Are you able to locate one person in the world that has made such a statement? Not strawman conjecture, I mean someone who has actually tried to argue that point?

I'm starting to think my "SABRmetrics is a myth" stance is correct.

That said, I cannot envision a scenario wherein I would put more importance on W/L than WAR anymore, but it's not like I won't at least look at W/L as part and parcel of some larger package. But I cannot fathom how anyone - and I'm not indicating that you do - but I cannot fathom how anyone can every pretend to think W/L means a tenth of what it did, say, 40 years ago. The function, handling, and expectations of a starting pitcher - or really any pitcher - is simply not the same as it was then, so to expect a stat almost as old as the game itself that has not evolved along with the position to remain as important and informative as it once was is ludicrous.

Bernsie specifically said it in transition yesterday. I mentioned it in the Welch RIP thread before Davenport even brought it up.

I laugh whenever I read "SABRmetrics is only meant to be predictive".

If that is the case, why is it ever brought up in any baseball discussion about current or past performance?

I'm starting to think my "SABRmetrics is a myth" stance is correct.

Welch forgot how to be a winner in 86. then he remembered again. Then forgot again.

You're wrong. The numbers are what they are.

It's two completely different situations. One is a hitter trying to get on base. One is a pitcher trying to record an out. Certain things indicate future success at each activity.

It's not equal on both sides when using numbers to predict the future.

If you're talking about what happened, then yes the strikeout is just another out. That's the history. But these are predictive numbers.

4 strikeouts yesterday is a bad game but it's not any worse than 4 flyouts when predicting future performance

Buehrle might throw a perfect game with 0 Strikeouts. Thats fine and its a great game. A guy who gives up 2 soft hits and strikes out 14 is more likely to be better going forward.

He was a blackout drunk so that is plausible

all of that is meaningless is the underlying equation is incorrect. If a+b=c then c-b=a

As I said, I had no context for it ... if you say that's what happened, then it's probably what happened. That's just sad.

Thats not the equation.

A + B = C

D + B = E

Different situations that you are combining as one

that's not true

Then I need someone more capable than you to explain it to me.

No, you just need to open up to the possibility that you were mistaken.


But here ya go anyway

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/4/1/4165664/how-can-strikeouts-be-great-for-pitchers-but-not-that-bad-for-hitters

It assumes that strikeouts correlate to power which is only true because a high K rate would not be tolerated from a hitter who lacked power. Except by the White Sox front office.

In fairness, I don't think that answers the question. It assumes that strikeouts correlate to power which is only true because a high K rate would not be tolerated from a hitter who lacked power. Except by the White Sox front office.

fangraphs WAR is based on FIPS
Baseball Reference is based on runs allowed then adjusted for team defense.

right now FG has Mark Burley at 2 WAR while BR has him at 3.4 WAR

BRick thinks he's right again .... somebody alert the AP and Reuters ...