting any aspersions on anyone, for the time being I'll stick with stats that are calculated only one way, with no possible difference of opinion. Because to me, until there's a consensus on how to calculate the damned thing, that's what it is-an opinion.
      My problem with multiple WARs is that, as more people become aware of both BBRef & Fangraphs, some will cherrypick from each to prove a point. From what I've seen, fWAR is generally higher than bWAR on most players - either overall or by season. If somebody wants to prove Player A is better than Player B, there's no reason not to use fWAR for Player A and bWAR for player B if it adds to his/her argument.

      It's not like something like that hasn't been done. When I go to card shows, I'm looking to buy and sell vintage stuff. When I hit a dealer who has something I want (nothing is ever priced in view of the buyer), he'll often have multiple price guides as well as a laptop and offer it at the best price for him. On the opposite side, when I'm selling or trading, he might use a totally different guide to get his best price. None are right or wrong as they are simply guides, but to reach the outcome one wants, numbers are cherrypicked to gain the most in the deal - not much different than a debate online.

      Just wait til we get sites like Yahoo and ESPN adding WAR values to their statistics. We'll have bWAR, eWAR, fWAR, yWAR, and so on...
      "Chuckie doesn't take on 2-0. Chuckie's hackin'." - Chuck Carr two days prior to being released by the Milwaukee Brewers

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Ben Grimm View Post
        If somebody wants to prove Player A is better than Player B, there's no reason not to use fWAR for Player A and bWAR for player B if it adds to his/her argument.
        There most certainly IS a reason.

        They are two different stats, computed two different ways.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by filihok View Post
          There most certainly IS a reason.

          They are two different stats, computed two different ways.
          You know that. And most here who study these numbers know that. But to the more casual fan or somebody that's slightly intrigued - they simply know WAR - not that there's a difference.

          I just picked a random MVP season from BBRef... It was 2000. Let's say my argument is that Piazza should have beaten Kent for the award and stated that his offense along with the position he played was more valuable.

          I offer up WAR as my final argument:

          Piazza - 6.0 WAR
          Kent - 6.9 WAR

          That's all the person I'm talking to hears. WAR as a final separator. Sure, Kent's up, but is it that much? Let's say I took Kent's side in the argument as to why he won so many 1st place votes... I tell this person:

          Piazza 4.9 WAR
          Kent 7.6 WAR

          Quite a difference. All I did was say it's based on WAR. That person had no idea I was mixing and matching to make my argument work in my favor. You can't simply assume everybody you talk to is going to be on the same page as yourself - especially when a masked statistic now has two possible outcomes. Add a few more as these sites grow and it only becomes more confusing if each has its own way of reaching a number.
          "Chuckie doesn't take on 2-0. Chuckie's hackin'." - Chuck Carr two days prior to being released by the Milwaukee Brewers

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
            No, nothing like that, and I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. But without casting any aspersions on anyone, for the time being I'll stick with stats that are calculated only one way, with no possible difference of opinion. Because to me, until there's a consensus on how to calculate the damned thing, that's what it is-an opinion.
            Don't be shy, Aches, tell it like it is.

            FWAR and bWAR are two different things, and there's a consensus on how each is calculated. There's a disagreement on which better represents a player's value, but that's true of BA, RBI, OBA, SLG, Runs Produced, ERA, and so on.

            If your only problem with WAR is that there are different versions of it, that's no problem at all. Or rather, it's a problem with a half life of 5 seconds until both parties figure out they are using different stats with the same last name.

            I don't want to put ideas in your mind, but frankly it seems more to me like a rationalization for not coming to grips with WAR than a real problem. It just makes it easy to ignore the whole thing. Like saying, "Any stat that rates Lou Whitaker on a par with Johnny Bench isn't worth paying attention to" instead of finding out why that odd conclusion is reached.
            Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

            Comment


            • #21
              Mike Donlin was a nut. Parents died young. He traveled the west in his teens when it was still the wild west. While playing he ended up in jail. Drunk. Had a gun pulled on him. Got a knife scar on his face.

              It was a different time though. You had to be tough.
              "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post

                It was a different time though. You had to be tough.
                Tough? You want tough? I've seen enough John Hughes movies to know for a fact that Shermer, Illinois is loaded with thugs.
                "Chuckie doesn't take on 2-0. Chuckie's hackin'." - Chuck Carr two days prior to being released by the Milwaukee Brewers

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Ben Grimm View Post
                  You know that. And most here who study these numbers know that. But to the more casual fan or somebody that's slightly intrigued - they simply know WAR - not that there's a difference.

                  I just picked a random MVP season from BBRef... It was 2000. Let's say my argument is that Piazza should have beaten Kent for the award and stated that his offense along with the position he played was more valuable.

                  I offer up WAR as my final argument:

                  Piazza - 6.0 WAR
                  Kent - 6.9 WAR

                  That's all the person I'm talking to hears. WAR as a final separator. Sure, Kent's up, but is it that much? Let's say I took Kent's side in the argument as to why he won so many 1st place votes... I tell this person:

                  Piazza 4.9 WAR
                  Kent 7.6 WAR

                  Quite a difference. All I did was say it's based on WAR. That person had no idea I was mixing and matching to make my argument work in my favor. You can't simply assume everybody you talk to is going to be on the same page as yourself - especially when a masked statistic now has two possible outcomes. Add a few more as these sites grow and it only becomes more confusing if each has its own way of reaching a number.
                  Sure, Ben, that's possible, but what would be the point, unless you were Kent arguing in salary arbitration and the arbitrator was Forest Gump?

                  We assume and practice good faith in these discussions, don't we? What kind of triumph would that victory be?
                  Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Ben Grimm View Post
                    Just wait til we get sites like Yahoo and ESPN adding WAR values to their statistics. We'll have bWAR, eWAR, fWAR, yWAR, and so on...
                    I would not want to bring up children in such a world.
                    They call me Mr. Baseball. Not because of my love for the game; because of all the stitches in my head.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
                      We assume and practice good faith in these discussions, don't we? What kind of triumph would that victory be?
                      Here yes. But not everywhere.
                      "Chuckie doesn't take on 2-0. Chuckie's hackin'." - Chuck Carr two days prior to being released by the Milwaukee Brewers

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
                        I would not want to bring up children in such a world.
                        Come up with your own... oapWAR - I'm on board!
                        "Chuckie doesn't take on 2-0. Chuckie's hackin'." - Chuck Carr two days prior to being released by the Milwaukee Brewers

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Ben Grimm View Post
                          Here yes. But not everywhere.
                          What do we do if we find such practices among the ranks?
                          "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Ben Grimm View Post
                            You know that. And most here who study these numbers know that. But to the more casual fan or somebody that's slightly intrigued - they simply know WAR - not that there's a difference.
                            I have never come across a person who intentionally compared bWAR to fWAR

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
                              I would not want to bring up children in such a world.
                              I'm with you there.
                              Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by filihok View Post
                                I have never come across a person who intentionally compared bWAR to fWAR
                                And I've yet to come across a person who knows there's a difference. Because most don't know about fWAR. Give it time. Like everything else, numbers can be bent - especially in situations online when credibility isn't as much of a concern.

                                My friend's stopping by Sunday. He's heard of WAR and follows baseball. I've pointed him in directions it's developed, which I thought he'd like since he's a HS math teacher. I can twist any numbers I want and call it WAR by useing the two sites - he'd have no clue and he'll surely sway my direction without me having to even let on there are two different ways to come to the conclusion. As defining as numbers can be in certain circumstances, they can also be manipulated in amazing ways.
                                Last edited by Ben Grimm; 01-25-2013, 08:33 PM. Reason: double-quoted same response
                                "Chuckie doesn't take on 2-0. Chuckie's hackin'." - Chuck Carr two days prior to being released by the Milwaukee Brewers

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X