PDA

View Full Version : Most impressive start to season?



buckeyenut
05-05-2012, 08:48 AM
Here are your contenders

Jay Bruce
.304 BA 8 HR 18 RBI .988 OPS 3 SB

Aroldis Chapman
0.00 ERA 0.68 WHIP .111 BAA 10 games 2-0 13.1 innings 23K 4BB

Johnny Cueto
1.31 ERA 0.99 WHIP .225 BAA 6 games 3-0 41.1 innings 26K 7BB

BTW, completely unrelated, has anyone noticed that Joey Votto has struck out more times than Jay Bruce and the same number as Drew Stubbs in fewer ABs?

jojo
05-05-2012, 08:56 AM
My vote is for Chapman.

reds1869
05-05-2012, 08:56 AM
All of them have been good, but Chapman has been stunning.

jhu1321
05-05-2012, 09:11 AM
Would say Bruce if it wasn't for a 25 AB slump but gotta go with Cueto. I thought he's be good but didn't expect this good.

jesusfan
05-05-2012, 09:16 AM
Chapman, hands down.. His numbers look like they are off MLB 2K

Sea Ray
05-05-2012, 09:22 AM
My vote is for Chapman.

It's much more impressive to do what Cueto has done in 41 innings than a middle reliever throwing 13 shutout innings. I don't understand how so many people think it's more impressive to throw 3 shutout innings a week than be a dominant stopper in the rotation.

jojo
05-05-2012, 09:30 AM
Chapman's krate is approaching 16 per 9 and he's racked up nearly the same WAR as Ceuto in a third of the innings. That's dominant by any definition.

RANDY IN INDY
05-05-2012, 09:37 AM
Cueto is looking like an ace.

kbrake
05-05-2012, 09:42 AM
I expected Cueto to take at least a small step back from last season. So far he looks like he's taking steps forward.

elfmanvt07
05-05-2012, 09:45 AM
The most impressive start is a no doubter to Chapman. I think, however, when we look back in October, Cueto will have had the better season.

dougdirt
05-05-2012, 09:45 AM
I went with Bruce, because unlike the other two, he does it every day. Seems like I am the only one.

LvJ
05-05-2012, 09:52 AM
It's much more impressive to do what Cueto has done in 41 innings than a middle reliever throwing 13 shutout innings. I don't understand how so many people think it's more impressive to throw 3 shutout innings a week than be a dominant stopper in the rotation.

Agreed.

I also agree that Bruce has been very impressive but he has not been dominant like Cueto.

Why Chapman is in the poll and Ondrusek isn't, is beyond me (I guess it's the strikeouts). Logan has been just as good and important in the bullpen.

dougdirt
05-05-2012, 09:57 AM
Agreed.

I also agree that Bruce has been very impressive but he has not been dominant like Cueto.



Bruce ranks 6th in the NL in OPS, 2nd in home runs and 9th in doubles.

Cueto ranks 3rd in ERA and 2nd in IP.

Pretty close.

Sea Ray
05-05-2012, 10:12 AM
Chapman's krate is approaching 16 per 9 and he's racked up nearly the same WAR as Ceuto in a third of the innings. That's dominant by any definition.

The problem with using stats like WAR to make a point is that it varies from site to site. For example this site shows Johnny as leading the league in WAR with Chapman nowhere to be seen:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2012-pitching-leaders.shtml

reds1869
05-05-2012, 10:13 AM
It's much more impressive to do what Cueto has done in 41 innings than a middle reliever throwing 13 shutout innings. I don't understand how so many people think it's more impressive to throw 3 shutout innings a week than be a dominant stopper in the rotation.

From my perspective I'm more impressed with Chapman because I'm more surprised by Chapman. I expected Cueto to be extremely effective, whereas I simply hoped Chapman would be.

puca
05-05-2012, 10:18 AM
I went with Cueto.

I understand the 'every day' component of a position player, but Cueto's impact goes way beyond 1/5 days.

I would have voted Chapman for the shear rediculousness of his numbers, but he has pitched too few innings to really be consider having the same kind of impact as Bruce or Cueto

reds1869
05-05-2012, 10:23 AM
I think folks are making their point from two different places: 1. Most Valuable and 2. Most Impressive. Most valuable has to go to Bruce imo; where would this offense be without him? Cueto has certainly been more valuable than Chapman even though I voted for Aroldis in the poll. Most impressive can go to any of the three with solid arguments, and that is a wonderful problem to have.

VR
05-05-2012, 10:34 AM
The new nasty boys 'Chaphoosek" and their combined 0.00 earnie. :-)

jojo
05-05-2012, 10:39 AM
The problem with using stats like WAR to make a point is that it varies from site to site. For example this site shows Johnny as leading the league in WAR with Chapman nowhere to be seen:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2012-pitching-leaders.shtml

That's not a problem. Go with fangraphs.

jojo
05-05-2012, 10:41 AM
I understand the 'every day' component of a position player, but Cueto's impact goes way beyond 1/5 days.

How?

757690
05-05-2012, 10:44 AM
I went with Bruce, because unlike the other two, he does it every day. Seems like I am the only one.

Not anymore. He does it everyday, and offense is down this year.

mth123
05-05-2012, 11:16 AM
I went with Bruce, because unlike the other two, he does it every day. Seems like I am the only one.

Bruce. Same reasons.

Benihana
05-05-2012, 11:22 AM
Who cares? All three of them have been great.

Chapman has probably been the most "dominant" but "best" depends on how you value SP vs. RP vs. everyday players.

Chapman has been as dominant as any relief pitcher in the history of the game. If Cueto and Bruce continue like this, and Votto is Votto, the Reds should be in a great position come October.

HokieRed
05-05-2012, 11:25 AM
Chapman, but I wouldn't argue with a vote for either of the other two. Walt, just get us a couple more players in this category.

bellhead
05-05-2012, 11:38 AM
I'll go with Cueto right now he looks to be the Cy Young leader. Bruce would have to be putting up MVP numbers to match it.

nate
05-05-2012, 11:47 AM
The problem with using stats like WAR to make a point is that it varies from site to site. For example this site shows Johnny as leading the league in WAR with Chapman nowhere to be seen:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2012-pitching-leaders.shtml

There's basically two: Fangraphs (sometimes shown as "fWAR") and BR.com (I think it's sometimes shown as "rWAR.")

I tend to prefer Fangraphs WAR for the linear weights and defense.

Sea Ray
05-05-2012, 11:58 AM
There's basically two: Fangraphs (sometimes shown as "fWAR") and BR.com (I think it's sometimes shown as "rWAR.")

I tend to prefer Fangraphs WAR for the linear weights and defense.

Don't you think it's a little nutty that a stat varies depending on where you get it from? It's bad enough that fans attach themselves to stats that are so complex they can't tell you how it's figured without a laptop but WAR means 2.3 to one site and 0.7 to another. RBI takes its share of heat around these parts but at least we can all agree on its definition and how it's figured

dougdirt
05-05-2012, 12:05 PM
Don't you think it's a little nutty that a stat varies depending on where you get it from? It's bad enough that fans attach themselves to stats that are so complex they can't tell you how it's figured without a laptop but WAR means 2.3 to one site and 0.7 to another. RBI takes its share of heat around these parts but at least we can all agree on its definition and how it's figured

I prefer to think of WAR like a question similar to 'how good of a hitter is he', it really depends on what you want to give someone credit for. Fangraphs pitcher WAR puts more into the things we believe the pitcher has control over (walks, strikeouts, home runs), where as BR WAR is more about the outcomes regardless of whether the pitcher relied mostly on his defense to finish things up for him or not. Both have their merits.

When it comes to hitters, I am much more in line with Fangraphs WAR because I prefer their defensive values much more over the ones BR uses. With pitchers, it is much more subjective.

DGullett35
05-05-2012, 12:15 PM
Im going with Cueto. I didn't expect his ERA to continue to be this low into 2012. He joins other Reds Jose Rijo and Tom Seaver as having the lowest total ERA in their last 30 starts. All three were around the low 2 in ERA. And Rijo did it twice. 30 starts and a low 2 ERA is a great accomplishment. Johnny has proved to be an ace.

TOBTTReds
05-05-2012, 12:30 PM
How?

Bullpen is fresh today because Cueto went 9 yesterday. That's a huge impact. Any starter who goes deep has an impact greater than their one day they pitch. Take a look at these tweets from Joel Luckhaupt @jluckhaupt, a statistician for FSOH:

#Reds bullpen hasn't allowed a run in last 17 IP (14 K, 6 BB, 6 H). Marshall's blown save vs SF is only runs allowed in last 25 IP

---------

After 25 G in 2011, #Reds bullpen had a 3.04 ERA (compared to 2.54) and 9 more IP than '12 despite having 3 fewer extra inning games.

---------

#Reds starters have thrown 15.2 more IP in '12 than '11 thru 25 games. 2012 SP ERA is 3.77. In 2011 it was 5.03 thru 25 G.

---------

In 2011 (thru 25 G), #Reds had one SP with an ERA under 4.40 (Arroyo - 3.64). In 2012, they have 3 at 3.77 or lower.

TOBTTReds
05-05-2012, 12:31 PM
Double post

DGullett35
05-05-2012, 12:34 PM
The new nasty boys 'Chaphoosek" and their combined 0.00 earnie. :-)

I love that nickname but you have to add Arredondo into that somehow:) The guy has also been lights out. Hes finally commanded that splitter like he did before his surgery

Kc61
05-05-2012, 12:47 PM
It's much more impressive to do what Cueto has done in 41 innings than a middle reliever throwing 13 shutout innings. I don't understand how so many people think it's more impressive to throw 3 shutout innings a week than be a dominant stopper in the rotation.

I'm always drawn to posts questioning how people can think this or that. Usually there's an explanation.

In this case, the Reds are 13-12. When Chapman has pitched, the Reds are 9-1.

In many of those games he has pitched important innings in relatively close games. Reds haven't exactly been winning blow out games this year.

Aroldis' strikeout numbers are off the chart high and his ERA is zero. He is averaging 15.5 Ks per nine innings.

I think he has been the most impressive Reds player this year so far. He has been untouchable and the Reds win when he pitches. If there has been a better reliever in baseball, I don't see it.

It doesn't mean I don't appreciate Cueto, Bruce, Votto or even Alfredo Simon whose lifetime ERA is over 5 but is only at 2.7 for the Reds. Yes, I'm even happy with Simon as the mop up guy so far.

No threads on the least impressive Reds player, please. Don't get me started.

jojo
05-05-2012, 12:59 PM
Don't you think it's a little nutty that a stat varies depending on where you get it from? It's bad enough that fans attach themselves to stats that are so complex they can't tell you how it's figured without a laptop but WAR means 2.3 to one site and 0.7 to another. RBI takes its share of heat around these parts but at least we can all agree on its definition and how it's figured

No. BR is designed to look back across eras and relies more on results. Fangraphs isnt limited by a need to look back to 1890 and tries to use the best context to view the indiviual as possible.

Seriously, youre arguing if it requires an itty bit of thought, it's nutty? BTW while everyone can agree on the definition of an RBI, everyone can also agree it's not a very useful stat.

VR
05-05-2012, 01:12 PM
I love that nickname but you have to add Arredondo into that somehow:) The guy has also been lights out. Hes finally commanded that splitter like he did before his surgery

Chaphoosekedondo:beerme:

Edd Roush
05-05-2012, 01:13 PM
My vote went to Cueto partly because of what Sea Ray said about the larger sample size in IP, but also because I am most surprised by Cueto's performance. I know surprising isn't the same thing as impressive, but I expected Chapman to have some gaudy numbers in his role as a set-up man and I expect him to have a sub 4.00 FIP and a high K rate if he were a starter as well.

I have always been a huge Jay Bruce fan and he has always had these tools, so his 2012 does not surprise me at all.

I am a big fan of using peripherals to determine a pitcher's future performance. With Johnny's K rate dipping significantly last year and his ERA being a full run lower per nine than his FIP, I fully expected Johnny to regress towards his FIP. Instead, he doubled the difference (1.31 ERA vs. 3.22 FIP), and has cut his BB rate down to 1.52 BB/9 IP. While Johnny still isn't a sub 1.50 ERA guy over the whole season, he is definitely now in the conversation of being an ace. That really impresses me.

Jay Bruce has already been an All-Star and I knew he was in line to be a cornerstone of the Reds offense for the next 5 years and beyond.

Aroldis Chapman has put up video game numbers in his first 13 IP, but with his stuff and mental development, I am not that surprised. Again, he was impressive, but give me the ace Johnny Cueto and his 1.31 ERA and 1.52 walk rate. I think he will regress towards his FIP over time, but that has not discounted how impressive he has been so far.

Caveat Emperor
05-05-2012, 01:57 PM
I'm most impressed by Johnny Cueto. Every advanced metric over the last year and change indicates he should be falling on his face soon, yet he keeps bringing the goods.

I love it when a "baseball thing" trumps the stats.

757690
05-05-2012, 02:05 PM
I'm always drawn to posts questioning how people can think this or that. Usually there's an explanation.

In this case, the Reds are 13-12. When Chapman has pitched, the Reds are 9-1.

In many of those games he has pitched important innings in relatively close games. Reds haven't exactly been winning blow out games this year.

Aroldis' strikeout numbers are off the chart high and his ERA is zero. He is averaging 15.5 Ks per nine innings.

I think he has been the most impressive Reds player this year so far. He has been untouchable and the Reds win when he pitches. If there has been a better reliever in baseball, I don't see it.

It doesn't mean I don't appreciate Cueto, Bruce, Votto or even Alfredo Simon whose lifetime ERA is over 5 but is only at 2.7 for the Reds. Yes, I'm even happy with Simon as the mop up guy so far.

No threads on the least impressive Reds player, please. Don't get me started.

Most set up men and closers have similar records regarding team wins and losses. They are only used when the team is ahead. Not to deminish what Chapman has done, but that stat just doesn't mean that much.

reds44
05-05-2012, 02:05 PM
Cueto.

jojo
05-05-2012, 02:06 PM
I'm most impressed by Johnny Cueto. Every advanced metric over the last year and change indicates he should be falling on his face soon, yet he keeps bringing the goods.

I love it when a "baseball thing" trumps the stats.

He hasn't had a FIP above 4 since 2009. Advanced stats aren't predicting doom. They just suggest his ERA is lower than it should be expected to be.

RedlegJake
05-05-2012, 03:03 PM
Chapman has been stunningly dominant in short roles but Cueto has been nails every time on the mound. Hard to top that. Now if Chapman moved to the rotation and started turning in similar results as his bp numbers then its all over. As to Cueto regressing to FIP, he probably will fall back some but I still tend to believe there are pitchers who will outperform FIP consistently just as I believe pitchers have some measurable control over BABIP. I think Cueto falls into that category. He pitches better than the numbers tend to say he is.

_Sir_Charles_
05-05-2012, 04:17 PM
I'm voting for Logan Ondrusek. Simply because I was expecting impressive starts from Bruce, Cueto & Chappy.

Sea Ray
05-05-2012, 07:07 PM
I prefer to think of WAR like a question similar to 'how good of a hitter is he', it really depends on what you want to give someone credit for. Fangraphs pitcher WAR puts more into the things we believe the pitcher has control over (walks, strikeouts, home runs), where as BR WAR is more about the outcomes regardless of whether the pitcher relied mostly on his defense to finish things up for him or not. Both have their merits.

When it comes to hitters, I am much more in line with Fangraphs WAR because I prefer their defensive values much more over the ones BR uses. With pitchers, it is much more subjective.

Why are they both called WAR since they represent different stats? This is where stats stuff really goes nuts. I can deal with the argument of whether OPS is better than BA but here I'd like to say to Jojo that Cueto's WAR is much higher than Chapman's, but we can't have that conversation without agreeing on whose WAR we're using

jojo
05-05-2012, 07:13 PM
Why are they both called WAR since they represent different stats? This is where stats stuff really goes nuts. I can deal with the argument of whether OPS is better than BA but here I'd like to say to Jojo that Cueto's WAR is much higher than Chapman's, but we can't have that conversation without agreeing on whose WAR we're using

Fangraphs is better for the modern era. Ceuto is a modern player. This is not hard.

nate
05-05-2012, 07:16 PM
Don't you think it's a little nutty that a stat varies depending on where you get it from?

No. It's two different methodologies. I find them both interesting.


It's bad enough that fans attach themselves to stats that are so complex they can't tell you how it's figured without a laptop but WAR means 2.3 to one site and 0.7 to another.

I disagree that finding interest and enjoyment in baseball is "bad."


RBI takes its share of heat around these parts but at least we can all agree on its definition and how it's figured

Those who understand WAR agree on its definition and how it's figured.

nate
05-05-2012, 07:25 PM
I'm most impressed by Johnny Cueto. Every advanced metric over the last year and change indicates he should be falling on his face soon,

This is simply a strawman (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawmċan). "Advanced metrics" suggested no such thing.


yet he keeps bringing the goods.

I love it when a "baseball thing" trumps the stats.

The "advanced metrics" and "stats" say it's likely Cueto will be an above average pitcher by the end of the season as measured by those metrics. Lo and behold, that's pretty much what they say.

Determining the "advanced metrics" are wrong after a month of baseball is seriously/deliberately misunderstanding.

jojo
05-05-2012, 07:28 PM
No. It's two different methodologies. I find them both interesting.



I disagree that finding interest and enjoyment in baseball is "bad."



Those who understand WAR agree on its definition and how it's figured.

Its really this straightforward. Fangraphs pitcher WAR is fielding independent. BR's WAR isn't. Clearly fielding independent metrics are better at capturing the things a pitcher actually controlled. But given rbis were evoked as an ideal due to the simplicity of counting stats, this probably isn't an argument worth having yet again.

dougdirt
05-05-2012, 10:30 PM
Why are they both called WAR since they represent different stats? This is where stats stuff really goes nuts. I can deal with the argument of whether OPS is better than BA but here I'd like to say to Jojo that Cueto's WAR is much higher than Chapman's, but we can't have that conversation without agreeing on whose WAR we're using

They don't represent different stats, the difference is how they arrive at the value. Both mean Wins Above Replacement. The thing is how they go about figuring out the 'wins' part of that.

Caveat Emperor
05-06-2012, 01:49 AM
The "advanced metrics" and "stats" say it's likely Cueto will be an above average pitcher by the end of the season as measured by those metrics. Lo and behold, that's pretty much what they say.

Determining the "advanced metrics" are wrong after a month of baseball is seriously/deliberately misunderstanding.

My post was somewhat tongue in cheek -- but if we want to be serious: we're not talking about one month, we're now talking about all of Cueto's 2011 season and the start of 2012. Last year, there was a good bit of angst regarding declining K numbers, low BABIP, and a disconnect between ERA and xFIP/FIP. Here we are, in a new season, and Cueto continues to outpitch his peripherals. I enjoy that.

Dan
05-06-2012, 07:41 AM
BTW, completely unrelated, has anyone noticed that Joey Votto has struck out more times than Jay Bruce and the same number as Drew Stubbs in fewer ABs?

The NUMBER of strikeouts is irrelevant. It is the ratio of walks to strikeouts that matters. The closer that ratio is to 1 (walks == strikeouts) the better. And Votto is strong in that category.

nate
05-06-2012, 10:08 AM
My post was somewhat tongue in cheek -- but if we want to be serious: we're not talking about one month, we're now talking about all of Cueto's 2011 season and the start of 2012. Last year, there was a good bit of angst regarding declining K numbers, low BABIP, and a disconnect between ERA and xFIP/FIP. Here we are, in a new season, and Cueto continues to outpitch his peripherals. I enjoy that.

I'm not interested about him "outpitching his peripherals" because I don't find ERA as useful as other readily available measures.

I think everyone agrees that Cueto is a good pitcher, it's just to what degree. To me, his peers are more Ricky Nolasco and Wandy Rodriguez rather than Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay.

DGullett35
05-06-2012, 11:41 AM
I really am a big fan of Cueto and think he can be a good pitcher for the Reds for many years to come, however I think he is a high end #2 more so than an ace. The Reds brass is hoping for Latos to be this teams #1. If that happens the Reds could have one of the best 1-2 punches in the NL. and if not Latos as #1 I think Chapman could be there although it would take him a couple years

Sea Ray
05-06-2012, 05:46 PM
No. It's two different methodologies. I find them both interesting.


If they are two different methodologies then why are they both named WAR?






Those who understand WAR agree on its definition and how it's figured.

So who doesn't understand WAR, BR or Fangraphs?

dougdirt
05-06-2012, 06:47 PM
If they are two different methodologies then why are they both named WAR?They both go about trying to say the same thing. They just use different ways of getting to the end point.





So who doesn't understand WAR, BR or Fangraphs?
I prefer Fangraphs WAR. I think their methodology is a bit more solid than that of BR.

RedsManRick
05-06-2012, 06:59 PM
If they are two different methodologies then why are they both named WAR?




So who doesn't understand WAR, BR or Fangraphs?

Because they are both a construct for measuring the amount of wins worth of production a player produces over a replacement level player?

WAR isn't a "thing" with a single absolute definition. It's a general methodology for calculating production which can use different specific inputs or adjustments. Why is that hard to accept?

Both understand WAR just fine.

Sea Ray
05-06-2012, 07:14 PM
Because they are both a construct for measuring the amount of wins worth of production a player produces over a replacement level player?

WAR isn't a "thing" with a single absolute definition. It's a general methodology for calculating production which can use different specific inputs or adjustments. Why is that hard to accept?



Because they say different things, Rick.

Let's say I responded to Jojo and said WAR shows Cueto to be much more valuable as I link baseball-reference. He could come back and say no it doesn't and link Fangraphs as proof. Who's right and who's wrong?

We're left with not debating Cueto and Chapman as we turn to debating BR vs FG. That's crazy

dougdirt
05-06-2012, 07:56 PM
Because they say different things, Rick.

Let's say I responded to Jojo and said WAR shows Cueto to be much more valuable as I link baseball-reference. He could come back and say no it doesn't and link Fangraphs as proof. Who's right and who's wrong?

We're left with not debating Cueto and Chapman as we turn to debating BR vs FG. That's crazy

As I noted earlier, think of WAR as an answer to a question rather than a stat. If someone asks who is the best hitter between ABC and XYZ, you are going to get different answers with people quoting different things. Some guys might bring AVG, some will bring OPS, some will drop HR and RBI. WAR attempts to answer some question, but it is going about answering it with different things depending on which version you use.

Sea Ray
05-06-2012, 08:39 PM
As I noted earlier, think of WAR as an answer to a question rather than a stat. If someone asks who is the best hitter between ABC and XYZ, you are going to get different answers with people quoting different things. Some guys might bring AVG, some will bring OPS, some will drop HR and RBI. WAR attempts to answer some question, but it is going about answering it with different things depending on which version you use.

Sure but when someone brings up AVG, OPS, HR and RBI, the numbers don't change. They are what they are. If one site says Cueto's WAR is 2.3 and another says it's under one, that's a big difference thus they're saying different things. Whereas all the sites will agree on his ERA, WHIP, etc

dougdirt
05-06-2012, 08:57 PM
Sure but when someone brings up AVG, OPS, HR and RBI, the numbers don't change. They are what they are. If one site says Cueto's WAR is 2.3 and another says it's under one, that's a big difference thus they're saying different things. Whereas all the sites will agree on his ERA, WHIP, etc

Of course they are going to agree on counting stats, it is simple math.

Just quote BRWAR or FWAR. Problem solved.

jojo
05-06-2012, 08:59 PM
Because they say different things, Rick.

Let's say I responded to Jojo and said WAR shows Cueto to be much more valuable as I link baseball-reference. He could come back and say no it doesn't and link Fangraphs as proof. Who's right and who's wrong?

We're left with not debating Cueto and Chapman as we turn to debating BR vs FG. That's crazy

I'm right.

dougdirt
05-06-2012, 09:01 PM
Also, can we add Todd Frazier to the poll now? .389/.476/.889 through today.

Hoosier Red
05-06-2012, 09:07 PM
I went with Cueto.

I understand the 'every day' component of a position player, but Cueto's impact goes way beyond 1/5 days.

I would have voted Chapman for the shear rediculousness of his numbers, but he has pitched too few innings to really be consider having the same kind of impact as Bruce or Cueto

The every day aspect is a bit of a misnomer as well. If we could define an play as an offensive or defensive at bat in which a person pitches, fields, or bats. Isn't Cueto in roughly as many "plays" as Bruce over the five game stretch.

Bruce every day has 4-5 plate appearances and maybe 4-5 plays to make on a busy day in the field. Cueto faces 27 batters, fields 2 or 3 balls and has 2 or 3 at bats every fifth game.

nate
05-06-2012, 11:39 PM
If they are two different methodologies then why are they both named WAR?

Fangraphs WAR is usually called "fWAR."

BR WAR is usually called "rWAR."


So who doesn't understand WAR, BR or Fangraphs?

I don't need to hit off a tee.

:cool:

WebScorpion
05-07-2012, 01:34 AM
I'm just glad we can have this argument. (about who's more impressive, not the stats argument that's taken over) All three are impressive, but I went with Cueto. I think mostly because it's not something a Reds fan has seen in a good long while. Bruce's tear pales in comparison to some of Votto's, or even Dunn's. As far as Chapman goes, didn't I see Arthur Rhodes do this in 2010 at the ripe old age of 41? Cueto? Not since Jose Rijo have I seen anything like this. :thumbup:

I just wish we had a few more players listed in the argument. Yeah greedy, I know...I grew up in Cincinnati in the 70's. :dunno:

Sea Ray
05-07-2012, 08:32 AM
Fangraphs WAR is usually called "fWAR."

BR WAR is usually called "rWAR."



I don't need to hit off a tee.

:cool:

What about baseball prospectus?

jojo
05-07-2012, 08:35 AM
What about baseball prospectus?

DP

jojo
05-07-2012, 08:35 AM
What about baseball prospectus?

What about it? If you're truly curious-expend a little elbow grease and do some reading.

Sea Ray
05-07-2012, 09:05 AM
DP

Their WAR is a third formula. What do we call it?

As for you Jojo, the confusion started with your post when you didn't put identify your WAR as WARfg. Since you're such an expert in this area I'm surprised you'd make that error.

jojo
05-07-2012, 09:12 AM
Their WAR is a third formula. What do we call it?

As for you Jojo, the confusion started with your post when you didn't put identify your WAR as WARfg. Since you're such an expert in this area I'm surprised you'd make that error.

It wasn't an error. I only use fangraphs war and the fact that fangraphs was quoted should have been evident by the the actual numbers quoted.

There is no confusion here SeaRay. Again, you should probably do a little heavy lifting if you're truly curious and are sincerely mystified.

Sea Ray
05-07-2012, 09:14 AM
It wasn't an error. I only use fangraphs war and the fact that fangraphs was quoted should have been evident by the the actual numbers quoted.

There is no confusion here SeaRay. Again, you should probably do a little heavy lifting if you're truly curious and are sincerely mystified.

Where was fan graphs quoted?


Chapman's krate is approaching 16 per 9 and he's racked up nearly the same WAR as Ceuto in a third of the innings. That's dominant by any definition.

nate
05-07-2012, 09:28 AM
Their WAR is a third formula. What do we call it?

As for you Jojo, the confusion started with your post when you didn't put identify your WAR as WARfg. Since you're such an expert in this area I'm surprised you'd make that error.

I knew what he meant.

To me, if you're into these kinds of stats and use the term "WAR," you're talking about Fangraphs.

Sea Ray
05-07-2012, 09:32 AM
I knew what he meant.

To me, if you're into these kinds of stats and use the term "WAR," you're talking about Fangraphs.

Jojo said specifically that FanGraphs was quoted. Did you see it quoted somewhere because I missed it

jojo
05-07-2012, 09:44 AM
Jojo said specifically that FanGraphs was quoted. Did you see it quoted somewhere because I missed it

Give it a rest SeaRay. Clearly you were neither confused by the numbers nor unaware of fangraphs as your response to the quotation of fangraphs numbers was to evoke BR's in contrast:

My original quote:


Chapman's krate is approaching 16 per 9 and he's racked up nearly the same WAR as Ceuto in a third of the innings. That's dominant by any definition.

Your direct response:


The problem with using stats like WAR to make a point is that it varies from site to site. For example this site shows Johnny as leading the league in WAR with Chapman nowhere to be seen:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2012-pitching-leaders.shtml

Then the direct response to your post:


That's not a problem. Go with fangraphs.


At this point, any sincere confusion about what numbers I quoted was clarified-On page two of the thread, four posts following the post in which you contrasted BR to fangraphs...

At this point, it's unclear why you'd still be mystified by fangraphs.

Sea Ray
05-07-2012, 09:51 AM
Give it a rest SeaRay. Clearly you were neither confused by the numbers nor unaware of fangraphs as your response to the quotation of fangraphs numbers was to evoke BR's in contrast:

My original quote:



Your direct response:



Then the direct response to your post:




At this point, any sincere confusion about what numbers I quoted was clarified-On page two of the thread, four posts following the post in which you contrasted BR to fangraphs...

At this point, it's unclear why you'd still be mystified by fangraphs.

I'm fully aware NOW that you used FG, but I didn't at the time you made your original post. So again I ask you, why didn't you post WARfg when making your original post? It was only after I mentioned confusion that you cleared it up.

Again, I don't blame you. It's nuts that one has to specify which WAR they're using. In your defense, I don't see many others using subtitles after quoting WAR. But since WAR is a different stat based upon what source it's coming from, we won't know which stat is being quoted if it's not identified.

Sea Ray
05-07-2012, 09:52 AM
Fangraphs WAR is usually called "fWAR."

BR WAR is usually called "rWAR."



I don't need to hit off a tee.



I rarely see it typed that way on RZ and I sure didn't see Jojo type it that way here, hence my confusion as to which WAR he was using

cumberlandreds
05-07-2012, 09:53 AM
I voted for Chapman but all three have been great to this point.

Sea Ray
05-07-2012, 09:54 AM
Of course they are going to agree on counting stats, it is simple math.

Just quote BRWAR or FWAR. Problem solved.

Do you do that? When you mention WAR, do you specify with a letter which one you're referring to?

jojo
05-07-2012, 10:39 AM
I'm fully aware NOW that you used FG, but I didn't at the time you made your original post. So again I ask you, why didn't you post WARfg when making your original post? It was only after I mentioned confusion that you cleared it up.

Again, I don't blame you. It's nuts that one has to specify which WAR they're using. In your defense, I don't see many others using subtitles after quoting WAR. But since WAR is a different stat based upon what source it's coming from, we won't know which stat is being quoted if it's not identified.

Because I never quote any other, there is no blame to be had and again, any honest confusion was cleared up a few lines below the original post. Why is this still being brought on on page 6?

Sea Ray
05-07-2012, 10:53 AM
Because I never quote any other, there is no blame to be had and again, any honest confusion was cleared up a few lines below the original post. Why is this still being brought on on page 6?

My apologies. I didn't know the rule of law that Jojo need not identify which WAR he's using because afterall he's Jojo...

757690
05-07-2012, 11:03 AM
Since Famgraphs kinda invented WAR, I think most posters who use it are referring to their WAR. However, the fact that BR has come up with their own WAR that is fundamentally different from the Fangrpah version, it would be wise for posters to specify which version they are using, especially since BR is more popular that FanGraphs overall.

This also demonstrats that WAR is far from definitive, amd we are still trying to figure out how to calculate it that best reflects a players production.

dougdirt
05-07-2012, 11:09 AM
Do you do that? When you mention WAR, do you specify with a letter which one you're referring to?

I usually don't, but I will from now on. I don't use BRWAR. I don't agree with their methodology (I dislike their defensive valuation and with pitchers I am more of a 'give the pitcher credit for what he controls' rather than 'give the pitcher credit for everything that happens when he is on the mound' kind of guy).

Sea Ray
05-07-2012, 11:13 AM
Since Famgraphs kinda invented WAR, I think most posters who use it are referring to their WAR. However, the fact that BR has come up with their own WAR that is fundamentally different from the Fangrpah version, it would be wise for posters to specify which version they are using, especially since BR is more popular that FanGraphs overall.

This also demonstrats that WAR is far from definitive, amd we are still trying to figure out how to calculate it that best reflects a players production.

I find it particularly difficult to calculate. I still don't see a definitive formula anywhere. Does anyone know exactly how they figured Cueto and Chapman's?

Sea Ray
05-07-2012, 11:19 AM
...But the downside is that, in collating all these assumptions into a single number, we invite people skipping all the details and going straight to the conclusion, sometimes not caring about the operating assumptions (or understanding that they exist at all—I’m still rather astonished by people who will quote “WAR” without bothering to note what site the numbers came from). The assumptions matter—in the aggregate sometimes not a lot, but for an individual player they can make all the difference in the world. And by uncritically quoting any of these metrics without examining the assumptions you’re letting someone else do your thinking for you,,.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=11988

jojo
05-07-2012, 11:38 AM
My apologies. I didn't know the rule of law that Jojo need not identify which WAR he's using because afterall he's Jojo...

Seriously give it a rest. This was cleared up on page 2... Clearly this isn't actually about WAR so please take this tangent private.

defender
05-07-2012, 04:15 PM
Seriously, you're arguing if it requires an itty bit of thought, it's nutty? BTW while everyone can agree on the definition of an RBI, everyone can also agree it's not a very useful stat.

RBI is useful, because we understand it so well. We can go to the 2011 RBI leaders to find the best hitter. It is fairly simple to formulate an argument (ie he had fewer runners on base) to convince others that a player wither fewer rbis might be a better player.

fWAR is useless, because the discussion is either you agree with it, or you don't understand it. We don't argue a point, we get into a fight.

FIP is on the borderline of useful baseball conversations we can have. We can go over the FIP leaders and have rational arguments why a guy with a higher FIP may be a better pitcher.

fWAR is fundamentally FIP. Fangraphs has added a lot of complicated math and said they have a better statistic. I don't believe making a stat more complicated ever makes it better, but the worse offense is hiding the DIPS argument.

fWAR = This is how we evaluate pitchers, if you don't like it, it is because you don't understand.

jojo
05-07-2012, 04:42 PM
RBI is useful, because we understand it so well. We can go to the 2011 RBI leaders to find the best hitter. It is fairly simple to formulate an argument (ie he had fewer runners on base) to convince others that a player wither fewer rbis might be a better player.

fWAR is useless, because the discussion is either you agree with it, or you don't understand it. We don't argue a point, we get into a fight.

FIP is on the borderline of useful baseball conversations we can have. We can go over the FIP leaders and have rational arguments why a guy with a higher FIP may be a better pitcher.

fWAR is fundamentally FIP. Fangraphs has added a lot of complicated math and said they have a better statistic. I don't believe making a stat more complicated ever makes it better, but the worse offense is hiding the DIPS argument.

fWAR = This is how we evaluate pitchers, if you don't like it, it is because you don't understand.

I disagree with just about everything you said.

When has a discission on WAR been framed as either you accept it or youre too dumb? I've written tomes on WAR, FIP, and defensive metrics. Thats not something that happens if the default position is you're an idiot. But both sides have to come to the table with an honest, genuine desire to understand-and a willingness to let go of a bias. There are multiple examples in the redszone archive where a substantial case has been painstackingly laid out for WAR-this is well beyond "take my word for it". BTW, this discussion had nothing to do with agreeing with fWAR or not as evidenced by the tact taken after page two.

FIP is the embodiment of DIPs theory so it's impossible to argue that a FIP-based metric obfuscates DIPs. The whole point of pitcher WAR is to remove the innapropriate contribution of defense when measuring pitcher worth. Fangraphs methodology ensures that's the case. BR's takes a route to where it's uncertain what it is measuring but it is almost certain that the final figure isnt defense indepedent. Regardless, the whole rationale for either is to remove the defense. How can anyone construe that as hiding the DIPs argument?

Some answers are necesarily complicated. RBIs inform almost nothing about total player value. Reliance on batting average, rbi, and era doesn't encourage discussion-it limits discussion by decreasing the number of meaningful questions that can be asked. Counting stats contain far too much superfluous information to poke at performance with any real resolution.

defender
05-07-2012, 05:24 PM
I disagree with just about everything you said.


Yes, and WAR does not help.

What does WAR bring to the table that makes it worth being so complicated? I am not trying to argue that fWAR is not legit, only that it is not worth it.

The Crux of a Cueto/Chapman or Cueto/Baily debate is DIPS. Why add an extra layer with WAR?

jojo
05-07-2012, 05:28 PM
Yes, and WAR does not help.

What does WAR bring to the table that makes it worth being so complicated? I am not trying to argue that fWAR is not legit, only that it is not worth it.

The Crux of a Cueto/Chapman or Cueto/Baily debate is DIPS. Why add an extra layer with WAR?

WAR allows discussions about player valuation to occur on levels that previously were impossible. Concerning the potential for baseball discussion, WAR represents a huge leap forward. That seems worthwhile to me.

Concerning Cueto/Chapman after a month? I think nearly 16 K/9 is pretty eye popping.

dougdirt
05-07-2012, 05:29 PM
Yes, and WAR does not help.

What does WAR bring to the table that makes it worth being so complicated? I am not trying to argue that fWAR is not legit, only that it is not worth it.

The Crux of a Cueto/Chapman or Cueto/Baily debate is DIPS. Why add an extra layer with WAR?
What if the argument was Stubbs/Heisey? DIPS doesn't do us much good there.

defender
05-07-2012, 06:01 PM
Concerning Cueto/Chapman after a month? I think nearly 16 K/9 is pretty eye popping.

Yes. When I looked at everyone's stats, that is what cauhgt my eye, and a very good argument for Chapman in the poll.

I think fWAR is good for measuring position players good at wOBA and pitchers good at FIP (but not as good as wOBA or FIP). RBIs are good at measuring hitters good at RBIs. It is easy to tell when RBI is not a useful tool. The ultimate weakness of WAR is that it is very hard to tell when it is not doing a good job evaluating a specific player.

fearofpopvol1
05-07-2012, 06:19 PM
It's much more impressive to do what Cueto has done in 41 innings than a middle reliever throwing 13 shutout innings. I don't understand how so many people think it's more impressive to throw 3 shutout innings a week than be a dominant stopper in the rotation.

I said Chapman because of his previous BB struggles. Everyone knew the guy had a killer fastball, but I don't think anyone projected his control would have improved this much and that he would have a long streak of no walks to begin the season. Of course, then you have the fact that he has yet to give up an earned run. He's given up 5 hits in nearly 15 innings work. That is amazing.

And to add to that, he's already surpassed his entire WAR from last year and we're only a month into the season.

nate
05-07-2012, 07:38 PM
RBI is useful, because we understand it so well. We can go to the 2011 RBI leaders to find the best hitter. It is fairly simple to formulate an argument (ie he had fewer runners on base) to convince others that a player wither fewer rbis might be a better player.

fWAR is useless, because the discussion is either you agree with it, or you don't understand it. We don't argue a point, we get into a fight.

FIP is on the borderline of useful baseball conversations we can have. We can go over the FIP leaders and have rational arguments why a guy with a higher FIP may be a better pitcher.

fWAR is fundamentally FIP. Fangraphs has added a lot of complicated math and said they have a better statistic. I don't believe making a stat more complicated ever makes it better, but the worse offense is hiding the DIPS argument.

fWAR = This is how we evaluate pitchers, if you don't like it, it is because you don't understand.

I have to disagree with the understanding, interpretation and conclusion of everything you said.

Patrick Bateman
05-07-2012, 07:54 PM
The point of using WAR in this situation wasn't so much to evaluate the players per se, but to put a value amount next to their current production to date as otherwise it can be very difficult to compare the overall value between starters/relievers/position players. The point with Chapman, is that he's been so utterly dominant that he has almost put together as much production as Cueto (who has of course been great too) in a much shorter timeframe. The point is that Chapman's huge success appears to be more sustainable than Cueto because he is doing things that prevents at an elite level. Although Cueto has been great, and should continue to be great, he is less likely to maintain an elite pace and fall back to just 'very good'.

PuffyPig
05-07-2012, 08:09 PM
RBI is useful, because we understand it so well. We can go to the 2011 RBI leaders to find the best hitter.

Actually you can go to the 2011 RBI leaders to see who had the most RBI's last year.

Sea Ray
05-07-2012, 08:13 PM
MODs: If you don't want us discussing WAR in this thread, please move these posts to a new thread. These things tend to happen on a message board

My issue with WAR begins with the fact that it varies from site to site and secondly that we can't sit down with pencil and paper and figure it. If Aroldis pitches tonight, we'll have to wait for BR and FG to figure its effects on WAR before we can quote the new number whereas we can all figure the WHIP, ERA, K/9, etc. In fact WAR can change year to year. The folks at FG might get an idea of how to tweak the WAR after the season and refigure it.

defender
05-08-2012, 03:24 AM
I have to disagree with the understanding, interpretation and conclusion of everything you said.

I think there is a relationship between complication, information and value. If stat y has 1.8 more info than stat x, but is 2.0 more complicated, I think it has less value than stat x. I also find fault with the DIPS theory work I have seen.

However, if we were locked in a room, I feel we would resolve all our differences without ever getting to WAR. WAR will always detract from the conversation with it's complication more than it will add with it's information. I think that was clearly be seen in this thread.

Jojo would have won more converts by leading with his 16 k/9 post, than ever mentioning WAR.

nate
05-09-2012, 02:23 PM
I think there is a relationship between complication, information and value. If stat y has 1.8 more info than stat x, but is 2.0 more complicated, I think it has less value than stat x.

Again, this is a personally incredulity argument (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity). Complex doesn't mean wrong.


I also find fault with the DIPS theory work I have seen.

You should start a new thread discussing those theories.


However, if we were locked in a room, I feel we would resolve all our differences without ever getting to WAR. WAR will always detract from the conversation with it's complication more than it will add with it's information. I think that was clearly be seen in this thread.

Jojo would have won more converts by leading with his 16 k/9 post, than ever mentioning WAR.

I don't see the point about having to win converts. The question about who's had the most impressive start to the season was posed. I think the answers and the reasoning for those answers are interesting and worth discussion.

If everyone sorts their list by RBI, WAR or BA/RISP on turf at night vs. LHP, it's not much of a discussion.

nate
05-09-2012, 02:23 PM
MODs: If you don't want us discussing WAR in this thread, please move these posts to a new thread. These things tend to happen on a message board

My issue with WAR begins with the fact that it varies from site to site and secondly that we can't sit down with pencil and paper and figure it. If Aroldis pitches tonight, we'll have to wait for BR and FG to figure its effects on WAR before we can quote the new number whereas we can all figure the WHIP, ERA, K/9, etc. In fact WAR can change year to year. The folks at FG might get an idea of how to tweak the WAR after the season and refigure it.

This is a personal incredulity argument (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity).

Numbers that show a complex thing in a simple manner are typically...well...complex.

We have to wait until the next for WAR, FIP, K, HR, RBI, every stat to populate to leaderboards and stat sheets; it's not a big deal.

That data can be refined to be more accurate is a GOOD thing, not bad.

In any event, if you really want to discuss it and find out more, I'm happy to share what I've learned (and always happy to learn more from others.) But I agree that it should probably be in it's own thread.

Caveat Emperor
05-09-2012, 03:10 PM
This is a personal incredulity argument (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity).

This little habit of yours is becoming tiresome (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tiresome).

fearofpopvol1
05-09-2012, 04:08 PM
Cueto and Chapman both today looked flat out dominate.

RedsManRick
05-09-2012, 04:16 PM
Because they say different things, Rick.

Let's say I responded to Jojo and said WAR shows Cueto to be much more valuable as I link baseball-reference. He could come back and say no it doesn't and link Fangraphs as proof. Who's right and who's wrong?

We're left with not debating Cueto and Chapman as we turn to debating BR vs FG. That's crazy

You have to look at the particulars of what they are measuring. It's like asking which company is better based on various calculations of profitability. None of them are objectively "right". They have slightly different ways of assessing a similar thing and each approach has certain strengths and weaknesses.

If you find a seemingly simple question produces numerous, conflicting answers, it's possible that the question is more complex than you think. Show me the question you're trying to answer using WAR and I'll show you how the question itself carries all sorts of nuance and consideration that simply has to be dealt with in some manner. That two versions of the same general approach vary slightly is hardly a condemnation.

If you dislike WAR because you find that you want a simple answer that has the sheen of simple, objective truth, I can't fault you there. Feel free to go back to using OPS or AVG or RBI or whatever. But the reason WAR is complicated is because assessing a player's total contribution to his team's ability to win baseball games is an extremely complicated subject. If you want a simple answer, you can find one. But that won't make it more correct.

Sea Ray
05-09-2012, 04:25 PM
You have to look at the particulars of what they are measuring. It's like asking which company is better based on various calculations of profitability. None of them are objectively "right". They have slightly different ways of assessing a similar thing and each approach has certain strengths and weaknesses.

If you find a seemingly simple question produces numerous, conflicting answers, it's possible that the question is more complex than you think. Show me the question you're trying to answer using WAR and I'll show you how the question itself carries all sorts of nuance and consideration that simply has to be dealt with in some manner. That two versions of the same general approach vary slightly is hardly a condemnation.

If you dislike WAR because you find that you want a simple answer that has the sheen of simple, objective truth, I can't fault you there. Feel free to go back to using OPS or AVG or RBI or whatever. But the reason WAR is complicated is because assessing a player's total contribution to his team's ability to win baseball games is an extremely complicated subject. If you want a simple answer, you can find one. But that won't make it more correct.

You're still missing my point. My point has to do with a stat being different but carrying the same name. Since the numbers are different, one should be called WAR, another VORP or whatever name you want to put on it.

Sea Ray
05-09-2012, 04:27 PM
So who was the most impressive tonight? Johnny throwing shutout ball for 7 innings or Chapman throwing a scoreless 8th? That's pretty much what they've both been doing all year. I don't see it as a close call

RedsManRick
05-09-2012, 04:42 PM
You're still missing my point. My point has to do with a stat being different but carrying the same name. Since the numbers are different, one should be called WAR, another VORP or whatever name you want to put on it.

fWAR. rWAR. Done.

Both are calculations of wins above replacement. It's not that hard to include your citation through the use of the additional letter in front. The saber community makes this distinction constantly. They fundamentally are calculating the same thing; I see no reason to call them something completely different.

If the point is merely that people around here should use the 'r' and the 'f', I agree completely.

Sea Ray
05-09-2012, 04:45 PM
fWAR. rWAR. Done.

Both are calculations of wins above replacement. It's not that hard to include your citation through the use of the additional letter in front. The saber community makes this distinction constantly. They fundamentally are calculating the same thing; I see no reason to call them something completely different.

If the point is merely that people around here should use the 'r' and the 'f', I agree completely.

Great. Can you talk to the guy who started this thread? I still don't know which WAR he's referring to.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2589108&postcount=1

jojo
05-09-2012, 06:24 PM
So who was the most impressive tonight? Johnny throwing shutout ball for 7 innings or Chapman throwing a scoreless 8th? That's pretty much what they've both been doing all year. I don't see it as a close call

Chapman got the win. We can all understand how wins are calculated. Chapman.