Its not a misconception. It's a fact. These stats are not designed as a replacement for watching the games. Every Sabr site and expert will agree.


I probably saw at least 100 of each. I enjoy watching baseball and those two guys were must watch at bats last year. Also, MLB network probably showed them 80% of the time.

You dont have to watch a dozen games a night. There is a middle ground between 12 games a day and just Cub games.

I think you are taking WAR too literally. It's not a LAW that says if a replacement level player would step in, he'd be better than Castro now. The replacement level player is simply the point at which WAR is measured against. You have to establish the zero... or the numbers mean even less. They chose the replacement level based on the minimum salary and the production you typically see from the minimum salary guys. It's not perfect, I don't think anyone suggested it is. But you need a baseline. And IIRC, even Fangraphs admits that the replacement level guy hardly exists in the wild. The farm system is NOT loaded with them. It's just a virtual player to establish the baseline.

Again, this isn't really pure science. There are too many variables. Trout isn't the player that Cabrera is. Do we really need anything more than basic stats to understand that?

But to your point, I guess I don't know how deep the analysis of the average fan needs to go. If your thing is looking at numbers on a page and torturing yourself over whether Scherzer is better than Kershaw, knock yourself out. For me, it's good enough to say they're both having good years and I just like watching Fielder knock the fuck out of a baseball.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

100 at bats each! Jesus christ, you have more free time than me. But I digress.

No way you could reasonably suggest what you saw from 200 at bats was a big enough sample size of the 900 or whatever it was they had the entire year. You may have picked up something extra by watching that many. But when it comes to value, specific to the MVP race, a tool like WAR is going to provide an infinite amount of more value to the discussion. It's taking into consideration every play, and more importantly a lot more variables than any human can pick up on.

Watching the games does provide more, but I don't think you'll convince me it does a better job of defining a player's value.

Right. A replacement player is a concept rather than a human being. But listening to dan bernstein, you wouldn't know that and there are a lot of sports fans walking around Chicago who take their cues from him. "CASTRO HAS COST HIS TEAM HALF A WIN!" That isn't the way the stat is meant to be used.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

And then you say something like that and we're back to square one.

I think by watching both and looking at the numbers that Trout is better overall. I have numbers and the eye test to back me up.

Even the "basic" stats would tell you Trout is right there.

Plus, one guy has killed your team for years and you hate seeing him come up. I think you're a little biased on this.


But its funny, absolute statements like that are probably the reason people throw WAR at you so much

This may be another topic entirely. That's the thing about WAR... it's not that deep. It's as easy as looking up a number. I can have a general idea of how a guy is doing based on a google search. They have done the hard work for me.

You could do that by looking at the back of a baseball card. You were pretty much calculating your own version of WAR in your head. Now, for me, it's as easy as googling it.

I agree with this, you won't find me saying WAR is widely understood by the average sports fan. I learn stuff about it all the time.

Nope. I don't hate seeing Cabrera come up. I recognize him for what he is, a hitter that comes around once every fifty years or so. Mike Trout is a very good player. He just isn't Cabrera. No one is. I think you're biased regarding Trout. He's obviously a favorite of yours.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

If you just leave MLB network on, like I do in the summer, you'll see about 100 of every big star.


First of all, that's literally impossible. It's not infinite.

and secondly, WAR has its issues, which are corrected many times by watching the games.

I dont eschew WAR, but I dont rely soley on it. Relying soley on WAR is not a good way to go about it. Its a tool, like every other stat.


Its not better. Its complimentary.

What are some examples of things you saw in the 200 at bats, that I didn't see in the occasional highlight... and that don't show up in WAR?

And I'm not suggesting WAR is taking into consideration EVERY variable (if that's what your infinite comment meant). I just mean it's taking in a LOT more than what you are by having MLB Network on in the background.

I like Trout, but Harper is my guy.

Im not just projecting bias on you. Im pretty sure Ive seen you write something to the effect of you hate seeing him come up against your team.

I dont consider Cabrera a once in 50 year talent, because there have been more than a few hitters as good as Cabrera in just the last 20.

If he's once every 50 years, what's Pujols? And Frank Thomas? And Manny Ramirez?


And Im not even saying Trout is better. Im saying its close and it is. I dont know how you could watch both players and come to any other conclusion

Context

The "When"

So you're saying, out of the 100 at bats, which is only 1/4 of his total at bats, you had a good idea on if he was clutch or not? I find that REALLY hard to believe. I could also search WAR for inning 7 and beyond and come up with something probably better.

Goes back to the problem of big events sticking out. Seeing Trout hit two walk-offs in those 100 at bats may make it seem he is clutch. But in reality, he could have gone 2-40 in 9th inning at bats in close games (made those stats up, obviously). But those 2 awesome hits will skew your perception.

Those are all steroid era guys and whether you believe any of them was juiced or not, batting in a lineup of other guys, some of whom certainly were, is a huge advantage.

I don't think it is close and regardless, we haven't seen enough of Trout to know yet. But if you look at how consistent Cabrera has been as a hitter over many years, you know Trout has a long way to go. There seems to be this assumption when a guy comes out of the box strong that he will only get better. It usually doesn't work that way. We can revisit the conversation in five years or so. Cabrera is a special player. I couldn't say that about Trout right now. He's just a guy who has had one great year.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

No you couldn't. Because every game is different.

There are a ton of other things I could list about working counts, setting up pitchers, hitting a great pitch etc.

I cant believe you are actually making the argument, it's better to not watch. I didnt think you were totally serious about that.

I dont know what to say about that other than its ridiculous and Bill James would be ashamed of you.

No, they wont. Because as Im watching those two plays, Im also looking at stats. The way it was meant to be done.

Is "how many at-bats" the new "where'd you play your ball?"


I don't think it's a "better" experience. But I think it's certainly better when having a discussion about a player's value. I'll take WAR over RPB's 200 at bats all day.

You know, Bill James likes the stats. He's made a career of them. But he doesn't always believe them. He thinks Ozzie Guillen was "better than his numbers". And even though Dick Allen should be a Jamesian darling based purely on the numbers, Bill thinks he was a turd.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

If JORR keeps insisting NFL fans are just TV fans, I'm gonna start a "baseball fans are really just math fans" meme.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

So what conclusions about these topics did you make about Trout vs Cabrera from the 200 at bats you saw?



I feel like you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm being a bigger dick than I'd prefer, at the moment.

Except, that's not the battle

Its WAR + watching games vs. WAR + watching very few games


I think its obvious which is better.

Anyway, like I said, you're not using the stats as they were meant to be used and you probably draw some wrong conclusions based on it.

No, you're not being a dick. You're just incredibly wrong here and you dont seem to want to admit it.


If you were buying a new TV, what would be better research

A) Looking up reviews and stats online

B) Looking up reviews and stats online AND then going and physically checking out the TV


I mean, you are essentially arguing its better NOT to watch the games. It's quite silly.

JORR watches a lot and has a terrible opinion on Mike Trout!

I'm confident my opinion will be vindicated. I wasn't jerking myself off to Strasburg either. He's a good pitcher. There are other guys as good. Most of his fans have moved on to Harvey now and many of Trout's have moved on to Puig. While I think the excitement over a "instant player" is great for the game, it's really the antithesis of what baseball is all about which is time and repetition.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

The last 4 TVs I bought were online, without ever seeing in person.... so bad example. I trust the reviews.


Here is an example. If we are talking about the value of Mike Trout... what can you add to the conversation that I can't from WAR? We both think he is ridiculously amazing. Could you add an anecdote about an at bat you saw that I didn't? Sure... but that's not going to sway how I perceive his value based on WAR. Sure, you have stories to go along with the WAR, but when we want to identify his value compared to others, your 100 at bats don't help move the needle much.

The key here is deriving player value. I admit intangibles do exist, and can't always be quantified (their relative value is a debate for another time). They are much easier to identify when you watch players on the team you root for. I could tell you things about Starlin from last night... about how ridiculous his first 4 plate appearances were. They were awful... he looked lost, etc. But while I saw it, they also showed up in his WAR. Do I have a better idea of WHY he was awful last night? Sure. But WAR told me he was awful. Which is enough for me, in most cases.

I get what you mean, but I don't think anyone is comparing Trout's career to Cabrera's. What Cabrera has done over time is incredible. What Trout did last year was incredible, but certainly we can't compare them long term until Trout is in the league for awhile. And naturally, you could be right about Trout. But signs are sure pointing up. He's having another great year.