WAR is still good for absolutely nothin'. If people can't even agree on how to calculate it, how can it be taken seriously?

The BBR leaderboards don't separate pitching and batting value. His BBR WAR as a batter is 163.1. His combined total FanGraphs WAR is 180.8. That make you feel better? Most batters are comfortably within 5%. And no, those kinds of margins don't bother me.

Posted by all3 on 6/15/2016 12:55:00 PM (view original):
WAR is still good for absolutely nothin'. If people can't even agree on how to calculate it, how can it be taken seriously?

Precisely. Even by dahs admission, different sites can't agree on how best to calculate it. Yet he steadfastly argues it's a reliable metric and not the least bit subjective.

And apparently it's everyone else who's dumb.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/15/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, BBR sees Marte as being basically a win better defensively than FanGraphs. Even so, 3.5 and 2.9 are not all that different when you're dealing with a small sample size. If you make the sample size bigger, things get better:

FanGraphs		Baseball-Reference
Babe Ruth	168.4	Babe Ruth+ (22)	183.6
Barry Bonds	164.4	Barry Bonds (22)	162.4
Willie Mays	149.9	Willie Mays+ (22)	156.2
Ty Cobb	149.3	Ty Cobb+ (24)	151.1
Honus Wagner	138.1	Hank Aaron+ (23)	142.6
Hank Aaron	136.3	Tris Speaker+ (22)	133.7
Tris Speaker	130.6	Honus Wagner+ (21)	131
Ted Williams	130.4	Stan Musial+ (22)	128.1
Rogers Hornsby	130.3	Rogers Hornsby+ (23)	127
Stan Musial	126.8	Eddie Collins+ (25)	123.9
Eddie Collins	120.5	Ted Williams+ (19)	123.2
Roger Clemens	133.7	Cy Young+ (22)	170.3
Cy Young	131.5	Walter Johnson+ (21)	152.3
Walter Johnson	117.1	Roger Clemens (24)	139.4
Greg Maddux	116.7	Pete Alexander+ (20)	117
Randy Johnson	110.6	Kid Nichols+ (15)	116.6
Nolan Ryan	106.7	Lefty Grove+ (17)	109.9
Bert Blyleven	102.9	Tom Seaver+ (20)	106.3
Gaylord Perry	100.1	Greg Maddux+ (23)	104.6
Pete Alexander	96.5	Randy Johnson+ (22)	104.3
Steve Carlton	96.5	Phil Niekro+ (24)	97.4

They're closer on batters because the way WAR is calculated for batters by the 2 sites is fundamentally very similar, whereas the way it's calculated for pitchers is fundamentally quite different - BBR uses ERA (really ERA+) and FanGraphs utilizes expected run allowance values. I like the BBR method better because it is a truer representation of what really happened on the field, but most statnerds tend to prefer the FanGraphs version because they think it reduces the impact of luck. But for batters, the top 11 are identical with a similar order.

I'm sure you understand why this "explanation" makes some uncomfortable with WAR, right? I'm sure everyone agrees that BR or FG are more than proficient at statistical analysis. But here's what you've explained:

1. Defensive metrics make a player significantly more/less valuable in WAR.
2. You have to look at a larger sample size to get a true reading.
3. You have to pick one or the other to get a read on pitching.

So here's where we are:
1. Someone like me will choose the site that utilizes dWAR less significantly because I think most defensive metrics are BS. Is the site subjectively choosing a metric to utilize? Is that subjectively choosing a site? I'll let you/jtpops battle over the meaning of subjective.
2. Single season WAR is useless as a single season is the definition of small sample size.
3. Big variance on pitchers. Is the site subjectively choosing a metric to utilize? I'll let you/jtpops battle over the meaning of subjective.

FWIW, I'm not as opposed to WAR as a tool as most probably think. I just appear that way since I think BL is a pompous *****, worse than me even, who worships at the Altar of WAR. He uses it to judge HOF, MVP, best player, etc, etc. It's annoying and poking holes in his BS arguments is fun.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/15/2016 1:24:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not as opposed to WAR as a tool as most probably think. I just appear that way since I think BL is a pompous *****, worse than me even, who worships at the Altar of WAR. He uses it to judge HOF, MVP, best player, etc, etc. It's annoying and poking holes in his BS arguments is fun.

This is precisely the issue with most advanced metrics proponents. I think WAR has value - it's just unreliable in a vacuum. But too many stat geeks act like using advanced metrics somehow makes them enlightened and the use of "outdated" or "old school" stats is for the ignorant who refuse to come into the light.

I will take numbers I can measure concretely and undisputedly any day of the week.

I said that long ago when BL's alias kept calling FIP an "advanced metric" as if "advance metric" made it useful. It only counts walks, strikeouts and homers. How ******* "advanced" is that?

The use of "advanced metric" is meant to imply "I'm smart, you're dumb and you just don't understand." It can't possibly be that you fully understand and reject the "advanced metric" as useful.

1. Defensive metrics make a player significantly more/less valuable in WAR.
2. You have to look at a larger sample size to get a true reading.
3. You have to pick one or the other to get a read on pitching.

So I would say:
1 is usually not true and tends to get better over larger sample sizes. But yeah, it's a little weird. Frankly, I often just look at oWAR, because fielding metrics are A) pretty bad and B) don't converge for about 3 seasons, the sample sizes are huge. Which brings us to 2, which is correct. But you need big sample sizes for other stats to be meaningful as well. I mean, they're concretely right at all times. In a sense, WAR is probably fairly close to right in most cases as well. But we all know that Shane Spencer is not really a .375/.400+/.900+ hitter. Those were his real, concrete, easily calculable numbers in 1998, but as much as jtp seems to want to argue for the validity of more "concrete" stats, they clearly weren't meaningful as a representation of his talent level. Sample size always matters. See this: Sample Size. It takes over a season for batting average to converge, which should not be surprising. George Brett wasn't really a .390 hitter.

Point 3 is absolutely true. Both are in their own way meaningful measures of how much value a pitcher produced. BBR is much more concrete, and actually measures the value he produced. FanGraphs attempts to calculate how much value he "should have" produced. fWAR is slightly more predictive, but it misses on a lot of pitchers, so I really don't like it. FIP is just a stupid stat. So I much prefer bWAR for pitchers. OTOH, I do think FanGraphs does a better job with dWAR. But it still sucks.

1. The use of "usually not true" indicates that it is sometimes true. One could say the number could be "flukey". Do I want to judge player value on a "flukey" stat? No, not really.

2. Already answered. Single season WAR is useless as a single season is the definition of small sample size.

3. No disagreement on your statement since we agree.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/15/2016 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/15/2016 12:55:00 PM (view original):
WAR is still good for absolutely nothin'. If people can't even agree on how to calculate it, how can it be taken seriously?

Precisely. Even by dahs admission, different sites can't agree on how best to calculate it. Yet he steadfastly argues it's a reliable metric and not the least bit subjective.

And apparently it's everyone else who's dumb.

The only real difference between the position player calculations are on defense. FG uses UZR and BR uses DRS. As long as you know that, there isn't a problem.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2016 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/15/2016 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/15/2016 12:55:00 PM (view original):
WAR is still good for absolutely nothin'. If people can't even agree on how to calculate it, how can it be taken seriously?

Precisely. Even by dahs admission, different sites can't agree on how best to calculate it. Yet he steadfastly argues it's a reliable metric and not the least bit subjective.

And apparently it's everyone else who's dumb.

The only real difference between the position player calculations are on defense. FG uses UZR and BR uses DRS. As long as you know that, there isn't a problem.

Unless somebody is biased towards UZR and somebody else is biased towards DRS (whatever that is).

Then you can have a ******* match.

Of course, there isn't a problem. dWAR dicks things up and that's not a problem if you worship at the Altar of WAR. The rest of us like things a little more concrete.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/15/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2016 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/15/2016 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/15/2016 12:55:00 PM (view original):
WAR is still good for absolutely nothin'. If people can't even agree on how to calculate it, how can it be taken seriously?

Precisely. Even by dahs admission, different sites can't agree on how best to calculate it. Yet he steadfastly argues it's a reliable metric and not the least bit subjective.

And apparently it's everyone else who's dumb.

The only real difference between the position player calculations are on defense. FG uses UZR and BR uses DRS. As long as you know that, there isn't a problem.

Unless somebody is biased towards UZR and somebody else is biased towards DRS (whatever that is).

Then you can have a ******* match.

Anyone that feels strongly one way or the other is probably smart enough to understand the strengths and limitations of both measurements.

Or, they could say "all this advanced defensive metrics is a big crock of ****".

They would only do that because they do not understand ADVANCED METRICS, *****!!!!