August 25, 200916 yr I guess WAR (wins above replacement) is supposed to be one the greatest if not the greatest of the great "new" stats so I was curious about what the standings would be based on WAR: Team --- Games back: Phillies --- 0.0 Marlins --- 6.4 Nationals --- 7.0 Braves --- 8.4 Mets --- 13.7 Brewers --- 0.0 Cardinals --- 6.9 Pirates --- 7.2 Astros --- 9.9 Cubs --- 10.4 Reds --- 14.4 Dodgers --- 0.0 DBacks --- 5.7 Rockies --- 6.6 Giants --- 8.5 Padres --- 9.8 Wild Card ========= Marlins --- 0.0 Nationals --- 0.6 Cardinals --- 1.1 Maybe I'm missing something but if I'm not then WAR does not impress me.
August 26, 200916 yr http://www.beyondthe...through-tuesday is basically WAR standings. The main difference is that it uses tRA (Which takes into account LD%, GB%, and FB%). Doesn't account for base running though. WAR itself is nothign new really. It's basically just WARP3 and such. The concept's been around forever. Take amount of runs offensive, defensively, and base running, take position into context, take replacement level into context, and divde by 10. An argument against it would moreso be the metric that they're using to judge offense/defense/so forth.
August 26, 200916 yr Author http://www.beyondthe...through-tuesday is basically WAR standings. The main difference is that it uses tRA (Which takes into account LD%, GB%, and FB%). Doesn't account for base running though. WAR itself is nothign new really. It's basically just WARP3 and such. The concept's been around forever. Take amount of runs offensive, defensively, and base running, take position into context, take replacement level into context, and divde by 10. An argument against it would moreso be the metric that they're using to judge offense/defense/so forth. A stat that accurately measured a player's value compared to a replacement player would be great but this stat obviously fails miserably.
August 26, 200916 yr I'd assume the main problem with it is the positional attribute, how much it weighs by position played. The link I posted above doesn't take position into account, just team totals, and it looks more or less good w/ me.
September 13, 200916 yr I'm pretty sure I found another issue: GIDP As far as I know, there isn't a wOBA formula that takes GIDP into account I was trying to project future offense, but when juxtaposing the ops/runs scored that I was getting compared to actual ops/run totals from years past, my numbers were way higher. Like, for instance the one I have open right now has a team OPS of .764 and wOBA says that'll create 827 runs. But looking at the history teams scored normally between 770-800 runs so I was very much what. I then decided to try XR. Since I didn't project HBP, IBB, SF, SH, and GIDP, I just excluded those from the formula (outside of HBP, none of those are in wOBA). XR gave me 827 runs aswell. So I was very much f***ing dammit maybe these formula's all suck. except then I was like, well, let's see about GIDP, since that does lower runs. Found the team average of GIDP in a season (about 130), plugged that in. Brought the run total down to 779, nearly 50 runs. And adding in HBP, IBB, SF, and SH actually gives me the same exact run total, although I also had to mess around with the OPS because adding those in changes OPS unlike GIDP.
September 13, 200916 yr nevermind on what I just said http://www.beyondthe...9/woba-and-gidp to see me being stupid lol infact now after projecting everything and doing the entire XR formula it's the one giving me way too high results. i.e. right now I have an ops of .757 up. wOBA says 753 runs, XR says 787 runs
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.