HorrorMovieFans.com

Jason wrote:

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.

Really? You said that it's funny how they're better off without him despite his high WAR. That post is there. I explained to you why individual WAR loss can be inconsequential to a team's success given all the players around one position. You didn't understand individual WAR in a team context, now you do.

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.

Once again, this quote here translates to "WAR doesn't work because even though Trout's WAR is high the Angels aren't worse without him"

Not acknowledging that every other player also affects the team's chances of winning. You can't pretend you understand how individual WAR functions in a team context when the argument you made against WAR didn't attempt to account for the rest of the team.

Do you want me to copy and paste the actual definition of WAR? lol. Here you go.

"WAR is a non-standardized sabermetric baseball statistic developed to sum up a player's total contributions to his team. For example, Fangraphs rates Clayton Kershaw's 2014 regular season performance at 7.2 WAR, suggesting his team won roughly seven more games than would be expected if his innings were pitched by a replacement level player". lol.

What-if stat. /debate. Goodnight. I need a soda.

Can you just admit you had no understanding of individual WAR in a cumulative team context? You can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it doesn't exist, but you should also not pretend you understand it completely when the argument you made about it did not acknowledge every other player's value to a win. You applied the statistic incorrectly and then pretended you were never making the argument clearly posted near the bottom of the first page.

Headhunter wrote:Can you just admit you had no understanding of individual WAR in a cumulative team context? You can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it doesn't exist, but you should also not pretend you understand it completely when the argument you made about it did not acknowledge every other player's value to a win.

I admit it. I definitely have no understanding of your definition of WAR. "Individual az it pertains to thE team WAR u stupid".

I mean Jesus. lol.

Somehow you still don't understand that individual WAR doesn't correlate to team wins because of 10-12 other players whose WAR is factored in every day. Seriously, how do you not understand that?

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Can you just admit you had no understanding of individual WAR in a cumulative team context? You can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it doesn't exist, but you should also not pretend you understand it completely when the argument you made about it did not acknowledge every other player's value to a win.

I admit it. I definitely have no understanding of your definition of WAR. "Individual az it pertains to thE team WAR u stupid".

I mean Jesus. lol.

Holy shit, just fucking READ. I never said there was team WAR. Every individual playeR's WAR on a team accumulated either creates a win or it doesn't. How do you not understand that if Trout created 0.1 of WAR in a game but every player around him didn't come close to 0.1, they'll be better if Trout's replacement creates 0.0 of WAR but every other player in the lineup's WAR improves to 0.1 or above? It's not that hard, a higher WAR total is better.

It's interesting having to explain WAR and how to apply it to a guy who claims to understand it...anymore you want to learn? Interesting lesson today that you can apply an individual statistic into a larger context, huh?

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Can you just admit you had no understanding of individual WAR in a cumulative team context? You can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it doesn't exist, but you should also not pretend you understand it completely when the argument you made about it did not acknowledge every other player's value to a win.

I admit it. I definitely have no understanding of your definition of WAR. "Individual az it pertains to thE team WAR u stupid".

I mean Jesus. lol.

Holy shit, just fucking READ. I never said there was team WAR. Every individual playeR's WAR on a team accumulated either creates a win or it doesn't. How do you not understand that if Trout created 0.1 of WAR in a game but every player around him didn't come close to 0.1, they'll be better if Trout's replacement creates 0.0 of WAR but every other player in the lineup's WAR improves to 0.1 or above? It's not that hard, a higher WAR total is better.

It's interesting having to explain WAR and how to apply it to a guy who claims to understand it...anymore you want to learn? Interesting lesson today that you can apply an individual statistic into a larger context, huh?

Because it is a completely and totally made up figment of the imagination coincidentally (not) aimed at popular athletes or younger athletes that baseball is making a push. I have said time and time again that I don't believe in WAR, and that it is a completely retarded stat. That will never change. Calhoun can hit three homers in a game and Trout will still have a better WAR after 4 strikeouts. It is retarded. Just like the +/- defensive statistics that apply to big name players. Can you explain to me why Mark Reynolds is in the minus on overall defense when he has one of the best fielding percentages in all of baseball? Neither can I. Neither can baseball announcers. They are denouncing stats like this mid-game. They don't work, they are fairy tales.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Can you just admit you had no understanding of individual WAR in a cumulative team context? You can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it doesn't exist, but you should also not pretend you understand it completely when the argument you made about it did not acknowledge every other player's value to a win.

I admit it. I definitely have no understanding of your definition of WAR. "Individual az it pertains to thE team WAR u stupid".

I mean Jesus. lol.

Holy shit, just fucking READ. I never said there was team WAR. Every individual playeR's WAR on a team accumulated either creates a win or it doesn't. How do you not understand that if Trout created 0.1 of WAR in a game but every player around him didn't come close to 0.1, they'll be better if Trout's replacement creates 0.0 of WAR but every other player in the lineup's WAR improves to 0.1 or above? It's not that hard, a higher WAR total is better.

It's interesting having to explain WAR and how to apply it to a guy who claims to understand it...anymore you want to learn? Interesting lesson today that you can apply an individual statistic into a larger context, huh?

Because it is a completely and totally made up figment of the imagination coincidentally (not) aimed at popular athletes or younger athletes that baseball is making a push. I have said time and time again that I don't believe in WAR, and that it is a completely retarded stat. That will never change. Calhoun can hit three homers in a game and Trout will still have a better WAR after 4 strikeouts. It is retarded. Just like the +/- defensive statistics that apply to big name players. Can you explain to me why Mark Reynolds is in the minus on overall defense when he has one of the best fielding percentages in all of baseball? Neither can I. Neither can baseball announcers. They are denouncing stats like this mid-game. They don't work, they are fairy tales.

None of this opinion-laden post serves to explain why you failed to understand the true effect of a positional WAR on a team's success though. So you don't really get the stat.

Show me an example of a player with three homeruns in a game earning less WAR in a game than an 0-4 Trout. You can't because you're making shit up.

Headhunter wrote:Show me an example of a player with three homeruns in a game earning less WAR in a game than an 0-4 Trout. You can't because you're making shit up.

Trout has been great so far this year, but his enormous WAR does not at all reflect how the team performs without him.

I mean, the definition itself is telling you it's a what if scenario. I don't know what more you want me to explain. There is nothing left to explain. Trash stat. Excellent fielders suck, decent players who are popular are GOAT WAR recipients. Untrustworthy stats, bottom line.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Show me an example of a player with three homeruns in a game earning less WAR in a game than an 0-4 Trout. You can't because you're making shit up.

Trout has been great so far this year, but his enormous WAR does not at all reflect how the team performs without him.

I mean, the definition itself is telling you it's a what if scenario. I don't know what more you want me to explain. There is nothing left to explain. Trash stat. Excellent fielders suck, decent players who are popular are GOAT WAR recipients. Untrustworthy stats, bottom line.

Because one player's individual WAR doesn't directly correlate to wins and losses, 10-12 other players' WAR is also factored in. I've said this five or six times now and you keep ignoring it. Why?

Holy shit, 5 or 6 times was selling it way short. I've told you about 10 times in this thread that individual players are affected by the performances of their teammates, making correlation between one player's individual WAR and team record non-existent.

For the eleventh time, Trout's replacement can be worse while the rest of the team is better and the end result is a better team. That says absolutely nothing about Trout's value. Please try to understand this. Try. Please. I'm begging you to be able to read this and comprehend it so I don't have to hear you repeat "Angels fine without Trout, WAR useless" for the third time and explain again how you're ignoring every other player on the team's value.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Show me an example of a player with three homeruns in a game earning less WAR in a game than an 0-4 Trout. You can't because you're making shit up.

Trout has been great so far this year, but his enormous WAR does not at all reflect how the team performs without him.

I mean, the definition itself is telling you it's a what if scenario. I don't know what more you want me to explain. There is nothing left to explain. Trash stat. Excellent fielders suck, decent players who are popular are GOAT WAR recipients. Untrustworthy stats, bottom line.

Because one player's individual WAR doesn't directly correlate to wins and losses, 10-12 other players' WAR is also factored in. I've said this five or six times now and you keep ignoring it. Why?

I'm not ignoring it. I'm flat out disregarding it because it is retarded. I've heard baseball announcers this year alone casually throwing shade at baseball stats and metrics in multiple games. One announcer flat out called bull shit on Mark Reynolds being in the minus for fielding this year while still maintaining one of the highest fielding percentages in baseball. He plays for the Rockies, I've watched almost every single game, and I can vouch that his fielding has been phenomenal. Yet, he is in the minus for fielding this year. I guarantee if a prime Albert Pujols had an identical performance from the bat to the fielding at first base as Mark Reynolds, he would be well into the positives. Broadcasters are subtly calling bull shit stats out in a lot of games this year alone. Many don't work, many don't reflect its goal of determining a player's performance at all, and I totally suspect it is because of padded or undocumented stats. WAR reflects popularity, that is it. I will never buy into it. It is a total shit stat. and it even defines itself as a shit stat.

We need to get to the bottom of why the evil WAR choosers decided they wanted an unknown player to casual fans in AJ Pollock to be top ten in WAR a couple years ago.

WAR is just an equation. If you have the numbers to plug in, you can independently come up with the results yourself, which would rule out your theory of tampered numbers. There are no hidden numbers. No conspiracies to make you angry. It's just a mathematical equation.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know what players the casual fans don't know about. AJ Pollock is a household name to me.

Edit: I just worked the google to see if he'd come up in their most popular search feed and he is the 4th most popular AJ in the world. Maybe it was WAR that put him on the map.

How many peoples do you figure are in on the conspiracy that's artificially inflating certain players' WAR and not others?

Headhunter wrote:How many peoples do you figure are in on the conspiracy that's artificially inflating certain players' WAR and not others?

Not sure. WAR is a conspiracy in itself. Could be dozens, could be hundreds.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:How many peoples do you figure are in on the conspiracy that's artificially inflating certain players' WAR and not others?

Not sure. WAR is a conspiracy in itself. Could be dozens, could be hundreds.

Would require coordination between all 30 teams with not one person coming out publicly, even anonymously. At least hundreds of people all working silently, nobody leaking anything. Yeah.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:How many peoples do you figure are in on the conspiracy that's artificially inflating certain players' WAR and not others?

Not sure. WAR is a conspiracy in itself. Could be dozens, could be hundreds.

Would require coordination between all 30 teams with not one person coming out publicly, even anonymously. At least hundreds of people all working silently, nobody leaking anything. Yeah.

"Non-standardized statistic" should already raise red flags to even the untrained sports eye.