I won't dig it up but I know I said that EM was top 10 in you beloved WAR one time in his 7 peak years. Fantastic? Might be a stretch.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2017 3:26:00 PM (view original):
I won't dig it up but I know I said that EM was top 10 in you beloved WAR one time in his 7 peak years. Fantastic? Might be a stretch.

What does that even mean?

Posted by bad_luck on 11/15/2017 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2017 3:26:00 PM (view original):
I won't dig it up but I know I said that EM was top 10 in you beloved WAR one time in his 7 peak years. Fantastic? Might be a stretch.

What does that even mean?

Well, you have your beloved stat WAR.
Every year, there is a top 10. Or top 20. Or top 50.
We agreed that EM had a really good stretch of 7 years. We'll call them "peak years".
During said "peak years", EM was top 10 just once.

Did I break it down enough for you?

So...you want to use WAR in baseball arguments now? You either think it’s worthwhile or you don’t.

So...do you NOT want to use WAR in baseball arguments now? You either think it’s worthwhile or you don’t.

I’m obviously fine with using it. I’m asking you if you’re going to continue to freak out if/when I do.

If you don’t accept it, there’s no point in making a WAR based argument for EM.

Are you asking my approval to use WAR? Sure, you can use it.

So what say ye about EM managing to crack the top 10 in WAR exactly once in his 7 peak years? Does that feel "fantastic" to you?

I’m not asking your approval to use it. I’m asking if you’ll accept a WAR based argument.

Any chance you'll answer my question about EM, top 10 in WAR, once in his 7 peak years, fantastic?

Let me put it this way...I've made no secret about the fact that I think pitcher W/L record is a useless, piece of **** stat that should be forgotten.

If you were arguing that a pitcher belonged in the hall and I came at you with an argument that his W/L record sucked, that'd be about as dumb an argument as I could ever make. I don't think the stat is useful, why am I using it?

So, back to EM, I'm happy to make an argument that involves WAR, but not until you agree that WAR is a useful stat. Because, otherwise, when I make the argument, you're going to respond with, "yeah, well, that's why WAR is useless."

And we're back to square one.

So let me know. If it's useful, great, we can address your top 10 question. If it's not, oh well, we can use something else.

The frenemies are at it again. You two really do have a weird bromance going on.

Well, first, I think you're confusing me with someone else. I've said it can be useful but it's not a be all to end all stat. You tend to treat it the same way the rightest of wing Christians treat the Bible. Thus far, you and I have found no common ground.

Are you refusing to answer the "EM, top 10 in WAR, once in his 7 peak years, fantastic" question because it ***** on EM or WAR and you can't decide which one you value more?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2017 4:35:00 PM (view original):
Well, first, I think you're confusing me with someone else. I've said it can be useful but it's not a be all to end all stat. You tend to treat it the same way the rightest of wing Christians treat the Bible. Thus far, you and I have found no common ground.

Are you refusing to answer the "EM, top 10 in WAR, once in his 7 peak years, fantastic" question because it ***** on EM or WAR and you can't decide which one you value more?

OK, so when I point out that Jeter only made the top 10 twice in his entire career, does that make you re-evaluate Jeter's candidacy?

Career totals:

EM's WAR - 68
DJ's WAR - 71

A three WAR difference over 18 or 19 years really isn't really a difference. I'm sure you'll say, "yeah but Jeter played defense." And I'll answer with, "but did he?"

Joking aside, WAR includes defense. And, on top of that, it includes a positional adjustment. So, while Jeter gets credit for his defense and Martinez doesn't (for the most part, since he did play ~600 innings at 3rd), Jeter also gets +7 runs per 150 games and Martinez gets -15 runs per 150 games right off the top, before you ever factor in what they actually did on the field or at the plate.

So, over twenty years, Jeter basically got a 40 WAR head start on Martinez.

And they finished at 68 and 71.

So yeah, Martinez belongs. He was a fantastic hitter.








**********super important...if Jeter had actually played league average defense at SS, this wouldn't be close. He'd destroy EM by like 35 WAR. But he didn't and that matters. Jeter was a LF masquerading as a shortstop. If we're going to hold it against EM for not playing defense, we also need to hold it against Jeter. Which WAR does, appropriately.

I've also said defensive metrics suck. Mike Trout sets dWAR records one year and is a below average CF the next. So, if you don't mind, let's ignore dWAR.

Now, back to EM, top 10 in WAR, once in his 7 peak years, fantastic?

So we're back to WAR sucks? Good to know.