Aramis Ramirez: All star?

[poodski]

duh...lol that's why WAR and other sabermetrics are preferred over stuff like ERA and other simplistic stats that do not take into account interference by the team and dilutes the stat to where it doesnt match the actually player value...but that doesnt mean WAR is 100% correlated to a player's value or say FIP to a pitchers value..the best thing to do is take say 5-10 stats(like OPS,BA,WAR,Bases,Runs,OBP,etc.)and see how they match up and find some kind of ranking medium...you can say that WAR kind of does that but i still dont like citing WAR individually

Yeah but you use those stats you get the people who will say that SB mean more than another guy. Using a bunch of stats STILL won't get what people want. If someone doesn't want to believe that a player is good no amount of stats will do you any good.

Lets say you use 5 stats to show a player is worth something but the person you are arguing with doesn't like those 5 stats, or doesnt like a few of them, but really likes some that don't show what you are looking for. Then you are both cherry picking stats and no one wins that argument either.

Not only that but stats by themselves mean nothing. It's like people saying Aramis needs to go (before this latest streak) because he isn't hitting like he used to. Well the game has changed. He was still hitting well above the average 3B. A 760 OPS today is worth a ton more than it was 8 years ago. That's why stats like WAR are so good they allow you to compare across seasons, across positions and across leagues.

Stats like most people want to use on here are either team dependent or are park inflated/deflate.

No single stat or a group of stats for that matter is going to give us exactly what we want. No group of stats is going to give you a correlation of one, and using multiple stats really can muddy the water up as well.

That bottom line is if someone doesn't want to listen they aren't going to no matter what type of evidence is put in front of their face.

 

[FirstTimer]

and using multiple stats really can muddy the water up as well.

.

WAR uses multiple stats to arrive at it's number.

So WAR, a combined stat that uses multiple stats to reach it's number, is the single best stat to evaluate a player...................but using multiple stats "muddys the water".

Talk about not seeing the forest from the trees.


Wow.

 

[FirstTimer]

duh...lol that's why WAR and other sabermetrics are preferred over stuff like ERA and other simplistic stats that do not take into account interference by the team and dilutes the stat to where it doesnt match the actually player value...but that doesnt mean WAR is 100% correlated to a player's value or say FIP to a pitchers value..the best thing to do is take say 5-10 stats(like OPS,BA,WAR,Bases,Runs,OBP,etc.)and see how they match up and find some kind of ranking medium...you can say that WAR kind of does that but i still dont like citing WAR individually

Except that pitchers WAR does account for runs allowed...which obviously factors into ERA. So WAR does take into account team interference stats. it's just hidden in the formula.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

Except that pitchers WAR does account for runs allowed...which obviously factors into ERA. So WAR does take into account team interference stats. it's just hidden in the formula.

i never look at pitcher's WAR

(FIP+ERA)/2=relative value

 

[FirstTimer]

i never look at pitcher's WAR

(FIP+ERA)/2=relative value

Why do you look at position player WAR then?

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

Why do you look at position player WAR then?

i didnt started using it until recently

its not a bad stat to use

but of course its flawed like every other stat in baseball

 

[poodski]

i never look at pitcher's WAR

(FIP+ERA)/2=relative value

It's pretty good.

You should look into tRA though. Much better stat than either. Not the crap one on fangraphs the one on statcorner though.

tRA is scaled to an RA9 value though not ERA like most other DIPS.

 

[FirstTimer]

i never started using it until recently

its not a bad stat to use

but of course its flawed like every other stat in baseball

Fair.

Was just wondering. I just find it odd that people will say stats are flawed then when WAR comes along and factors in a bunch of these flawed stats people take WAR for biblical truth while ignoring that all those stats they hated to begin with because they were so flawed were directly and indirectly used to certain extents to arrive at this new stat.

Then people ask "How is WAR flawed?". It's inherently flawed, because by your(not you) own admission all the other stats were flawed...Well guess what stats go into figuring WAR?

Huzzah!

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

WAR is a conglomeration of flawed stats with constants

thats just what it is:shrug:

 

[poodski]

WAR is a conglomeration of flawed stats with constants

thats just what it is:shrug:

Really the only flawed stats in WAR is the defensive portion.

The rest of it is pretty spot on. The offensive, position and replacement level portion are pretty spot on across the board.

The defensive portion is the hazy part.

 

[FirstTimer]

Really the only flawed stats in WAR is the defensive portion.

The rest of it is pretty spot on. The offensive, position and replacement level portion are pretty spot on across the board.

The defensive portion is the hazy part.

:rofl:

 

[Rice Cube]

Everything about baseball is hazy :lol: It's just that some of the stats have less noise than others.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Yes, you should use multiple stats, but what po is saying is that WAR is the best. If he had to use just one stat, it would be WAR, because of the high correlation. With a group of stats, one HAS to be the best. That's not saying you should use one stat at all.

 

[FirstTimer]

Yes, you should use multiple stats, but what po is saying is that WAR is the best. If he had to use just one stat, it would be WAR, because of the high correlation. With a group of stats, one HAS to be the best. That's not saying you should use one stat at all.

But WAR isn't "one" stat. It's a collaboration of stats. To label it as "one stat" and hold it up against and compare it to other stand alone true singular stats is a misleading and quite frankly incorrect. Batting average is one stat. WAR is a (sometimes hypothetical) equation taking various stats into account.

 

[Jntg4]

First part can't be true. If there are stats one has to be the best. I mean that's common logic.

Regardless I dot need te "best". I just want one better than WAR. Shouldn't be that hard for you since you said they are all better.

So you watch every game every day?

I do :shrug:

Not always live, I'll watch the Hawks, Bears, or Fire live, and then watch the Cubs on DVR if they interfere/overlap.

 

[Rice Cube]

But WAR isn't "one" stat. It's a collaboration of stats. To label it as "one stat" and hold it up against and compare it to other stand alone true singular stats is a misleading and quite frankly incorrect. Batting average is one stat. WAR is a (sometimes hypothetical) equation taking various stats into account.

I think the saving grace of WAR (I use it a lot as well) is that they have to establish a replacement level threshold and everything is compared to that replacement level. So it's still fuzzy, but there is a basis for comparison. I'm sure there are other papers out there on WAR that you can Google, but I don't really have a problem with it.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

You know, WAR is calculated in more than one way...depending on what site or formula you're looking at...

 

[poodski]

I do :shrug:

Not always live, I'll watch the Hawks, Bears, or Fire live, and then watch the Cubs on DVR if they interfere/overlap.

Not just the Cubs. Every teams every game.

That's the only way you can make a "judgement" with your eyes. Even then your eyes deceive you.

 

[Rice Cube]

You know, WAR is calculated in more than one way...depending on what site or formula you're looking at...

Yeah, they're also very transparent about what their formula is and what the replacement level is. As long as you are comparing rWAR to rWAR (i.e. apples to apples) I think it's okay.

Even the WAR guys tell you to use other metrics to evaluate a player and also that it's only supposed to be used as a quick reference. There are many ways to accumulate WAR by the player so that's why the alternative metrics are important. There are also positional adjustments because obviously a shortstop will give you more value as a defender than a first baseman.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think the saving grace of WAR (I use it a lot as well) is that they have to establish a replacement level threshold and everything is compared to that replacement level. So it's still fuzzy, but there is a basis for comparison. I'm sure there are other papers out there on WAR that you can Google, but I don't really have a problem with it.

I use WAR as a quick reference as well. I'm not enamored with fangraphs version of it and am more partial to BR's but that's my preference. I'm not "anti-WAR" by any means. But I think the idea that you can make quick snap judgements or conclusions off of it and only it is absurd. Then again I feel that way about any stat by itself. WAR like any other metric is a nie tool and a nice part of the argument but to make it THE argument borders on lunacy.