Shots fired from Bill James:

 

https://www.billjamesonline.com/judge_and_altuve/

Some good thoughts from Nate Silver:

 

Edited November 24, 20178 yr by drjim

My complaints about WAR were always based on 1. converting defense anf baserunning to runs, and 2. the flaws in the idea of the replacement player.

 

But tying actual team wins to the sum of individual players WAR would seem to be an obvious desire, at least as measuring actual production is concerned.

James is correct and able to express in words the limitations of WAR.

As always, Bill James expresses his thoughts well.

Really appreciate that guy.

 

Edit: also enjoyed the Killebrew reference.

Edited November 24, 20178 yr by Oldgoat_MN

And this kind of thing is what makes baseball so fascinating to me.

 

The math behind the game and the subtleties of the game on the field.

 

 

Interesting read, thanks for sharing. I've always thought of WAR as a (flawed) shorthand for ballparking a guy's value. It bothered me when it reached the point where many MVP arguments were more or less being based on that metric alone.

Meh. Bill James keeps trying to peddle his Win Shares in new clothing. Didn't care much for it when it came out (shrouded in proprietary secrecy at that), still don't.

 

Ironically, long ago he was part of the vanguard pointing out that winning close games wasn't a particularly repeatable skill for teams, from one year to the next - best to just score lots of runs over the course of a season and try to not give up a lot, and let the W-L chips fall where they may. Now he's in the camp of "well, those extra wins didn't just come out of thin air, now did they?"

 

I'm not in favor of rewriting history, and for subjective awards like MVP I'm fine with giving weight to the sheer will and determination and moxie that obviously accounted for Houston's 101 wins, versus the Yankees' lack of same accounting for their 91 wins. I just think James carries it too far, and he remains too defensive about his pet stat. He can't seem to do it without tearing down others' work, and his claim that he's held his tongue all these years doesn't pass muster for me - he's been saying this on his paywall-protected website for years, to the approving murmurs of his acolytes there.

Ironically, long ago he was part of the vanguard pointing out that winning close games wasn't a particularly repeatable skill for teams, from one year to the next - best to just score lots of runs over the course of a season and try to not give up a lot, and let the W-L chips fall where they may. Now he's in the camp of "well, those extra wins didn't just come out of thin air, now did they?"

 

Seems to me he addresses this in the article. Seems the revisions of statistical analysis is moving (rightly) towards less certainly.

 

I basically agree with your other two points, but I suspect this is the opening salvo of what will be a more public and sustained entrance into the debates.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/putting-war-in-context-a-response-to-bill-james/

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/putting-war-in-context-a-response-to-bill-james/

Reading that makes me think Nate Silver might be on to something (or on something).

I am easily in the lower 5 percentile on this site when it comes to,stats. But using a local player as an example tells me this. Players do not operate in a vacuum. I cannot believe that Byron Buxtons value is the same for some other teams, for example Cleveland, as it was for the Twins. The Twins are still suffering from the hangover that PTC produces. They need an elite OF to run down some of those PTC pitches, that are contacted too well. And with the teams traditional placing at or near the bottom of the team SO lists, Buxton is that guy. On a team with a significantly higher SO ratio, some of his value is lost when the catcher is regularly throwing the ball to the third baseman. So to me, analysis of a players value to a team has to include factors that are frankly outside that players control. I won't try and say quantifying it is easy, it's not. But I can't see accurate analysis of a single players value to a team, without including the idiosyncrasies of that team.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/putting-war-in-context-a-response-to-bill-james/

WAR is an imperfect stat, doesn't account for actual wins, baseball is mysterious and nobody knows anything anyway;... therefore, quit criticizing WAR.

 

That's how I read it on first quick read (with an adult bev in front of me). What did I miss?

I am easily in the lower 5 percentile on this site when it comes to,stats....But I can't see accurate analysis of a single players value to a team, without including the idiosyncrasies of that team.

Regardless of how you view yourself with "stats", you display a highly *analytic* mindset when you challenge the practitioners to achieve an even finer granularity reflecting the underlying reality of what's being studied.

James' and Fangraph's pieces were a lot of fun.

 

In my book, no one has to be right or wrong as long as everyone realizes that more information and new ways to understand it are a benefit to all. That's not solely related to baseball analytics either I guess.

I enjoy all the stats (the ones I understand and that is limited) because they create controversy and conversation.  In this exchange I give the win to Bill James, partly because I could read his entire essay and it made sense while fangraphs defended an esoteric stat by other esoteric stats.  I do agree that WAR for any team should equal the games won.  That does not mean that a player cannot have a big war on a poor team, but there should be a lot of minuses to offset it. 

​I am still an eye guy.  I watched Altuve in the clutch and I really believed he would not make the big whiff - that he would make something happen and when he was on base he was also in the pitchers mind.  He was there to motivate his team, to run, score, field, disrupt and inspire.  Can you put all of those into a stat?  I do not think so.  I just know that I would take Altuve over almost any other player in the league and that  makes him MVP.

I'm not a sabermetrician. I wish I had the time and skill to be one but I don't. That said, I've never been on board with WAR.

Fielding is the most difficult of the four aspects of baseball (the other three being pitching, batting, and base running) to measure. Did an outfielder miss catching a fly ball by one inch because he ran too slowly, because he reacted too slowly, because he misread the ball off the bat, because he took a bad route, because the sun (or artificial lights) affected his vision, because the coach positioned him improperly, because he positioned himself improperly, because his glove was too small, because the ball traveled more slowly due to cold weather, because the ball traveled more rapidly due to hot weather, because he was not 100% healthy, because another nearby fielder spooked him, or some combination of those and myriad other factors? Or was it a fly ball that was played as perfectly as humanly possible but simply wasn't going to be caught? I just think it's impossible to accurately and precisely quantify fielding.

The lack of accuracy and lack of precision are compounded when trying to extrapolate fielding metrics into runs saved. And the lack of accuracy and lack of precision are compounded further when trying to extrapolate runs saved into wins and losses.

The metrics attempting to quantify the other three aspects are also flawed, less so than fielding, although it depends on which metrics are used. However, there is still the same loss of accuracy and precision when trying to extrapolate those metrics into runs, and from there into wins and losses.

So, WAR then. The way I understand it, there are several different formulas, none of which is totally objective, all of which use various imperfect metrics from the four aspects of the game (each of which is affected to some degree by the other three). And it's supposed to determine how many wins a player generates relative to some vague replacement player. While it's a noble goal, I think WAR as it is currently configured is too inaccurate and too imprecise to have much value.

 

I'm not a sabermetrician. I wish I had the time and skill to be one but I don't. That said, I've never been on board with WAR.

Fielding is the most difficult of the four aspects of baseball (the other three being pitching, batting, and base running) to measure. Did an outfielder miss catching a fly ball by one inch because he ran too slowly, because he reacted too slowly, because he misread the ball off the bat, because he took a bad route, because the sun (or artificial lights) affected his vision, because the coach positioned him improperly, because he positioned himself improperly, because his glove was too small, because the ball traveled more slowly due to cold weather, because the ball traveled more rapidly due to hot weather, because he was not 100% healthy, because another nearby fielder spooked him, or some combination of those and myriad other factors? Or was it a fly ball that was played as perfectly as humanly possible but simply wasn't going to be caught? I just think it's impossible to accurately and precisely quantify fielding.

The lack of accuracy and lack of precision are compounded when trying to extrapolate fielding metrics into runs saved. And the lack of accuracy and lack of precision are compounded further when trying to extrapolate runs saved into wins and losses.

The metrics attempting to quantify the other three aspects are also flawed, less so than fielding, although it depends on which metrics are used. However, there is still the same loss of accuracy and precision when trying to extrapolate those metrics into runs, and from there into wins and losses.

So, WAR then. The way I understand it, there are several different formulas, none of which is totally objective, all of which use various imperfect metrics from the four aspects of the game (each of which is affected to some degree by the other three). And it's supposed to determine how many wins a player generates relative to some vague replacement player. While it's a noble goal, I think WAR as it is currently configured is too inaccurate and too imprecise to have much value.

It shouldn't matter why the guy didn't get to the ball though. What should matter is if he did or didn't get to it.

A player that catches that ball is more valuable than the one who doesn't. And that is also why defensive metrics should be looked at in large sample sizes, to (mostly) even out those variables you mention.

 

It shouldn't matter why the guy didn't get to the ball though. What should matter is if he did or didn't get to it.
A player that catches that ball is more valuable than the one who doesn't. And that is also why defensive metrics should be looked at in large sample sizes, to (mostly) even out those variables you mention.

No, what matters is if he should or shouldn't have gotten to it. And you can't try to determine that without understanding why he did or didn't get to it. And the fact that it's difficult to accurately and precisely measure a "should or shouldn't" is the source of the problem.

"War, What Is It Good For? Absolutely nothing..."

 

I'm not a sabermetrician. I wish I had the time and skill to be one but I don't. That said, I've never been on board with WAR.

Fielding is the most difficult of the four aspects of baseball (the other three being pitching, batting, and base running) to measure. Did an outfielder miss catching a fly ball by one inch because he ran too slowly, because he reacted too slowly, because he misread the ball off the bat, because he took a bad route, because the sun (or artificial lights) affected his vision, because the coach positioned him improperly, because he positioned himself improperly, because his glove was too small, because the ball traveled more slowly due to cold weather, because the ball traveled more rapidly due to hot weather, because he was not 100% healthy, because another nearby fielder spooked him, or some combination of those and myriad other factors? Or was it a fly ball that was played as perfectly as humanly possible but simply wasn't going to be caught? I just think it's impossible to accurately and precisely quantify fielding.

The lack of accuracy and lack of precision are compounded when trying to extrapolate fielding metrics into runs saved. And the lack of accuracy and lack of precision are compounded further when trying to extrapolate runs saved into wins and losses.

The metrics attempting to quantify the other three aspects are also flawed, less so than fielding, although it depends on which metrics are used. However, there is still the same loss of accuracy and precision when trying to extrapolate those metrics into runs, and from there into wins and losses.

So, WAR then. The way I understand it, there are several different formulas, none of which is totally objective, all of which use various imperfect metrics from the four aspects of the game (each of which is affected to some degree by the other three). And it's supposed to determine how many wins a player generates relative to some vague replacement player. While it's a noble goal, I think WAR as it is currently configured is too inaccurate and too imprecise to have much value.

concur with every word.

 

I also don't agree with the idea that a single from a first baseman is worth less than a single from a shortstop, which is another assumption baked into WAR.

 

 

 

 

 

I also don't agree with the idea that a single from a first baseman is worth less than a single from a shortstop, which is another assumption baked into WAR.

Do you have a reference your assumption of the calculation? 

 

The position adjustment is about defensive value, not offense.  So if a shortstop and a 1B provided exactly the same offense he will almost assuredly be worth more WAR because of the defensive part of the WAR calculation.

 

I've never seen anything that says WAR values a single differently based on position, so if you have that reference, it'd be great to see.

Edited November 28, 20178 yr by jimmer

You have a reference for that assumption?

 

The position adjustment is about defensive value, not offense. I've never seen anything that says WAR value a single differently based on position.

Isn't it baked into the value of the replacement player for each position?

 

Isn't it baked into the value of the replacement player for each position?

Not that I've seen, though it may be a matter of wording that I'm misunderstanding.

 

But if it is (and again, if I'm wrong, I get to learn something, which I am all for), I'd STILL be fine with that because I think most would agree that if a 1B and a Shortstop (or even a speedy great defensive CF) put up the same numbers, the shortstop should be worth more WAR than the 1B is. I don't know why that is controversial or wrong.

 

But it isn't cooked into wRC+.  So if we want to compare just offensive value regardless of position, one can look at that.

Edited November 28, 20178 yr by jimmer

 

Isn't it baked into the value of the replacement player for each position?

 

Yes, of course. 

 

Not that I've seen, though it may be a matter of wording that I'm misunderstanding.

 

But if it is (and again, if I'm wrong, I get to learn something, which I am all for), I'd STILL be fine with that because I think most would agree that if a 1B and a Shortstop (or even a speedy great defensive CF) put up the same numbers, the shortstop should be worth more WAR than the 1B is. I don't know why that is controversial or wrong.

 

But it isn't cooked into wRC+.  So if we want to compare just offensive value regardless of position, one can look at that.

I would advise you to go back and reread the how war is calculated. There are positional adjustments as well as park adjustments.  The double hit by the catcher playing  in a game in Miami may well be worth as much as the HR hit by the 1B at Coors.

 

 

I would advise you to go back and reread the how war is calculated. There are positional adjustments as well as park adjustments.  The double hit by the catcher playing  in a game in Miami may well be worth as much as the HR hit by the 1B at Coors.

yeah, admittedly, the wording of it all is what mixed me up. 

 

But again, I'm STILL be fine with the adjustment because I think most would agree that if a 1B and a Shortstop (or even a speedy great defensive CF) put up the same numbers, the shortstop/CF should be worth more WAR than the 1B is. I don't know why that is controversial or wrong.

Edited November 29, 20178 yr by jimmer

yeah, admittedly, the wording of it all is what mixed me up.

 

But again, I'm STILL be fine with the adjustment because I think most would agree that if a 1B and a Shortstop (or even a speedy great defensive CF) put up the same numbers, the shortstop/CF should be worth more WAR than the 1B is. I don't know why that is controversial or wrong.

To be clear, I agree with you on this point. I was just responding on behalf of Chief's point, which I don't necessarily agree with. In isolation, it shouldn't matter who gets a hit, but for aggregate value, it is definitely more valuable from a tougher to fill defensive position. That fact being baked into the replacement playet doesn't bother me.

 

yeah, admittedly, the wording of it all is what mixed me up. 

 

But again, I'm STILL be fine with the adjustment because I think most would agree that if a 1B and a Shortstop (or even a speedy great defensive CF) put up the same numbers, the shortstop/CF should be worth more WAR than the 1B is. I don't know why that is controversial or wrong.

Any issue with WAR is one of a few things. One, it was never designed as a precise measurement yet people use it that way.  Two, War uses many measurements which at best are imprecise like  in base running and fielding.  Three, while being an imprecise measure, some people fail to understand what it measures.   What they think and what it is are different.  The other distinct possibility in many cases is that some people just like to argue.

 

Edited November 30, 20178 yr by old nurse

 

Any issue with WAR is one of a few things. One, it was never designed as a precise measurement yet people use it that way.  Two, War uses many measurements which at best are imprecise like  in base running and fielding.  Three, while being an imprecise measure, some people fail to understand what it measures.   What they think and what it is are different.  The other distinct possibility in many cases is that some people just like to argue.

I use it to put players into categories:

 

MVP types

Superstar types

All-Star types

Good or solid players

Role players

Scrubs.

 

I wouldn't say a 7.5 WAR player is automatically a better choice for MVP over a 7.1 guy, but I'd feel comfortable with saying a 7.5 WAR guy is better choice for MVP than a 4.8 guy.