You're the GM (Game)

[DanTown]

Good to know you are clueless to what the word troll means. you do have company on this board with that so at least you are not alone.

I know exactly what the word means. No matter what data or evidence I produce, you just say something that you're not going to verify nor are you going to use any sort of agreed upon theory. It's all "in the world of Brett".

Back to the topic. That team has a bunch of nice players. That's what 2 war players are, a bunch of nice players.

A two WAR player is different based on playing time. If you get 650 PA and you're 2 WAR, that's not the same value as a player who gets 400 PA and is a 2 WAR player. I counted the stats and gave you their rank: a team with a 2 WAR hitter/pitcher in every lineup spot would have a top 5 offense and top 5 pitching. How does that type of breakdown sound like a .500 team?

Those teams in general are .500 teams. They can be better, they can be worse, but IMO that pans out to a .500 team. you put that roster to anyone that gets paid to comment on the sport how many games that team wins and I am going to say it comes out to 81 wins. They could do better. They could do worse, but .500 is right there what the experts would say. It's why WAR of individuals do not equal the Wins of a team.

One, it's basically assumed that TEAM War = Pythagorean Win total.

Two, if you had the best bullpen in the history of baseball plus a top 5 offense you'd really sit here and tell me that's a .500 team?

Three, while I've shown you WITH Stats, etc you've done no work to show how a .500 team is 25 players of 2 WAR. Your "guess" seems crazy when realize only 150-160 players are 2 WAR every year. If a team had that many players, they'd technically win with volume because the other teams they played would have so many bad players on them.

Is there some history where team WAR doesn't correlate to Pythagorean win total (Which is what it's measuring)? You seem stuck on actual wins but WAR doesn't calculate ACTUAL wins over replacement it calculates APPROXIMATE Wins above Replacement (this is how Corey Kluber has a WAR of 5.5 with only 9 wins but was 7.3 WAR when he "won" 18 games in 2014).

For the countless time, no stat counts ACTUAL wins besides, you know, Wins. Every other stat that mentions wins is approximating as a "win" is impossible to quantify but it gets really damn close with WAR. Also, Pythagorean W-L would/should be MUCH more important to a GM because it speaks to how good their team actually was. If you outperform/underperform, it helps you determine if you should keep the roster together.

 

[brett05]

I know exactly what the word means. No matter what data or evidence I produce, you just say something that you're not going to verify nor are you going to use any sort of agreed upon theory. It's all "in the world of Brett".

No you don't. As for the rest, you did produce data and I appreciate that. It in no way shows how many wins a team would have. I know you are upset at that, but it's nonetheless true. It's all to discussion and not toward any proof. But keep taking shots. It's funny. :smh:

A two WAR player is different based on playing time. If you get 650 PA and you're 2 WAR, that's not the same value as a player who gets 400 PA and is a 2 WAR player. I counted the stats and gave you their rank: a team with a 2 WAR hitter/pitcher in every lineup spot would have a top 5 offense and top 5 pitching. How does that type of breakdown sound like a .500 team?

You are making the assumption that their abilities were done in a vacuum. They were not. You assume that the players would perform the same in the lineup you proposed as they did in the lineups that the players actually played in.

One, it's basically assumed that TEAM War = Pythagorean Win total.

Two, if you had the best bullpen in the history of baseball plus a top 5 offense you'd really sit here and tell me that's a .500 team?

Three, while I've shown you WITH Stats, etc you've done no work to show how a .500 team is 25 players of 2 WAR. Your "guess" seems crazy when realize only 150-160 players are 2 WAR every year. If a team had that many players, they'd technically win with volume because the other teams they played would have so many bad players on them.

Is there some history where team WAR doesn't correlate to Pythagorean win total (Which is what it's measuring)? You seem stuck on actual wins but WAR doesn't calculate ACTUAL wins over replacement it calculates APPROXIMATE Wins above Replacement (this is how Corey Kluber has a WAR of 5.5 with only 9 wins but was 7.3 WAR when he "won" 18 games in 2014).

For the countless time, no stat counts ACTUAL wins besides, you know, Wins. Every other stat that mentions wins is approximating as a "win" is impossible to quantify but it gets really damn close with WAR. Also, Pythagorean W-L would/should be MUCH more important to a GM because it speaks to how good their team actually was. If you outperform/underperform, it helps you determine if you should keep the roster together.

you're goalpost shifting again.

You're hyperbole notwithstanding, you're stating it as I have only broaded as I limited it to this discussion on WAR. It does not calculate actual wins. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

One, it's basically assumed that TEAM War = Pythagorean Win total.

You've got to be careful on that one. It's likely to be within the margin of error but the Cubs Pythagorean total for 2015 was 90 games and the sum total of fWAR was 97 which was the actual win total. I am in agreement though that statistically you are correct.

 

[DanTown]

No you don't. As for the rest, you did produce data and I appreciate that. It in no way shows how many wins a team would have. I know you are upset at that, but it's nonetheless true. It's all to discussion and not toward any proof. But keep taking shots. It's funny. :smh:

It's not a shot, but more an observation about you and what you're willing to accept/not accept.

You are making the assumption that their abilities were done in a vacuum. They were not. You assume that the players would perform the same in the lineup you proposed as they did in the lineups that the players actually played in.

If the assumption is a player is a 2 WAR player, the obvious assumption is that he accumulated said stats on hypothetical team. You can't say "a hypothetical team of 2 WAR players" and then when I produce one, you say "well that's not a real team". Are we having a hypothetical discussion or not?

One of the reasons you'd be such an elite team is that other teams simply wouldn't have access to enough of the best players in baseball.

Again, WAR is measure against your position and the rest of baseball (hence why a 2 WAR 1B typically hits better than a 2 WAR second baseman, etc). If you had a team of nothing but two WAR players, you'd have a top 15 player at every IF/C position and three OF who are all top 40. The reason it's hypothetical is no team can draft nor sign enough 2 WAR players at exactly the same time but not because some team wouldn't want 25 men who produce 2 WAR value.

you're goalpost shifting again.

You're hyperbole notwithstanding, you're stating it as I have only broaded as I limited it to this discussion on WAR. It does not calculate actual wins. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Because no logical person evaluates a team by looking at their raw wins. If I went to 100 GM's/writers/bloggers/fans and said "choose one of two teams, Pythagorean win total of 85 (team A) or 95 (team B), who wins more games", 100 people will say "team B". Whether or not that actually is true is irrelevant to the larger discussion of team/roster construction.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

You're hyperbole notwithstanding, you're stating it as I have only broaded as I limited it to this discussion on WAR. It does not calculate actual wins. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

The bottom line, and the reason I withdrew from the discussion, is that you do not believe in WAR as it relates to wins at all regardless of context. Most people believe that, in a rough sense, it does relate to wins in that if you have 1 WAR players in 2 positions and replace them with 4 WAR players at those positions you should win approximately 6 more games. Because of the very nature of the stat and the debates between various versions of it you there are no absolutes there but it does help to gauge value when you're looking to improve, or in the inverse how many wins you might lose if you let a player go. in order for any of the statistics presented to mean anything at all we would all have to believe that, at least in the abstract, that 1 WAR = 1 Win, and you don't agree with that so everything else is just noise.

 

[DanTown]

You've got to be careful on that one. It's likely to be within the margin of error but the Cubs Pythagorean total for 2015 was 90 games and the sum total of fWAR was 97 which was the actual win total. I am in agreement though that statistically you are correct.

I should have gone a step further.

One, it's basically assumed that as a prediction, TEAM War = Pythagorean Win total = about how many games a team will win.
If it's a reasonable prediction tool (as such, Fangraphs even links to the "Projected WAR by Team" page in their standings/projection), then it's likely also a valuable tool in evaluating a team's RESULTS. It's not perfect as no stat can predict a win (especially in a low scoring sport like baseball).

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I should have gone a step further.

One, it's basically assumed that as a prediction, TEAM War = Pythagorean Win total = about how many games a team will win.
If it's a reasonable prediction tool (as such, Fangraphs even links to the "Projected WAR by Team" page in their standings/projection), then it's likely also a valuable tool in evaluating a team's RESULTS. It's not perfect as no stat can predict a win (especially in a low scoring sport like baseball).

Agreed.

 

[brett05]

The bottom line, and the reason I withdrew from the discussion, is that you do not believe in WAR as it relates to wins at all regardless of context. Most people believe that, in a rough sense, it does relate to wins in that if you have 1 WAR players in 2 positions and replace them with 4 WAR players at those positions you should win approximately 6 more games. Because of the very nature of the stat and the debates between various versions of it you there are no absolutes there but it does help to gauge value when you're looking to improve, or in the inverse how many wins you might lose if you let a player go. in order for any of the statistics presented to mean anything at all we would all have to believe that, at least in the abstract, that 1 WAR = 1 Win, and you don't agree with that so everything else is just noise.

I do not agree with it and I think it has been shown why. I agree that it does value from player to player, but it is not valid in a cumulative effect. I replace two one war guys with two 4 WAR guys I expect a lot more than 6 additional wins with all things constant.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I do not agree with it and I think it has been shown why. I agree that it does value from player to player, but it is not valid in a cumulative effect. I replace two one war guys with two 4 WAR guys I expect a lot more than 6 additional wins with all things constant.

To expect more than 6 wins when you add two player values like that is wishful thinking although I would guess both 8 wins and 4 wins are within the margin of error if you did the math.

 

[brett05]

To expect more than 6 wins when you add two player values like that is wishful thinking although I would guess both 8 wins and 4 wins are within the margin of error if you did the math.

High range of error if you ask me

 

[SilenceS]

Lulz

 

[TC in Mississippi]

High range of error if you ask me

Dude, that's two wins on either side in a sport where 2 losses a month makes the difference between a top contender and an also ran. C'mon.

 

[brett05]

Dude, that's two wins on either side in a sport where 2 losses a month makes the difference between a top contender and an also ran. C'mon.

Maybe I am not "seeing" this correctly..but here is where I see it as a huge error. You spend say $24 million per player per year to gain 6 wins (two players total). Could be as high as 8 wins or as low as 4 wins. That seems like a very big error for the dollars you are spending. In all seriousness, I should compare that error to the total wins and not the projections? If so, why?

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Maybe I am not "seeing" this correctly..but here is where I see it as a huge error. You spend say $24 million per player per year to gain 6 wins (two players total). Could be as high as 8 wins or as low as 4 wins. That seems like a very big error for the dollars you are spending. In all seriousness, I should compare that error to the total wins and not the projections? If so, why?

What I'm saying that there is a margin of error based on what else is going on with the team. Those guys still might be 4 WAR players but with everything else going on around them there is a margin of error. If you're team is projected to 96 wins by WAR on the strength of those two improvements and they win 94 games that's a 2% error. I'm not sure how you would expect there to be zero margin of error when you talk about correlations. When you say WAR doesn't work a literal additions of wins what you are really saying is it not an exact measurement. I'm not sure why you expect it to be and why the thinking is that black and white.

 

[brett05]

What I'm saying that there is a margin of error based on what else is going on with the team. Those guys still might be 4 WAR players but with everything else going on around them there is a margin of error. If you're team is projected to 96 wins by WAR on the strength of those two improvements and they win 94 games that's a 2% error. I'm not sure how you would expect there to be zero margin of error when you talk about correlations. When you say WAR doesn't work a literal additions of wins what you are really saying is it not an exact measurement. I'm not sure why you expect it to be and why the thinking is that black and white.

If I was projected to win 90, it seems like a bad investment to spend $48 million on two players for hopefully 6 wins. Moreso, if I only get 4 wins out of them I just cost myself a lot of money making the error like 33%. I'm still open on this one, but I am not seeing why you use the final total of wins, would you not just compare the investment to what they add in value? If you pay got a guy to play like x and he plays 33% worse that x or 33% more than x it seems like a high error rate.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

With the Giants signing Span yesterday I see both the Cubs and Giants to be a good bit above the rest of the pack in the NL. Of course that doesn't mean it'll end up that way, it rarely does, but that's what it looks like now. There;s still OF help out there for those that seek it and with the market being so much lower than anyone expected maybe teams get in on guys no one guessed they would. You've got Cespedes, Upton and Fowler still out there and I'm not sure I'd guess on any of them at this point. If I'm Upton, Cespedes and maybe Fowler now though I might be more interested in a 1 year deal to become a FA next year in a very weak class than take the kind of below market deal that both Gordon and (4/$72) and Span (3/$31) took in the last two days. The Span deal is particularly nuts especially for a Boras client. I think this offseason probably means that the MLBPA puts eliminating the QO at the top of their negotiation list for the new CBA.

 

[DanTown]

With the Giants signing Span yesterday I see both the Cubs and Giants to be a good bit above the rest of the pack in the NL. Of course that doesn't mean it'll end up that way, it rarely does, but that's what it looks like now. There;s still OF help out there for those that seek it and with the market being so much lower than anyone expected maybe teams get in on guys no one guessed they would. You've got Cespedes, Upton and Fowler still out there and I'm not sure I'd guess on any of them at this point. If I'm Upton, Cespedes and maybe Fowler now though I might be more interested in a 1 year deal to become a FA next year in a very weak class than take the kind of below market deal that both Gordon and (4/$72) and Span (3/$31) took in the last two days. The Span deal is particularly nuts especially for a Boras client. I think this offseason probably means that the MLBPA puts eliminating the QO at the top of their negotiation list for the new CBA.

If I was the MLBPA, I'd make two offers

- 1st round compensation = average salary of top 25 players
- 2nd round compensation = average salary of top 125 players

And the owners can make this type of change to the draftt
- MLB makes draft "equal chance lottery (i.e to eliminate tanking) among bottom five teams in each league for top 4 spots drafts 5-30 based on record

 

[chibears55]

If I was the MLBPA, I'd make two offers
And the owners can make this type of change to the draftt
- MLB makes draft "equal chance lottery (i.e to eliminate tanking) among bottom five teams in each league for top 4 spots drafts 5-30 based on record

I think that would give teams that would be 3,4,5 and maybe 6 and 7, more incentives to tank games in final month in order to be in top 4 then...

 

[CSF77]

Do away with Q offers all together

 

[TC in Mississippi]

The trade talk involving Tampa Bay seems to be a little warmer again with the Cubs said to be wanting either Odorizzi or Cobb without giving up Soler or Baez. Maybe they can get that done with Cobb coming off of TJ but I don't know.