Metrics mania.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

     

    Didn't know about WHIP not counting homers and extra base hits, I now value that measure less.  The defensive metric UZR seems bogus, not a believer.

     



    WHIP is simply walks plus hits per innings pitched. It gives no value to extra base hits, pitching around a hitter , pitching with men on base, game situations , pitching deep into games , getting strikeouts when needed , etc.   It has a certain value , but I prefer won / loss records , in conjunction with ERA , when evaluating a pitcher. 

     



    Each to his own. I think that some basic metrics do add to the understanding of a player's performance: OPS, OPS+, WHIP, ERA, K/BB ratio etc. The more esoteric measures give me no additional understanding at all. I do think that W-L is not a good measure because of situation like Felix Hernandez had in 2010 when he was just 13-12 but had an ERA of 2.27. You can't tell me that knowing his ERA is not more important than his W-L record which, in this instance, reflected the offense of his aweful team and not his stellar performance.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

     

    Didn't know about WHIP not counting homers and extra base hits, I now value that measure less.  The defensive metric UZR seems bogus, not a believer.

     



    WHIP is simply walks plus hits per innings pitched. It gives no value to extra base hits, pitching around a hitter , pitching with men on base, game situations , pitching deep into games , getting strikeouts when needed , etc.   It has a certain value , but I prefer won / loss records , in conjunction with ERA , when evaluating a pitcher. 

     

     



    Each to his own. I think that some basic metrics do add to the understanding of a player's performance: OPS, OPS+, WHIP, ERA, K/BB ratio etc. The more esoteric measures give me no additional understanding at all. I do think that W-L is not a good measure because of situation like Felix Hernandez had in 2010 when he was just 13-12 but had an ERA of 2.27. You can't tell me that knowing his ERA is not more important than his W-L record which, in this instance, reflected the offense of his aweful team and not his stellar performance.

     



    Of course. Won / Loss record should be looked at in conjunction with ERA.  No argument there. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

     

    Didn't know about WHIP not counting homers and extra base hits, I now value that measure less.  The defensive metric UZR seems bogus, not a believer.

     



    WHIP is simply walks plus hits per innings pitched. It gives no value to extra base hits, pitching around a hitter , pitching with men on base, game situations , pitching deep into games , getting strikeouts when needed , etc.   It has a certain value , but I prefer won / loss records , in conjunction with ERA , when evaluating a pitcher. 

     

     



    Each to his own. I think that some basic metrics do add to the understanding of a player's performance: OPS, OPS+, WHIP, ERA, K/BB ratio etc. The more esoteric measures give me no additional understanding at all. I do think that W-L is not a good measure because of situation like Felix Hernandez had in 2010 when he was just 13-12 but had an ERA of 2.27. You can't tell me that knowing his ERA is not more important than his W-L record which, in this instance, reflected the offense of his aweful team and not his stellar performance.

     



    I agree. OPS to me is especially a good stat because it takes into consideration slugging -- extra-base hit power -- and the ability to get on base. I'm not a fan of most defensive defensive stats-metrics as a general rule. I remain open-minded, but I still don't think defense can be measured statistically as hitting and pitching.

    Traditional HR-RBI-BA, to me, tells you a lot but it also isn't an end-all.

    My two big rules for stats are:

    1. You can't just look at one stat. You need to look a a variety of stats. I often see too much weight given to one stats.

    2. Even when you're looking at one stat, you often have to look a bit deeper. For example ERA. I'm a big fan of ERA. A low ERA tells you a lot. It's hard to get a distorted low ERA based on a couple of great performances. On the other hand, two or three truly horrible performances can distort otherwise good pitching, even when looking at an entire season.

    So new stats, old stats -- they all have their place IMO, just as long as they're used properly.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Let's look at the obsession with the trendy "metrics ".  OPS:  Nothing more than the sum of slugging pct. and on base pct.  These stats have been around forever. And how in the world are they given equal value in OPS ?  WAR: How many fans even know how this is computed ? The traditional stats tell you everything you need to know about a player's ability and worth. UZR: This is the worst. Check putouts , assists and fielding percentage to determine a player's defensive ability. Better yet , watch the games , although you obviously cannot watch them all. UZR is simply trusting someone else's opinion.  WHIP:  Very overrated stat. Totally ignores home runs and any extra base hits. Gives same value to an infield single as to a gap double.  Ignores being able to pitch out of a jam. Ignores game situations. A walk is sometimes as good as a hit, but usually a hit , especially an extra base hit is better. The bottom line is wins and losses. I do not totally discount the use of " Metrics " , but I think they have become very over valued. There are many things that make up a winning ball club , we should know what they are. Don't get carried away with being a stat man. 



    Yes, the old stats tell me everything.

    BA tells me how many Hrs you hit.

    HRs tell me everything about BA.

    RBIs tells be everything about how many RBI opportunities one player had vs another.

    ERA tells me how well a team defense plays behind the pitcher.

    Flg% tells me what the scorer wants to tell me.

    Put out s and Assists tell me how many a player makes per inning in the field, how many chances he realistically had a chance at making.

    All these stats are rock solid with no adjustments needed.

     

    The fact is, no stat or metric tells the whole story.

    Some metrics try to tell more of a story than a singular traditional stat does with varying degrees of success. WAR tries to put all areas of the game into a single numbers- not an easy task ofr sure. It is a flawed metric for sure, but when you look at the top 10 MLB players by WAR over the last year, 3 years or 5 years, the list probably is more accurate than any singular traditional stat ordering of the top 10. It is supposed to make it easier to compare players vs looking and saying player A batted .350, but player B had 50 HRs, but player A is a better fielder, but player B is a better runner... who's better?

    WHIP is a very useful tool, but does not show how many hits were XBHs, as you pointed out. That doesn't mean you throw it out. One could look at WHIP and opponent Slg% to balance it out a bit.

    ERA is flawed as well. Some pitchers have poor or great fielders behind them, a great or poor catcher calling the shots, a poor or great pen coming in with men on base, a scorekeeper that calls more errors than another one, etc...

    Many traditional stat fans make adjustments in their head all the time. For example, Beltre hit way more HRs in Fenway than Seattle, so we know that HR numbers are not always what they may appear to be as a gauge of who are the best power hitters. Slg% might capture it a little better. OPS weights Slg% a bit too highly, since OBP is proven top be more valuable in run creation, but the stat OPS is better than any other singular traditional stat out there. OPS+ adjusts for park factors. You may not understand them or how they are formulated. I don't on some either, but that doesn't mean they are useless. 

    What irks me the most about those who discount any non traditional stat, is that they assume anybody who uses them as partial tools to understanding a player's skillset value discounts direct observations and / or doesn't enjoy watching the games, because all these numbers are swirling around inside our heads like robots.

    None of us watch every play of every MLb game all year long. We have no way of knowing who is better than someone else without using a numbers of stats in combination with observations, player and manager statements, and baseball expert and scouting reports. It's never an exact science and that's part of what make baseball fun and unpredictable.

    Here are the top 10 everyday player WAR leaders (2010-2013). I challenge you to find a traditional stat that ranks the best 10 in a better order than this does. I'm not saying I agree with this exact order, but it's pretty darn close.

    1) Miggy

    2) Cano

    3) Votto

    4) Braun

    5) Beltre

    6) Bautista

    7) Longoria

    8) Zobrist

    9) Hamilton

    10) McCutchen

     

    Try BA:

    1) Miggy

    2) Votto

    3) Braun

    4) Mauer

    5) Posey

    6) C Gon

    7) A Gon

    8) Cano

    9) Beltre

    10) VMart

     

    Try OBP:

    1) Votto

    2) Miggy

    3) Fielder

    4) Bautista

    5) Mauer

    6) Berkman

    7) Ortiz

    8) Ruiz

    9) Braun

    10) Holliday

     

    HRs? Bautista, Miggy, Pujols, Grandy, Prince, Josh H, Braun, Beltre, Konerko, Reynolds.

     

    OPS is used a lot these days, and it's a pretty good singular stat for judging hitting skills alone, but it is not perfect. Still, this list is pretty close to my top 10 list of hitting skills only:

    Miggy

    Votto

    Bautista

    Ortiz

    Braun

    Hamilton

    Fielder

    Pujols

    Tulo

    C Gon

     

    2012-2013 top OPS

    Votto, Miggy, Braun, Prince, Stanton, McCutch, Trout, Posey, Cano, Ruiz

     

    I hope I didn't bore you with lists, but I wish we had one of these guys on our team.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

     

    Didn't know about WHIP not counting homers and extra base hits, I now value that measure less.  The defensive metric UZR seems bogus, not a believer.

     



    WHIP is simply walks plus hits per innings pitched. It gives no value to extra base hits, pitching around a hitter , pitching with men on base, game situations , pitching deep into games , getting strikeouts when needed , etc.   It has a certain value , but I prefer won / loss records , in conjunction with ERA , when evaluating a pitcher. 

     

     



    Each to his own. I think that some basic metrics do add to the understanding of a player's performance: OPS, OPS+, WHIP, ERA, K/BB ratio etc. The more esoteric measures give me no additional understanding at all. I do think that W-L is not a good measure because of situation like Felix Hernandez had in 2010 when he was just 13-12 but had an ERA of 2.27. You can't tell me that knowing his ERA is not more important than his W-L record which, in this instance, reflected the offense of his aweful team and not his stellar performance.

     

     



    Of course. Won / Loss record should be looked at in conjunction with ERA.  No argument there. 

     



    ERA is a highly flawed stat, and W-Ls are more a team number than a starting pitcher number. Both are still useful, but I put WHIP, Opponent OBP/Slg against, and ERA+ at least on equal footing as W/L & ERA.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    Let's look at the obsession with the trendy "metrics ".  OPS:  Nothing more than the sum of slugging pct. and on base pct.  These stats have been around forever. And how in the world are they given equal value in OPS ?  WAR: How many fans even know how this is computed ? The traditional stats tell you everything you need to know about a player's ability and worth. UZR: This is the worst. Check putouts , assists and fielding percentage to determine a player's defensive ability. Better yet , watch the games , although you obviously cannot watch them all. UZR is simply trusting someone else's opinion.  WHIP:  Very overrated stat. Totally ignores home runs and any extra base hits. Gives same value to an infield single as to a gap double.  Ignores being able to pitch out of a jam. Ignores game situations. A walk is sometimes as good as a hit, but usually a hit , especially an extra base hit is better. The bottom line is wins and losses. I do not totally discount the use of " Metrics " , but I think they have become very over valued. There are many things that make up a winning ball club , we should know what they are. Don't get carried away with being a stat man. 

     



    Yes, the old stats tell me everything.

     

    BA tells me how many Hrs you hit.

    HRs tell me everything about BA.

    RBIs tells be everything about how many RBI opportunities one player had vs another.

    ERA tells me how well a team defense plays behind the pitcher.

    Flg% tells me what the scorer wants to tell me.

    Put out s and Assists tell me how many a player makes per inning in the field, how many chances he realistically had a chance at making.

    All these stats are rock solid with no adjustments needed.

     

    The fact is, no stat or metric tells the whole story.

    Some metrics try to tell more of a story than a singular traditional stat does with varying degrees of success. WAR tries to put all areas of the game into a single numbers- not an easy task ofr sure. It is a flawed metric for sure, but when you look at the top 10 MLB players by WAR over the last year, 3 years or 5 years, the list probably is more accurate than any singular traditional stat ordering of the top 10. It is supposed to make it easier to compare players vs looking and saying player A batted .350, but player B had 50 HRs, but player A is a better fielder, but player B is a better runner... who's better?

    WHIP is a very useful tool, but does not show how many hits were XBHs, as you pointed out. That doesn't mean you throw it out. One could look at WHIP and opponent Slg% to balance it out a bit.

    ERA is flawed as well. Some pitchers have poor or great fielders behind them, a great or poor catcher calling the shots, a poor or great pen coming in with men on base, a scorekeeper that calls more errors than another one, etc...

    Many traditional stat fans make adjustments in their head all the time. For example, Beltre hit way more HRs in Fenway than Seattle, so we know that HR numbers are not always what they may appear to be as a gauge of who are the best power hitters. Slg% might capture it a little better. OPS weights Slg% a bit too highly, since OBP is proven top be more valuable in run creation, but the stat OPS is better than any other singular traditional stat out there. OPS+ adjusts for park factors. You may not understand them or how they are formulated. I don't on some either, but that doesn't mean they are useless. 

    What irks me the most about those who discount any non traditional stat, is that they assume anybody who uses them as partial tools to understanding a player's skillset value discounts direct observations and / or doesn't enjoy watching the games, because all these numbers are swirling around inside our heads like robots.

    None of us watch every play of every MLb game all year long. We have no way of knowing who is better than someone else without using a numbers of stats in combination with observations, player and manager statements, and baseball expert and scouting reports. It's never an exact science and that's part of what make baseball fun and unpredictable.

    Here are the top 10 everyday player WAR leaders (2010-2013). I challenge you to find a traditional stat that ranks the best 10 in a better order than this does. I'm not saying I agree with this exact order, but it's pretty darn close.

    1) Miggy

    2) Cano

    3) Votto

    4) Braun

    5) Beltre

    6) Bautista

    7) Longoria

    8) Zobrist

    9) Hamilton

    10) McCutchen

     

    Try BA:

    1) Miggy

    2) Votto

    3) Braun

    4) Mauer

    5) Posey

    6) C Gon

    7) A Gon

    8) Cano

    9) Beltre

    10) VMart

     

    Try OBP:

    1) Votto

    2) Miggy

    3) Fielder

    4) Bautista

    5) Mauer

    6) Berkman

    7) Ortiz

    8) Ruiz

    9) Braun

    10) Holliday

     

    HRs? Bautista, Miggy, Pujols, Grandy, Prince, Josh H, Braun, Beltre, Konerko, Reynolds.

     

    OPS is used a lot these days, and it's a pretty good singular stat for judging hitting skills alone, but it is not perfect. Still, this list is pretty close to my top 10 list of hitting skills only:

    Miggy

    Votto

    Bautista

    Ortiz

    Braun

    Hamilton

    Fielder

    Pujols

    Tulo

    C Gon

     

    2012-2013 top OPS

    Votto, Miggy, Braun, Prince, Stanton, McCutch, Trout, Posey, Cano, Ruiz

     

    I hope I didn't bore you with lists, but I wish we had one of these guys on our team.

     

     




    You can get carried away with all the stats that are out there.  There are so many variables. As for the top ten lists , any good fan can compile a comparable list off the top of their heads, without ever looking at WAR.  WAR does not tell you anything that the traditional stats don't.  I don't even know how WAR is computed , but I would guess that it is mostly based on the traditional stats anyway.   And , Moonslav you never bore me. You tick me off sometimes , but never bore me. 

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

     

    Didn't know about WHIP not counting homers and extra base hits, I now value that measure less.  The defensive metric UZR seems bogus, not a believer.

     



    WHIP is simply walks plus hits per innings pitched. It gives no value to extra base hits, pitching around a hitter , pitching with men on base, game situations , pitching deep into games , getting strikeouts when needed , etc.   It has a certain value , but I prefer won / loss records , in conjunction with ERA , when evaluating a pitcher. 

     

     



    Each to his own. I think that some basic metrics do add to the understanding of a player's performance: OPS, OPS+, WHIP, ERA, K/BB ratio etc. The more esoteric measures give me no additional understanding at all. I do think that W-L is not a good measure because of situation like Felix Hernandez had in 2010 when he was just 13-12 but had an ERA of 2.27. You can't tell me that knowing his ERA is not more important than his W-L record which, in this instance, reflected the offense of his aweful team and not his stellar performance.

     

     



    Of course. Won / Loss record should be looked at in conjunction with ERA.  No argument there. 

     

     



    ERA is a highly flawed stat, and W-Ls are more a team number than a starting pitcher number. Both are still useful, but I put WHIP, Opponent OBP/Slg against, and ERA+ at least on equal footing as W/L & ERA.

     



    Over time I have come to believe that ERA+ is a bit more useful as a single stat than just ERA. W-L is way down the list.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Of course you use a bunch of these old & new stats in conjuction w/ each other. If there was one magical stat that told the whole story, why would anyone use anything else? It would just be 'The Stat'. 

    Q: "How'd so & so do the other night?"

    A: "Not so good. Blew the game. Hate to even glance at his 'Stat' now". 

     

    I don't dis' a hammer because its not a saw. 0_o

     

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    I like the idea of WAR as an attempt to measure a player's total value.  I can't say if the current formula is the best one or not.

       

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    I like the idea of WAR as an attempt to measure a player's total value.  I can't say if the current formula is the best one or not.

       



    But WAR is not a stat, it's a rating. If you were asked a specific question on defense, offense, or base running, you'd still have to dissect it. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Promise4you2's comment:

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    The new metrics are not meant to, nor were they ever menat to, take the place of old school stats or scouts.  They are intended to enhance and deepen our understanding of the game when used along with the traditional methods.

     

    exactly

     

     




    Exactly.  So, I don't understand why people (not you) want to disregard the new stats. 

     

    They give you a much deeper understanding of a player's performance and value than the traditional stats alone.

     

     




    A players value cannot always be measure by metrics. I rememeber playing little league ball, I was the star, the kid that played the last inning because he was on the team was also my friend. he made me smile, he made me play better and he never complained because he sat on the pine. He made me better. What metrics can account for that? the mental part of the game can never ever be measured kimmi. just my thoughts!

     




    Thats the human element I was talking about, promise, that cant be measured by metrics. The intangibles.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    You can get carried away with all the stats that are out there.  There are so many variables. As for the top ten lists , any good fan can compile a comparable list off the top of their heads, without ever looking at WAR.  WAR does not tell you anything that the traditional stats don't.  I don't even know how WAR is computed , but I would guess that it is mostly based on the traditional stats anyway.   And , Moonslav you never bore me. You tick me off sometimes , but never bore me. 

     I know looking at 3-6 different stats at the same time, one can come up with a pretty good top 10 list off the top of the head, but what WAR does, is try to put everything together into one number: offense, defense, base running, etc... It is not perfect, but with large enough sample sizes, it is as good or better than any other SINGULAR stat out there.

    One flaw I find is that WAR does not do very well with closers and relief pitcher value. I think they also over-value and undervalue some position's defense.

    It works very well when comparing players at the same positions, especially over a 2+ year sample size.

    UZR/150 is flawed as well, and that should really only be used over a 2-3+ year sample size. It is better than Fldg%, put outs and Assists. Flg% and RF/9 combine to give a pretty good view, but it doesn't factor in how many chances a player gets. While UZR/150 is a bit subjective, at least it captures that part, and personal observation is just as subjective if not more so.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to emp9's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    I like the idea of WAR as an attempt to measure a player's total value.  I can't say if the current formula is the best one or not.

       

     



    But WAR is not a stat, it's a rating. If you were asked a specific question on defense, offense, or base running, you'd still have to dissect it. 

     

     



    It's not a rating, it's a measure (hence metric). No matter; no Metric OR Stat (Or combination thereof) gives an absolute assessment, as noted before.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    You can get carried away with all the stats that are out there.  There are so many variables. As for the top ten lists , any good fan can compile a comparable list off the top of their heads, without ever looking at WAR.  WAR does not tell you anything that the traditional stats don't.  I don't even know how WAR is computed , but I would guess that it is mostly based on the traditional stats anyway.   And , Moonslav you never bore me. You tick me off sometimes , but never bore me. 

     I know looking at 3-6 different stats at the same time, one can come up with a pretty good top 10 list off the top of the head, but what WAR does, is try to put everything together into one number: offense, defense, base running, etc... It is not perfect, but with large enough sample sizes, it is as good or better than any other SINGULAR stat out there.

    One flaw I find is that WAR does not do very well with closers and relief pitcher value. I think they also over-value and undervalue some position's defense.

    It works very well when comparing players at the same positions, especially over a 2+ year sample size.

    UZR/150 is flawed as well, and that should really only be used over a 2-3+ year sample size. It is better than Fldg%, put outs and Assists. Flg% and RF/9 combine to give a pretty good view, but it doesn't factor in how many chances a player gets. While UZR/150 is a bit subjective, at least it captures that part, and personal observation is just as subjective if not more so.

     



    WAR underrates catchers, especially the highly important catcher intangibles, and intagibles in general; consider E. Howard, Reggie Jax, Burleson, Varitek, Millar, Ortiz, Schilling, Jeter, Rivera, Pedroia, etc.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    You can get carried away with all the stats that are out there.  There are so many variables. As for the top ten lists , any good fan can compile a comparable list off the top of their heads, without ever looking at WAR.  WAR does not tell you anything that the traditional stats don't.  I don't even know how WAR is computed , but I would guess that it is mostly based on the traditional stats anyway.   And , Moonslav you never bore me. You tick me off sometimes , but never bore me. 

     I know looking at 3-6 different stats at the same time, one can come up with a pretty good top 10 list off the top of the head, but what WAR does, is try to put everything together into one number: offense, defense, base running, etc... It is not perfect, but with large enough sample sizes, it is as good or better than any other SINGULAR stat out there.

    One flaw I find is that WAR does not do very well with closers and relief pitcher value. I think they also over-value and undervalue some position's defense.

    It works very well when comparing players at the same positions, especially over a 2+ year sample size.

    UZR/150 is flawed as well, and that should really only be used over a 2-3+ year sample size. It is better than Fldg%, put outs and Assists. Flg% and RF/9 combine to give a pretty good view, but it doesn't factor in how many chances a player gets. While UZR/150 is a bit subjective, at least it captures that part, and personal observation is just as subjective if not more so.

     



    WAR underrates catchers, especially the highly important catcher intangibles, and intagibles in general; consider E. Howard, Reggie Jax, Burleson, Varitek, Millar, Ortiz, Schilling, Jeter, Rivera, Pedroia, etc.

     



    if intangibles could be measured they wouldn't be called intangibles............

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to emp9's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    I like the idea of WAR as an attempt to measure a player's total value.  I can't say if the current formula is the best one or not.

       

     



    But WAR is not a stat, it's a rating. If you were asked a specific question on defense, offense, or base running, you'd still have to dissect it. 

     

     



    It's not a rating, it's a measure (hence metric). No matter; no Metric OR Stat (Or combination thereof) gives an absolute assessment, as noted before.

     


    I didnt mean to make it sound equavical to a movie review ( 4 out 5 stars or 2 thunbs up! ha!) You're right & the data keeps getting better. however, i thought WAR included salaries into it (?), and that really muddies the water for me. 

    But, back to the original point, I agree. You look at a number of stats, sabermetric & traditional. 

    I find WHIP pretty usefull for what it is. I think of it as an OBP Against Pitcher sorta way. Im ok w/ it not counting in XBH. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to emp9's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to emp9's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    I like the idea of WAR as an attempt to measure a player's total value.  I can't say if the current formula is the best one or not.

       

     



    But WAR is not a stat, it's a rating. If you were asked a specific question on defense, offense, or base running, you'd still have to dissect it. 

     

     



    It's not a rating, it's a measure (hence metric). No matter; no Metric OR Stat (Or combination thereof) gives an absolute assessment, as noted before.

     

     


    I didnt mean to make it sound equavical to a movie review ( 4 out 5 stars or 2 thunbs up! ha!) You're right & the data keeps getting better. however, i thought WAR included salaries into it (?), and that really muddies the water for me. 

     

    But, back to the original point, I agree. You look at a number of stats, sabermetric & traditional. 

    I find WHIP pretty usefull for what it is. I think of it as an OBP Against Pitcher sorta way. Im ok w/ it not counting in XBH. 



    WAR doesn't take into account what a player is making (see Trout). It assigns value to a player based on their WAR though. for example, Jacobys 2011 season was valued at ~40Million if i remember correctly. Trouts 2012 season is probably in the ballpark of that too.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Let's look at the obsession with the trendy "metrics ".  OPS:  Nothing more than the sum of slugging pct. and on base pct.  These stats have been around forever. And how in the world are they given equal value in OPS ?  WAR: How many fans even know how this is computed ? The traditional stats tell you everything you need to know about a player's ability and worth. UZR: This is the worst. Check putouts , assists and fielding percentage to determine a player's defensive ability. Better yet , watch the games , although you obviously cannot watch them all. UZR is simply trusting someone else's opinion.  WHIP:  Very overrated stat. Totally ignores home runs and any extra base hits. Gives same value to an infield single as to a gap double.  Ignores being able to pitch out of a jam. Ignores game situations. A walk is sometimes as good as a hit, but usually a hit , especially an extra base hit is better. The bottom line is wins and losses. I do not totally discount the use of " Metrics " , but I think they have become very over valued. There are many things that make up a winning ball club , we should know what they are. Don't get carried away with being a stat man. 




    WAR is certainly a subjective one, especially since it is primarily sourced from two different websites, and each calculates it differently.  The mere fact that this happens shows there are varying opinions as to what it takes to constitute a win.   However, there should be as there is no magic formula.

     

    I do disagree with your interpretation of UZR.  UZR uses standardized zones and tabulates plays made in the zone, plays not made in the zone, and plays made out of the zone.  It is not "some guy's opinion."  In fact, that is how errors are assigned, not UZR.   Al of this "watch the games" is nice, but how do you compare defensive players you rarely or never see?   I like the fact taht someone has made the ffort to tabulate every play involving that player and assigned a value relative to the league average.  There is much less subjectivity in UZR than there is in errors, believe it or not.   Certainly you have seen errors assigned or not assigned many times and disagreed with the scoring decision.   UZR ceratinly has its flaws, and seems to be a very poor measurement for outfielders.  This is not a surprise as the system was designed for infield defense, and accomodates that situation pretty well.

     

    Counting putouts and assists operates on the assumption that all players have the same number of opportunities.  Fielding percentage is also useless.  How many times does a SS get the assigned error because the 1B could not handle a relatively simple throw?  How many times does a SS have a poor throw salvaged by an elite fielding 1B?   Does having a good 1B mean the SS has better defensive ability?

     

    And when it comes to hitting, batting average is less tell-all than old school fans think.  Really, now we see at-bats can be broken down into K%, LD%, GB% and FB%.  And beyond that there is IFFB% and HR/FB%.  To me, these tell a better tale of how a batter is hitting, and tend to be more consistent from year to year with mopst hitters. Using BABIP can allow for a better Defense Independant Hitting Stat as well.

     

    If you do not like WHIP, FIP is not a bad way to go, and makes sense to compare to ERA in a stat known as E-F. 

     

    I like OPS, but the truth is, it is not quantifiable, and this is because it uses the mathematically unsound concept of adding two fractions with different denominators.  The end result is impossible to evaluate.  If Hitter A has an OBP of .350 and an SLG of .450, and Hitter B has an OBP of .325 and a SLG of .400, OPS certainly tells you who is better (Hitter A and his .800 OPS is better than Hitter B and his .725OPS), but how is he better?  OBP will tell you Hitter A gets on base 25 more times in 1000 plate appearances, SLG will tell you Hitter A gets 50 more TB per 1000 at-bats.  But the combined OPS total gives you an indetermined difference of .075 that means nothing on its own...

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Of course, the rules used to determine wins and losses for a pitcher are totally arbitrary and wonky...and it's very dependent on run support from the offense.  There are plenty of occasions when the pitchers getting the win and the loss fully deserve it...but there is a lot of chaff mixed in with the wheat.

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

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     

     



     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Today's Sox game is a perfect illustration of why W-L record is way way down the list of important metrics. Dempster pitched a game of a game surrendering only a solo HR to Longoria over 7 innings, striking out 10 and got no decision. Bailey came in and blew the save giving up the tying run in the ninth and got the win. Not a big fan of W-L record having much relevance to a pitcher's value.

     



    it has NO value to a pitcher. the type of underwear a pitcher wears is more important than his W/L stat.....

     

     



    Won / Loss record does indeed matter. Wins and losses is what the game is all about. Every other stat just leads to wins or losses. You just have to look at it in conjunction with ERA. A pitcher with a good won/loss record and a low ERA is a good pitcher. A pitcher with a poor won/loss record and a high ERA is not a good pitcher. If a pitcher's won/loss does not match his ERA, you need to look into it further. Dempster not getting a win today is not the norm. If he continues to pitch that well , he will get plenty of wins,. 

     



    So how would you rate a pitcher whose record is 13-12 with an ERA of 2.27 over 250 innings pitched? Thats pretty close to a .500 W-L record. Is that pitcher excellent, good, fair, or poor?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share