Why do people value WAR/Arbitrary formulas.

[Fired-Up]

YES! This thread has the potential to plumb depths of philosophy and psychology I never thought we'd get to here on the OH. I was planning on putting on a movie but I'm going to have to see where this leads.

I'm out because admittingly, this is over my head. Secondly, the thread is taking on an entirely different dimension than what I thought it would before I created it.

[CA-ORIOLE]

It's a composite stat. Innacuracy is accepted. It's a starting point for discussion. Good grief.

[Flosman]

I'm out because admittingly, this is over my head. Secondly, the thread is taking on an entirely different dimension than what I thought it would before I created it.

I would be interested in just where you thought it would go?

[Flacco Machado]

I'm out because admittingly, this is over my head. Secondly, the thread is taking on an entirely different dimension than what I thought it would before I created it.

Don't feel bad, fella! We've saved a place for you! Where everybody knows your name! Join me and cast of others! Frank and Beans!

[Flash- bd]

Yes, knowing all the "subjectivity" that goes into something fairly pedestrian like ERA, and then imagine all the "subjectivity" which goes into WAR, how can you, w a straight face mind you, claim that WAR isn't subjective?

I guess we're arguing about degrees.

I will concede that most baseball stats partake of a certain subjectivity, but that doesn't mean they are all equally so.

Sure, but no one said WAR didn't have its limits in what it can tell you or that there aren't certain reservations one should take into account when using it. The point he's making with the ERA thing is that if you want to call WAR subjective, then you have to call pretty much all statistics (or indeed, almost everything under the sun) subjective.

No one is saying WAR is god's gift to man, and can't fail us in it's abilities to judge a player's worth. We're just saying that if you want to attack the statistic you need to either 1) attack the way people use it or 2) attack its inputs and offer other inputs that would better go into an "ambitious" (as SteveA rightly said) statistic like WAR.

I myself, as I'm now doing for the third time in this thread, simply choose to attack its name.

[sangar]

It's a composite stat. Innacuracy is accepted. It's a starting point for discussion. Good grief.

Thank you.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I would be interested in just where you thought it would go?

A glorious return to batting average, gold gloves, triple crown stats and the ole eye test would be my guess.

[Flash- bd]

C'mon guys...keep the momentum going.

What do you all think of the Higgs Boson? An elegant solution to the so-called "particle zoo" problem, no? But is it too elegant?

[sangar]

C'mon guys...keep the momentum going.

What do you all think of the Higgs Boson? An elegant solution to the so-called "particle zoo" problem, no? But is it too elegant?

God is not a particle.

[Pickles]

God is not a particle.

Eh. God is the sum of all particles.

[MrOrange82]

God is not a particle.

Oh man...perfect combination of posts.

[Pickles]

A glorious return to batting average, gold gloves, triple crown stats and the ole eye test would be my guess.

See, this is the kind of stuff that bothers me.

This guy makes a legit point about the limitations of WAR, and in doing so, somehow reveals himself the equivalent of a baseball neanderthal?

[Flash- bd]

God is not a particle.

Well, that discussion ended quick.

"God" has a way of doing that--ending discussions I mean--he's kind of to discussion development as a Deus Ex Machina is to plot development. Maybe I'll put my movie on now.

[CA-ORIOLE]

See, this is the kind of stuff that bothers me.

This guy makes a legit point about the limitations of WAR, and in doing so, somehow reveals himself the equivalent of a baseball neanderthal?

Well, I did take this from the OP:

Take for instance batting average. You divide the hits by the AB's. There is no ifs and or buts.

and this later

I still believe WAR is just a useless statistic. You can make up what goes into the formula. You can say well hey I'm a big believer in small ball so I'm going to emphasize small ball style players.

[sangar]

and this later:

You can make up what goes into the formula. You can say well hey I'm a big believer in small ball so I'm going to emphasize small ball style players.

I'm not familiar with the constituent components, but could he have a viable point here? Do we know that preferential bias does not play a part in component valuation? I honestly do not know.