Interesting article at Prospectus about different WAR systems.

[gilpdawg]

Not going to paste since it's a pay site, although I think it may be a free article, and I'm not completely sure of the rules on that. I found it quite interesting. I had option B for 7 of the 12 examples.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=19163

[camisadelgolf]

It's free, so you're allowed to post a couple sentences. I ended up with a tie for all of them. I guess that makes me a moderate.

[lollipopcurve]

Good stuff. Tells you that even advanced metrics have built-in biases.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

Good stuff. Tells you that even advanced metrics have built-in biases.

I think especially advanced metrics have built in biases... the further a model gets away from raw data, the more assumptions it tends to include...

[*BaseClogger*]

My scoring: 2 for A, 3 for B, and 7 for C. I guess I should spend even more time on BaseballProspectus?

[LoganBuck]

3 a
4 b
5 c

What does that mean?

If I understand this right, it confirms my bias against Fangraph's WAR?

[LoganBuck]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

My scoring: 2 for A, 3 for B, and 7 for C. I guess I should spend even more time on BaseballProspectus?

Isn't c baseball-reference?

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by LoganBuck

Isn't c baseball-reference?

Oops, that's what I meant to type. I haven't spent significant time on BaseballProspectus in years...

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by gilpdawg

Not going to paste since it's a pay site, although I think it may be a free article, and I'm not completely sure of the rules on that. I found it quite interesting. I had option B for 7 of the 12 examples.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=19163

For future reference, it's always OK to post a snippet, even of a pay article. It's covered by 'fair use,' generally speaking. Never post an article -- free or otherwise -- in its entirety though. That should be applied to any message board (though some sites let it go).

[dougdirt]

Half of my votes went with Fangraphs WAR. Two went with WARP. Four went with BRef.

Still, I would be more interested in seeing how I side with pitchers. Then with position players. I do like BRef value for pitchers quite a bit more than I do with position players.

[lidspinner]

My father is decent friends with a scout for the Cubs, I have posted about him before in here, but he is am old school scout who refuses to use any advance metrics or any stats at all other than that years and the previous years stats.....he uses his eyes to tell him what he needs to know.

I will say this, he has missed on some top tier talent but he has hit on some also....I would consider him one of their best scouts....point being is that sometimes your eyes can tell you more than a website.....sometimes the opposite is true......but I am trusting my eyes more so than a website if I am to stake my rep on it.....bias comes into play in a lot, you have to learn to get passed that if you want to evaluate talent at a high level.

[Steve4192]

I think most variations of WAR are pretty darn similar when it comes to measuring performance at the plate and performance on the mound, but they seem to be all over the place when it comes to defensive value. One system will tell you a guy is an asset with the glove, another will tell you he sucks, and the third will say 'meh'. They also tend to have some wacky swings from year to year in terms of a player's defensive value (look no further than the newest Red, Shin Soo Choo).

Honestly, I don't trust any of them when it comes to assigning a value to defensive performance. I mostly just look at their component parts for pitching/offense and ignore the defensive numbers.

[RedsManRick]

As I posted on the article, I'd be interested to know more about the specific biases of each system. Which kind of player does each system rate more/less highly than the others? And perhaps even see some discussion on which works "best" for various kinds of players. For example fWAR has a blind spot for pitchers that seem to have unusually extreme BABIPs.

[M2]

Originally Posted by lidspinner

My father is decent friends with a scout for the Cubs, I have posted about him before in here, but he is am old school scout who refuses to use any advance metrics or any stats at all other than that years and the previous years stats.....he uses his eyes to tell him what he needs to know.

I will say this, he has missed on some top tier talent but he has hit on some also....I would consider him one of their best scouts....point being is that sometimes your eyes can tell you more than a website.....sometimes the opposite is true......but I am trusting my eyes more so than a website if I am to stake my rep on it.....bias comes into play in a lot, you have to learn to get passed that if you want to evaluate talent at a high level.

His job is to assess players at the tools level. He doesn't need to look at stats because other people in that organization do. One thing he ought to be aware of is that the new regime with the Cubs surely will keep stats on its scouts.

[lidspinner]

Originally Posted by M2

His job is to assess players at the tools level. He doesn't need to look at stats because other people in that organization do. One thing he ought to be aware of is that the new regime with the Cubs surely will keep stats on its scouts.

I agree but one thing almost all scouts have in common is thst they all use stats as a heartbeat to their system.....he is one of the few who don't. So many of the advanced metric stats are the talk of the scout community yet a few of the old farts refuse to use them.....I am not saying that's good or bad cause I fall somewhere in the middle. I think you need to use the stats but you need to trust your eyes more than anything. From what I have been told the Cubs new brass is not letting ANYTHING go uncovered.