Page 2 of 9

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:24 pm
by Headhunter
Jason wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Jason wrote:It measures retardedness. It's a "what if" stat used by sports media to push the players they want. Useless stat.
Useless except to all 30 MLB teams...

So you think they artificially pump up the value of certain guys? Dude, send an e-mail to the MLB commissioner. You've just discovered one of the great conspiracies in all of sports. Funny that it's more plausible to you than you just not liking it.
It's pretty stupid and a totally ineffective way of measuring talent. Mashing shit together to form a what if scenario is flat out retarded.
"Mashing shit together", "what if scenario"...yeah you clearly understand it :lol:

Imagine thinking that and then every team in the league still uses it. Damn...

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:29 pm
by Jason
Weird how it doesn't work. Kind of embarrassing that Trout's WAR is nowhere near matching what the team is actually doing without him, lol. The ultimate retard stat.

Anyway, here's Nolan's walk-off homer to end his day in a cycle.




Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:30 pm
by Jason
First pitch he was like "yep, homer". Kablamo. Sweep the Midgets Giants. R.I.P.

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:32 pm
by Headhunter
Imagine how I already explained how a team can still succeed around lost value at one position. And then ignoring that. Couldn't be me!

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:36 pm
by Jason
That's WAR for ya. Cute, at best. In no way reflecting how good a player is.

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:36 pm
by Headhunter
To break this down simply for you, the Angels play in the American League, which includes a designated hitter. This means that there are 8 players who bat in the lineup around Mike Trout, plus pitching and fielding adding even more value. Baseball is a team sport and more than one player can affect the results of a team. If they're worse at CF, but better than they've been literally everywhere else, they'll be much better despite losing value at one position. There are a lot of players in a game who affect your chances of winning. One player can't bat in every spot, pitch nine innings and cover every fielding position as far as I know.

Get it?

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:38 pm
by Jason
They got "stats" that say Mark Reynolds is in the minus and well below average of a first base defender, this year. When in actuality his fielding percentage is one of the best in the entirety of baseball. But... he's in the minus. Lol. Some stats are retarded. WAR is one of them.

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:38 pm
by Headhunter
Jason wrote:That's WAR for ya. Cute, at best. In no way reflecting how good a player is.
How do you not understood that your favorite sport is a team game with like 12-13 guys affecting your chances of winning?

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:39 pm
by Jason
Headhunter wrote:To break this down simply for you, the Angels play in the American League, which includes a designated hitter. This means that there are 8 players who bat in the lineup around Mike Trout, plus pitching and fielding adding even more value. Baseball is a team sport and more than one player can affect the results of a team. If they're worse at CF, but better than they've been literally everywhere else, they'll be much better despite losing value at one position. There are a lot of players in a game who affect your chances of winning. One player can't bat in every spot, pitch nine innings and cover every fielding position as far as I know.

Get it?
I get WAR fully. It is just retarded.

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:40 pm
by Headhunter
Jason wrote:They got "stats" that say Mark Reynolds is in the minus and well below average of a first base defender, this year. When in actuality his fielding percentage is one of the best in the entirety of baseball. But... he's in the minus. Lol. Some stats are retarded. WAR is one of them.
Or you just don't know how to evaluate players. I'll side with the teams who pump millions into their analytics departments and still find WAR incredibly valuable :lol:

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:40 pm
by Jason
Headhunter wrote:
Jason wrote:That's WAR for ya. Cute, at best. In no way reflecting how good a player is.
How do you not understood that your favorite sport is a team game with like 12-13 guys affecting your chances of winning?
I understood.

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:41 pm
by Jason
Headhunter wrote:
Jason wrote:They got "stats" that say Mark Reynolds is in the minus and well below average of a first base defender, this year. When in actuality his fielding percentage is one of the best in the entirety of baseball. But... he's in the minus. Lol. Some stats are retarded. WAR is one of them.
Or you just don't know how to evaluate players. I'll side with the teams who pump millions into their analytics departments and still find WAR incredibly valuable :lol:
Have at it.

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:42 pm
by Headhunter
Jason wrote:
Headhunter wrote:To break this down simply for you, the Angels play in the American League, which includes a designated hitter. This means that there are 8 players who bat in the lineup around Mike Trout, plus pitching and fielding adding even more value. Baseball is a team sport and more than one player can affect the results of a team. If they're worse at CF, but better than they've been literally everywhere else, they'll be much better despite losing value at one position. There are a lot of players in a game who affect your chances of winning. One player can't bat in every spot, pitch nine innings and cover every fielding position as far as I know.

Get it?
I get WAR fully. It is just retarded.
Okay, so why did you attempt to make the argument about the absence of Mike Trout to show how flawed WAR is? Clearly you didn't understand WAR in a team context, or you wouldn't have thought that was a legitimate argument to make...

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:44 pm
by Jason
Jason wrote:They got "stats" that say Mark Reynolds is in the minus and well below average of a first base defender, this year. When in actuality his fielding percentage is one of the best in the entirety of baseball. But... he's in the minus. Lol. Some stats are retarded. WAR is one of them.
You got dudes suckin' ass at first base (easiest position to play) and have a + on their fielding ability this year while lowkey guys who are tearing it up at first and making phenomenal digs that go unnoticed will get shafted with a minus. A lot of these stats reflect popularity. It's pretty sad, really.

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:46 pm
by Jason
Headhunter wrote:
Jason wrote:
Headhunter wrote:To break this down simply for you, the Angels play in the American League, which includes a designated hitter. This means that there are 8 players who bat in the lineup around Mike Trout, plus pitching and fielding adding even more value. Baseball is a team sport and more than one player can affect the results of a team. If they're worse at CF, but better than they've been literally everywhere else, they'll be much better despite losing value at one position. There are a lot of players in a game who affect your chances of winning. One player can't bat in every spot, pitch nine innings and cover every fielding position as far as I know.

Get it?
I get WAR fully. It is just retarded.
Okay, so why did you attempt to make the argument about the absence of Mike Trout to show how flawed WAR is? Clearly you didn't understand WAR in a team context, or you wouldn't have thought that was a legitimate argument to make...
WAR in a team context? I am talking about Mike Trout's WAR being through the roof every season and people thinking that reflects how he is as an overall baseball player. A player's ability cannot be measured through WAR. Too many intangibles.

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:47 pm
by Headhunter
Jason wrote:
Jason wrote:They got "stats" that say Mark Reynolds is in the minus and well below average of a first base defender, this year. When in actuality his fielding percentage is one of the best in the entirety of baseball. But... he's in the minus. Lol. Some stats are retarded. WAR is one of them.
You got dudes suckin' ass at first base (easiest position to play) and have a + on their fielding ability this year while lowkey guys who are tearing it up at first and making phenomenal digs that go unnoticed will get shafted with a minus. A lot of these stats reflect popularity. It's pretty sad, really.
Yup, the people who are paid to record every moment of every game know less than a random guy in California who likes watching his team. You should take their jobs, loooooot of money in it.

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:48 pm
by Headhunter
Jason wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Jason wrote:
Headhunter wrote:To break this down simply for you, the Angels play in the American League, which includes a designated hitter. This means that there are 8 players who bat in the lineup around Mike Trout, plus pitching and fielding adding even more value. Baseball is a team sport and more than one player can affect the results of a team. If they're worse at CF, but better than they've been literally everywhere else, they'll be much better despite losing value at one position. There are a lot of players in a game who affect your chances of winning. One player can't bat in every spot, pitch nine innings and cover every fielding position as far as I know.

Get it?
I get WAR fully. It is just retarded.
Okay, so why did you attempt to make the argument about the absence of Mike Trout to show how flawed WAR is? Clearly you didn't understand WAR in a team context, or you wouldn't have thought that was a legitimate argument to make...
WAR in a team context? I am talking about Mike Trout's WAR being through the roof every season and people thinking that reflects how he is as an overall baseball player. A player's ability cannot be measured through WAR. Too many intangibles.
No, actually you used Mike Trout's WAR as an example of why WAR doesn't work because of the Angels' record without him. It didn't work and now you're moving the goal posts, pretending your point about Trout wasn't related to the team's success right now.

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:50 pm
by Jason
Headhunter wrote:
Jason wrote:
Jason wrote:They got "stats" that say Mark Reynolds is in the minus and well below average of a first base defender, this year. When in actuality his fielding percentage is one of the best in the entirety of baseball. But... he's in the minus. Lol. Some stats are retarded. WAR is one of them.
You got dudes suckin' ass at first base (easiest position to play) and have a + on their fielding ability this year while lowkey guys who are tearing it up at first and making phenomenal digs that go unnoticed will get shafted with a minus. A lot of these stats reflect popularity. It's pretty sad, really.
Yup, the people who are paid to record every moment of every game know less than a random guy in California who likes watching his team. You should take their jobs, loooooot of money in it.
Hmm... Perhaps

Image

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:51 pm
by Headhunter
Jason wrote:Trout and Harper are the fun names that everybody likes to talk about. Harper is better than Trout, Nolan is better than both. Aaron Judge is gonna be a mother fucker. Media will forget about Trout and push this dude, now.

Also, lol. Trout's WAR is always so amazing, but they have been just as good or better without him Weird. It's like WAR doesn't work or something.
This is the quote where you talk about Trout. You were trying to use Trout's absence and the team's success to prove WAR is ineffective. This is because you didn't understand the way WAR works in the context of a game featuring double digit numbers of players. Now you do know.

Re: MLB: 2017

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:52 pm
by Jason
Headhunter wrote:
Jason wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Jason wrote:
Headhunter wrote:To break this down simply for you, the Angels play in the American League, which includes a designated hitter. This means that there are 8 players who bat in the lineup around Mike Trout, plus pitching and fielding adding even more value. Baseball is a team sport and more than one player can affect the results of a team. If they're worse at CF, but better than they've been literally everywhere else, they'll be much better despite losing value at one position. There are a lot of players in a game who affect your chances of winning. One player can't bat in every spot, pitch nine innings and cover every fielding position as far as I know.

Get it?
I get WAR fully. It is just retarded.
Okay, so why did you attempt to make the argument about the absence of Mike Trout to show how flawed WAR is? Clearly you didn't understand WAR in a team context, or you wouldn't have thought that was a legitimate argument to make...
WAR in a team context? I am talking about Mike Trout's WAR being through the roof every season and people thinking that reflects how he is as an overall baseball player. A player's ability cannot be measured through WAR. Too many intangibles.
No, actually you used Mike Trout's WAR as an example of why WAR doesn't work because of the Angels' record without him. It didn't work and now you're moving the goal posts, pretending your point about Trout wasn't related to the team's success right now.
I didn't change anything. That's how WAR works. It's a mashup stat designed to try and determine a player's overall value to the team. Trout's is through the roof, they are better without him. Not that hard to grasp that it's a retarded stat.