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:
@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:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@SaveFarris said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
By what you believe Joe Morgan is better than Ken Griffey Jr.
Remember that time you complained that WAR didn't compare players against their era?
Joe Morgan put up great all-around numbers with tremendous D at a middle infield position for a 15 year peak during a low period for offenses.
Griffey put up good but not great numbers (considering he was contemporaries w/ McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc) with also excellent D but at a less important position for roughly a 10 year peak (with partial injury-plagued seasons stretching for another 5) during arguably the biggest offensive explosion in MLB history.
Morgan should be rated higher than Griffey but not unreasonably so. Which means WAR (100.5 vs 83.8) is a pretty accurate stat despite your protestations.
Is Trout better than Winfield?
Is that serious question? Of course he is.
Not According to WAR
Wtf are you talking about?? I just proved it.. what are you reading?
You have absolutely zero clue. I'm assuming you can't read nowTrout is ranked 86 in Career WAR According to Baseball Reference Ozzie Smith has a higher WAR.
In bwar.. correct.
It's cumulative.. do you understand that?
Ozzie Smith got 76.9 WAR in 19 years.. 19 years.. I'll repeat one more time so you understand. 19 years.Trout is at 72.8 in 8 years.. 8....
Do.. you... Understand?
Yeah by Career at this point Smith WAR is better,
No he's not!!!! Man you are so dense it's crazy. Smith totalled that amount for all 19 years. All 19!!! Not 8.. trout did almost the same in less than half the time
Now you you pick and choose how WAR works for you. So now it is who has a high WAR in less years. 19 years is a whole career we will see if Trout plays that long and stays healthy. I am just making my point that the player with a higher war is not always the better player.
Now you're just trying to be cute. Nobody thinks that WAR totals of 76 and 72 are so demonstratively different that the person with 4 more is automatically the better player. You would then look at other stats for the players, if you were really trying to determine something like that.
Being that Mike Trout has only played 9 seasons and already has about the same value of an Ozzie Smith who played twice as long, yes Trout is the better player.
But to play your idiotic game, if Trout got shot tomorrow and never played another game of baseball, I'll concede in your simplistic logic that Ozzie Smith was better.
No I am not. Maybe you have never come across one of those people that use WAR as the be all. I have, People use as if nothing else matters. A player could have a WAR OF 70.5 another player 70.4 and these type of people would say the 70.5 is better. That is my problem I haves said this over and over and over in this thread that the issue is people who only USE WAR in debate to say a player is better. Maybe now you can understand my point. I get what WAR is. I do think it has it's flaws and if you think it has no flaw so be it. No sports formula will ever be perfect. I understand that is what we have. IMO there is no true way to compare players from different ERA's but like Farris has said over and over and over it is the only thing we have but that does not mean it does not have flaws. Understanding the Game and the players the ERA in which they played outside of WAR and how players were valued in those ERA's there is no formula to calculate that. Formula's are only stat driven. The value of players and how they were looked at changed over time. WAR does not calculate that. That is what people do not understand. I do not buy into how stadium in inputted into the Formula I believe that is a flaw.
-
@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:
@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:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@SaveFarris said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
By what you believe Joe Morgan is better than Ken Griffey Jr.
Remember that time you complained that WAR didn't compare players against their era?
Joe Morgan put up great all-around numbers with tremendous D at a middle infield position for a 15 year peak during a low period for offenses.
Griffey put up good but not great numbers (considering he was contemporaries w/ McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc) with also excellent D but at a less important position for roughly a 10 year peak (with partial injury-plagued seasons stretching for another 5) during arguably the biggest offensive explosion in MLB history.
Morgan should be rated higher than Griffey but not unreasonably so. Which means WAR (100.5 vs 83.8) is a pretty accurate stat despite your protestations.
Is Trout better than Winfield?
Is that serious question? Of course he is.
Not According to WAR
Wtf are you talking about?? I just proved it.. what are you reading?
You have absolutely zero clue. I'm assuming you can't read nowTrout is ranked 86 in Career WAR According to Baseball Reference Ozzie Smith has a higher WAR.
In bwar.. correct.
It's cumulative.. do you understand that?
Ozzie Smith got 76.9 WAR in 19 years.. 19 years.. I'll repeat one more time so you understand. 19 years.Trout is at 72.8 in 8 years.. 8....
Do.. you... Understand?
Yeah by Career at this point Smith WAR is better,
No he's not!!!! Man you are so dense it's crazy. Smith totalled that amount for all 19 years. All 19!!! Not 8.. trout did almost the same in less than half the time
Now you you pick and choose how WAR works for you. So now it is who has a high WAR in less years. 19 years is a whole career we will see if Trout plays that long and stays healthy. I am just making my point that the player with a higher war is not always the better player.
Now you're just trying to be cute. Nobody thinks that WAR totals of 76 and 72 are so demonstratively different that the person with 4 more is automatically the better player. You would then look at other stats for the players, if you were really trying to determine something like that.
Being that Mike Trout has only played 9 seasons and already has about the same value of an Ozzie Smith who played twice as long, yes Trout is the better player.
But to play your idiotic game, if Trout got shot tomorrow and never played another game of baseball, I'll concede in your simplistic logic that Ozzie Smith was better.
No I am not. Maybe you have never come across one of those people that use WAR as the be all. I have, People use as if nothing else matters. A player could have a WAR OF 70.5 another player 70.4 and these type of people would say the 70.5 is better. That is my problem I haves said this over and over and over in this thread that the issue is people who only USE WAR in debate to say a player is better. Maybe now you can understand my point. I get what WAR is. I do think it has it's flaws and if you think it has no flaw so be it. No sports formula will ever be perfect. I understand that is what we have. IMO there is no true way to compare players from different ERA's but like Farris has said over and over and over it is the only thing we have but that does not mean it does not have flaws. Understanding the Game and the players the ERA in which they played outside of WAR and how players were valued in those ERA's there is no formula to calculate that. Formula's are only stat driven. The value of players and how they were looked at changed over time. WAR does not calculate that. That is what people do not understand. I do not buy into how stadium in inputted into the Formula I believe that is a flaw.
i already said Trout was the better player, I know he is a better player and I do not need WAR to tell me that, I never personally said smith was better. I was only using WAR as an example that Smith is higher to make a point as far as career WAR.
-
@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:
@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:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@SaveFarris said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
By what you believe Joe Morgan is better than Ken Griffey Jr.
Remember that time you complained that WAR didn't compare players against their era?
Joe Morgan put up great all-around numbers with tremendous D at a middle infield position for a 15 year peak during a low period for offenses.
Griffey put up good but not great numbers (considering he was contemporaries w/ McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc) with also excellent D but at a less important position for roughly a 10 year peak (with partial injury-plagued seasons stretching for another 5) during arguably the biggest offensive explosion in MLB history.
Morgan should be rated higher than Griffey but not unreasonably so. Which means WAR (100.5 vs 83.8) is a pretty accurate stat despite your protestations.
Is Trout better than Winfield?
Is that serious question? Of course he is.
Not According to WAR
Wtf are you talking about?? I just proved it.. what are you reading?
You have absolutely zero clue. I'm assuming you can't read nowTrout is ranked 86 in Career WAR According to Baseball Reference Ozzie Smith has a higher WAR.
In bwar.. correct.
It's cumulative.. do you understand that?
Ozzie Smith got 76.9 WAR in 19 years.. 19 years.. I'll repeat one more time so you understand. 19 years.Trout is at 72.8 in 8 years.. 8....
Do.. you... Understand?
Yeah by Career at this point Smith WAR is better,
No he's not!!!! Man you are so dense it's crazy. Smith totalled that amount for all 19 years. All 19!!! Not 8.. trout did almost the same in less than half the time
Now you you pick and choose how WAR works for you. So now it is who has a high WAR in less years. 19 years is a whole career we will see if Trout plays that long and stays healthy. I am just making my point that the player with a higher war is not always the better player.
Now you're just trying to be cute. Nobody thinks that WAR totals of 76 and 72 are so demonstratively different that the person with 4 more is automatically the better player. You would then look at other stats for the players, if you were really trying to determine something like that.
Being that Mike Trout has only played 9 seasons and already has about the same value of an Ozzie Smith who played twice as long, yes Trout is the better player.
But to play your idiotic game, if Trout got shot tomorrow and never played another game of baseball, I'll concede in your simplistic logic that Ozzie Smith was better.
In My logic if Trout never played again. Trout would still be better than Smith. If you run into that person one day that uses WAR as the be all this is what you would have got.
-
So you're impugning a statistic because of the way some random people, you've encountered, have used it?
Alexa, what's anecdotal evidence?
You're railing against a belief about WAR, that people, who use it seriously, don't have.
Like I said a few times before, you're very good at tearing down strawman arguments.
Congrats!
-
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
So you're impugning a statistic because of the way some random people, you've encountered, have used it?
Alexa, what's anecdotal evidence?
You're railing against a belief about WAR, that people, who use it seriously, don't have.
Like I said a few times before, you're very good at tearing down strawman arguments.
Congrats!
You are to kind thanks.
-
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dewrock said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
So you're impugning a statistic because of the way some random people, you've encountered, have used it?
Alexa, what's anecdotal evidence?
You're railing against a belief about WAR, that people, who use it seriously, don't have.
Like I said a few times before, you're very good at tearing down strawman arguments.
Congrats!
You are to kind thanks.
People who do use it seriously have these issues. It is not a belief about WAR. It is a fact that it is flawed.
-
@dbarmonstar said in [WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL]
The "godfather of Sabermetrics" Bill James wrote about his principal gripe with WAR, discussing the MVP race between Jose Altuve and Aaron Judge:
“Aaron Judge was nowhere near as valuable as Jose Altuve. Why? Because he didn’t do nearly as much to win games for his team as Altuve did. It is NOT close.
Yeah because Jose altuve had a trash can and Judge didn’t lol
-
@dbarmonstar 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:
So you're impugning a statistic because of the way some random people, you've encountered, have used it?
Alexa, what's anecdotal evidence?
You're railing against a belief about WAR, that people, who use it seriously, don't have.
Like I said a few times before, you're very good at tearing down strawman arguments.
Congrats!
You are to kind thanks.
People who do use it seriously have these issues. It is not a belief about WAR. It is a fact that it is flawed.
It's your opinion that it's flawed. Perhaps it's flawed but not for any reason you've argued.
-
This guy really knows how to put together a strawman argument. Anyone can seem smart when they're putting words in peoples mouth and arguing stuff that no one claims.
-
@eatyum said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
This guy really knows how to put together a strawman argument. Anyone can seem smart when they're putting words in peoples mouth and arguing stuff that no one claims.
QFT.
-
This thread has obviously become completely derailed. There is merit to some things that have been mentioned but like most arguments, the longer it goes on, the more it gets further away from the original point.
WAR is a great tool to evaluate a player’s season/career, but it’s just a piece of the puzzle. Yes, some people live and die by WAR. If Player X posted more WAR than Player Y, then that’s enough for some people to claim Player X was superior. That’s not to say Player X wasn’t superior, just that WAR by itself is not enough to come to that determination.
Derek Jeter, Barry Larkin, Alan Trammell. Three HOF shortstops with very similar career WAR totals.
Derek Jeter, 71.3 bWAR 73.0 fWAR.
Barry Larkin, 70.5 bWAR 67.0 fWAR.
Alan Trammell, 70.7 bWAR 63.7 fWAR.There’s no way anyone could use WAR alone to claim one of those shortstops was better than the other two. Other criteria needs to be evaluated too.
How many people are only using WAR and nothing else? I’d suspect not many. But WAR is the go to stat right now and it’s the first comparison used, so for sure some out there would say Jeter was the best of those 3 because his career WAR is highest.
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t, but WAR alone is definitely not enough to determine that. As I understood it, that was the original point of the thread.
-
@ilvmyjeep said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
This thread has obviously become completely derailed. There is merit to some things that have been mentioned but like most arguments, the longer it goes on, the more it gets further away from the original point.
WAR is a great tool to evaluate a player’s season/career, but it’s just a piece of the puzzle. Yes, some people live and die by WAR. If Player X posted more WAR than Player Y, then that’s enough for some people to claim Player X was superior. That’s not to say Player X wasn’t superior, just that WAR by itself is not enough to come to that determination.
Derek Jeter, Barry Larkin, Alan Trammell. Three HOF shortstops with very similar career WAR totals.
Derek Jeter, 71.3 bWAR 73.0 fWAR.
Barry Larkin, 70.5 bWAR 67.0 fWAR.
Alan Trammell, 70.7 bWAR 63.7 fWAR.There’s no way anyone could use WAR alone to claim one of those shortstops was better than the other two. Other criteria needs to be evaluated too.
How many people are only using WAR and nothing else? I’d suspect not many. But WAR is the go to stat right now and it’s the first comparison used, so for sure some out there would say Jeter was the best of those 3 because his career WAR is highest.
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t, but WAR alone is definitely not enough to determine that. As I understood it, that was the original point of the thread.
No, his biggest original point was that you can't compare WAR between different time periods. So you can't use it to help compare players from different eras. Which is false.
-
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
If Trout Career ended today would he be in the HOF nope he would not.
False. True, he wouldn't qualify for the writer's ballot (and not for the reason you think), but I'd be shocked if he wasn't an eventual Veteran's selection.
-
@SaveFarris said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@dbarmonstar said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
If Trout Career ended today would he be in the HOF nope he would not.
False. True, he wouldn't qualify for the writer's ballot (and not for the reason you think), but I'd be shocked if he wasn't an eventual Veteran's selection.
You have no idea what I think.
-
@eatyum said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@ilvmyjeep said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
This thread has obviously become completely derailed. There is merit to some things that have been mentioned but like most arguments, the longer it goes on, the more it gets further away from the original point.
WAR is a great tool to evaluate a player’s season/career, but it’s just a piece of the puzzle. Yes, some people live and die by WAR. If Player X posted more WAR than Player Y, then that’s enough for some people to claim Player X was superior. That’s not to say Player X wasn’t superior, just that WAR by itself is not enough to come to that determination.
Derek Jeter, Barry Larkin, Alan Trammell. Three HOF shortstops with very similar career WAR totals.
Derek Jeter, 71.3 bWAR 73.0 fWAR.
Barry Larkin, 70.5 bWAR 67.0 fWAR.
Alan Trammell, 70.7 bWAR 63.7 fWAR.There’s no way anyone could use WAR alone to claim one of those shortstops was better than the other two. Other criteria needs to be evaluated too.
How many people are only using WAR and nothing else? I’d suspect not many. But WAR is the go to stat right now and it’s the first comparison used, so for sure some out there would say Jeter was the best of those 3 because his career WAR is highest.
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t, but WAR alone is definitely not enough to determine that. As I understood it, that was the original point of the thread.
No, his biggest original point was that you can't compare WAR between different time periods. So you can't use it to help compare players from different eras. Which is false.
Wrong Never said you could not use it to help compare players. Get the point already that it is NOT THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS WHEN COMPARING PLAYERS FROM DIFFERENT ERA, I have said that players should not be compared in different ERA's at all that has nothing to do with WAR.
-
@eatyum said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@ilvmyjeep said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
This thread has obviously become completely derailed. There is merit to some things that have been mentioned but like most arguments, the longer it goes on, the more it gets further away from the original point.
WAR is a great tool to evaluate a player’s season/career, but it’s just a piece of the puzzle. Yes, some people live and die by WAR. If Player X posted more WAR than Player Y, then that’s enough for some people to claim Player X was superior. That’s not to say Player X wasn’t superior, just that WAR by itself is not enough to come to that determination.
Derek Jeter, Barry Larkin, Alan Trammell. Three HOF shortstops with very similar career WAR totals.
Derek Jeter, 71.3 bWAR 73.0 fWAR.
Barry Larkin, 70.5 bWAR 67.0 fWAR.
Alan Trammell, 70.7 bWAR 63.7 fWAR.There’s no way anyone could use WAR alone to claim one of those shortstops was better than the other two. Other criteria needs to be evaluated too.
How many people are only using WAR and nothing else? I’d suspect not many. But WAR is the go to stat right now and it’s the first comparison used, so for sure some out there would say Jeter was the best of those 3 because his career WAR is highest.
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t, but WAR alone is definitely not enough to determine that. As I understood it, that was the original point of the thread.
No, his biggest original point was that you can't compare WAR between different time periods. So you can't use it to help compare players from different eras. Which is false.
eatyum That is correct
-
@eatyum said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
@ilvmyjeep said in WAR MOST OVERRATED FORMULA IN BASEBALL:
This thread has obviously become completely derailed. There is merit to some things that have been mentioned but like most arguments, the longer it goes on, the more it gets further away from the original point.
WAR is a great tool to evaluate a player’s season/career, but it’s just a piece of the puzzle. Yes, some people live and die by WAR. If Player X posted more WAR than Player Y, then that’s enough for some people to claim Player X was superior. That’s not to say Player X wasn’t superior, just that WAR by itself is not enough to come to that determination.
Derek Jeter, Barry Larkin, Alan Trammell. Three HOF shortstops with very similar career WAR totals.
Derek Jeter, 71.3 bWAR 73.0 fWAR.
Barry Larkin, 70.5 bWAR 67.0 fWAR.
Alan Trammell, 70.7 bWAR 63.7 fWAR.There’s no way anyone could use WAR alone to claim one of those shortstops was better than the other two. Other criteria needs to be evaluated too.
How many people are only using WAR and nothing else? I’d suspect not many. But WAR is the go to stat right now and it’s the first comparison used, so for sure some out there would say Jeter was the best of those 3 because his career WAR is highest.
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t, but WAR alone is definitely not enough to determine that. As I understood it, that was the original point of the thread.
No, his biggest original point was that you can't compare WAR between different time periods. So you can't use it to help compare players from different eras. Which is false.
I guess you did not read my original statement here it is:
Why do people only compare player from different ERA using WAR and not considering all stats or how good a player really was in his time based on how the game was in the era of that player. I will never understand it.
-
Any stat that claims Yadi isn’t good enough for the hall ain’t good enough for me
-
A admin locked this topic on
