WAR, what is it good for?

[cherp]

Stats are very good at telling you what happened in baseball over a period of time in the past, as long as you don't take any single statistic out of context.

They are very poor at telling you what is going to happen in the future.

[PcB]

Stats can predict the future. There are certain trends that we can see about the average player's career and compare them to whomever we are evaluating. That's how you contextualize can contextualize statistics to evaluate the future.

[Ace]

Nothing can tell you what IS going to happen in the future; but stats, contextualized as PCB said, can tell you what is more likely than not to happen in the future.

[Coldneck]

<!--quoteo(post=81151:date=Mar 2 2010, 07:46 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 2 2010, 07:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Nothing can tell you what IS going to happen in the future; but stats, contextualized as PCB said, can tell you what is more likely than not to happen in the future.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This. Stats are far more reliable at predicting the future than a scout's eye.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=81160:date=Mar 2 2010, 08:10 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Mar 2 2010, 08:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=81151:date=Mar 2 2010, 07:46 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 2 2010, 07:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Nothing can tell you what IS going to happen in the future; but stats, contextualized as PCB said, can tell you what is more likely than not to happen in the future.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This. Stats are far more reliable at predicting the future than a scout's eye.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would agree with this in most cases but not all. You still need scouts to help make sense of stats, and factor in other qualitative info that never shows up on stat sheets.

[Coldneck]

<!--quoteo(post=81166:date=Mar 2 2010, 09:53 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Mar 2 2010, 09:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=81160:date=Mar 2 2010, 08:10 AM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Mar 2 2010, 08:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=81151:date=Mar 2 2010, 07:46 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 2 2010, 07:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Nothing can tell you what IS going to happen in the future; but stats, contextualized as PCB said, can tell you what is more likely than not to happen in the future.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This. Stats are far more reliable at predicting the future than a scout's eye.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would agree with this in most cases but not all. You still need scouts to help make sense of stats, and factor in other qualitative info that never shows up on stat sheets.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes

[AnnoCatuli]

For me, with starting pitchers, I look more at ERA and whip than wins

you can have a great ERA and WHIP but if your offense sucks, you are screwed.

relief pitchers I look at holds, WHIP and inherited runners allowed to score more than ERA

You let too many men on base you aren't looking good. As far as ERA you could be brought in for one person. You fail to get him out and are replaced, the next guy allows that run to score you are scored/

batters, OBP and SLG

as i stated earlier, batting average isn't very useful

[Fly]

ERA and WHIP are certainly better indicators than Wins and Losses, but are still far from perfect...they are both easily swayed by the defense playing behind pitchers.

But to each their own.

[BackyardLegend]

CNNSI Article

Interesting article here analyzing the top prospects from the past 16 years or so using WAR.

I would question a few...Defintely John Olreud better than Paul Konerko?

[Jody]

Absolutely, see you have to take into account the hard plastic helmet. It's a difference maker.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=81386:date=Mar 3 2010, 11:58 AM:name=Jody)-->QUOTE (Jody @ Mar 3 2010, 11:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Absolutely, see you have to take into account the hard plastic helmet. It's a difference maker.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Rickey play with another one of them before. Rickey fast, bitch.

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=81385:date=Mar 3 2010, 12:56 PM:name=BackyardLegend)-->QUOTE (BackyardLegend @ Mar 3 2010, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->CNNSI Article

Interesting article here analyzing the top prospects from the past 16 years or so using WAR.

I would question a few...Defintely John Olreud better than Paul Konerko?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Does WAR takes into account defense?

[bz]

I will say that the report explains in volumes why our minor league system has sucked so much, and why Hendry should be help accountable for much of that. I mean...that shows such a low success rate for pitchers, yet nearly all of our 1st round picks have been pitchers.

[1060Ivy]

If you believe the analysis, Hendry isn't the only GM with an issue. Pitchers represent a near majority of the first round picks in the last decade, do you believe that most GMs have their head up their ass? (Pitchers represent anywhere from 9 to 20 of the first 30 picks in each of the last decades drafts.)

Have a hard time taking the analysis and making useful for predictive purposes.

My understanding is that in the draft, pitchers were preferred as they are seen as being able to get into MLB quicker than position players. Since they have the quickest path to the MLB, their returns are the fastest.

To be more useful, the author include the financial layout for the drafting of the players and then the amount of time spent in the minors before the player made it into the majors.

[Coldneck]

<!--quoteo(post=81422:date=Mar 3 2010, 06:22 PM:name=1060Ivy)-->QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Mar 3 2010, 06:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->(Pitchers represent anywhere from 9 to 20 of the first 30 picks in each of the last decades drafts.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's hardly persuasive considering the median is 15.