The fact that WAR differs from site to site is a big problem with it, whether u agree with Wild Card or not. A stat should be consistently measured everywhere. A players OPS doesn't change depending on the site.

It isn't measured differently, it's computed differently. Sure, that may seem like semantics, but it makes a big difference. It's not like rWAR and fWAR have huge variations anyway. If one of them says a player is good, so will the other, the specific variations are usually not significant.

How's that a problem? In science and engineering we often have several different formulas to approximate or measure the same quantity.

 

WAR is an umbrella class of statistics. I see no issues with having two different ways to compute it. In fact, that's what makes it even more scientific.

The problem is simple; if the result is not the same every single time, from every single source, it's not a statistic it's an opinion. If BR has Lucas with a 1.2 WAR and Fangraphs has 0.7, they have a difference of opinion based on the same opportunity to the same information. That may not seem like a big difference, but what if the two sources differ by half a win on every single player on your team? In theory, that could be a difference of 12.5 wins... No? If I am wrong, please correct me, because this is more a question than a arguement...

In theory, hat could be a difference of 12.5 wins... No?

Yes, the weight of the hat could definitely be a difference of 12.5 wins.

 

In all seriousness - no, it's not an opinion.

These would be opinions:

1) I think Yelich is an outfielder with a great arm.

2) I do not think Yelich is an outfielder with a great arm.

 

(Personally, I think it's about average - another opinion)

 

As they are mentioning, there are different formulas that get different results, but they are still statistics. FWIW, Fangraphs has Ed Lucas at a 0.2 WAR at the moment. Still, both statistics. I'll give you partial credit, because there is one point where it is an opinion - that being which site/formula you rely on more. If you feel baseball-reference has the more correct WAR, that there is your opinion. Same goes with if you feel Fangraphs is more reliable, which I do, personally, considering they have many more statistics from which to draw.

The problem is simple; if the result is not the same every single time, from every single source, it's not a statistic it's an opinion. If BR has Lucas with a 1.2 WAR and Fangraphs has 0.7, they have a difference of opinion based on the same opportunity to the same information. That may not seem like a big difference, but what if the two sources differ by half a win on every single player on your team? In theory, that could be a difference of 12.5 wins... No? If I am wrong, please correct me, because this is more a question than a arguement...

WAR is not directly related to win totals. A guy that has a WAR of 2 replacing a guy with a WAR of 0 won't necessarily make an 80 win team into an 82 win team, but he will make the team better. The major difference between rWAR and fWAR lies in defensive metrics, which are still very difficult to calculate due to sample sizes and an overall lack of historical statistics in that regard. Batting average? Easy: hits divided by at bats. Homeruns? Easy: count the number of homeruns. Defensive metrics aren't quite as simple, so the variation in WAR comes mostly from that.

The problem is simple; if the result is not the same every single time, from every single source, it's not a statistic it's an opinion. If BR has Lucas with a 1.2 WAR and Fangraphs has 0.7, they have a difference of opinion based on the same opportunity to the same information. That may not seem like a big difference, but what if the two sources differ by half a win on every single player on your team? In theory, that could be a difference of 12.5 wins... No? If I am wrong, please correct me, because this is more a question than a arguement...

 

You aren't making sense, as usual.

 

First of all, explain to me how rWAR and fWAR existing would make WAR an "opinion." You are latching on to this word that some other writer lazily (and ignorantly) used and you are now taking it out of context. So explain to me why WAR is an opinion. You have not done so yet.

 

Secondly, rWAR and fWAR are different statistics entirely, but are intended to calculate similar values. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp? Based on your idiotic logic, all of modern science should be considered "an opinion."

That may not seem like a big difference, but what if the two sources differ by half a win on every single player on your team? In theory, that could be a difference of 12.5 wins... No? If I am wrong, please correct me, because this is more a question than a arguement...

 

rWAR and fWAR have different baselines for replacement players, or rather a team composed of entirely replacement players, which would normalize such a disparate difference in win totals.

Based on your idiotic logic, all of modern science should be considered "an opinion."

I don't believe in gravity.

I don't believe in gravity.

 

If Wild Card sticks to his guns here, he probably doesn't.

I don't think anyone's claiming that WAR is an exact science. When you measure human beings (be it in baseball, economics, psychology - anything) you're never going to get a complete and fully accurate measurement of all the circumstances surrounding whatever it is you're measuring. The only way to do so would be to account for every single factor imaginable - and even then, you'd have the concept of free will and rational thought to attempt to quantify.

 

But again, no one is claiming that measuring baseball performance through statistics is an exact science. In fact, it's not a science at all. These statistics serve as observations that can help us make decisions and understand situations - and that carries tremendous value in a game where so many factors go into play. Just because something isn't 100% accurate doesn't mean it's not useful.

I don't believe in gravity.

So explain to me why WAR is an opinion. You have not done so yet.

 

If two sources come up with two different WAR totals based on the same information, it's not a statistic. It's not fact. Unless it's definitive, like Giancarlo definitely hit 11 home runs this year, then it's that sources opinion of how valuable that guy is.

 

What I'm proposing is pretty clear cut. If you can't understand what I'm saying I can't help you.

But it's not the exact same information. Like I said, fangraphs has a lot more that they put in to factoring WAR than what baseball-reference works with.

Jesus, he's dense. As Bender points out, the formulas do not input the same information. The formulas both try to give estimates of value over a replacement player but they rely on different variables. They are two different statistics.

 

I still don't understand why you are latching onto the "opinion" word. That other writer was wrong, but he was speaking in terms of the replacement player being a statistical abstract. What he said had nothing to do with their being two different WAR statistics. It's like you are trying to borrow his idiotic term from a different context and try to conform it to your own line of thinking.

I guess what I failed to grasp is that both sources use different formulas to generate WAR. Please forgive me, as it is slightly puzzling why they would call it the same thing... when it's not.

That has been explained and discussed many times on this board in the past. The ignorant anti-stats person predictably tries to poke holes in WAR by pointing out the fact that there are two different formulas, and thus thinking that is a shortcoming for some reason.

 

I also even explained this in the thread several posts ago, which you apparently failed to comprehend. WAR is an umbrella class of statistics, but there are two major different WAR statistics: rWAR and fWAR. They aspire to estimate the same thing, but input different variables. The major differences are in defensive and pitching evaluation.

I found this humorous

 

Juan C. Rodriguez @JCRMarlinsbeat

And before u ask, I have no idea why RT @MarlinsMedia: Miguel Tejada signed to a minor league contract.

"veteran leadership"

I look the move for being proactive getting positional depth in the farm-

 

I hate the fact it was Tejada.

 

Couldn't they pry Lowell, Dawson and Conine out of retirement and let them play daily in Jupiter incase there was a need.

 

Or heck, maybe Alex Gonzalez and Edgar Renteria at New Orleans.

 

 

Or.... Or.... Mike Piazza at Jax so I Can finally buy a current marlins piazza jersey.

In all fairness to Alex Gonzalez, he can still play. He was the Tigers opening day SS.

In all fairness to Alex Gonzalez, he can still play. He was the Tigers opening day SS.

 

Just cause you're a team's opening day SS doesn't mean you can play. See Adeiny Hechavarria of the Miami Marlins.

:lol Exactly. Tigers had pretty much no other option at short since Iglesias got injured and Peralta went elsewhere.

Kudos to A-Gon for even being an option...