Orioles are one of the teams that the Twins have contacted in regards to Justin Morneau

[luismatos4prez]

I'll let you continue to think this...it's not even worth it.

I wasn't giving you my opinion. If you want to understand how park factors are found, you can read about it here. It's pretty dense stuff, but see if you can find a flaw in it.

http://www.baseball-reference.com:8080/about/parkadjust.shtml

[SrMeowMeow]

This thread turned into a serious vomitorium.

[Dark Helmet]

Is that your way of insulting me or calling me an idiot? Yeah thanks, I got that. By the way, care to contribute to the debate, or are you going to allow CA-Oriole to do that and you can just comment on how my posts are bizarre and convoluted? Your input in this thread has less value than a WAR stat...

Some folk's take pleasure in talking down to other's or questioning intelligence. Don't let it bother you.

[Austin]

You accuse me of starting arguement's in thread's. Yet, I alway's see you talking down to other poster's that don't agree with you, and basically alway's trying to fuel the fires. Before you make suggestion's to other's about what they should do, maybe you should start taking some of your own advice.

Some folk's take pleasure in talking down to other's or questioning intelligence. Don't let it bother you.

Well what are you bringing to this thread exactly, other than a criminal misuse of apostrophes?

This discussion doesn't really seem to be going anywhere as far as I can tell, neither side is going to convince the other. If you don't like WAR, don't pay attention to it I guess, the rest of the board has good reason to believe it and use it in discussion.

[clapdiddy]

Hey...Morneau...you here? Hellloooo....Morneau...where are you hiding?

[luismatos4prez]

Hey...Morneau...you here? Hellloooo....Morneau...where are you hiding?

I think we may have traded for him back on page 6. I forget now.

[Dark Helmet]

Well what are you bringing to this thread exactly, other than a criminal misuse of apostrophes?

This discussion doesn't really seem to be going anywhere as far as I can tell, neither side is going to convince the other. If you don't like WAR, don't pay attention to it I guess, the rest of the board has good reason to believe it and use it in discussion.

About as much as you just brought to it obviously. Other then you deciding to call my post out, and siding with those with the most seniority here. Shocking.

[Dark Helmet]

About as much as you just brought to it obviously. Other then you deciding to call my post out, and siding with those with the most seniority here. Shocking.

Better correct my spelling, before the grammar police write me a ticket.

[Dark Helmet]

Well what are you bringing to this thread exactly, other than a criminal misuse of apostrophes?

This discussion doesn't really seem to be going anywhere as far as I can tell, neither side is going to convince the other. If you don't like WAR, don't pay attention to it I guess, the rest of the board has good reason to believe it and use it in discussion.

Terry Ryan basically indicated that Morneau and Mauer aren't going anywhere, atleast this winner. Said they've traded away enough of their MLB guys, now it's time to add some pitching that can help them compete. Said "They got two former MVP's that don't want to talk future, they want to talk now". Looks like Willingham is staying too for the time being.

Notice, I actually talked about the topic of the thread. Since you asked.

[Austin]

About as much as you just brought to it obviously. Other then you deciding to call my post out, and siding with those with the most seniority here. Shocking.

Should we stop talking about WAR and simply disregard it because some posters don't/can't/refuse to understand it? It's "siding with seniority" to put stock into a statistic that real MLB teams actually consider and value?

[SrMeowMeow]

Is this the face under the Helmet?

[Dark Helmet]

Should we stop talking about WAR and simply disregard it because some posters don't/can't/refuse to understand it? It's "siding with seniority" to put stock into a statistic that real MLB teams actually consider and value?

Never said that at all. But why does those that don't agree with WAR, have to face being talked down to? Especially when that poster was just giving their reasoning for why they don't. I guess that poster should just bow down and follow the crowd.

No, it's "siding with seniority" to call me out for not adding to the thread, yet ignore others that do the same thing, that ironically have been here longer. If thats not the case, then I assume you didn't read any post's prior to mine, and just felt like jumping on my case?

[CA-ORIOLE]

I'll let you continue to think this...it's not even worth it.

Tons of research on Park Factors aren't worth it?. Your opinion that they are worthless is? We can certanly debate the "accuracy" of park factors on certain players and that's fine. It often is, but that's not what you're doing. Your basic approach here is there are too many variables, too many random events, too many instances of sun in the eyes, too many cloudy days, too many gusts of wind, or whatever other nonsense you can come up with to make statistics relevant (other than batting average and HR's I guess).

The way some people appear to value WAR would totally contradict this, and WAR itself as a stat and what it is intended to accomplish contradicts this...saying that other stats are too susceptible to randomness and outside factors to be valuable on their own...well if this basic principle is true, then all stats are useful in comparison to one another assuming they are assembled the same way for each player. The value of a stat when comparing players is a subjective thing, and research that compares one stat's value to another is also susceptible to the effects of circumstance. Maybe in 1996 using the batting average of every single free agent was a 100% accurate way to determine each player's value, but in 1997 it was an awful predictor...maybe in all of the 1980's it was accurate but all of the 1990's it was awful...which 10 years if correct?

First of all, WAR is not a "predictor" of future events. It's an analysis of what happened. Secondly, using BA to judge value was a flawed methodolgy in 1996, 1980, 1920, 1930 ....whatever.

The point is that statistics will always require human interpretation, because nothing outside of the laws of physics performs exactly the same way every single time. A player could be working really hard in the offseason and go from a career .198 hitter against lefties to a .390 hitter vs. lefties the next season and never look back...that is something that WAR cannot predict or account for...and the fact that WAR changes with every single at bat (like many other stats) is what makes trying to predict how many wins a player is worth above his replacement (who is an unnamed individual btw) a ridiculous goal...especially when "what it takes to win" changes every single day, even every single second...

Again, WAR is not a predictor of future performance, it's an evaluation of past performance. It may certainly have some value in predicting future performance (as in any statisitical track record), but there are obviously many reasons why a players performance could decline in the future. As far as offensive value goes, the statistics related to value do not change every day or every second, unless you are trying to make some ridiculous "clutch" argument. They are quite stable.

Is it? A trained professional cannot possible look at a bunch of statistics and put them all together to make logical and accurate conclusions but a statistic can? When stats are NEVER wrong in being accurate predictors of success, then you can make this statement. Until then, stats can be just as misleading as human analysis that is done by a trained professional.

So, a ballplayer looking at statistics is a trained professional? Wouldn't a satistician analyzing statistics be the trained professional in this case? When scouts or statisticians can make completely accurate predictions about future player performance their won't be much to discuss will there?

Just to be clear my BA comment was not in support of BA at all, it was a point that I was trying to make as to how asinine it is to try and use one stat to compare players, no matter what the stat

Using composite stats certainly has its pitfalls and limitations, but it is most certanly not asinine.

Feel free to have the last word. I'm finding this rather pointless.

[SrMeowMeow]

Never said that at all. But why does those that don't agree with WAR, have to face being talked down to? Especially when that poster was just giving their reasoning for why they don't. I guess that poster should just bow down and follow the crowd.

No, it's "siding with seniority" to call me out for not adding to the thread, yet ignore others that do the same thing, that ironically have been here longer. If thats not the case, then I assume you didn't read any post's prior to mine, and just felt like jumping on my case?

You know who everyone likes? The guy who performs the (vital, if you ask me!) meta-analysis of what role each post and poster is playing in a thread, and helps posters understand their own thought processes. It's really helpful to have you here to keep us in line and intellectually honest. (It isn't really (it's (really) annoying.))

To you I say: physician, heal thyself!

[DrungoHazewood]

Is that your way of insulting me or calling me an idiot? Yeah thanks, I got that. By the way, care to contribute to the debate, or are you going to allow CA-Oriole to do that and you can just comment on how my posts are bizarre and convoluted? Your input in this thread has less value than a WAR stat...

I have no idea who you are or if you're an idiot. But your arguments in this thread aren't helping your case. They're long, convoluted, and frankly don't make a whole lot of sense.

Never said that at all. But why does those that don't agree with WAR, have to face being talked down to? Especially when that poster was just giving their reasoning for why they don't. I guess that poster should just bow down and follow the crowd.

No, it's "siding with seniority" to call me out for not adding to the thread, yet ignore others that do the same thing, that ironically have been here longer. If thats not the case, then I assume you didn't read any post's prior to mine, and just felt like jumping on my case?

If there's a seniority effect it's only because a bunch of us have had discussions like this for a decade or more, looked at the issues in great depth years ago, and have concluded that WAR is a fundamentally sound tool. We've convinced others of this with logical arguments and real examples, so people tend to side with us. Over time we've earned a bit of respect, especially compared to folks who fiercely cling to misconceptions and misunderstandings.