Anger Thread...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxFan2OO4. Show RedSoxFan2OO4's posts

    Anger Thread...

    I must get this off my chest fellow Sox fans, I hate, no I really hate, no I DESPISE The W.A.R. statistic. I understand this new era of sabermetrics but this stat is just plain stupid. If you didn't have a player such as lets say Ryan Braun on your team, you wouldn't have some back-up schmuk like a Jay Gibbons starting 162 games instead of your star. You would go out and get another player similar to Braun's caliber for a cheaper price, if money is an issue.

    When comparing players WAR shouldnt be used, because, well it looks just plain stupid.

    End of rage.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    In Response to Anger Thread...:
    I must get this off my chest fellow Sox fans, I hate, no I really hate, no I DESPISE The W.A.R. statistic. I understand this new era of sabermetrics but this stat is just plain stupid. If you didn't have a player such as lets say Ryan Braun on your team, you wouldn't have some back-up schmuk like a Jay Gibbons starting 162 games instead of your star. You would go out and get another player similar to Braun's caliber for a cheaper price, if money is an issue. When comparing players WAR shouldnt be used, because, well it looks just plain stupid. End of rage.
    Posted by RedSoxFan2OO4

    http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/misc/war/

    Happy reading.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    Obviously you're not a stat guy. Stat guys are always looking for an index to assess the relative contribution of anything. I think WAR is an attempt to create something similar to hockey's plus minus.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    I think that Babe Ruth was desired by the Yankees for anything other than his W.A.R stat.  
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    In Response to Anger Thread...:
    I must get this off my chest fellow Sox fans, I hate, no I really hate, no I DESPISE The W.A.R. statistic. I understand this new era of sabermetrics but this stat is just plain stupid. If you didn't have a player such as lets say Ryan Braun on your team, you wouldn't have some back-up schmuk like a Jay Gibbons starting 162 games instead of your star. You would go out and get another player similar to Braun's caliber for a cheaper price, if money is an issue. When comparing players WAR shouldnt be used, because, well it looks just plain stupid. End of rage.
    Posted by RedSoxFan2OO4



    If you are going to gripe about WAR, at least gripe about the ridicuous salary earned thing Fangraphs attaches to it. 

    Or about the fact that Fangraphs and baseball-reference.com each calculate the stat differently using proprietary formulas.  And not only is BR.com barely sortable, they break it down way too much.

    But per your gripe, I don't think you get how it is used.  Or, at the very least, have trouble expressing it, undoubtedly due to your WAR-based anger.  Or perhaps you are channeling the late Edwin Starr, immortalized forever for those timeless words - "WAR! Huh! What is it good for? About $450,000 per win!!!   Good God y'all!" 

    He hated sabermetrics, too.  So ahead of his time in so many ways...



     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    notin, was it you who had the idea about WAR being changed to WAFL (Wins Above Felipe Lopez)?  That was the one of funniest bits I've ever read about stats.  And actually not a bad idea.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    In Response to Re: Anger Thread...:
    In Response to Anger Thread... : If you are going to gripe about WAR, at least gripe about the ridicuous salary earned thing Fangraphs attaches to it.  Or about the fact that Fangraphs and baseball-reference.com each calculate the stat differently using proprietary formulas.  And not only is BR.com barely sortable, they break it down way too much. But per your gripe, I don't think you get how it is used.  Or, at the very least, have trouble expressing it, undoubtedly due to your WAR-based anger.  Or perhaps you are channeling the late Edwin Starr, immortalized forever for those timeless words - " WAR! Huh! What is it good for? About $450,000 per win!!!   Good God y'all!"  He hated sabermetrics, too.  So ahead of his time in so many ways...
    Posted by notin


    Kudos; and funny too.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    In Response to Re: Anger Thread...:
    In Response to Anger Thread... : If you are going to gripe about WAR, at least gripe about the ridicuous salary earned thing Fangraphs attaches to it.  Or about the fact that Fangraphs and baseball-reference.com each calculate the stat differently using proprietary formulas.  And not only is BR.com barely sortable, they break it down way too much. But per your gripe, I don't think you get how it is used.  Or, at the very least, have trouble expressing it, undoubtedly due to your WAR-based anger.  Or perhaps you are channeling the late Edwin Starr, immortalized forever for those timeless words - " WAR! Huh! What is it good for? About $450,000 per win!!!   Good God y'all!"  He hated sabermetrics, too.  So ahead of his time in so many ways...
    Posted by notin


    I agree.  Fangraphs had the nerve to suggest that Crawford was worth $900K last year. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    In Response to Anger Thread...:
    I must get this off my chest fellow Sox fans, I hate, no I really hate, no I DESPISE The W.A.R. statistic. I understand this new era of sabermetrics but this stat is just plain stupid. If you didn't have a player such as lets say Ryan Braun on your team, you wouldn't have some back-up schmuk like a Jay Gibbons starting 162 games instead of your star. You would go out and get another player similar to Braun's caliber for a cheaper price, if money is an issue. When comparing players WAR shouldnt be used, because, well it looks just plain stupid. End of rage.
    Posted by RedSoxFan2OO4

       Your arguement doesn't hold water. It will be tested by the very team you mention, the Brewers. Substitute Fielder for Braun, and just who will they sign to play 1B. I bet it will be closer to a schmuk like Gibbons than an all-star like Fielder.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    No, the real problem with WAR - or any AVERAGE, it is is just that - an AVERAGE

    It does not take into account CONSISTENCY; just like all batting averages are not created alike neither are WAR's....and it doesn't take into account key hits   (Ortiz) vs hits that just pad stats (Boggs)....

    Futhermore, nothing is done to remove outliers (for example, Timmy Lupus from leftfield)....where is median in relation to the mean, etc.....
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    In Response to Re: Anger Thread...:
    No, the real problem with WAR - or any AVERAGE, it is is just that - an AVERAGE It does not take into account CONSISTENCY; just like all batting averages are not created alike neither are WAR's....and it doesn't take into account key hits   (Ortiz) vs hits that just pad stats (Boggs).... Futhermore, nothing is done to remove outliers (for example, Timmy Lupus from leftfield)....where is median in relation to the mean, etc.....
    Posted by andrewmitch


    There aren't any commonly used stats that I know of that take into account consistency.  We ran into this in the thread on the Sox 2011 offence.  You get into medians and standard deviations and that sort of thing. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    Yup.  Yet consistency is the name of the game.  What's the difference between Bill Hall sliding into 2B to fill in for Pedey one game a month?  Not a thing.  What's the difference if Hall played all 162 games?  Just the difference of making the playoffs and going home early.  Why?  Because on any given day any player could make a contribution to help his team win.  But only the great players can do that consistently over a 162 game season. 

    All you need to do is to take the performance by game and plug it into a Excel or SPSS and run the Variance........
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    Arrrrrgh!!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    As a history teacher, I can tell you that very few WARs are useful..

    Some good WARs...

    1) Revolutionary - only a few thousand dead and centuries of freedom/gain
    2) 1812 - kept the Canadian navy from threatening Americans on the Great lakes forever
    Mexican - gave us the San Francisco 49ers and coolest treaty name of all time: Guadalupe Hidalgo
    4) Civil War - put an end to the southern slaveholding aristrocracy and stylized awesome facial hair
    5) Spanish-American - gave us "little brown people" and roz con pollo
    6) W1 - gave us the movie War Horse
    7)W2 - Americans got to relive glory days by relocating an entire race of people to desert areas just for fun
    8) Korean - Three fun words: Kim Jong Il
    9) Vietnam - First war in which you got to choose your own story/ending
    10) Terror - TBA....I'm thinking the video of Bin Laden being sent to sleep with the fishies will make the Godfather look like Teletubbies...

    WARs are not all bad...
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    You should know better that the so-called Civil War was not about slavery.

    We've been through this.

    Read the 13th and 14th Ammendments, the Organic Act of 1871, and research the first year the US was allowed to have Central Banking and your answer will be crystal clear.

    In addition, by definition, a Civil War implies 2 or more factions fighting for control over the same central gov't.  The Confederate States wanted no part of DC as they had their own new union and their own capitol.  No sir, this was a war of Federal Aggression.  King Abe would not allow any state to leave a union that they voluntarily joined in the first place. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    i didnt say it was a war to end slavery...i said it was a war that ended the slaveholding aristocracy....get it straight!

    and what about the awesome facial hair???
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    To identify a right as “god-given,” we need an action, a commandment, or a declaration, that clearly comes straight from god. And, such action, commandment or declaration should be so obvious and so undeniable that everyone will understand it – the dim-witted as well as the intelligent; the believer as well as the non-believer. What we need is a giant chariot, or sailing ship to appear in the sky all over the world at the same time. It will come to a halt and god will step out and stand in mid air; he will open his mouth and say, “Hear ye, hear ye, all men of all lands and all tongues (he will speak so that all men will understand), I am Zeus (Marduk, Budda, Ishstar – take your pick); I am the god(s) of the universe and I hereby declare that the following rights are granted by me to you.” He then would enumerate all such rights he wants men to have. Then he (or she) would tell you where to pay your taxes, previously called “sin offerings” – and about all the terrible things that would happen to you if you didn’t pay them.

    Only then will we know if Jefferson had the God-Given right to have slaves and that the slaves had no right to be free. Only then will we know that child labor was wrong and that woman had the god-given right to vote. Only then will know if God wanted blacks to sit in the rear of the bus or use seperate rest rooms. Wouldn't God want all of his children to have the same God-given rights? Did God give a pass for plantation owners to impregnate female slaves for economic gain but want black slaves to be lynched for staring at a beautiful white woman. Where did the Bill of rights cover such injustices? The Bill of Rights over time is a croc.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    In Response to Re: Anger Thread...:
    i didnt say it was a war to end slavery...i said it was a war that ended the slaveholding aristocracy....get it straight! and what about the awesome facial hair???
    Posted by georom4


    If you are saying that it essentially made us all slaves unless you are a member of the Board of Directors for the District of Columbia, Incorporated, then I agree with you.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    In Response to Re: Anger Thread...:
    In Response to Re: Anger Thread... : If you are saying that it essentially made us all slaves unless you are a member of the Board of Directors for the District of Columbia, Incorporated, then I agree with you.
    Posted by andrewmitch


    Andrew, don't zero in on Obama. You despise everyone in authority. You would be happiest living in a lean-to in rural Montana and would think nothing of sh-iting in the stream but would cuss out someone who did the same upstream from you. Your God-given rights are what is beneficial to selfish Andrew.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    IRT WAR, there are two sets of people in this country, Group A are those that understand statistics, and Group B are those that work for Group A.

    Seriously, without a basic understanding of how numbers work, it is difficult to make intelligent choices.  Do you want a fixed rate mortgage or an adjustable?  Without an understanding of statistics, you can't even start to formulate an answer.

    IRT specifically to WAR, you cannot hate a statistic.  Stats are there to provide information.  Information can be used or ignored, but only if better information is available.

    I suspect that the people that dislike WAR the most are the people that would rather formulate opinions without bothersome things like facts getting in their way, and they don't to hear 'you're wrong because...'.

    In an earlier age, these people would've beleived that the earth was flat, and their proof of that is the fact that the sun rotates around the earth.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    In Response to Re: Anger Thread...:
    In Response to Re: Anger Thread... : I agree.  Fangraphs had the nerve to suggest that Crawford was worth $900K last year. 
    Posted by andrewmitch


    They also pegged Scott Kazmir as being worth  negative -$0.9mill last year.
     
    They also value him at -$4.1mill over the last 2 years, yet you somehow evaluate him to be worth $4mill for 2012. 

    Is your goal to help him pay off that debt?

    If Scott Kazmir reads this site, he sooo wants to French kiss you....

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    In Response to Re: Anger Thread...:
    notin, was it you who had the idea about WAR being changed to WAFL (Wins Above Felipe Lopez)?  That was the one of funniest bits I've ever read about stats.  And actually not a bad idea.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut


    I did write that, didn't I?

    I wish this site allowed for better access to old posts.

    Glad you liked it, but I wish I could remember what I said...
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Anger Thread...

    In Response to Re: Anger Thread...:
    No, the real problem with WAR - or any AVERAGE, it is is just that - an AVERAGE It does not take into account CONSISTENCY; just like all batting averages are not created alike neither are WAR's....and it doesn't take into account key hits   (Ortiz) vs hits that just pad stats (Boggs).... Futhermore, nothing is done to remove outliers (for example, Timmy Lupus from leftfield)....where is median in relation to the mean, etc.....
    Posted by andrewmitch


    So can you recommend a good way to judge "consistency"?  It's easy to say you want consistency, but how will you know when you get it?  I know how I will know - you'll find something else to complain about.

    You hint at knowing some statitisical buzzwords, but really, not much more than mere hints. 

    Heck - let's start off easy.  How do you determine a "key hit" as opposed to a "stat padder"?  Be as specific as possible...
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share