HOF results

[Peter_Spaeth]

If Mike Trout is elite, his stats will reflect it -- and of course they do.

Though ESPN highlights won't tell you that he still strikes out an awful lot.

[packs]

Yes but I don't need to know his WAR or JAWS to know the player he is, which is my point. I can watch him play.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Yes but I don't need to know his WAR or JAWS to know the player he is, which is my point. I can watch him play.

You cannot possibly watch players from all 30 teams regularly enough to accurately judge them without statistics.

[packs]

Counting statistics yes, JAWS and WAR no.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Counting statistics yes, JAWS and WAR no.

Well that is a different debate, no? I thought we were talking about statistics versus observation. Whether JAWS WAR etc. are meaningful compared to more traditional stats is a whole 'nother discussion, it seems to me.

[packs]

No all I've been saying the whole time is I don't need WAR or JAWS to discuss a player I'm watching. They are only relevant to discussing players from bygone eras. So when you start using JAWS and WAR to discuss someone like Jeff Kent, they mean nothing to me because I saw him play and I know what he did (i.e. counting stats).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

No all I've been saying the whole time is I don't need WAR or JAWS to discuss a player I'm watching. They are only relevant to discussing players from bygone eras. So when you start using JAWS and WAR to discuss someone like Jeff Kent, they mean nothing to me because I saw him play and I know what he did (i.e. counting stats).

Got it. And my view is that counting stats, even aided by personal observation, don't tell you enough because to me the other metrics give a better overall context (both present and historical). So with that, I think we have had a good discussion.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well that is a different debate, no? I thought we were talking about statistics versus observation. Whether JAWS WAR etc. are meaningful compared to more traditional stats is a whole 'nother discussion, it seems to me.

Right, the issue is that stats like WAR and JAWS (which is based on WAR) is not like traditional statistics, in that they are based on someone's opinion on the weighting that goes into the formulas not to mention who knows what else. In addition, these newer stats become skewed in the age of PED users. You are comparing players to other players around the league, but if those players are using, and their stats go up, then the non-users WAR goes down in comparison.

The other thing is that WAR is trying era-adjust, so that you can compare players across the years. That is like saying, in every year, there have to be a few players that are HOF-worthy. It does not take into account that there may be valleys and spikes across the eras, where there may be a bunch of really great players in one decade, but a dearth of them in another.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

Right, the issue is that stats like WAR and JAWS (which is based on WAR) is not like traditional statistics, in that they are based on someone's opinion on the weighting that goes into the formulas not to mention who knows what else. In addition, these newer stats become skewed in the age of PED users. You are comparing players to other players around the league, but if those players are using, and their stats go up, then the non-users WAR goes down in comparison.

The other thing is that WAR is trying era-adjust, so that you can compare players across the years. That is like saying, in every year, there have to be a few players that are HOF-worthy. It does not take into account that there may be valleys and spikes across the eras, where there may be a bunch of really great players in one decade, but a dearth of them in another.

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?