Last I checked, my scout has him at 45, but potential still in the 60s. And I think the only thing not at full potential is the control. BUt the 166 hits given up in 218 IP, crazy.
His WAR is pretty low, I'm starting to wonder about the WAR, not so much not trusting the actual stat, but moreso my understanding of it. I see some guys with similar stats, very similar but vastly different WARS, and then others where 1 guy is clearly better than the next, but the other guy is substantially higher in WAR. Confusing stuff to say the least.
shel311 wrote:Last I checked, my scout has him at 45, but potential still in the 60s. And I think the only thing not at full potential is the control. BUt the 166 hits given up in 218 IP, crazy.
His WAR is pretty low, I'm starting to wonder about the WAR, not so much not trusting the actual stat, but moreso my understanding of it. I see some guys with similar stats, very similar but vastly different WARS, and then others where 1 guy is clearly better than the next, but the other guy is substantially higher in WAR. Confusing stuff to say the least.
is the "replacement player" in WAR the league average type or something like that? if so, i agree with you, dont get it
ajalves wrote:i guess what i really "dont get" about WAR is what is sometimes seems so drastically different than VORP
Yea, the comparisons where I'm always confused as to how 1 guy is higher in WAR, the lower guy is almost always higher in VORP.
It's obviously just 2 different calcuations, but I don't have a clue as to what goes into each.
The only thing I know, or at least think I know, is the VORP number is supposed to represent the number of runs a player will provide over the replacement player and WAR is number of wins.
ajalves wrote:i guess what i really "dont get" about WAR is what is sometimes seems so drastically different than VORP
I believe it has to do with defensive metrics.
True. I was talking in general with my posts, but more to the point lately, the stuff I've noticed has been with starting pitchers, so that's why I'm still confused.
But to your point, it's why a guy like Trout has a higher WAR than Cabrera despite the lower batting totals.
RanDawg wrote:Ok, can someone seriously explain pythag for me? I am at +9 now and from the way people are talking, that is not a good thing.
It's basically based on the number of runs you score compared to the number you give up.
You've scored 654 this season and given up 711, so you "should" have a losing record.
I believe there have been studies that show your pythag record is a better indicator of how you will play in future games than your actual record, so there is merit to in terms of trying to determine just how good a team may be going forward.
the more games played, the more dependable the stat should be. for example you can win the 1st game of yr 20-1 then lose the next 5 3-0 and you'd have a run diff of 20-16. pythag would say you should have a winning record when obviously that 1 game was an anomaly (based on the 6 game sample). but the more games you play the more that all evens out and the more relevant and predictive the number should be.
the one thing guys seem to get so stumped by is how/why it happens. shit happens sometimes. its not anything wrong with the game or unrealistic, sometimes anomalies happen (Orioles last yr). you can try to use that anomaly as why you don't believe in probabilities but the truth is a probability is simply that, whats PROBABLY going to happen or not happen, not what is definitely going to happen. the larger the sample, the more likely the probabilities play out. which is why in things like March Madness you can see upsets in the first round or 2, but rarely see upsets all the way to the championship.
the more games played, the more dependable the stat should be. for example you can win the 1st game of yr 20-1 then lose the next 5 3-0 and you'd have a run diff of 20-16. pythag would say you should have a winning record when obviously that 1 game was an anomaly (based on the 6 game sample). but the more games you play the more that all evens out and the more relevant and predictive the number should be.
the one thing guys seem to get so stumped by is how/why it happens. shit happens sometimes. its not anything wrong with the game or unrealistic, sometimes anomalies happen (Orioles last yr). you can try to use that anomaly as why you don't believe in probabilities but the truth is a probability is simply that, whats PROBABLY going to happen or not happen, not what is definitely going to happen. the larger the sample, the more likely the probabilities play out. which is why in things like March Madness you can see upsets in the first round or 2, but rarely see upsets all the way to the championship.
