Cody Bellinger

[mjwoop]

Originally Posted by clocsta2323

What website do you use for WAR? It's a bogus stat but still I am curious about the site you pulled these stats from?

Any time people talk about WAR, it makes me think of consultants strutting around at work blabbering about agile teams. It's something trendy that people like to talk about to try to make themselves seem like experts. I'd be willing to bet that very few of the people who talk about it on here have an understanding of what actually goes into the equation.

[clocsta2323]

Originally Posted by mjwoop

Any time people talk about WAR, it makes me think of consultants strutting around at work blabbering about agile teams. It's something trendy that people like to talk about to try to make themselves seem like experts. I'd be willing to bet that very few of the people who talk about it on here have an understanding of what actually goes into the equation.

What goes into the equation? Why would a player from ESPN and Baseball-Reference WAR list (Jorge Polanco) be 3rd and 8th respectively, and be 30th on FanGraphs?

I don't have an understanding of it, enlighten me why those 3 outlets, especially B-Ref and Fangraphs can carry such WILDLY different WAR numbers and fans really give a crap about the number being weighted so heavily in judging a characters production? Literally the value of a player has been utterly debased to WAR and it's a subjective formula (judging on Jorge Polanco amongst aforementioned Xander and many, many others) and also hyper sensitive to the talent existing in the AAAA of rejects.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by metsandweezer

I disagree...they are both 20/21 years old. Soto and Acuna are crazy good.

Did I say they aren’t crazy good??? I wouldn’t be buying their cards if they weren’t.

My point is there are at least another dozen folks you could add as a PC and your pocketbook would benefit from a lighter cost, all while following fun players producing at the top of the game year in and year out (eg Bregman and Xander)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zauron]

Originally Posted by pewe

My Bregman PC agrees with you

But I think you hit my point squarely... there is a lot of opportunity to more cheaply build a nice PC around a bunch of players likely to have good careers without blowing the bank on someone like Soto or Acuna

I mean, Xander is already 1/3 the way to HOF level career and only 26!

Pete? Looks amazing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd hold caution to Xander and Alonso. Xander has put together a couple nice seasons, but he needs to sustain this level of play for a long time to be considered HOF material.

Alonso is an older rookie, who pretty much is a power hitter. I just have doubts this lasting.

Originally Posted by mjwoop

Any time people talk about WAR, it makes me think of consultants strutting around at work blabbering about agile teams. It's something trendy that people like to talk about to try to make themselves seem like experts. I'd be willing to bet that very few of the people who talk about it on here have an understanding of what actually goes into the equation.

Originally Posted by clocsta2323

What goes into the equation? Why would a player from ESPN and Baseball-Reference WAR list (Jorge Polanco) be 3rd and 8th respectively, and be 30th on FanGraphs?

I don't have an understanding of it, enlighten me why those 3 outlets, especially B-Ref and Fangraphs can carry such WILDLY different WAR numbers and fans really give a crap about the number being weighted so heavily in judging a characters production?

lol at WAR being trashed. What is the quadratic formula?

Basically WAR calculates how well a player is to his peers. I mean, the equations differ form place to place, that's why people go by one outlet vs others. But it's not a silly, made up stat.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by clocsta2323

What website do you use for WAR? It's a bogus stat but still I am curious about the site you pulled these stats from?

That one looks like Fangraphs: https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.as...on1=2019&ind=0

Btw you may think it is bogus, but it is what the leading teams actually use to make decisions. It has a lot of interesting science behind it if you’d like to dig in. And has been shown to be strongly predictive, with years of statistical evidence demonstrating its usefulness.

This is all moneyball 2.0 type things, like BsR, wRC+, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clocsta2323]

Originally Posted by Zauron

I'd hold caution to Xander and Alonso. Xander has put together a couple nice seasons, but he needs to sustain this level of play for a long time to be considered HOF material.

Alonso is an older rookie, who pretty much is a power hitter. I just have doubts this lasting.





lol at WAR being trashed. What is the quadratic formula?

Basically WAR calculates how well a player is to his peers. I mean, the equations differ form place to place, that's why people go by one outlet vs others. But it's not a silly, made up stat.

I won't ever claim its silly or made up, to disparage the brilliant people who came up with it.. I just said it's rooted in subjective, indefinite stats, and therefore should be put on the pedestal it is.

[pewe]

Btw if you want to read about WAR, and how it got it start with our friend Mike Trout and folks trying to convince others he is actually good (when many people just thought he was OK), this is a fun read: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...fect-statistic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clocsta2323]

Originally Posted by pewe

That one looks like Fangraphs: https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.as...on1=2019&ind=0

Btw you may think it is bogus, but it is what the leading teams actually use to make decisions. It has a lot of interesting science behind it if you’d like to dig in. And has been shown to be strongly predictive, with years of statistical evidence demonstrating its usefulness.

This is all moneyball 2.0 type things, like BsR, wRC+, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So why is he 8th on BWar and 30th on Fangraphs, both using the term WAR? Can you just offer some insight into that?

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Zauron

I'd hold caution to Xander and Alonso. Xander has put together a couple nice seasons, but he needs to sustain this level of play for a long time to be considered HOF material.

Of course we should be cautious of anyone not named Trout on that list.

With that said, Xander has averaged >4.5 WAR from his 21-25 year old seasons, and is now on pace to be closer to 6-7 WAR this year at age 26. If he gets a couple more like that, tails to 4 for a few years and then trails off through age 35 he will have a 60+ career WAR. Nearly all MLB players who are eligible (and not PED) have made the HOF with those stats.

Could he get hurt? Something else happen? Sure... but given his age and current performance history over nearly 5 years in MLB, it would feel less risky than some others that he can keep going for another 8-10 years and assemble a very strong HOF case.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pewe]

Originally Posted by clocsta2323

So why is he 8th on BWar and 30th on Fangraphs, both using the term WAR? Can you just offer some insight into that?

Who is “he”?

And I normally just use Fangraphs, and haven’t really looked at the others

If you’d like to see their thinking on the subject, here it is: https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/

And I think they encapsulate it nicely like this: “WAR is not meant to be a perfectly precise indicator of a player’s contribution, but rather an estimate of their value to date. Given the imperfections of some of the available data and the assumptions made to calculate other components, WAR works best as an approximation. A 6 WAR player might be worth between 5.0 and 7.0 WAR, but it is pretty safe to say they are at least an All-Star level player and potentially an MVP.”

So our use to compare players at tenth of a point precision is probably a fools errand. But as a directional grouping of players who are relatively better than others, it is useful



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stech36]

Originally Posted by clocsta2323

So why is he 8th on BWar and 30th on Fangraphs, both using the term WAR? Can you just offer some insight into that?

One example is defensive statistics.

Some use UZR. Some use DRS.

One big difference is pitchers. Fangraphs uses FIP/ xFIP, while Baseball Reference uses ERA.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Stech36

One example is defensive statistics.



Some use UZR. Some use DRS.



One big difference is pitchers. Fangraphs uses FIP/ xFIP, while Baseball Reference uses ERA.

Wow! They use ERA?!?

[edit] you are correct... I’d never looked into it, but this is a good discussion from fangraphs when they at least standardized the baseline for WAR with Baseball Reference: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/unifying-replacement-level/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rman112]

Originally Posted by pewe

Wow! They use ERA?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the problem with advanced statistics. You take a perfectly fine number that calculates how many earned runs you give up. Simple, effective. Then replace it with a hypothetical number. Sorry, that's bogus. For predictive use, sure. To look at 1 year alone? No shot.

[mjwoop]

Originally Posted by clocsta2323

What goes into the equation? Why would a player from ESPN and Baseball-Reference WAR list (Jorge Polanco) be 3rd and 8th respectively, and be 30th on FanGraphs?

I don't have an understanding of it, enlighten me why those 3 outlets, especially B-Ref and Fangraphs can carry such WILDLY different WAR numbers and fans really give a crap about the number being weighted so heavily in judging a characters production? Literally the value of a player has been utterly debased to WAR and it's a subjective formula (judging on Jorge Polanco amongst aforementioned Xander and many, many others) and also hyper sensitive to the talent existing in the AAAA of rejects.

It must not have come across the way I'd intended in my message, but I was agreeing with you.

[rman112]

WAR would be much better if they took into account when a player produced. Either that, or Bellinger's walkoff bomb the other night should be celebrated the same as a 5th inning homer with the Dodgers up 7-1.

[Stech36]

Originally Posted by pewe

Wow! They use ERA?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s actually runs allowed, but yeah. I mean there’s more too it than just runs allowed, but I like fangraphs a lot more for pitchers.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Stech36

It’s actually runs allowed, but yeah. I mean there’s more too it than just runs allowed, but I like fangraphs a lot more for pitchers.

Glad you had me look into it... they had a discussion when they at least set the floor with the Baseball Reference guys here: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/unifying-replacement-level/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pewe]

Originally Posted by rman112

This is the problem with advanced statistics. You take a perfectly fine number that calculates how many earned runs you give up. Simple, effective. Then replace it with a hypothetical number. Sorry, that's bogus. For predictive use, sure. To look at 1 year alone? No shot.

How is FIP more hypothetical than ERA? Or maybe you mean xFIP is hypothetical? Yes...

I prefer FIP as it limits the effect of luck / situation. And gives a better perspective of actual talent.

It’s like the old statistical error analogy they show you in school... should you rate your hospital by number of deaths alone? Nope! Some deal with more serious trauma than others... so unless you adjust for that, you’d make the wrong assumption for which hospital to go to for best treatment if you did have bad trauma.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clocsta2323]

Originally Posted by pewe

How is FIP more hypothetical than ERA? Or maybe you mean xFIP is hypothetical? Yes...

I prefer FIP as it limits the effect of luck / situation. And gives a better perspective of actual talent.

It’s like the old statistical error analogy they show you in school... should you rate your hospital by number of deaths alone? Nope! Some deal with more serious trauma than others... so unless you adjust for that, you’d make the wrong assumption for which hospital to go to for best treatment if you did have bad trauma.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So FIP limits LUCK and it isnt hypothetical?

[clocsta2323]

Still waiting for someone to lend a palatable argument why Xander Bogaerts can be top 5, top 10 and 30th on the big three WAR "stats"

[clocsta2323]

Originally Posted by pewe

How is FIP more hypothetical than ERA? Or maybe you mean xFIP is hypothetical? Yes...

I prefer FIP as it limits the effect of luck / situation. And gives a better perspective of actual talent.

It’s like the old statistical error analogy they show you in school... should you rate your hospital by number of deaths alone? Nope! Some deal with more serious trauma than others... so unless you adjust for that, you’d make the wrong assumption for which hospital to go to for best treatment if you did have bad trauma.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL is this real? define serious trauma? define minor trauma? in BASEBALL terms.

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by clocsta2323

So FIP limits LUCK and it isnt hypothetical?

FIP is absolutely hypothetical, but it tries its very hardest to remove all the luck (good or bad) from the equation. In that way, it is often a better predictor of future ERA than ERA itself.

[clocsta2323]

Originally Posted by pewe

How is FIP more hypothetical than ERA? Or maybe you mean xFIP is hypothetical? Yes...

I prefer FIP as it limits the effect of luck / situation. And gives a better perspective of actual talent.

It’s like the old statistical error analogy they show you in school... should you rate your hospital by number of deaths alone? Nope! Some deal with more serious trauma than others... so unless you adjust for that, you’d make the wrong assumption for which hospital to go to for best treatment if you did have bad trauma.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL is this real? define serious trauma? define minor trauma? in BASEBALL terms.

This is a disgusting analogy

[rman112]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

FIP is absolutely hypothetical, but it tries its very hardest to remove all the luck (good or bad) from the equation. In that way, it is often a better predictor of future ERA than ERA itself.

That's a good point. I think it's important to separate WAR or advanced stats, in looking at it from a team evaluating a player (for which what already happened doesn't matter), vs. fans using them to look at a singular player's year.

You can look at a guy as getting lucky and say he probably won't be able to sustain it, but you can't take that away either.

[clocsta2323]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

FIP is absolutely hypothetical, but it tries its very hardest to remove all the luck (good or bad) from the equation. In that way, it is often a better predictor of future ERA than ERA itself.

Sorry, I will never be on board with a stat that predicts the future. Just ask literally every pitcher this year except Max Scherzer.

edit: all these "advanced stat" devouts are the easiest to bet against.