Bucky Chris wrote:
I never ever said .1 argument, but in most cases I do feel the highest WAR should probably be the winner. The question always comes down to, what model is better?
The problem is your are seeking one model to answer everything. There isn't and never will be. Sports, are way too complex to boil down to a number. The stock market struggles to have accurate statistical models, and that is something that basically starts out as math.
Bucky Chris wrote:
To be entirely honest, I don't watch a ton of non-Cubs/Sox baseball. I see Trout and Cabrera when they play Chicago or a spattering of primetime games. But not enough to actually compare their seasons. But I have a tool that I have come to trust that gives me a great idea of how they performed. It takes in to account every single play, managing dozens of variables. Yes, there is a human element of weighting each category more or less than others... which is why I will never say there will never be a better tool available. But as I see it now, it's the best tool. And despite how every many pages this thread is, I have yet to see any semblance of a logical article to suggest that WAR isn't correct in this situation. Take out WAR entirely. Their hitting is similar, and Trout performed light years better on the base paths and defense. No WAR needed.
Well, I think Trout was more deserving. That's not the point though. You don't need to see every game. I don't watch every Heat game, but I know Lebron is the MVP*.
Are you saying there is no case for Cabrera to win? That's where you are wrong. Both guys were deserving.
*-regular season.
Bucky Chris wrote:
So again, not perfect at all, but what are the other options? Take Mike from Oak Park's opinion? How do I know how many games he has watched? Can I trust that he even saw these guys actually play? Of course not. What he is doing, is what all old guys do. Look at the box score. And just like WAR, he is independently however, assigning value to the big stats that have been used for ages. He says "holy shit, look how many home runs! Look at those RBI! Miggy has to win." He's creating his own WAR. So I can either take his opinion, which is based off of nothing, has no relevance to me, has no comparison value to anyone else's opinion... or I can take WAR which is established and has a large audience.
You only need a certain sample size to judge something. I haven't studied every housing market in the country, but I can make an educated opinion on what it did, and what it will do. That's one of the issues with the SABR crew. They think more data correlates with more accuracy. While it certainly can be true, it's not always.
Bucky Chris wrote:
I'm sure you're going to nitpick one sentence here and there, but I'd encourage you to just take the "spirit" of what I'm saying and defend another method. Tell me something else that is better than WAR. I'm sure you won't, but that's what I am looking for.
The "other method" is to take everything into account and use your brain. Just like most things in life, there is no easy answer. Both guys were deserving. SABR says only one guy was deserving. I think that shows a flaw. Both guys are clearly MVP worthy.
Let's say that Nate Silver created a statistical model that decided where you should work, what town you should live in, and who you should marry. Would you blindly accept the findings or would you still make your own decision? Would your decision be "wrong" if you didn't go to Omaha, work for a beef company, and marry whoever the model said? Why not? I believe the answer is that you don't trust the model to be infallible.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
I'm a numbers guy. That's what I basically do as a job.
