Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mike Donlin - Potential?

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

  • Ben Grimm
    replied
    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, 07:33 PM. Reason: double-quoted same response

    Leave a comment:


  • Jackaroo Dave
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • filihok
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben Grimm View Post
    Here yes. But not everywhere.
    What do we do if we find such practices among the ranks?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Grimm
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Grimm
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ol' aches and pains
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jackaroo Dave
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Grimm
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jackaroo Dave
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Grimm
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • filihok
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Grimm
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • filihok
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X