Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2016 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Do you know how WAR is actually calculated?

Things like doubles and home runs and outs have run values. WAR basically just adds the run values of each of those events up.

Real stats are incorporated into the formula, yes. But the formula itself is something "created" in an attempt to boil a players value down to one number. And who decides what the best formula is?

fWAR ************!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/14/2016 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2016 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Do you know how WAR is actually calculated?

Things like doubles and home runs and outs have run values. WAR basically just adds the run values of each of those events up.

Real stats are incorporated into the formula, yes. But the formula itself is something "created" in an attempt to boil a players value down to one number. And who decides what the best formula is?

The formula is completely transparent. If you disagree with any of it, you're free to make a case.

That's not what I'm arguing. I didn't say "NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE FORMULA IS!!!" I said everyone is not in agreement on what formula is best. Therefore it's hard to put much stock in it as a reliable number.

It would be like if Nerd A says "Smith had 55 homers last year." and Nerd B says "Every park is different. I don't count balls that go over the wall. I count any ball hit over 400 feet as a homer. Smith only had 42 homers".

Both calculations may have Smith as the league leader in homers, but you're not going to get consistency between the two approaches. And if both became accepted by half of fans, it would be very difficult to rely on any statistical homerun data.

And yes, I'm aware that's a really simplistic example, but it's the point that once people start arguing over what the definition of something is, how can you trust the values you're getting?

Let's say there's a respected baseball site called Funstats. Funstats looks at the ERA calculations and decides that the way earned runs are calculated doesn't make a ton of sense. So, in an effort to improve the ERA stat, Funstats changes their earned runs calculation. They publish ERA with the different earned run method on their site as just ERA but everyone knows it's a little different.

Does that make ERA a "subjective metric that isn't even a stat?"

Poor, dumb BL. Says something stupid, doubles down instead of backing off.

Again.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2016 5:53:00 PM (view original):
Let's say there's a respected baseball site called Funstats. Funstats looks at the ERA calculations and decides that the way earned runs are calculated doesn't make a ton of sense. So, in an effort to improve the ERA stat, Funstats changes their earned runs calculation. They publish ERA with the different earned run method on their site as just ERA but everyone knows it's a little different.

Does that make ERA a "subjective metric that isn't even a stat?"

ERA is finite. It's how many runs a pitcher gives up for every 9 innings. If you want to change the definition of ERA to be "runs per 8 innings", cool - you can still measure that with accuracy.

If you want to come up with some newfangled formula to determine how good a pitcher really is - expect people to take it with a grain of salt.

Also, ERA has one function - to tell you how many runs a pitcher gives up over a full game. I don't think anyone will tell you that ERA is the single number that defines a pitchers value. It's one of many pitching stats.

It's how many *earned* runs a pitcher gives up and that depends on how you define earned runs.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2016 7:57:00 PM (view original):
It's how many *earned* runs a pitcher gives up and that depends on how you define earned runs.

That's up to the official scorer and the MLB rule book. That has nothing to do with advanced metrics.

Keep trying.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2016 7:57:00 PM (view original):
It's how many *earned* runs a pitcher gives up and that depends on how you define earned runs.

Do you define earned runs differently than MLB does?

Does anybody define earned runs differently than MLB does?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/14/2016 8:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2016 7:57:00 PM (view original):
It's how many *earned* runs a pitcher gives up and that depends on how you define earned runs.

That's up to the official scorer and the MLB rule book. That has nothing to do with advanced metrics.

Keep trying.

And in my hypothetical, the site decided to define earned runs differently.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2016 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/14/2016 8:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2016 7:57:00 PM (view original):
It's how many *earned* runs a pitcher gives up and that depends on how you define earned runs.

That's up to the official scorer and the MLB rule book. That has nothing to do with advanced metrics.

Keep trying.

And in my hypothetical, the site decided to define earned runs differently.

Well, if they publish ERA differently because they choose to define earned runs differently than the MLB rule book, then I suspect not many people would take it seriously as a stat. Much like WAR.

Do you actually think you're helping your case?

BL has never made anything less than a brilliant and flawless argument about anything in these forums.

At least, according to him.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/14/2016 9:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2016 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/14/2016 8:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2016 7:57:00 PM (view original):
It's how many *earned* runs a pitcher gives up and that depends on how you define earned runs.

That's up to the official scorer and the MLB rule book. That has nothing to do with advanced metrics.

Keep trying.

And in my hypothetical, the site decided to define earned runs differently.

Well, if they publish ERA differently because they choose to define earned runs differently than the MLB rule book, then I suspect not many people would take it seriously as a stat. Much like WAR.

Do you actually think you're helping your case?

It's a hypothetical. In this case, whatever change they made makes sense and is taken seriously.

That's quite the hypothetical. It supposes that WAR makes sense and everyone takes it seriously.

But it doesn't, and they don't.