Sunday, December 29, 2013
Why do some people reject WAR?
?From a great movie:
400 years ago, on Earth, workers who felt their livelihood threatened by automation, flung their wooden shoes called 'sabots' into the machines to stop them. Hence the word 'sabotage'
When it comes to evaluating the performance of baseball players, we start with their hits. Then we break it down into their types of hits (singles, doubles, triples, HR). We look at their other ways of reaching base, like walks, hit batters. We want to distinguish that from intentional walks. We want to know about their outs, their DP, their reaching on error. We want to possibly consider the timing of those events, if there are runners on base or not. Maybe even if the score is close or not. Or, how the game ended, close or not. We want to know about the park, the opponent. We want to know if they started the game, or if they came on as a sub. Maybe we want to know if they were a catcher or DH or not.
And we go through the same exercise with pitchers, who have the extra wrinkle of the dependency of their teammates, as we try to separate the outcomes between the pitchers and fielders. We also have catchers who impact every pitch.
We have, basically, dozens of things to consider. And we try to consider all these things in a way that is balanced, in a way that makes sense.
That's what WAR does. It organizes these ideas. It organizes these ideas in a framework. This framework is flexible enough that different implementations can exist. The organization of these ideas in a framework allows implementations from Fangraphs and Baseball-Reference. The organization of these ideas in a framework that allows these implementations to get so popular, forces the reader to either learn about all of the considerations, or, well, reject it outright. And he'll reject it outright because otherwise, he will see no use for his own view.
So, why do some people reject WAR. He doesn't want to be a slave to ideas, to organization of ideas, to a framework for that organization of ideas, to an implementation of that framework. He wants to instead express himself in an inconsistent ad-hoc manner with no responsibility for his conclusion. Some people don't want to admit that maybe they've been thinking about the problem in an inefficient manner.
In order to live with WAR, some people instead say they will consider it, among other things. And what other things are they going to consider? They will consider hits, and walks and HR and parks and.... well.... they will consider EXACTLY the same things that WAR has already considered.
What is the solution? Accept that WAR gives you the path, while noting that Fangraphs and Baseball Reference provide two separate paths from a universe of possible paths. All these paths lead to the same spot: our best estimate of the performance of a particular player. We all have the same goal, we all are going to find some path to get there, and they are all headed in the same direction. Just create your own path, one that is consistent, and one that you can stand behind, and one that allows others to follow you. Fangraphs and Baseball Reference are honest and forthcoming with what it is doing. If you don't like it, provide your own implementation that is honest and forthcoming.
Don't feel threatened by something you don't understand. Learn it, and create your own.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 151 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date
FORUM TOPICS
Jul 12 15:22 MarcelsApr 16 14:31 Pitch Count Estimators
Mar 12 16:30 Appendix to THE BOOK - THE GORY DETAILS
Jan 29 09:41 NFL Overtime Idea
Jan 22 14:48 Weighting Years for NFL Player Projections
Jan 21 09:18 positional runs in pythagenpat
Oct 20 15:57 DRS: FG vs. BB-Ref
Apr 12 09:43 What if baseball was like survivor? You are eliminated ...
Nov 24 09:57 Win Attribution to offense, pitching, and fielding at the game level (prototype method)
Jul 13 10:20 How to watch great past games without spoilers