It is still not the driving force for minor and amateur ranks and focus is on the tools, projection, and intangibles. I have said this a few times, but minor leagues are forced to work on things in season and it skews stats to no end.

Statistics: Posted by Don — November 3rd, 2011, 9:44 pm

]]>

thezeroes wrote:

So IMO WAR is not the end all of stats but a starting point and the eye ball furthers the discussion.

So IMO WAR is not the end all of stats but a starting point and the eye ball furthers the discussion.

That's similar to my view as well. It's a stat that should be used as a guideline until the defensive and pitching parts are proved to be more accurate. Plus, it'd be silly to argue that a 6.0 WAR player is better than a 6.3 WAR player. That's when you can use the eyeball test.

Statistics: Posted by Jordan Tuwiner — November 3rd, 2011, 7:10 pm

]]>

Don wrote:

I am just saying that is the foundation for an free agent acquisition, trade chip, minor league evaluation, and amateur evaluation.

I am just saying that is the foundation for an free agent acquisition, trade chip, minor league evaluation, and amateur evaluation.

The eye test (his hustle, sound of hits off his bat, his speed, ability to comprehend instruction, etc...) his Defensive WAR (-0.4 = 15 errors in 126 games) and Offensive WAR (6.2) for Jose Reyes in 2011 would seem to pass both tests BUT who is his replacement for the 36 games he missed with injury ?? (Durability) I agree that more needs to go into attracting/signing players than a stat line or an eye ball test. So IMO WAR is not the end all of stats but a starting point and the eye ball furthers the discussion.

Statistics: Posted by thezeroes — October 27th, 2011, 4:28 pm

]]>

]]>

But you cannot possibly mean to say this:

The eye never lies and you must pass the eyeball test before anything else.

The baseball landscape is littered with the tired carcasses of former prospects who passed the eye ball test but couldn't hack it in the majors. The eye lies with regularity. It's essential, sure, but it isn't infallible.

Statistics: Posted by A_K — October 26th, 2011, 4:44 pm

]]>

Stats are the bare numbers, but can be twisted and manipulated to fit in the box you desire with a bit of effort. I think WAR is a solid cross grid comparison, but each team weighs certain factors more than others based on many variables. No two teams have the same formula and each uses the stats in their fashion to a different outcome.

I always say that you must use a rounded approach at any time. The eye never lies and you must pass the eyeball test before anything else.

Look by the numbers Prince may project to leap and bounds numbers for 6-7 years, but one look at the body type and it might make you curb your approach about what to expect when he is 32 years old and could fall off the ledge. The numbers on a pitcher can look great, but how does his style play. Will his mechanics hold up?

There are so many grouped stats that can show one player is better than another and you can use this to justify your eyes, but any sport has to be your gut and the stats should be used to support it.

This is my opinion and take it for what it is worth.

Statistics: Posted by Don — October 26th, 2011, 12:12 pm

]]>

A_K wrote:

My understanding is that virtually every team uses WAR as a primary statistical indicator.

The figure I think you're mentioning is the 10-12 teams that are considerably more statistically inclined than other teams, having developed their own proprietary statistics and making decisions based upon those moreso than would be traditionally expected.

BuckMagic wrote:Does anyone know if organizations use WAR, or something similar?

I recently read something about use of statistics within MLB front offices and it appears 10 or 12 use a ton of statistics when evaluating players. Wondering if WAR is among them.

My understanding is that virtually every team uses WAR as a primary statistical indicator.

The figure I think you're mentioning is the 10-12 teams that are considerably more statistically inclined than other teams, having developed their own proprietary statistics and making decisions based upon those moreso than would be traditionally expected.

That would make sense. It would not surprise me if WAR was used but teams had different ways of evaluating the defensive and pitching sides of it.

Statistics: Posted by Jordan Tuwiner — October 15th, 2011, 11:19 am

]]>

BuckMagic wrote:

Does anyone know if organizations use WAR, or something similar?

I recently read something about use of statistics within MLB front offices and it appears 10 or 12 use a ton of statistics when evaluating players. Wondering if WAR is among them.

Does anyone know if organizations use WAR, or something similar?

I recently read something about use of statistics within MLB front offices and it appears 10 or 12 use a ton of statistics when evaluating players. Wondering if WAR is among them.

My understanding is that virtually every team uses WAR as a primary statistical indicator.

The figure I think you're mentioning is the 10-12 teams that are considerably more statistically inclined than other teams, having developed their own proprietary statistics and making decisions based upon those moreso than would be traditionally expected.

Statistics: Posted by A_K — October 14th, 2011, 5:16 pm

]]>

I recently read something about use of statistics within MLB front offices and it appears 10 or 12 use a ton of statistics when evaluating players. Wondering if WAR is among them.

Statistics: Posted by BuckMagic — October 13th, 2011, 9:34 pm

]]>

A_K wrote:

That was a great analysis, Jordan.

The thing that most strikes me when traditionalists discuss statistics like WAR, FIP, UZR and wOBA is their determination to isolate the newer statistics' flaws, all while defending a group of statistics that, if the defenders are even remotely honest, are full of a set of flaws all their own. Sure, there are weaknesses in UZR, and therefore WAR since it uses UZR, and maybe SABR defenders aren't altogether honest about those weaknesses. But are those weaknesses really more egregious than those of fielding percentage? Are the issues with HR/FB% and the way they relate to xFIP really more troubling than those surrounding a pitcher's W-L record?

I think analyses like yours show that statistics are, almost invariably, getting us closer and closer to a complete understanding of the game. There will always be exceptions and imperfections, but the direction of our understanding is clearly right.

That was a great analysis, Jordan.

The thing that most strikes me when traditionalists discuss statistics like WAR, FIP, UZR and wOBA is their determination to isolate the newer statistics' flaws, all while defending a group of statistics that, if the defenders are even remotely honest, are full of a set of flaws all their own. Sure, there are weaknesses in UZR, and therefore WAR since it uses UZR, and maybe SABR defenders aren't altogether honest about those weaknesses. But are those weaknesses really more egregious than those of fielding percentage? Are the issues with HR/FB% and the way they relate to xFIP really more troubling than those surrounding a pitcher's W-L record?

I think analyses like yours show that statistics are, almost invariably, getting us closer and closer to a complete understanding of the game. There will always be exceptions and imperfections, but the direction of our understanding is clearly right.

Thanks, A_K! It does amaze me when I have people telling me that wOBA, UZR, BABIP, etc. are useless. As you said they are quick to point out flaws but fail to see the flaws in the statistics like SLG, AVG, etc. At least I haven't seen anyone argue with me when saying RBI is useless.

Statistics: Posted by Jordan Tuwiner — October 6th, 2011, 11:48 am

]]>

The thing that most strikes me when traditionalists discuss statistics like WAR, FIP, UZR and wOBA is their determination to isolate the newer statistics' flaws, all while defending a group of statistics that, if the defenders are even remotely honest, are full of a set of flaws all their own. Sure, there are weaknesses in UZR, and therefore WAR since it uses UZR, and maybe SABR defenders aren't altogether honest about those weaknesses. But are those weaknesses really more egregious than those of fielding percentage? Are the issues with HR/FB% and the way they relate to xFIP really more troubling than those surrounding a pitcher's W-L record?

I think analyses like yours show that statistics are, almost invariably, getting us closer and closer to a complete understanding of the game. There will always be exceptions and imperfections, but the direction of our understanding is clearly right.

Statistics: Posted by A_K — October 6th, 2011, 10:34 am

]]>

Statistics: Posted by Jordan Tuwiner — October 2nd, 2011, 11:08 pm

]]>

BuckMagic wrote:

What causes teams like Boston and KC to differentiate so much?

Jordan wrote:My post on WAR will be up at 12:00 AM. Here's some food for thought:

- 18 of the 30 teams were within one standard deviation.
- 28 of the 30 teams were within two standard deviations (9.32). Only two teams -- Boston (11.9) and Kansas City (10.1) -- were more than two standard deviations away.
- WAR standings would give us the same order of standings for two divisions: the AL West and NL West.
- The top nine teams in WAR wins includes all eight playoff teams.
- If Boston had made the playoffs, the top eight teams in total WAR would have been the eight playoff teams.

What causes teams like Boston and KC to differentiate so much?

Hard to say. I'll dig into the stats and get back to you on that tomorrow.

Statistics: Posted by Jordan Tuwiner — October 2nd, 2011, 11:08 pm

]]>

BuckMagic wrote:

That makes sense. So it's not as much value, but helps adjust to the fact that Kendrick is a better 2B compared to the rest of the 2Bs in the league?

Jordan wrote:BuckMagic wrote:My only problem with WAR is this: it tells me Alex Gordon was more valuable than Adrian Gonzalez this season. It tells me Howie Kendrick and Brandon Phillips were more valuable than Prince Fielder this year. It tells me JJ hardy was more valuable than Mike Stanton. I could go on and on but does that make sense? and if so how?

That's mostly due to the positional adjustment. It's much harder to find a good hitting 2B than it is to find a good hitting 1B, for example.

That makes sense. So it's not as much value, but helps adjust to the fact that Kendrick is a better 2B compared to the rest of the 2Bs in the league?

That's exactly right.

Statistics: Posted by Jordan Tuwiner — October 2nd, 2011, 11:07 pm

]]>

Jordan wrote:

My post on WAR will be up at 12:00 AM. Here's some food for thought:

My post on WAR will be up at 12:00 AM. Here's some food for thought:

- 18 of the 30 teams were within one standard deviation.
- 28 of the 30 teams were within two standard deviations (9.32). Only two teams -- Boston (11.9) and Kansas City (10.1) -- were more than two standard deviations away.
- WAR standings would give us the same order of standings for two divisions: the AL West and NL West.
- The top nine teams in WAR wins includes all eight playoff teams.
- If Boston had made the playoffs, the top eight teams in total WAR would have been the eight playoff teams.

What causes teams like Boston and KC to differentiate so much?

Statistics: Posted by BuckMagic — October 2nd, 2011, 9:36 pm

]]>