Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, shakestreet said:

I always thought WAR was about some made up guy ....

 

“If this player got injured and their team had to replace them with a freely available minor leaguer or a AAAA player from their bench, how much value would the team be losing?”

 

and that is why WAR is useless

 

How does that make it useless?

 

You've had better arguments Gary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, shakestreet said:

 

There's a lot of problems with WAR. Especially how the defensive metrics are factored into it right now. So I have a major problem with the stat/measurement/whatever you want to call it being used as a be-all-end-all when determining player value... that said, it's far from "complete nonsense." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fletch44 said:

The point is to measure a player against a baseline set of statistics. It doesn't really matter what the baseline is long as it's consistent for everyone. If Bob Ryan doesn't like the "mythical" baseline you could just as easily use say Randy Kutcher as the baseline. We could call it WARK. How many more or less wins does a player create compared to an average year of Randy Kutcher. Same thing.

 

I think the average MLB is worth about 2 WAR, correct? I suppose they could change it from Wins Above Replacement to Wins Above Average.  That would just subtract 2 from everyone's number.  Doesn't change the concept at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, agk47 said:

...seriously, real world, whose better?  

 

...and if you say jeter or a rod I puke a little in my mouth. 

 

 

Guys like mantle maris DiMaggio Ruth and Cobb don't count, none of us have seen them play and it was obviously another era. 

 

Ichiro's not even the best player in franchise history, let alone all of MLB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

 

How does that make it useless?

 

You've had better arguments Gary.

baseball is a team sport not one person wins a baseball game it takes a combined effort from everybody .....

.... that is why .

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shakestreet said:

baseball is a team sport not one person wins a baseball game it takes a combined effort from everybody .....

.... that is why .

 

 

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, shakestreet said:

baseball is a team sport not one person wins a baseball game it takes a combined effort from everybody .....

.... that is why .

 

 

 

Your only arguments against WAR are all semantics.  Just because you don't like that it's insinuating a player earned his team X-more wins on the season doesn't make it a useless stat.

 

If you'd prefer you could call the stat "Lollipops" or "Rainbows" and it would still tell you the same thing.  Babe Ruth was a 183 Rainbow Lollipop player, earning about 15 more Rainbow Lollipops over his career than any other player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in fairness the name of it does imply that a team would have won that many more games. And that is pretty much a false implication. At best, the whole thing is measured in runs, not wins.

"Fielding Independent Pitching" for example, really does pretty much live up to it's name. As does "Batting Average on Balls in Play".

Wins Above Replacement is just something that makes it sound more credible than it really is plus it gives it the cool acronym that sounds like an armed conflict.

On the other hand, they might have chosen a different name if they'd have remembered this song:

 

Edited by Fiveohnine
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fiveohnine said:

Well in fairness the name of it does imply that a team would have won that many more games. And that is pretty much a false implication. At best, the whole thing is measured in runs, not wins.

"Fielding Independent Pitching" for example, really does pretty much live up to it's name. As does "Batting Average on Balls in Play".

Wins Above Replacement is just something that makes it sound more credible than it really is plus it gives it the cool acronym that sounds like an armed conflict.

On the other hand, they might have chosen a different name if they'd have remembered this song:

 

 

But then you can reasonably calculate how many runs equals a win, right?

 

I suppose it could be Runs Over Replacement, but again, the basic concept is the same.  How much better is this player than a replacement level player.  Doesn't really matter if that number is "10 wins" or "100 runs".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we'd agree for most part WAR has become big part of baseball community over last decade/half decade especially.  However, baseball hall of fame voters look at surface stats.  Baseball has always been about tradition and benchmarks.  3,000 hits, 300 wins, 500 homers, gold gloves, mvp's etc.  When do we think WAR will start being a more analyzed tool for voting?  Because I would venture to guess right now only a low % of voters probably even know what WAR is, or care to know what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Cmilne23 said:

I think we'd agree for most part WAR has become big part of baseball community over last decade/half decade especially.  However, baseball hall of fame voters look at surface stats.  Baseball has always been about tradition and benchmarks.  3,000 hits, 300 wins, 500 homers, gold gloves, mvp's etc.  When do we think WAR will start being a more analyzed tool for voting?  Because I would venture to guess right now only a low % of voters probably even know what WAR is, or care to know what it is.

correct on all accounts .....

 

never .... unless the Baseball Hall-of-Fame allow all the sabermetrics geeks who play fantasy baseball vote.

Edited by shakestreet
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 89Topps said:

 

But then you can reasonably calculate how many runs equals a win, right?

 

I suppose it could be Runs Over Replacement, but again, the basic concept is the same.  How much better is this player than a replacement level player.  Doesn't really matter if that number is "10 wins" or "100 runs

No. But we can throw some numbers around and say we did. 

Calling it "reasonable" is going a bit far though don't you think? Especially considering all the gymnastics we did to get to "runs" in the first place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cmilne23 said:

Started out so young could actually get 3,000 hits.  Crazy huh?

He'll have to be good enough to play until he's 39 to possibly get there (averaging ~150 last 3 years). He's also a below average offensive player, so very unlikely he plays 12 more years at that pace. I'd bet my house on it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

He'll have to be good enough to play until he's 39 to possibly get there (averaging ~150 last 3 years). He's also a below average offensive player, so very unlikely he plays 12 more years at that pace. I'd bet my house on it. 

Yeah I don't foresee him getting there.  I read somewhere this year that he was the most likely active player under 30 to next eclipse 3,000 hits.  Pujols is almost there.  Beltran is 300 away.  He looks toast.  Miggy is 400 away he'll waddle his way to 3000+.  Cano will get there.  After that the next 3 guys with even 2000 hits all have canes, Holliday, Reyes, Vmart.  Nick Markakis has 2000 at age 33.  I pray he doesn't play until he's 40+ to get to 3000 he'd be the most boring player ever to eclipse 3000.  

 

Starlin is is an interesting case because he should have 1275 ish hits by seasons end at age 27.  He's entering his prime.  If between 28-32 he can average 200 hits he may have a shot.  But MLB may need to change benchmark.  With how frequently guys get hurt now/rested, longevity is going out the window.  300 wins and 3000 hits may become obsolete.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is getting 3000 hits supposed to be a lock to make it into the HOF?  Seems like a lot of players mentioned are because of longevity. Starling Castro is one of the least likely players to be enshrined in my opinion.

 

Jamie Moyer had a longer career past the age of 30 than most players ever had. Does that actually make him worthy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fiveohnine said:

Yes if Moyer had been good. 

270 wins as a 5 ft nothing 110 pounder who couldn't top 80 in the midst of steroid era was actually heavily impressive.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Low and Away said:

Is getting 3000 hits supposed to be a lock to make it into the HOF?  Seems like a lot of players mentioned are because of longevity. Starling Castro is one of the least likely players to be enshrined in my opinion.

 

Jamie Moyer had a longer career past the age of 30 than most players ever had. Does that actually make him worthy?

If Starlin Castro reaches 3,000 hits he will be in the Baseball Hall-of-Fame

 

Jamie Moyer did not win 300 games.............

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked by the fact that no one is showing some love for Greinke

 

already has 168 wins and also seems to have a nice 3~4 seasons left in him.

 

especially if he can pull off 1~2 more monster seasons and add a Cy Young to his cabinet, he can be a legit contender for Cooperstown

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

If Starlin Castro reaches 3,000 hits he will be in the Baseball Hall-of-Fame

 

Jamie Moyer did not win 300 games.............

No shyte. But what has Castro done that makes one of the best players of his generation? If he reaches 3000 hits it will be because he played a long time. When 3000 hits was used most players were retired by their mid thirties at best.

Edited by Low and Away
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...