WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL
-
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@GrandpaShaft said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
Who is better George Brett or Wade Boggs
WAR says Brett 84.6
Boggs 81.4
Can you make a case that Boggs is better or do we only look at WAR.
You're making strawman arguments when it comes to WAR. I don't know anyone who seriously argues WAR in this way. Those two examples are basically the same WAR total. There's a negligible difference between the two players.
My argument and points is WAR is not the only thing you measure or compare players to debate who is better.
Ok and nobody is saying its the only thing you use. You are just arguing just to argue.
No i am not arguing to just argue. There are people on this forum that only go off WAR. The player with the Higher WAR is the better player cause WAR says it is.
Nobody on the forum only went by WAR. You just ran with it when WAR was brought up.
Most people who know what WAR is, generally know how we get to that number from other advanced analytics (wRC+, OPS+, UZR, dRS, ERA+, FIP, etc.).
The title of this thread proves you were looking for an argument this whole timeYou do not pay to close attention on this forum or this site. I have had the debate with plenty of people over the last 3 years and yes they think WAR is the the only thing and that is it.
I don't pay close attention to you....
And all you come off as, is someone who's countering those people with total ignorance in the other direction..That is not true at all, tell me how I am being ignorant, because I do not believe WAR is the all be all, I take all stats of a players career into consideration and just do not jump to WAR for everything to say this player is better. Ignorant is saying WAR is the only thing you can measure to players from different ERA's. That is not true and WAR is flawed.
We've already gone over this.. none of the people in this thread is saying WAR is the end all be all. It's a useful accumulation. It's a great metric to use, and from there, break it down using other more specific stats (whether it be hitting/pitching/defense).
I haven't seen anyone saying it's just WAR and that's it, conversation over.. nobody..
But..
To say WAR is useless is honestly just ignorant old school thinking that is outdated and should be left behind.I never said it is useless, and I never said it should be left behind, When you find where I said that please let me know I will be waiting.
The title of this thread sums it up. Caps Lock too lol
Saying it is overrated does not mean it should be left behind or Useless you have comprehension issues.
-
@SaveFarris said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
Sabemetrics does says it is ok to K's 200 times a season, hit below .260 most seasons and walked 100 times a season would have a better War than a guy that hit above 270 most season, 3 times less K's a season and had 3 times less walks
Because "sabemetrics" figured out the other ways Adam Dunn (guy #1) was providing value (getting on base, hitting for power) than Juan Pierre was as Guy #2.
Wrong Players there Farris
-
@SaveFarris said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
Sabemetrics does says it is ok to K's 200 times a season, hit below .260 most seasons and walked 100 times a season would have a better War than a guy that hit above 270 most season, 3 times less K's a season and had 3 times less walks
Because "sabemetrics" figured out the other ways Adam Dunn (guy #1) was providing value (getting on base, hitting for power) than Juan Pierre was as Guy #2.
Those are not the two players. that is to my point where getting on base and hitting for power was not what was looked in pre sabemetrics. WAR discredits players from pre sabermetrics in some way.
-
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@GrandpaShaft said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
Who is better George Brett or Wade Boggs
WAR says Brett 84.6
Boggs 81.4
Can you make a case that Boggs is better or do we only look at WAR.
You're making strawman arguments when it comes to WAR. I don't know anyone who seriously argues WAR in this way. Those two examples are basically the same WAR total. There's a negligible difference between the two players.
My argument and points is WAR is not the only thing you measure or compare players to debate who is better.
Ok and nobody is saying its the only thing you use. You are just arguing just to argue.
No i am not arguing to just argue. There are people on this forum that only go off WAR. The player with the Higher WAR is the better player cause WAR says it is.
Nobody on the forum only went by WAR. You just ran with it when WAR was brought up.
Most people who know what WAR is, generally know how we get to that number from other advanced analytics (wRC+, OPS+, UZR, dRS, ERA+, FIP, etc.).
The title of this thread proves you were looking for an argument this whole timeYou do not pay to close attention on this forum or this site. I have had the debate with plenty of people over the last 3 years and yes they think WAR is the the only thing and that is it.
I don't pay close attention to you....
And all you come off as, is someone who's countering those people with total ignorance in the other direction..No one can say using any formula 100 percent that player A is was better than player B in different ERA's. You all will say well WAR is the only thing we got, The two players did not face the same competition play in the same parks. I know i know WAR takes that in consideration but no you would never know how players from different ERA's would have perform in that stadium it is an assumption how they would have performed. I discredit that. Players and Mangement was not concerned about Sabermetrics and again the way players were looked are were different. The roles of players on how the game was played was different and that has no consideration when it comes to WAR. Do the best players that ever played have the highest WAR they do. You can not say Babe Ruth if he played in today's game that he would have the same, better or worst war. All you have is in the time in which he played. I personally do not like comparing players that played in different ERA's you can not really say who the better player is who you are talking about the best of all time.
You miss the whole point of WAR, still...
It's not to say how Babe Ruth would play in today's game. It's to compare how good or valuable Babe Ruth was against his peers vs. how player B was vs. his.
That's all that matters really. How good were you in your time. If you were 100 wins above a replacement player in your time compared to another player that was 80 wins above a replacement player of his time, you were clearly more valuable of a player.
At that point you can break it down as to why that was. OPS, wRC+, etc.If you understand that, then you'd see how you arguing this is kind of stupid...
-
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@GrandpaShaft said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
Who is better George Brett or Wade Boggs
WAR says Brett 84.6
Boggs 81.4
Can you make a case that Boggs is better or do we only look at WAR.
You're making strawman arguments when it comes to WAR. I don't know anyone who seriously argues WAR in this way. Those two examples are basically the same WAR total. There's a negligible difference between the two players.
My argument and points is WAR is not the only thing you measure or compare players to debate who is better.
Ok and nobody is saying its the only thing you use. You are just arguing just to argue.
No i am not arguing to just argue. There are people on this forum that only go off WAR. The player with the Higher WAR is the better player cause WAR says it is.
Nobody on the forum only went by WAR. You just ran with it when WAR was brought up.
Most people who know what WAR is, generally know how we get to that number from other advanced analytics (wRC+, OPS+, UZR, dRS, ERA+, FIP, etc.).
The title of this thread proves you were looking for an argument this whole timeYou do not pay to close attention on this forum or this site. I have had the debate with plenty of people over the last 3 years and yes they think WAR is the the only thing and that is it.
I don't pay close attention to you....
And all you come off as, is someone who's countering those people with total ignorance in the other direction..No one can say using any formula 100 percent that player A is was better than player B in different ERA's. You all will say well WAR is the only thing we got, The two players did not face the same competition play in the same parks. I know i know WAR takes that in consideration but no you would never know how players from different ERA's would have perform in that stadium it is an assumption how they would have performed. I discredit that. Players and Mangement was not concerned about Sabermetrics and again the way players were looked are were different. The roles of players on how the game was played was different and that has no consideration when it comes to WAR. Do the best players that ever played have the highest WAR they do. You can not say Babe Ruth if he played in today's game that he would have the same, better or worst war. All you have is in the time in which he played. I personally do not like comparing players that played in different ERA's you can not really say who the better player is who you are talking about the best of all time.
You miss the whole point of WAR, still...
It's not to say how Babe Ruth would play in today's game. It's to compare how good or valuable Babe Ruth was against his peers vs. how player B was vs. his.
That's all that matters really. How good were you in your time. If you were 100 wins above a replacement player in your time compared to another player that was 80 wins above a replacement player of his time, you were clearly more valuable of a player.
At that point you can break it down as to why that was. OPS, wRC+, etc.If you understand that, then you'd see how you arguing this is kind of stupid...
In your time yeah I get that, Comparing two players of different times is really not fair considering they did not play against the same competition, or with the same rules or the same stadiums or more or less teams depending on who you are comparing. Yeah we only have stats to compare plays with. I do understand. Even if you break it down with OPS, wrc etc.. does not actually say a player was better than another player in a different ERA. I understand that is all we have to compare the players. Really we can say Ruth was the best in his time, Aaron was the best in his time, Bonds was the best in his time, Trout is the best in his time so on and so forth, take those four and compare them really is not right in my opinion. I would just say they are the best that ever played along with some others. It is usually no the best of the best on this site that I debate about it is more the above avg, avg and below avg players. When I debate with people IMO they do not seem to take into consideration how the league was at that time. How teams valued players and what they expected of the players, looking at that is where WAR is the issue and IMO is flawed.
-
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@GrandpaShaft said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@GrandpaShaft said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@GrandpaShaft said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
Who is better George Brett or Wade Boggs
WAR says Brett 84.6
Boggs 81.4
Can you make a case that Boggs is better or do we only look at WAR.
You're making strawman arguments when it comes to WAR. I don't know anyone who seriously argues WAR in this way. Those two examples are basically the same WAR total. There's a negligible difference between the two players.
My argument and points is WAR is not the only thing you measure or compare players to debate who is better.
Ok and nobody is saying its the only thing you use. You are just arguing just to argue.
No i am not arguing to just argue. There are people on this forum that only go off WAR. The player with the Higher WAR is the better player cause WAR says it is.
You made an entire thread just to call out those people then are arguing with anyone who disagrees with you. Seems like you are arguing just to argue.
Ok and thats usually the case anyways. The better player usually has the better WAR. Who cares?
That is not true, The best ever in Baseball usually do have the best WAR but when you get to the above avg, avg and below avg is the main issue. If you can not tell I care. If you do not then no point for you to say anything else. Have a good day
Ok then what do you want to use? You are crying about WAR but offer no alternative you would rather use. Once again, arguing just to argue.
I guess you do not read very well or did not read everything on this forum. All the stats matter, Understanding the time in which players played in and what Management and scouts looked for in a player. The fact that how the game has changed with rules and the roles of players. Sabemetrics does says it is ok to K's 200 times a season, hit below .260 most seasons and walked 100 times a season would have a better War than a guy that hit above 270 most season, 3 times less K's a season and had 3 times less walks. Player A hit More HR, Player B had more RBI's. My value of a player says player B is the better player but WAR says player A is the better player.
No I havent been reading every comment on this stupid argument
That was one of the dumber things ive read. Not even going to begin to counter what you just said. Good day
-
It is so stupid here you are responding
-
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@GrandpaShaft said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
Who is better George Brett or Wade Boggs
WAR says Brett 84.6
Boggs 81.4
Can you make a case that Boggs is better or do we only look at WAR.
You're making strawman arguments when it comes to WAR. I don't know anyone who seriously argues WAR in this way. Those two examples are basically the same WAR total. There's a negligible difference between the two players.
My argument and points is WAR is not the only thing you measure or compare players to debate who is better.
Ok and nobody is saying its the only thing you use. You are just arguing just to argue.
No i am not arguing to just argue. There are people on this forum that only go off WAR. The player with the Higher WAR is the better player cause WAR says it is.
Nobody on the forum only went by WAR. You just ran with it when WAR was brought up.
Most people who know what WAR is, generally know how we get to that number from other advanced analytics (wRC+, OPS+, UZR, dRS, ERA+, FIP, etc.).
The title of this thread proves you were looking for an argument this whole timeYou do not pay to close attention on this forum or this site. I have had the debate with plenty of people over the last 3 years and yes they think WAR is the the only thing and that is it.
I don't pay close attention to you....
And all you come off as, is someone who's countering those people with total ignorance in the other direction..No one can say using any formula 100 percent that player A is was better than player B in different ERA's. You all will say well WAR is the only thing we got, The two players did not face the same competition play in the same parks. I know i know WAR takes that in consideration but no you would never know how players from different ERA's would have perform in that stadium it is an assumption how they would have performed. I discredit that. Players and Mangement was not concerned about Sabermetrics and again the way players were looked are were different. The roles of players on how the game was played was different and that has no consideration when it comes to WAR. Do the best players that ever played have the highest WAR they do. You can not say Babe Ruth if he played in today's game that he would have the same, better or worst war. All you have is in the time in which he played. I personally do not like comparing players that played in different ERA's you can not really say who the better player is who you are talking about the best of all time.
You miss the whole point of WAR, still...
It's not to say how Babe Ruth would play in today's game. It's to compare how good or valuable Babe Ruth was against his peers vs. how player B was vs. his.
That's all that matters really. How good were you in your time. If you were 100 wins above a replacement player in your time compared to another player that was 80 wins above a replacement player of his time, you were clearly more valuable of a player.
At that point you can break it down as to why that was. OPS, wRC+, etc.If you understand that, then you'd see how you arguing this is kind of stupid...
In your time yeah I get that, Comparing two players of different times is really not fair considering they did not play against the same competition, or with the same rules or the same stadiums or more or less teams depending on who you are comparing. Yeah we only have stats to compare plays with. I do understand. Even if you break it down with OPS, wrc etc.. does not actually say a player was better than another player in a different ERA. I understand that is all we have to compare the players. Really we can say Ruth was the best in his time, Aaron was the best in his time, Bonds was the best in his time, Trout is the best in his time so on and so forth, take those four and compare them really is not right in my opinion. I would just say they are the best that ever played along with some others. It is usually no the best of the best on this site that I debate about it is more the above avg, avg and below avg players. When I debate with people IMO they do not seem to take into consideration how the league was at that time. How teams valued players and what they expected of the players, looking at that is where WAR is the issue and IMO is flawed.
Here is the thing. It doesn't matter how teams valued players in the 1920's or 1980's or whenever.. Now we know they valued them wrongly of course, most of the time, but it doesn't matter at all in terms of comparing players using WAR. All WAR is doing is comparing "player x" to the average replacement of a particular year. That gives you a value of that player compared to his peers. What would be unfair and wrong would be to compare Babe Ruth's OPS to Mike Trout's.. because it's completely different competition, ballparks, training, etc.
I'd argue the only way to equally compare different era's is WAR, because you're comparing your value against your peers to another player's value to his.
It's really the other way around to what you're saying. Literally
-
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@GrandpaShaft said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
Who is better George Brett or Wade Boggs
WAR says Brett 84.6
Boggs 81.4
Can you make a case that Boggs is better or do we only look at WAR.
You're making strawman arguments when it comes to WAR. I don't know anyone who seriously argues WAR in this way. Those two examples are basically the same WAR total. There's a negligible difference between the two players.
My argument and points is WAR is not the only thing you measure or compare players to debate who is better.
Ok and nobody is saying its the only thing you use. You are just arguing just to argue.
No i am not arguing to just argue. There are people on this forum that only go off WAR. The player with the Higher WAR is the better player cause WAR says it is.
Nobody on the forum only went by WAR. You just ran with it when WAR was brought up.
Most people who know what WAR is, generally know how we get to that number from other advanced analytics (wRC+, OPS+, UZR, dRS, ERA+, FIP, etc.).
The title of this thread proves you were looking for an argument this whole timeYou do not pay to close attention on this forum or this site. I have had the debate with plenty of people over the last 3 years and yes they think WAR is the the only thing and that is it.
I don't pay close attention to you....
And all you come off as, is someone who's countering those people with total ignorance in the other direction..No one can say using any formula 100 percent that player A is was better than player B in different ERA's. You all will say well WAR is the only thing we got, The two players did not face the same competition play in the same parks. I know i know WAR takes that in consideration but no you would never know how players from different ERA's would have perform in that stadium it is an assumption how they would have performed. I discredit that. Players and Mangement was not concerned about Sabermetrics and again the way players were looked are were different. The roles of players on how the game was played was different and that has no consideration when it comes to WAR. Do the best players that ever played have the highest WAR they do. You can not say Babe Ruth if he played in today's game that he would have the same, better or worst war. All you have is in the time in which he played. I personally do not like comparing players that played in different ERA's you can not really say who the better player is who you are talking about the best of all time.
You miss the whole point of WAR, still...
It's not to say how Babe Ruth would play in today's game. It's to compare how good or valuable Babe Ruth was against his peers vs. how player B was vs. his.
That's all that matters really. How good were you in your time. If you were 100 wins above a replacement player in your time compared to another player that was 80 wins above a replacement player of his time, you were clearly more valuable of a player.
At that point you can break it down as to why that was. OPS, wRC+, etc.If you understand that, then you'd see how you arguing this is kind of stupid...
In your time yeah I get that, Comparing two players of different times is really not fair considering they did not play against the same competition, or with the same rules or the same stadiums or more or less teams depending on who you are comparing. Yeah we only have stats to compare plays with. I do understand. Even if you break it down with OPS, wrc etc.. does not actually say a player was better than another player in a different ERA. I understand that is all we have to compare the players. Really we can say Ruth was the best in his time, Aaron was the best in his time, Bonds was the best in his time, Trout is the best in his time so on and so forth, take those four and compare them really is not right in my opinion. I would just say they are the best that ever played along with some others. It is usually no the best of the best on this site that I debate about it is more the above avg, avg and below avg players. When I debate with people IMO they do not seem to take into consideration how the league was at that time. How teams valued players and what they expected of the players, looking at that is where WAR is the issue and IMO is flawed.
Here is the thing. It doesn't matter how teams valued players in the 1920's or 1980's or whenever.. Now we know they valued them wrongly of course, most of the time, but it doesn't matter at all in terms of comparing players using WAR. All WAR is doing is comparing "player x" to the average replacement of a particular year. That gives you a value of that player compared to his peers. What would be unfair and wrong would be to compare Babe Ruth's OPS to Mike Trout's.. because it's completely different competition, ballparks, training, etc.
I'd argue the only way to equally compare different era's is WAR, because you're comparing your value against your peers to another player's value to his.
Here is a question cause maybe I am missing something about WAR.
WAR is calculated based on the players you played with or against. A player can have a higher or lower WAR based on how good the players in that ERA or years in which they played. For instance if the players in the 80's compared to the overall players now the WAR of a player could be higher or lower base on how good players actually were overall in that ERA. Is this true? If the overall WAR of players is higher in today's game to that of the players in the 80'S wouldn't that make a difference especially with looking at it by POS? I might not be asking this question correctly.
-
WAR is accumulated based on how many wins a player has provided to his team compared to a replacement level player at the same position in a particular year.
This number changes based on the average of competition in a particular year.
The basis for a WAR value is the estimated number of runs contributed by a player through offensive actions such as batting and base running, and runs denied to opposition teams by the player through defensive actions like fielding and pitching. Statistics such as weighted on-base average (wOBA), ultimate zone rating (UZR), ultimate base running (UBR), and defense independent pitching statistics (DIPS) measure the effectiveness of a player at creating and saving runs for their team, on a per-plate appearance or per-inning basis. These statistics can be multiplied by the playing time of a player to give an estimate of the number of offensive and defensive runs contributed to their team.10 runs saved or made "compared to a replacement level player of that time" equals 1 WAR I'm pretty sure.
-
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
Who is better George Brett or Wade Boggs
WAR says Brett 84.6
Boggs 81.4
Can you make a case that Boggs is better or do we only look at WAR.
You're making strawman arguments when it comes to WAR. I don't know anyone who seriously argues WAR in this way. Those two examples are basically the same WAR total. There's a negligible difference between the two players.
My argument and points is WAR is not the only thing you measure or compare players to debate who is better.
You're making another strawman argument.
-
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
WAR is accumulated based on how many wins a player has provided to his team compared to a replacement level player at the same position in a particular year.
This number changes based on the average of competition in a particular year.
The basis for a WAR value is the estimated number of runs contributed by a player through offensive actions such as batting and base running, and runs denied to opposition teams by the player through defensive actions like fielding and pitching. Statistics such as weighted on-base average (wOBA), ultimate zone rating (UZR), ultimate base running (UBR), and defense independent pitching statistics (DIPS) measure the effectiveness of a player at creating and saving runs for their team, on a per-plate appearance or per-inning basis. These statistics can be multiplied by the playing time of a player to give an estimate of the number of offensive and defensive runs contributed to their team.10 runs saved or made "compared to a replacement level player of that time" equals 1 WAR I'm pretty sure.
I know that, using WAR to compare players of different era's is flawed. Because of the talent in which each ERA is different the WAR is different based on the team you play for and how good other players on that does. For instants If Trout was on the Dodgers his WAR would not be as high cause they would still Win. If Bellinger was on the Angels his WAR would be higher cause he would be more valuable. When a overall team his better players it bring the value of the best player on the team down when it comes to wins over replacements. Wins over replacements is an assumption of what it would be not fact. Could a team still win games and a player come up and play better then the player it replaced which then drives that players WAR down is this correct? This players win over replacement is plus 5 meaning that how many wins that player gives his team if he misses games or has to be replace yes or no?
-
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
WAR is accumulated based on how many wins a player has provided to his team compared to a replacement level player at the same position in a particular year.
This number changes based on the average of competition in a particular year.
The basis for a WAR value is the estimated number of runs contributed by a player through offensive actions such as batting and base running, and runs denied to opposition teams by the player through defensive actions like fielding and pitching. Statistics such as weighted on-base average (wOBA), ultimate zone rating (UZR), ultimate base running (UBR), and defense independent pitching statistics (DIPS) measure the effectiveness of a player at creating and saving runs for their team, on a per-plate appearance or per-inning basis. These statistics can be multiplied by the playing time of a player to give an estimate of the number of offensive and defensive runs contributed to their team.10 runs saved or made "compared to a replacement level player of that time" equals 1 WAR I'm pretty sure.
I know that, using WAR to compare players of different era's is flawed. Because of the talent in which each ERA is different the WAR is different based on the team you play for and how good other players on that does. For instants If Trout was on the Dodgers his WAR would not be as high cause they would still Win. If Bellinger was on the Angels his WAR would be higher cause he would be more valuable. When a overall team his better players it bring the value of the best player on the team down when it comes to wins over replacements. Wins over replacements is an assumption of what it would be not fact. Could a team still win games and a player come up and play better then the player it replaced which then drives that players WAR down is this correct? This players win over replacement is plus 5 meaning that how many wins that player gives his team if he misses games or has to be replace yes or no?
Everything you just said was incorrect.
-
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
WAR is accumulated based on how many wins a player has provided to his team compared to a replacement level player at the same position in a particular year.
This number changes based on the average of competition in a particular year.
The basis for a WAR value is the estimated number of runs contributed by a player through offensive actions such as batting and base running, and runs denied to opposition teams by the player through defensive actions like fielding and pitching. Statistics such as weighted on-base average (wOBA), ultimate zone rating (UZR), ultimate base running (UBR), and defense independent pitching statistics (DIPS) measure the effectiveness of a player at creating and saving runs for their team, on a per-plate appearance or per-inning basis. These statistics can be multiplied by the playing time of a player to give an estimate of the number of offensive and defensive runs contributed to their team.10 runs saved or made "compared to a replacement level player of that time" equals 1 WAR I'm pretty sure.
I know that, using WAR to compare players of different era's is flawed. Because of the talent in which each ERA is different the WAR is different based on the team you play for and how good other players on that does. For instants If Trout was on the Dodgers his WAR would not be as high cause they would still Win. If Bellinger was on the Angels his WAR would be higher cause he would be more valuable. When a overall team his better players it bring the value of the best player on the team down when it comes to wins over replacements. Wins over replacements is an assumption of what it would be not fact. Could a team still win games and a player come up and play better then the player it replaced which then drives that players WAR down is this correct? This players win over replacement is plus 5 meaning that how many wins that player gives his team if he misses games or has to be replace yes or no?
Completely incorrect
-
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@GrandpaShaft said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
Who is better George Brett or Wade Boggs
WAR says Brett 84.6
Boggs 81.4
Can you make a case that Boggs is better or do we only look at WAR.
You're making strawman arguments when it comes to WAR. I don't know anyone who seriously argues WAR in this way. Those two examples are basically the same WAR total. There's a negligible difference between the two players.
My argument and points is WAR is not the only thing you measure or compare players to debate who is better.
Ok and nobody is saying its the only thing you use. You are just arguing just to argue.
No i am not arguing to just argue. There are people on this forum that only go off WAR. The player with the Higher WAR is the better player cause WAR says it is.
Nobody on the forum only went by WAR. You just ran with it when WAR was brought up.
Most people who know what WAR is, generally know how we get to that number from other advanced analytics (wRC+, OPS+, UZR, dRS, ERA+, FIP, etc.).
The title of this thread proves you were looking for an argument this whole timeYou do not pay to close attention on this forum or this site. I have had the debate with plenty of people over the last 3 years and yes they think WAR is the the only thing and that is it.
I don't pay close attention to you....
And all you come off as, is someone who's countering those people with total ignorance in the other direction..No one can say using any formula 100 percent that player A is was better than player B in different ERA's. You all will say well WAR is the only thing we got, The two players did not face the same competition play in the same parks. I know i know WAR takes that in consideration but no you would never know how players from different ERA's would have perform in that stadium it is an assumption how they would have performed. I discredit that. Players and Mangement was not concerned about Sabermetrics and again the way players were looked are were different. The roles of players on how the game was played was different and that has no consideration when it comes to WAR. Do the best players that ever played have the highest WAR they do. You can not say Babe Ruth if he played in today's game that he would have the same, better or worst war. All you have is in the time in which he played. I personally do not like comparing players that played in different ERA's you can not really say who the better player is who you are talking about the best of all time.
You miss the whole point of WAR, still...
It's not to say how Babe Ruth would play in today's game. It's to compare how good or valuable Babe Ruth was against his peers vs. how player B was vs. his.
That's all that matters really. How good were you in your time. If you were 100 wins above a replacement player in your time compared to another player that was 80 wins above a replacement player of his time, you were clearly more valuable of a player.
At that point you can break it down as to why that was. OPS, wRC+, etc.If you understand that, then you'd see how you arguing this is kind of stupid...
In your time yeah I get that, Comparing two players of different times is really not fair considering they did not play against the same competition, or with the same rules or the same stadiums or more or less teams depending on who you are comparing. Yeah we only have stats to compare plays with. I do understand. Even if you break it down with OPS, wrc etc.. does not actually say a player was better than another player in a different ERA. I understand that is all we have to compare the players. Really we can say Ruth was the best in his time, Aaron was the best in his time, Bonds was the best in his time, Trout is the best in his time so on and so forth, take those four and compare them really is not right in my opinion. I would just say they are the best that ever played along with some others. It is usually no the best of the best on this site that I debate about it is more the above avg, avg and below avg players. When I debate with people IMO they do not seem to take into consideration how the league was at that time. How teams valued players and what they expected of the players, looking at that is where WAR is the issue and IMO is flawed.
The sabermetrics like WAR are attempting to take into effect differences in eras (competition, balls, stadiums, rules, etc) when comparing different players. There's a reason 5 of the top 10 in bWAR played parts or the majority of their careers in the dead ball era.
-
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
WAR is accumulated based on how many wins a player has provided to his team compared to a replacement level player at the same position in a particular year.
This number changes based on the average of competition in a particular year.
The basis for a WAR value is the estimated number of runs contributed by a player through offensive actions such as batting and base running, and runs denied to opposition teams by the player through defensive actions like fielding and pitching. Statistics such as weighted on-base average (wOBA), ultimate zone rating (UZR), ultimate base running (UBR), and defense independent pitching statistics (DIPS) measure the effectiveness of a player at creating and saving runs for their team, on a per-plate appearance or per-inning basis. These statistics can be multiplied by the playing time of a player to give an estimate of the number of offensive and defensive runs contributed to their team.10 runs saved or made "compared to a replacement level player of that time" equals 1 WAR I'm pretty sure.
I know that, using WAR to compare players of different era's is flawed. Because of the talent in which each ERA is different the WAR is different based on the team you play for and how good other players on that does. For instants If Trout was on the Dodgers his WAR would not be as high cause they would still Win. If Bellinger was on the Angels his WAR would be higher cause he would be more valuable. When a overall team his better players it bring the value of the best player on the team down when it comes to wins over replacements. Wins over replacements is an assumption of what it would be not fact. Could a team still win games and a player come up and play better then the player it replaced which then drives that players WAR down is this correct? This players win over replacement is plus 5 meaning that how many wins that player gives his team if he misses games or has to be replace yes or no?
-
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
WAR is accumulated based on how many wins a player has provided to his team compared to a replacement level player at the same position in a particular year.
This number changes based on the average of competition in a particular year.
The basis for a WAR value is the estimated number of runs contributed by a player through offensive actions such as batting and base running, and runs denied to opposition teams by the player through defensive actions like fielding and pitching. Statistics such as weighted on-base average (wOBA), ultimate zone rating (UZR), ultimate base running (UBR), and defense independent pitching statistics (DIPS) measure the effectiveness of a player at creating and saving runs for their team, on a per-plate appearance or per-inning basis. These statistics can be multiplied by the playing time of a player to give an estimate of the number of offensive and defensive runs contributed to their team.10 runs saved or made "compared to a replacement level player of that time" equals 1 WAR I'm pretty sure.
I know that, using WAR to compare players of different era's is flawed. Because of the talent in which each ERA is different the WAR is different based on the team you play for and how good other players on that does. For instants If Trout was on the Dodgers his WAR would not be as high cause they would still Win. If Bellinger was on the Angels his WAR would be higher cause he would be more valuable. When a overall team his better players it bring the value of the best player on the team down when it comes to wins over replacements. Wins over replacements is an assumption of what it would be not fact. Could a team still win games and a player come up and play better then the player it replaced which then drives that players WAR down is this correct? This players win over replacement is plus 5 meaning that how many wins that player gives his team if he misses games or has to be replace yes or no?
What? No. Replacement level is replacement level. It doesn't matter how good or bad your team is. Putting Trout on a better team with the same stats doesn't suddenly make him a worse player. What sense does that make?
-
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
WAR is accumulated based on how many wins a player has provided to his team compared to a replacement level player at the same position in a particular year.
This number changes based on the average of competition in a particular year.
The basis for a WAR value is the estimated number of runs contributed by a player through offensive actions such as batting and base running, and runs denied to opposition teams by the player through defensive actions like fielding and pitching. Statistics such as weighted on-base average (wOBA), ultimate zone rating (UZR), ultimate base running (UBR), and defense independent pitching statistics (DIPS) measure the effectiveness of a player at creating and saving runs for their team, on a per-plate appearance or per-inning basis. These statistics can be multiplied by the playing time of a player to give an estimate of the number of offensive and defensive runs contributed to their team.10 runs saved or made "compared to a replacement level player of that time" equals 1 WAR I'm pretty sure.
I know that, using WAR to compare players of different era's is flawed. Because of the talent in which each ERA is different the WAR is different based on the team you play for and how good other players on that does. For instants If Trout was on the Dodgers his WAR would not be as high cause they would still Win. If Bellinger was on the Angels his WAR would be higher cause he would be more valuable. When a overall team his better players it bring the value of the best player on the team down when it comes to wins over replacements. Wins over replacements is an assumption of what it would be not fact. Could a team still win games and a player come up and play better then the player it replaced which then drives that players WAR down is this correct? This players win over replacement is plus 5 meaning that how many wins that player gives his team if he misses games or has to be replace yes or no?
What? No. Replacement level is replacement level. It doesn't matter how good or bad your team is. Putting Trout on a better team with the same stats doesn't suddenly make him a worse player. What sense does that make?
He would not have the same stats, To my point his WAR would be different, Not saying he would be a worst player but his WAR could be lower or higher was the question.
-
@GrandpaShaft said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@Nanthrax_1 said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
WAR is accumulated based on how many wins a player has provided to his team compared to a replacement level player at the same position in a particular year.
This number changes based on the average of competition in a particular year.
The basis for a WAR value is the estimated number of runs contributed by a player through offensive actions such as batting and base running, and runs denied to opposition teams by the player through defensive actions like fielding and pitching. Statistics such as weighted on-base average (wOBA), ultimate zone rating (UZR), ultimate base running (UBR), and defense independent pitching statistics (DIPS) measure the effectiveness of a player at creating and saving runs for their team, on a per-plate appearance or per-inning basis. These statistics can be multiplied by the playing time of a player to give an estimate of the number of offensive and defensive runs contributed to their team.10 runs saved or made "compared to a replacement level player of that time" equals 1 WAR I'm pretty sure.
I know that, using WAR to compare players of different era's is flawed. Because of the talent in which each ERA is different the WAR is different based on the team you play for and how good other players on that does. For instants If Trout was on the Dodgers his WAR would not be as high cause they would still Win. If Bellinger was on the Angels his WAR would be higher cause he would be more valuable. When a overall team his better players it bring the value of the best player on the team down when it comes to wins over replacements. Wins over replacements is an assumption of what it would be not fact. Could a team still win games and a player come up and play better then the player it replaced which then drives that players WAR down is this correct? This players win over replacement is plus 5 meaning that how many wins that player gives his team if he misses games or has to be replace yes or no?
Everything you just said was incorrect.
Ok
-
Here is another Question
Taking two players from different ERA's that play the same POS, A player could have A WAR that is Higher than another player in a different ERA because of the overall players at that pos in there time was better?
