Random Baseball Musings

[bleedcubbieblue]

Raphael Palmiero and Greg Maddux???

[jersey cubs fan]

Raphael Palmiero and Greg Maddux???

 

Although he doesn't say it the context of this discussion is always homegrown position players and what they produced with the team. Palmeiro hit early on, but he probably had 1.5 seasons worth of time to rack up his value to the team.

[Guest]

It was post-Grace(1988) debuts of position players and their contributions for the Cubs, which excludes Davis, Palmeiro, Maddux, Dunston, etc.

[jersey cubs fan]

It was post-Grace(1988) debuts of position players and their contributions for the Cubs, which excludes Davis, Palmeiro, Maddux, Dunston, etc.

 

But the comment was made that you could probably go as far back as the 60s and not have anybody surpass Soto's total.

[Guest]

Ah, missed that from NUN.

[NewUserName]

It was post-Grace(1988) debuts of position players and their contributions for the Cubs, which excludes Davis, Palmeiro, Maddux, Dunston, etc.

 

But the comment was made that you could probably go as far back as the 60s and not have anybody surpass Soto's total.

 

I thought the initial comment also did not include pitchers, which the Cubs have done fairly well with. Davis was a rule 5 I think, he was from the Cardinals anyway. Just off the top of my head there is only a few position players from the Cubs system who have played more than 3 seasons with the Cubs since the 60s. Dunston, Grace, D Smith(kind of), Soto, Castro...I am sure I may be missing some, but can't think of any off the top of my head. Probably some obvious one recently

[Sammy Sofa]

http://www.fangraphs.com/not/index.php/john-kruk-is-having-a-rough-morning/

[bukie]

This article from Dave Cameron probably has the best description on why pitcher W-L is stupid that I've ever read: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-war-is-good-for/

 

EDIT: Also, why WAR is growing in popularity so much.

[mul21]

This article from Dave Cameron probably has the best description on why pitcher W-L is stupid that I've ever read: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-war-is-good-for/

 

EDIT: Also, why WAR is growing in popularity so much.

 

I particularly liked this line:

 

It’s not just apples and oranges anymore; now we’re mixing in things like sriracha, oreos, and Copper River Salmon, and it’s becoming a question of individual preference.

[ConstableRabbit]

What a great article.

[Cubswin11]

Brandon Webb retired today. Couldn't ever come back from that shoulder injury. One of the best, if not the best, sinkers of all time. That pitch was incredible. He had a run from 05-08 where he posted fWAR's of 5.3, 7.0, 6.9, 6.0 and had a .46 HR/9 in 2007.

[Guest]

This article from Dave Cameron probably has the best description on why pitcher W-L is stupid that I've ever read: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-war-is-good-for/

 

EDIT: Also, why WAR is growing in popularity so much.

There are plenty of problems with WAR and I'd wager not many teams who are using advanced statistics to help evaluate performance put much weight to it.

[Geech]

This article from Dave Cameron probably has the best description on why pitcher W-L is stupid that I've ever read: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-war-is-good-for/

 

EDIT: Also, why WAR is growing in popularity so much.

There are plenty of problems with WAR and I'd wager not many teams who are using advanced statistics to help evaluate performance put much weight to it.

 

Perhaps not, but I would be willing to bet they employ similar concepts.

[Guest]

This article from Dave Cameron probably has the best description on why pitcher W-L is stupid that I've ever read: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-war-is-good-for/

 

EDIT: Also, why WAR is growing in popularity so much.

There are plenty of problems with WAR and I'd wager not many teams who are using advanced statistics to help evaluate performance put much weight to it.

 

Perhaps not, but I would be willing to bet they employ similar concepts.

I agree.

[NonProfitCow]

This article from Dave Cameron probably has the best description on why pitcher W-L is stupid that I've ever read: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-war-is-good-for/

 

EDIT: Also, why WAR is growing in popularity so much.

There are plenty of problems with WAR and I'd wager not many teams who are using advanced statistics to help evaluate performance put much weight to it.

You would be very, very wrong.

[Cubswin11]

This article from Dave Cameron probably has the best description on why pitcher W-L is stupid that I've ever read: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-war-is-good-for/

 

EDIT: Also, why WAR is growing in popularity so much.

There are plenty of problems with WAR and I'd wager not many teams who are using advanced statistics to help evaluate performance put much weight to it.

You would be very, very wrong.

Yeah, most teams probably have a WAR like formula/valuation system in place. From an interview with Mozeliak today on ESPN

 

He also utilizes WAR, a linear weights statistic that when used to evaluate batters combines batting, fielding, baserunning and replacement level by position.

 

"There is no perfect stat, but when you look at trying to define Wins Above Replacement, it is a very simple place to grab information and get a feel for it," he said.

 

There are several versions of WAR out there, and while he looks at all of them, he does have a favorite.

 

"I use our own internal system, because that's what I'm most familiar with and also in the past five, six years I feel like we've made very good decisions based on it," Mozeliak said. "My confidence in it is very strong."

[WrigleyField 22]

I think the best line in the article is that WAR should start the conversation, and very rarely should end the conversation.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

This article from Dave Cameron probably has the best description on why pitcher W-L is stupid that I've ever read: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-war-is-good-for/

 

EDIT: Also, why WAR is growing in popularity so much.

There are plenty of problems with WAR and I'd wager not many teams who are using advanced statistics to help evaluate performance put much weight to it.

You would be very, very wrong.

Actually no I wouldn't. I'm not going to go too deep into it, but the statistic's basic assumption is flawed because any stat that relies on measures of central tendency assumes a random distribution data (think normal curve), in reality the standard deviation of "talent" (data) in MLB is very small and not randomly distributed. What's worse is that people actually use it to assign dollar values.

 

I think teams who are employing statisticians are using their own "secret" formulas that better conform to reality.

 

Even though it's been around and keeps needing to be refined, WAR is the shiny new toy.

[Guest]

There is literally a quote from a General Manager two posts up saying that they use several variants of WAR to help in their decision-making.

[jersey cubs fan]

There is literally a quote from a General Manager two posts up saying that they use several variants of WAR to help in their decision-making.

 

No, it says he looks at several that are out there but relies on his own internal formulas for actual usage.

[Guest]

There is literally a quote from a General Manager two posts up saying that they use several variants of WAR to help in their decision-making.

No it doesn't. It said he looks at all the different versions of WAR, but he uses his own formula to make decisions.

 

WAR is a gross approximation of something that does not conform to reality particularly well, it's a flawed model.

 

I'm not sure if you're being a dick or what.

[Guest]

There is literally a quote from a General Manager two posts up saying that they use several variants of WAR to help in their decision-making.

 

No, it says he looks at several that are out there but relies on his own internal formulas for actual usage.

 

CubinNY is railing against the concept of scale in WAR. At least I hope he is, because nitpicking a specific weighting of inputs would be a really weird thing considering that there are multiple public forms of WAR we see used all the time. The quote from Mozeliak is pretty clear in that they use WAR as a concept, they just use proprietary inputs to try to get the variant they are most comfortable with.

[Guest]

There is literally a quote from a General Manager two posts up saying that they use several variants of WAR to help in their decision-making.

 

No, it says he looks at several that are out there but relies on his own internal formulas for actual usage.

 

CubinNY is railing against the concept of scale in WAR. At least I hope he is, because nitpicking a specific weighting of inputs would be a really weird thing considering that there are multiple public forms of WAR we see used all the time. The quote from Mozeliak is pretty clear in that they use WAR as a concept, they just use proprietary inputs to try to get the variant they are most comfortable with.

There are multiple public forms of many statistical models, that doesn't make them useful. Look, any model's ultimate value is how close it conforms to reality, so it aids in evaluation and analysis. WAR as a concept is flawed or else teams wouldn't use other models. Assigning value to to a system comprised of highly skewed data is way more complicated than devising a method for coming up with an average (i.e., replacement level data point) and placing all the data accordingly.

[Cubswin11]

There is literally a quote from a General Manager two posts up saying that they use several variants of WAR to help in their decision-making.

 

No, it says he looks at several that are out there but relies on his own internal formulas for actual usage.

 

CubinNY is railing against the concept of scale in WAR. At least I hope he is, because nitpicking a specific weighting of inputs would be a really weird thing considering that there are multiple public forms of WAR we see used all the time. The quote from Mozeliak is pretty clear in that they use WAR as a concept, they just use proprietary inputs to try to get the variant they are most comfortable with.

I'm with TT on this, yes Mozeliak is saying they don't use a WAR that we/public knows. But his quote, at least to me and TT, seems to assert that they have a WAR like model/formula that attempts to measure/accomplish what the WAR's we know about does and they do base decisions off of that. Their "WAR" just has a few more/less/different inputs of data and/or weighs things more/less than the public WAR's do.

 

Debating about WAR being something that people use as the most important measure to make decisions is a completely different discussion, but it's pretty clear that the Cardinals are using something very close to the WAR valuation models that we know about to make decisions. Which was the initial statement that was being questioned about GM's/FO's not even thinking about/using WAR.

[mul21]

Actually no I wouldn't. I'm not going to go too deep into it, but the statistic's basic assumption is flawed because any stat that relies on measures of central tendency assumes a random distribution data (think normal curve), in reality the standard deviation of "talent" (data) in MLB is very small and not randomly distributed. What's worse is that people actually use it to assign dollar values.

 

I think teams who are employing statisticians are using their own "secret" formulas that better conform to reality.

 

Even though it's been around and keeps needing to be refined, WAR is the shiny new toy.

 

1. They're using their own version of WAR, but Mozeliak very clearly says it's similar to what is available to the public with some of their own proprietary stuff in there. So yes, you're wrong. Whether it's a good measure of anything or not is another story, which is math way above my head, but this argument is about whether or not MLB GMs use WAR, not if it's useful.

 

2. I will agree with you 100% that assigning dollar values to WAR is kind of an exercise in futility because the value of 1 WAR is clearly not linear as you go on up the scale. The difference in dollar value between going from 1 to 2 is huge compared to going from 4 to 5.