Why do people value WAR/Arbitrary formulas.

[Pickles]

This is like saying that cars are stupid because you can't drive from New York to London. Of course the logical conclusion is we should get rid of cars all together. I think the thread did a good job of explaining how driving a car would not be the best choice in getting to London. You taking up the mantle of the guy who ultimately came to the conclusion the discussing WAR's flaws was "over his head" is interesting.

It's not over my head. And you can't invalidate the legitimate things I've said by trying to associate me with some of the more outlandish things the OP said, which I've already repudiated.

I'm not sure I understand your analogy.

How about we try this one instead: A space shuttle is the best way to get to Jupiter and back; that doesn't mean it's a good idea to hop into one and head for Jupiter now, does it?

[CA-ORIOLE]

I don't place much value in either so that's a Sophie's choice. The unreliability of defensive statistics is the primary reason I'm skeptical of WAR.

So you would rather not have any discussion/debate at all unless you have an xx% accuracy then I guess. Seriously you're just making a lot of generalizations without any specificity in much of anything that you've said here. WAR does require some abstract thinking and critical analysis. Maybe that's not for you. Maybe that's why you've missed (or chosen to miss) the numerous debates that do go on here about this on a regular basis.

[Pickles]

So you would rather not have any discussion/debate at all unless you have an xx% accuracy then I guess. Seriously you're just making a lot of generalizations without any specificity in much of anything that you've said here. WAR does require some abstract thinking and critical analysis. Maybe that's not for you. Maybe that's why you've missed (or chosen to miss) the numerous debates that do go on here about this on a regular basis.

As long as WAR is used as a discussion point, then that's fine. Far to often, imo, it's used or presented as something far more definitive than it is. You seem to think differently. Whatever.

I'm curious though about what is unspecific about me saying, "Defensive stats are highly unreliable, and therefore, a system which derives much of it's value from them, is likewise highly unreliable."

[Flosman]

It's not over my head. And you can't invalidate the legitimate things I've said by trying to associate me with some of the more outlandish things the OP said, which I've already repudiated.

I'm not sure I understand your analogy.

How about we try this one instead: A space shuttle is the best way to get to Jupiter and back; that doesn't mean it's a good idea to hop into one and head for Jupiter now, does it?

The problem with what your implying is there is no reason to invalidate the flaws of WAR. It is a decent stat to get a read on a players contribution relative to the other players for a given season. It does that with its' flaws and all. If your evaluation about a player is important to you I would advise you look a lot deeper. Which I think most knowledgeable baseball fans would already know and understand.

[CA-ORIOLE]

As long as WAR is used as a discussion point, then that's fine. Far to often, imo, it's used or presented as something far more definitive than it is. You seem to think differently. Whatever."

Ok, what do have as an alternative to WAR that presents overall value?

"Defensive stats are highly unreliable, and therefore, a system which derives much of it's value from them, is likewise highly unreliable".

I would not clarify them as highly unreliable with significant sample size and I have already stated how I would use WAR over a 3-4 year period. The more of a fielding sample you have for a particular player, the greater the correlation from year to year will be and the greater the reliability. In this case I gave you the specifics and the strategy that would make dWAR more reliable.

Also, you're all over the place. You were the one stating that people were making a flawed case for Jone's WAR based on his fWAR and quoted his rWAR. Why would you quote his rWAR at all if you don't believe in any defensive stats? So I guess, per you, there should be no discussion.

On aggregate, good players have have high WAR values and lesser players don't. On aggregate, good defenders will have good UZR rates and lesser defenders don't. WAR does correlate with wins. It's not that hard.

[Pickles]

First, this is one of the more entertaining threads I've read in months on here. Lots of smart people getting snarky with one another while managing to maintain overall the path forward in the discussion.

Second, the above quote seems to your major concern. You're upset that the majority of the people don't use the stat very efficiently. To that I would say that Sir Meow Meow's statement is the most on point, pithy as it was. Ignorant people misuse virtually all things of value to some extent but those things are still valuable.

For instance, do you know how many people I've seen argue that batting average is a great stat to determine a hitter's value? When one brings up Juan Pierre to those people, the only response is typically confusion. Does that make BA worthless or subjective or ....? No, of course not.

Same with wins for a pitcher or ERA or errors or gold gloves or RBI or .... People misuse statistics all the time. Hell, politicians thrive on the ignorance of the masses when they campaign. Otherwise, spin doctors wouldn't say the deficit is X, but my plan saves Y when the deficit is a yearly measure and their plan is a cumulative savings over a decade. If you're upset that someone can misuse a statistic, then I would think you'd want to pull your hair out during the vast majority of your waking hours.

Well, I must confess the stupidity of other people is a constant burden. I suspect we all feel that way, particularly the stupid.

I guess a large difference for me though is when people misuse BA, they are routinely mocked for their ignorance. When people misuse WAR, there is often a deafening silence, which, imo, is a tacit approval.

I mean, to just say it is "flawed" or "imperfect" isn't enough for me, honestly. I mean, psychology is flawed, it still carries value. Phrenology is likewise flawed, but it doesn't carry any value. The question is, which end of that spectrum do defensive stats, and DIPS/FIPS and by extension, WAR, fall?

[SrMeowMeow]

Yes, but you've yet to opine regarding the Higgs boson...

I am strongly pro-boson.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I am strongly pro-boson.

I thought we were talking about the Higgins Bosun.

[Pickles]

Ok, what do have as an alternative to WAR that presents overall value?

I don't have one. I don't have an alternative to getting to Jupiter besides a space shuttle either; that doesn't mean I'm wrong to say a space shuttle isn't a very good way of getting there.

I would not clarify them as highly unreliable with significant sample size and I have already stated how I would use WAR over a 3-4 year period. The more of a fielding sample you have for a particular player, the greater the correlation from year to year will be and the greater the reliability. In this case I gave you the specifics and the strategy that would make dWAR more reliable.

Also, you're all over the place. You were the one stating that people were making a flawed case for Jone's WAR based on his fWAR and quoted his rWAR. Why would you quote his rWAR at all if you don't believe in any defensive stats? So I guess, per you, there should be no discussion.

On aggregate, good players have have high WAR values and lesser players don't. On aggregate, good defenders will have good UZR rates and lesser defenders don't. WAR does correlate with wins. It's not that hard.

Well, for his career, which is a fairly large sample size, Cal Ripken by some measure was one of the greatest defensive players in the history of the game; and by other measures was a below average SS. Larger sample sizes sometimes improve the data, and sometimes they don't. It certainly isn't a panacea.

In Jones' case, I wasn't advocating one system or the other; I simply pointing out a discrepancy.

To say, in aggregate, good players will have higher WARS and lesser players won't, is pretty hollow. I could say the same about Ws for pitchers, and be rightly mocked if I wanted to judge a P solely on Ws.

To again go back to a previous analogy, you don't have an idea where on the scale between psychology and phrenology defensive stats fall. Nor do I. But, as I'm not making any claims, the burden of proof isn't on me imo.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I don't have one. I don't have an alternative to getting to Jupiter besides a space shuttle either; that doesn't mean I'm wrong to say a space shuttle isn't a very good way of getting there..

Let me break your analogy down for you as to what I really think it is.

There's a 70% chance of getting to Jupiter on a rocket or zero percent chance if we just stop thinking about it. You choose the latter.

Look I've grown weary of this. You may have the last word.

[Flash- bd]

I thought we were talking about the Higgins Bosun.

I thought we were talking about (Katherine) Higgs' bosom.

Man, was I delirious last night.

Look I've grown weary of this. You may have the last word.

Welcome to the club. He'll do that to you.

[Pickles]

Let me break your analogy down for you as to what I really think it is.

There's a 70% chance of getting to Jupiter on a rocket or zero pecent chance if we just stop thinking about it. You choose the latter.

Look I've grown weary of this. You may have the last word.

So by suggesting that WAR is flawed, and needs improvement, and trying to hold people accountable for mindlessly parroting it w/o understanding it, I'm, in fact, trying to shut down discussion on ways to improve it?

That's certainly an interesting take. Of course, I think it's dead wrong.

[Pickles]

I thought we were talking about (Katherine) Higgs' bosom.

Man, was I delirious last night.

Welcome to the club. He'll do that to you.

They executed Socrates too. People don't like to think.

[Flash- bd]

They executed Socrates too. People don't like to think.

Ha! Comparing yourself to Socrates. Now that is the first time you've actually said something marginally interesting! Maybe you're more full of surprises than I thought!

But it's a bad comparison. Socrates was not perfect, but he did not engage in near as much sophistry as you, my friend.

[Flosman]

They executed Socrates too. People don't like to think.

Ironic, lol.