“Tim Raines is two Hall of Famers.”

Not to dispute that, but if true it means Rickey! is three Hall of Famers.

I do love this show. It is almost surreal to watch every episode and see some reference to numbers that were crunched on my computer.

This show is hot stove sustinance, sabermetric manna. I don't know what the ratings are like, but I hope it's a huge success for Kenny.

Not to dispute that, but if true it means Rickey! is three Hall of Famers.

I think Bill James said something very close to this on Kenny's show- (paraphrasing) "Tim Raines problem is that he was the same type of player as Ricky Henderson. And half of Ricky is still a hall-of-famer."

“Tim Raines is two Hall of Famers.”

I dispute that.

With Rickey it's sort of plausible. Not with Raines.

I do love this show. It is almost surreal to watch every episode and see some reference to numbers that were crunched on my computer.

It is quite something, isn't it? I'm not used to it yet, and probably won't ever be in case you were wondering when that feeling would subside.

I just wanted to post that it feels great to be able to read a message board to which some of the most important sabermetricians of all time contribute. It's the baseball version of having, say, Allen Forte and David Lewin or something.

I once told a baseball loving but non-sabermetrically inclined friend of mine Bill James's line about Rickey being two hall of famers. He proceeded to literally halve all of Rickey's statistics and concluded that, no, two Rickeys didn't really have that great a chance.

I agree with #6. Hell, my *kids* have heard of Voros. Pretty awesome.

Hell, my *kids* have heard of Voros. Pretty awesome.

My kids have heard of me.

My kids have heard of me.

Glad to hear you've gotten out of your mother's basement to do some parenting.

I loved Kenny's radio show - haven't checked out his TV show, but I just got MLB Network this week so I'm DVRing it.

FTA:

"Well, you look at everything that's there. I do it with the researchers every day -- do we want to use WAR, do we want to use OPS ... the best way to look at it is to look at everything that's available. Because what makes up WAR are the guys singles, doubles, triples, and home runs, then in what context. Were there two guys on base? Were they down by a run? You can use that for leverage, clutch hitting. Statistics are shorthand. If you want to boil it down to one number, you really just can't, because you can find a flaw at every system. It's really about asking the right questions. It's about value.

"And I think fans are becoming more sophisticated. And any time they get back to RBIs and home runs. You're looking at numbers, too. You're thinking sabermetrically. Those are numbers everybody should look at. They're just not the best numbers."

That's a great answer. Kenny really is a great ambassador for those open to learning about sabermetrics.

I have been a big stats guy since the 90s and I don't really know the methodology or computations of many of the stats I follow. I guess I know generally that WAR incorporates things like defense and baserunning, but I don't know its computed or anything like that. I don't see that necessarily as a prerequisite for understand those stats - in fact I think the appeal of WAR is its simplicity as a stat and what it represents. I've never understood the resistance by fans and writers that don't like stats because they don't know how to compute them. So what? I bet they don't know how to compute Quarterback Rating or BCS Standings either, yet those get used.

I'd argue that those who don't like WAR because they don't know how it's computed also don't like QBR or BCS standings, either.

And it's a viewpoint I understand. I'm an engineer at heart and I want to know how EVERYTHING works. I've learned to use WAR (and others), but at one level it does bother me that I haven't taken the time to figure out how it's computed. It almost feels like faith.

And it's a viewpoint I understand. I'm an engineer at heart and I want to know how EVERYTHING works. I've learned to use WAR (and others), but at one level it does bother me that I haven't taken the time to figure out how it's computed. It almost feels like faith.

This is the one complaint I have about the excerpt above, particular w/r/t this part: "Try not to get caught up in what goes into the number, just look at what the numbers are telling us." To me, the best way to foster a better understanding of the advanced metrics is to talk about what makes them up (in broad strokes). If you get a fan who swears by traditional stats to just talk through indisputable facts -- (i) positional/replacement value -- a shortstop hitting .280/.350/.450 is a stud, a first baseman doing that is closer to part of the problem than part of the solution, (ii) the value of defense and baserunning, and that mathematicians estimate that good performances by a player in either can add a win a season, bad performance in either deduct a win a season, (iii) a walk is not as good as a hit, but it's closer to a hit than an out, and (iv) ballpark and era adjustments -- that gets you like 90% of the way to being what is generally considered a sabermetric savvy fan. That should get that fan 90% of the way to understanding WAR. And it's much more persuasive than just saying, Player A had 7.5 WAR and Player B had 6.0 WAR, QED.

And to combine threads, this is kind of the problem I have with the Raines' HoF movement. For guys like Blyleven, Santo, Grich, etc., you don't need to reverse engineer the numbers, you just have to realize what generally goes into them, and that leads you to understand how these players would fit in the HoF. Raines is so distinct because so much of his value is in stolen bases and not getting caught. I struggle to try to apply that when determining his value and comparing him to his peers and other HoFers or HoVGers, and it's just not very satisfying to have someone say, "Look at WAR or wRC+ ... this guy was two HoFers!"

As someone who does not know how to calculate WAR but does use it from time to time I find my ignorance of the process useful. It forces me to look at WAR with some skepticism, I believe it is accurate but I'm not going to blindly follow it. My inability to do it myself means that I use it as a starting point, not an ending point, for discussions.

As someone who does not know how to calculate WAR but does use it from time to time I find my ignorance of the process useful. It forces me to look at WAR with some skepticism, I believe it is accurate but I'm not going to blindly follow it. My inability to do it myself means that I use it as a starting point, not an ending point, for discussions.

That's actually an incredibly good point. I hadn't thought of that, but you're right: I'm skeptical of WAR, mostly because I can't calculate it, and that's not a bad thing.

You never know who from the show is lurking and looking for ideas. So, if you guys have suggestions or advice, speak yo mind...

I haven't got a ton of suggestions yet, as I've just started watching. So far I like it a lot.

If they haven't done this yet, they might consider an occasional "primer" segment where they explain some saber concepts.

#12 There are aspects of WAR that are black box, but that's not the end of the world, since the modular design allows you to substitute any other method.

But for the most part it's like anything that gains acceptance in the sabrmetrics world. It's a real safe bet that somebody who knows what they're doing has run a sanity check.

But for the most part it's like anything that gains acceptance in the sabrmetrics world. It's a real safe bet that somebody who knows what they're doing has run a sanity check.

And I would argue that WAR doesn't pass a sanity check for defense. I don't really need to "know what I'm doing" - I just need to compare WAR's defense numbers to those of other accepted defensive metrics. Honestly, these systems are in conflict with each other too often for me to have much faith in them, and, consequently, in WAR.

I use WAR as a blunt tool. If b-r had VORP and was sortable for it, I'd use VORP instead of WAR in many cases.