Sale 6th in baseball in WAR

[Eminor3rd]

Well until these geniuses get together and create one standard WAR stat then I say they both suck.

 

Suck at what? They are designed to answer specific questions. And they are questions that "traditional" stats don't have an equivalent for. If all versions of WAR suck, then what is the "correct" way to compare individual player performance on both sides of the diamond while controlling for team context? WWHRD (What would Harold Reynolds do?)

 

The answer to WWHRD, as far as I can tell, is argue about it and never come to a consensus. If that's as far as you want to be able to take it, then fine. But what's wrong with trying to find answers to interesting and useful questions about baseball? Well he strikes out too much, well he doesn't walk enough, well his defense good enough to justify his bat, blah blah. Well don't you want to actually try to find out?

 

This post probably reads jerkier than I want it to. I'm sorry if that's the case.

[LittleHurt05]

Suck at what? They are designed to answer specific questions. And they are questions that "traditional" stats don't have an equivalent for. If all versions of WAR suck, then what is the "correct" way to compare individual player performance on both sides of the diamond while controlling for team context? WWHRD (What would Harold Reynolds do?)

 

The answer to WWHRD, as far as I can tell, is argue about it and never come to a consensus. If that's as far as you want to be able to take it, then fine. But what's wrong with trying to find answers to interesting and useful questions about baseball? Well he strikes out too much, well he doesn't walk enough, well his defense good enough to justify his bat, blah blah. Well don't you want to actually try to find out?

 

This post probably reads jerkier than I want it to. I'm sorry if that's the case.

 

My post was a bit sarcastic, I do enjoy the new stats, I just find it annoying that the first response to a post about Sale's WAR is "No, that one sucks, don't use it!" How are you supposed to have a good discussion about player value if that's the first thing that pops up?

[Eminor3rd]

My post was a bit sarcastic, I do enjoy the new stats, I just find it annoying that the first response to a post about Sale's WAR is "No, that one sucks, don't use it!" How are you supposed to have a good discussion about player value if that's the first thing that pops up?

 

Ahhh. Yeah I see what you mean.

 

Pitching is tough. It's so hard to separate defense from the equation.

[Jake]

I don't know many real statheads that think highly of bWAR.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

My post was a bit sarcastic, I do enjoy the new stats, I just find it annoying that the first response to a post about Sale's WAR is "No, that one sucks, don't use it!" How are you supposed to have a good discussion about player value if that's the first thing that pops up?

 

bWAR does suck, and we shouldn't use it. lol.

[southsider2k5]

My post was a bit sarcastic, I do enjoy the new stats, I just find it annoying that the first response to a post about Sale's WAR is "No, that one sucks, don't use it!" How are you supposed to have a good discussion about player value if that's the first thing that pops up?

 

TWTW

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

TWTW

 

The WAR To Win

[ptatc]

Right except it absolutely doesn't, lol. It tells you which teams have played the best relative to the ones they've played against. If that's the question you're asking, then yes, it tells you all you need to know.

Considering that's what we base a good or bad season on and who goes to the playoffs, I would agree it's the most important.

[ptatc]

W/L record for a pitcher is pointless, it's amazing how many people still use it as a important metric.

Because it's still the most important stat in the game.

[IlliniKrush]

Considering that's what we base a good or bad season on and who goes to the playoffs, I would agree it's the most important.

What?

 

Did you just compare team w/l to a pitcher's w/l?

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

What sucks the most is that when someone is trying to say we have a great pitcher, be happy, celebrate it, it breaks out into a statheads WAR ! That WAR is the worst WAR of all.

[Eminor3rd]

Considering that's what we base a good or bad season on and who goes to the playoffs, I would agree it's the most important.

 

That has nothing to do with it being "the only stat that matters." How are you going to analyze player performance? How easy would it be to put together a winning team if you ignored every stat except wins and losses? I've said it a million times -- statistics exist to answer specific questions. If you insist on ignoring their intended uses, you shouldn't be surprised that they aren't that useful for you. But you should also not be surprised that others are finding them extremely useful -- to answering specific questions.

[cabiness42]

No. A roster full of "replacement players" would not win 0 games. It'd win something like 40 games.

 

A roster full of replacement players would be about 41-83 after 124 games.

[ptatc]

What?

 

Did you just compare team w/l to a pitcher's w/l?

Yes. Because he has the most control over it. Does he have it all, no. However, he is the most significant variable in it. It obviously doesn't tell everything and can't be looked at only for individual games but needs to be over a season and multiple seasons. The advent of specialzed relievers has made it less important as the starter pitches less.

[ptatc]

That has nothing to do with it being "the only stat that matters." How are you going to analyze player performance? How easy would it be to put together a winning team if you ignored every stat except wins and losses? I've said it a million times -- statistics exist to answer specific questions. If you insist on ignoring their intended uses, you shouldn't be surprised that they aren't that useful for you. But you should also not be surprised that others are finding them extremely useful -- to answering specific questions.

I never said that other stats aren't useful or should be ignored. I'm not sure where you got that. Of course they are useful. I said they are an important piece and in my view is where you start for starting pitcher. If I'mgoing to spend money on a freeagent. I want a pitcher who knows how to use his stuff not a guy who has stuff. So the underlying stats are important however I start with wins. Take Javier Vasquez vs. Mark Buerhle. One has better "stuff" the other knows how to use it. Most of vasquez stats are better. However, we've seen both pitch and who would you rather have.

 

Edit: Looking back I did see what I said. It didn't come out the way I meant it. The only stat that matters was in reference to a season or career and as a primary variable with some hyberbole.

Edited August 20, 2013 by ptatc

[witesoxfan]

Yes. Because he has the most control over it. Does he have it all, no. However, he is the most significant variable in it. It obviously doesn't tell everything and can't be looked at only for individual games but needs to be over a season and multiple seasons. The advent of specialzed relievers has made it less important as the starter pitches less.

 

The pitcher, especially in the AL, controls like half of the game.

 

Let's compare sports here. Drew Brees went 7-9 last year. How much of that was his fault?

[Eminor3rd]

I never said that other stats aren't useful or should be ignored. I'm not sure where you got that. Of course they are useful. I said they are an important piece and in my view is where you start for starting pitcher. If I'mgoing to spend money on a freeagent. I want a pitcher who knows how to use his stuff not a guy who has stuff. So the underlying stats are important however I start with wins. Take Javier Vasquez vs. Mark Buerhle. One has better "stuff" the other knows how to use it. Most of vasquez stats are better. However, we've seen both pitch and who would you rather have.

 

Edit: Looking back I did see what I said. It didn't come out the way I meant it. The only stat that matters was in reference to a season or career and as a primary variable with some hyberbole.

 

I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about team wins.

 

Yes. Because he has the most control over it. Does he have it all, no. However, he is the most significant variable in it. It obviously doesn't tell everything and can't be looked at only for individual games but needs to be over a season and multiple seasons. The advent of specialzed relievers has made it less important as the starter pitches less.

 

I understand your argument that some pitchers are better than others despite having worse "stuff," but I don't agree that the Wins statistic is a way to root that out. Run scoring is half a win, run prevention is half a win. When you break down run prevention, it's partially pitching and it's partially defense. Even if you give 80% of the credit for run prevention to a pitcher, the pitcher still has LESS THAN HALF of the control over a win. He may be wield more personal responsibility than any other individual on the field, but it's not even half. He's never truly "in control." He can literally throw a no-hitter and still lose.

 

All you have to do is look at the pitching leaderboards for ANY given year to see why this doesn't add up -- and it never adds up. This year, Chris Tillman has more wins than Clayton Kershaw, Yu Darvish, and Felix Hernandez. Bronson Arroyo has more wins than CC Sabathia, Cliff Lee, Zack Greinke, and Doug Fister. Freaking Joe Saunders has more wins than Matt Harvey! Matt Harvey is possibly the Cy Young!

 

You might say, "well, that's why we look at other numbers too. We know there are flaws to Wins." Well, why look at it at all? What does this stat tell you? At best, it's a proxy for run support, but it's not even useful for that, because you can just look at run support! It's not that these arguments that Hawk/HR/etc. make that there's an element of rising to an occasion and being clutch that doesn't show up in the numbers is BS -- that element DOES exist. It's not BS and it DOESN'T show up in the numbers, despite a lot of effort that's been put into nailing it down. The Win stat is not a way to root that out. It's a number just like the others, except it's among the worst, because it tells us nothing that other numbers don't tell us more accurately.

[IlliniKrush]

Yes. Because he has the most control over it. Does he have it all, no. However, he is the most significant variable in it. It obviously doesn't tell everything and can't be looked at only for individual games but needs to be over a season and multiple seasons. The advent of specialzed relievers has made it less important as the starter pitches less.

Except he doesn't control the run support, which is a huge factor. Nor does he control the bullpen. He only controls what he gives up.

 

Sale's record is what it is because of awful run support. Does that make him less of a pitcher than some of the guys in the AL with a better record? What a lazy approach.

 

Look at Felix Hernandez. Won a Cy Young with a 13-12 record and LED THE LEAGUE IN ERA. Guess the record was his fault, year after year.

 

I can't believe someone could watch Chris Sale this whole year and still think W/L is relevant. His support is 2.96. Scherzer's is 6.04. And Sale's ERA is better than Scherzer's. But Scherzer's leaps and bounds better because "he just wins."

 

The numbers prove you wrong, it's not a good tool to evaluate a pitcher.

[witesoxfan]

These are essentially the foundational arguments that have led to the evolution of baseball. The entire goal of baseball is to win, and anyone disputing that is wrong. But how do you win? Well, you score runs and prevent the other team from scoring runs. But then how do you do that? Defense, pitching, and hitting. This goes on for 100 or so years and, we come up with logical reasons and solutions, and we get to the point we're at now.

 

Really, OPS is obsolete anymore among saberheads (though when used in context, it is still a decent barometer of offensive effectiveness). 10 years ago, it was rather cutting edge. Times change and they do so quickly.

[farmteam]

I think there is some value to wins, but much less than other metrics. Also better when measured over a long period of time, not just a single season. There's something to be said for a guy who does enough to keep his team in games enough to win them, even when his other stats aren't that good. Is there a specific way to quantify that? Maybe not. But if over the course of a few years a guy routinely has more wins than his other metrics say he should, then I'm going to give him some credit for that.

[witesoxfan]

I think there is some value to wins, but much less than other metrics. Also better when measured over a long period of time, not just a single season. There's something to be said for a guy who does enough to keep his team in games enough to win them, even when his other stats aren't that good. Is there a specific way to quantify that? Maybe not. But if over the course of a few years a guy routinely has more wins than his other metrics say he should, then I'm going to give him some credit for that.

 

It's going to tell me that he was on a team with a good offense.

[chw42]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-vie...luate-pitchers/

 

This is a great article about the player's perspective on this issue. Notice how no one says that the most important metric to evaluate a pitcher is W-L. A few bring it up, but none of them say it is the most important.

 

I think Glen Perkins' explanation is pretty good here.

 

“Wins matter, but not as a tool for evaluation. I don’t know if it’s the worst way to evaluate as pitcher, but it’s near the bottom. It just doesn’t tell you much at all. The other day, one of our guys threw four pitches and got a win. Earlier this year, I faced six guys, got two of them out, gave up a run, and got a win. It’s not like I pitched well. Wins is one of the worst ways to evaluate pitchers, but it is the best way to evaluate a team.”

Edited August 20, 2013 by chw42

[kageman129]

Except he doesn't control the run support, which is a huge factor. Nor does he control the bullpen. He only controls what he gives up.

 

Sale's record is what it is because of awful run support. Does that make him less of a pitcher than some of the guys in the AL with a better record? What a lazy approach.

 

Look at Felix Hernandez. Won a Cy Young with a 13-12 record and LED THE LEAGUE IN ERA. Guess the record was his fault, year after year.

 

I can't believe someone could watch Chris Sale this whole year and still think W/L is relevant. His support is 2.96. Scherzer's is 6.04. And Sale's ERA is better than Scherzer's. But Scherzer's leaps and bounds better because "he just wins."

 

The numbers prove you wrong, it's not a good tool to evaluate a pitcher.

 

 

And that isn't even the case sometimes . . . Errors that lead to runs.

 

W/L for a pitcher should be one of the last stats people look at when evaluating a pitcher. No way Sale has 11 losses on the season if he has a good offense/defense behind him.

[Kyyle23]

And that isn't even the case sometimes . . . Errors that lead to runs.

 

W/L for a pitcher should be one of the last stats people look at when evaluating a pitcher. No way Sale has 11 losses on the season if he has a good offense/defense behind him.

 

hell, it doesnt even have to be good. I would accept mediocre. Sale has gotten some of(if not) the worst run support in the league

[bmags]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-vie...luate-pitchers/

 

This is a great article about the player's perspective on this issue. Notice how no one says that the most important metric to evaluate a pitcher is W-L. A few bring it up, but none of them say it is the most important.

 

I think Glen Perkins' explanation is pretty good here.

 

Thanks for sharing that, very cool. Didn't realize how in tune players were to advance stats. Glen Perkins was interviewed during Sox/Twins series. He seems like a pretty interesting guy, very good in interviews.