 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » WAR
emidas
WAR
November 21, 2012 at 03:28PM View BBCode
In a game based so heavily on statistics and odds, I think it would be a great idea to introduce WAR on player cards, and as a sortable leader category. It doesn't have to be taken in for the awards (though it'd be interesting), but it'd be nice to see.
tworoosters
November 21, 2012 at 03:43PM View BBCode
Personally I like my statistics to be based on facts rather than conjecture so I'd prefer not to see this enhancement.
dirtdevil
November 21, 2012 at 04:55PM View BBCode
i tend to agree. i'm not any kind of fan of WAR. having said that, if i'm in the minority, then by all means go ahead.
tm4559
November 21, 2012 at 06:17PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
god help me. WAR is stupid.
livewire3791
What Tim said..
December 02, 2012 at 01:54AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
god help me. WAR is stupid.
What Tim said..
barterer2002
December 02, 2012 at 03:59PM View BBCode
regardless of my own feelings on WAR I'm always in favor of more statistics out there. I don't like all the stats that are out there and i will pick and choose the ones I use but if some like to have WAR around then, as long as there is room on the cards (may or may not be) I'd support it.
redcped
December 02, 2012 at 04:22PM View BBCode
I think the WAR formulas might be so complicated that we can't match them. I know they involve park factors, for instance.
Hamilton2
December 04, 2012 at 02:18AM View BBCode
I have honestly not seen a single actual formula for WAR that could be implemented in simD. I am thinking about coming up with one though and using it as a discussion board talking point in one of my leagues.
jchoopz
I would hate to see it, because one thing I really enjoy about this game is coming up with this type of stuff. But in reality I guess that is kind of selfish reason to not want to see it.
December 04, 2012 at 03:25AM View BBCode
You can definitely calculate it. You have to adjust the defensive value based on the numbers we have available, but it isn't really anything extremely difficult to do. One problem is that offensive correlations are different in MLB than they are in SimD. I've found that there is sometimes even significant difference from one league to another. You aren't going to get anything exact, but that isn't really what WAR is anyways.I would hate to see it, because one thing I really enjoy about this game is coming up with this type of stuff. But in reality I guess that is kind of selfish reason to not want to see it.
tm4559
1. the defenseive statistics, despite looking real nice in a given year, swing wildly from one season to another on the same player. they are worse than the ones in real life, and those are god awful.
2. in real baseball, they don't use players as bad as we do. you might have a division one year with two teams that are teams, and six teams that are tanking. the stats, pitching and hitting will be distorted for the players from that division. and their WAR would be correspondingly way to high, compared to the players in the other division. and if you had some folks that were just dim enough to buy it, then those two teams would the sell of these code bits that abused all these monumentally cruddy pitchers and hitters to those dim bulbs who believed the WAR. because that guy on MLB tv with the big hair and the big brain told them WAR was the awesome. and they would pay out big. so, teams that have nice prospects and picks? trade them to the WAR sharpies who actually know those players aren't anything special. the rich get richer. thats bad for fake baseball.
there are any other number of reasons it is awful probably.
December 05, 2012 at 05:55PM View BBCode
there are big problems with trying to do this in the simulation. a few of them.1. the defenseive statistics, despite looking real nice in a given year, swing wildly from one season to another on the same player. they are worse than the ones in real life, and those are god awful.
2. in real baseball, they don't use players as bad as we do. you might have a division one year with two teams that are teams, and six teams that are tanking. the stats, pitching and hitting will be distorted for the players from that division. and their WAR would be correspondingly way to high, compared to the players in the other division. and if you had some folks that were just dim enough to buy it, then those two teams would the sell of these code bits that abused all these monumentally cruddy pitchers and hitters to those dim bulbs who believed the WAR. because that guy on MLB tv with the big hair and the big brain told them WAR was the awesome. and they would pay out big. so, teams that have nice prospects and picks? trade them to the WAR sharpies who actually know those players aren't anything special. the rich get richer. thats bad for fake baseball.
there are any other number of reasons it is awful probably.
tworoosters
And yet asshats like Jeff Passan, and many others, will wear it like a shield of invincibility when making their cases for MVPs.
December 05, 2012 at 08:13PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jchoopz
You aren't going to get anything exact, but that isn't really what WAR is anyways.
And yet asshats like Jeff Passan, and many others, will wear it like a shield of invincibility when making their cases for MVPs.
tworoosters
He's Yahoo's principal baseball columnist and one of the many. many stathead asshats on the internet, read [url=http://sports.yahoo.com/news/10-degrees--miguel-cabrera-s-triple-crown-push-overshadowing-mike-trout-s-mvp-season.html]this[/url] for example, or [url=http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mlb-s-stats-revolution-doesn-t-have-enough-political-muscle-to-reward-al-s-true-mvp--mike-trout-.html]this[/url] where he basically says that if you don't pick Mike Trout you just don't understand the complex metric of baseball statistical analysis and, well you're just wrong.
.
[Edited on 12-6-2012 by tworoosters]
December 06, 2012 at 03:43AM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
who is jeff passan?
He's Yahoo's principal baseball columnist and one of the many. many stathead asshats on the internet, read [url=http://sports.yahoo.com/news/10-degrees--miguel-cabrera-s-triple-crown-push-overshadowing-mike-trout-s-mvp-season.html]this[/url] for example, or [url=http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mlb-s-stats-revolution-doesn-t-have-enough-political-muscle-to-reward-al-s-true-mvp--mike-trout-.html]this[/url] where he basically says that if you don't pick Mike Trout you just don't understand the complex metric of baseball statistical analysis and, well you're just wrong.
.
[Edited on 12-6-2012 by tworoosters]
jchoopz
December 06, 2012 at 01:46PM View BBCode
Well, I completely agree with him. I just read the first article, but he didn't rely on WAR at all for his argument. Trout was far and away the best player last season.
jchoopz
That depends on how you are using it. You are talking about it being a predictive value. They may be poor in predictive value, but defensive stats here are actually perfect in reflective value. This is because the +/- reflects what actually happened in the code. It isn't skewed by things such as positioning or inexact formulas.
This is true about every offensive/pitching stat though. People already do this with OPS or ERA. WAR wouldn't really change anything.
December 06, 2012 at 02:53PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
there are big problems with trying to do this in the simulation. a few of them.
1. the defenseive statistics, despite looking real nice in a given year, swing wildly from one season to another on the same player. they are worse than the ones in real life, and those are god awful.
That depends on how you are using it. You are talking about it being a predictive value. They may be poor in predictive value, but defensive stats here are actually perfect in reflective value. This is because the +/- reflects what actually happened in the code. It isn't skewed by things such as positioning or inexact formulas.
Originally posted by tm4559
2. in real baseball, they don't use players as bad as we do. you might have a division one year with two teams that are teams, and six teams that are tanking. the stats, pitching and hitting will be distorted for the players from that division. and their WAR would be correspondingly way to high, compared to the players in the other division. and if you had some folks that were just dim enough to buy it, then those two teams would the sell of these code bits that abused all these monumentally cruddy pitchers and hitters to those dim bulbs who believed the WAR. because that guy on MLB tv with the big hair and the big brain told them WAR was the awesome. and they would pay out big. so, teams that have nice prospects and picks? trade them to the WAR sharpies who actually know those players aren't anything special. the rich get richer. thats bad for fake baseball.
This is true about every offensive/pitching stat though. People already do this with OPS or ERA. WAR wouldn't really change anything.
tm4559
December 06, 2012 at 03:03PM View BBCode
it's harmless, i suppose. we do want it to be like real baseball. there are a bunch of dopes that buy into WAR in real life, so, we should actually have it here so our dopes can buy into too. why not?
tworoosters
The award is Most Valuable Player, not best player, best hitter, best base runner, best anything.......... most valuable and best are not interchangeable and until people figure that out there are always going to be arguments about the merits of the winners and losers.
December 06, 2012 at 03:35PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jchoopz
Well, I completely agree with him. I just read the first article, but he didn't rely on WAR at all for his argument. Trout was far and away the best player last season.
The award is Most Valuable Player, not best player, best hitter, best base runner, best anything.......... most valuable and best are not interchangeable and until people figure that out there are always going to be arguments about the merits of the winners and losers.
redcped
The word "valuable" is no more helpful than "best" because there is always going to be opinion involved in either one.
An example from football I like to offer is John Elway. They have an excellent formula for passer rating, and Elway never came anywhere near being the best in the league when he played. But he was absolutely as valuable to that team as any player in the league, regardless of what the numbers say.
So, at the end of the day, why not generate another statistic if we can and let people use it as they like. It's a game, and it should be fun. For some folks, more statistics = more fun.
Anyone know how to program it?
December 06, 2012 at 04:00PM View BBCode
Value is going to be subjective in a great many cases. The most valuable things in my home would fetch nothing on Craigslist, because they are precious to me.The word "valuable" is no more helpful than "best" because there is always going to be opinion involved in either one.
An example from football I like to offer is John Elway. They have an excellent formula for passer rating, and Elway never came anywhere near being the best in the league when he played. But he was absolutely as valuable to that team as any player in the league, regardless of what the numbers say.
So, at the end of the day, why not generate another statistic if we can and let people use it as they like. It's a game, and it should be fun. For some folks, more statistics = more fun.
Anyone know how to program it?
jchoopz
This might make since in football or basketball, where players can also make guys around them better, or a player on one team might be forced to carry more weight than a player on another team. But everything in baseball is isolated, at least offensively (pitching is tied in with defense, but that isn't the debate here).
What argument is there that Cabrera was more valuable despite being a lesser player? The Angels played a significantly tougher schedule and actually won more games than the Tigers. They also play in the 4th worst offensive stadium while Detroit plays in the 9th best. Trout also doesn't get any cheaper being on a pre-arb rookie deal, if you want to look at value that way. The only reason Cabrera won the MVP is because he won the legendary triple crown, even though its based on completely outdated statistics.
December 06, 2012 at 04:11PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
Originally posted by jchoopz
Well, I completely agree with him. I just read the first article, but he didn't rely on WAR at all for his argument. Trout was far and away the best player last season.
The award is Most Valuable Player, not best player, best hitter, best base runner, best anything.......... most valuable and best are not interchangeable and until people figure that out there are always going to be arguments about the merits of the winners and losers.
This might make since in football or basketball, where players can also make guys around them better, or a player on one team might be forced to carry more weight than a player on another team. But everything in baseball is isolated, at least offensively (pitching is tied in with defense, but that isn't the debate here).
What argument is there that Cabrera was more valuable despite being a lesser player? The Angels played a significantly tougher schedule and actually won more games than the Tigers. They also play in the 4th worst offensive stadium while Detroit plays in the 9th best. Trout also doesn't get any cheaper being on a pre-arb rookie deal, if you want to look at value that way. The only reason Cabrera won the MVP is because he won the legendary triple crown, even though its based on completely outdated statistics.
redcped
Should a guy like that have at least one MVP trophy on his shelf? Absolutely. He's very durable, hits for great power and average, draws walks, makes pitchers think about where he is in the lineup. All great stuff.
Does he run the bases well? Not really. Does he make his team better on defense? Not really.
But he's on pace for a HOF career, and he's been top 5 in MVP voting five times before, and I'm happy to see he won one.
All that said, I think Trout earned it this year, too. The saving grace is he has the chance to win a lot more. And that certainly was on voters' minds.
It's not just about value or best. Sometimes it's about wanting to reward a great player who had a great season. You don't have to apologize for giving it to Cabrera. He met all the standards and then some. Led the league in several categories. Team made the playoffs.
It isn't his fault you can make a great argument for another guy, but let's not suggest this was some great injustice either. Average and RBI might not be the best measures of a player, but it's not easy to hit .330 and drive in 139 runs in a lineup where four regulars have OBPs of .305 or lower.
December 06, 2012 at 05:15PM View BBCode
The part of this whole debate that seems to be missing is that supporters of one side often forget to acknowledge that the other guy had a phenomenal season by any standard. Cabrera was a beast, and he is clearly one of the best hitters of this generation. It's not that he isn't sensationally valuable to the Tigers and a huge reason for their offensive success.Should a guy like that have at least one MVP trophy on his shelf? Absolutely. He's very durable, hits for great power and average, draws walks, makes pitchers think about where he is in the lineup. All great stuff.
Does he run the bases well? Not really. Does he make his team better on defense? Not really.
But he's on pace for a HOF career, and he's been top 5 in MVP voting five times before, and I'm happy to see he won one.
All that said, I think Trout earned it this year, too. The saving grace is he has the chance to win a lot more. And that certainly was on voters' minds.
It's not just about value or best. Sometimes it's about wanting to reward a great player who had a great season. You don't have to apologize for giving it to Cabrera. He met all the standards and then some. Led the league in several categories. Team made the playoffs.
It isn't his fault you can make a great argument for another guy, but let's not suggest this was some great injustice either. Average and RBI might not be the best measures of a player, but it's not easy to hit .330 and drive in 139 runs in a lineup where four regulars have OBPs of .305 or lower.
tworoosters
Yes, I forgot that pitchers treat all hitters exactly the same, thanks for reminding me.
Trout had a better OBP, .399 to .393, Cabrera killed Trout in slugging % .606 to .564, and thus had a higher OPS. Park factors mean little to me, after all all the players play in the parks their teams build and they play 81 games on the road.
The problem with WAR is multiple to me; first how accurate is a statistic that is calculated differently by different sources ?
Secondly, regardless of how it's calculated it is purely speculative as we can't measure what the "replacement player" would do because he simply doesn't exist .
My last issue is again with the "replacement player", if Mike Trout had not been available for the Angels then they are forced to use Vernon Wells more, which is not a healthy thing but certainly better than the Tigers alternative of using Ryan Rayburn or Ramon Santiago .
Last on the Trout vs. Cabrera issue to me is the playoffs, yes I know the Angels won more games but in real terms that is irrelevant. The bottom line is the Tigers made the playoffs, and won the American League with Cabrera, nobody in their right mind can argue they would have without him, and the Angels, even with Trout, did not make the playoffs.
Ask Mike Ilitch what the value of that is.
December 06, 2012 at 06:31PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jchoopz
But everything in baseball is isolated, at least offensively
Yes, I forgot that pitchers treat all hitters exactly the same, thanks for reminding me.
Trout had a better OBP, .399 to .393, Cabrera killed Trout in slugging % .606 to .564, and thus had a higher OPS. Park factors mean little to me, after all all the players play in the parks their teams build and they play 81 games on the road.
The problem with WAR is multiple to me; first how accurate is a statistic that is calculated differently by different sources ?
Secondly, regardless of how it's calculated it is purely speculative as we can't measure what the "replacement player" would do because he simply doesn't exist .
My last issue is again with the "replacement player", if Mike Trout had not been available for the Angels then they are forced to use Vernon Wells more, which is not a healthy thing but certainly better than the Tigers alternative of using Ryan Rayburn or Ramon Santiago .
Last on the Trout vs. Cabrera issue to me is the playoffs, yes I know the Angels won more games but in real terms that is irrelevant. The bottom line is the Tigers made the playoffs, and won the American League with Cabrera, nobody in their right mind can argue they would have without him, and the Angels, even with Trout, did not make the playoffs.
Ask Mike Ilitch what the value of that is.
tm4559
the voters went for Carbrerra because they recognize the Triple Crown as historic. they did not want to look back, and say, "this guy won the Triple Crown, it might never happen again, and i missed my chance to vote the guy that did it for MVP."
right or wrong, thats what happened.
now there were a lot of traditional baseball people, manager types, that liked cabrera too. because they thinking on from a managers perspective. a manager will always like the guy that can knock himself in the most with the home run, that can knock a runner in from first base. Carbrerra is in scoring position when he comes to the plate. anybody on first base in scoring position.
as far as the defense goes, and that was a big part of the stathead, know it all argument ("ITS A BLOWOUT. NOT CLOSE. BLOWOUT!!!!"). the part they miss is a manager's point of view. Carbrera did not have to go out there and play third base. he could have told the tigers to sign somebody, trade for somebody, put whoever out there. he is that well established, and he could have told the Tigers exactly where he wanted to play. and they would put him there. he took third base for the team, ok? he was not a liability there. he was a freaking resource.
here is a scenario for you. its the bottom of the ninth inning of the seventh game of the World Series. your team is in the field. one run lead. two outs.
at the plate is miguel cabrera. standing in the on deck circle is mike trout.
you walk carbrera. and you try to get trout out. i guarantee you you do.
the other way around? you try to get trout out.
as far as outdated statistics go:
RBI has what other players do in it, of course. but so does going from first to third or second to home on some kind of hit. and that stuff was where they were all counting up bases and giving some bid edge to trout. also, do you know what percentage of players that steal second come around to score? look it up. it isn't as much as you think it is. Carbrera had the most RBI. bad stat? maybe. isn't it just as bad for everybody else? he did have the most.
batting average. an outdated stat. OBP much better. the big problem is, batting average is the biggest part of obp. did trout have a better obp than carbrera? i don't feel like looking it up. did he? or didn't carbrera actually draw more awesome prized walks than trout did? or wasn't it, in fact, very close.
home runs? outdated? i don't know. the home run remains the most awesome outcome that can follow from any at bat. it is not possible to replace it.
now, you have folks that specialize in obp. you have folks that specialize in rbi. you have folks that specilize in home runs and folks that specialize in batting average? did carbera not beat all those folks in the american league in three of four of those categories and also lead the league in prized awesomes ops? or not. i don't feel like looking it up.
the Tigers made it to the series. do they get there without Carbrera? if you think what position he played (you think) poorly is important, then give the tigers Mr. League Average Third Baseman, whoever it is. do they get there? i don't know. the voters obviously think they don't. and that was part of their thinking and justifably so.
[Edited on 12-6-2012 by tm4559]
[Edited on 12-6-2012 by tm4559]
December 06, 2012 at 06:41PM View BBCode
the debate was fun, the way some of the talking heads criticized the voters was silly. they belittled, their motives, called them lazy. what they fail to grasp is what motivates people. the stat heads have problems with what motivates people.the voters went for Carbrerra because they recognize the Triple Crown as historic. they did not want to look back, and say, "this guy won the Triple Crown, it might never happen again, and i missed my chance to vote the guy that did it for MVP."
right or wrong, thats what happened.
now there were a lot of traditional baseball people, manager types, that liked cabrera too. because they thinking on from a managers perspective. a manager will always like the guy that can knock himself in the most with the home run, that can knock a runner in from first base. Carbrerra is in scoring position when he comes to the plate. anybody on first base in scoring position.
as far as the defense goes, and that was a big part of the stathead, know it all argument ("ITS A BLOWOUT. NOT CLOSE. BLOWOUT!!!!"). the part they miss is a manager's point of view. Carbrera did not have to go out there and play third base. he could have told the tigers to sign somebody, trade for somebody, put whoever out there. he is that well established, and he could have told the Tigers exactly where he wanted to play. and they would put him there. he took third base for the team, ok? he was not a liability there. he was a freaking resource.
here is a scenario for you. its the bottom of the ninth inning of the seventh game of the World Series. your team is in the field. one run lead. two outs.
at the plate is miguel cabrera. standing in the on deck circle is mike trout.
you walk carbrera. and you try to get trout out. i guarantee you you do.
the other way around? you try to get trout out.
as far as outdated statistics go:
RBI has what other players do in it, of course. but so does going from first to third or second to home on some kind of hit. and that stuff was where they were all counting up bases and giving some bid edge to trout. also, do you know what percentage of players that steal second come around to score? look it up. it isn't as much as you think it is. Carbrera had the most RBI. bad stat? maybe. isn't it just as bad for everybody else? he did have the most.
batting average. an outdated stat. OBP much better. the big problem is, batting average is the biggest part of obp. did trout have a better obp than carbrera? i don't feel like looking it up. did he? or didn't carbrera actually draw more awesome prized walks than trout did? or wasn't it, in fact, very close.
home runs? outdated? i don't know. the home run remains the most awesome outcome that can follow from any at bat. it is not possible to replace it.
now, you have folks that specialize in obp. you have folks that specialize in rbi. you have folks that specilize in home runs and folks that specialize in batting average? did carbera not beat all those folks in the american league in three of four of those categories and also lead the league in prized awesomes ops? or not. i don't feel like looking it up.
the Tigers made it to the series. do they get there without Carbrera? if you think what position he played (you think) poorly is important, then give the tigers Mr. League Average Third Baseman, whoever it is. do they get there? i don't know. the voters obviously think they don't. and that was part of their thinking and justifably so.
[Edited on 12-6-2012 by tm4559]
[Edited on 12-6-2012 by tm4559]
tm4559
"I am so smart, and you are so dumb."
that approach smacks of douchebag. you can flog the numbers all day. at dinner time, what the folks remember is.......douchebag).
December 06, 2012 at 07:25PM View BBCode
(i mean, the biggest problem with the Trout was so much better case-this was the talking stathead beginning position- is they start from this point right here:"I am so smart, and you are so dumb."
that approach smacks of douchebag. you can flog the numbers all day. at dinner time, what the folks remember is.......douchebag).
redcped
You also should note that Trout is a fish. And some voters don't care for seafood.
December 06, 2012 at 07:43PM View BBCode
I heart Tim's analysis.You also should note that Trout is a fish. And some voters don't care for seafood.
tm4559
December 06, 2012 at 08:08PM View BBCode
yep. they practically ran mike salmon out of the game on account of thatPages: 1 2