You’re not right, I’m not right, and there’s not one individual statistic that is right.

So...let's not keep statistics?

doubles in a tie game in the second inning with nobody on base

Do that more often and you don't have as many "pressure-packed" situations in the 9th.

Do that more often and you don't have as many "pressure-packed" situations in the 9th.

A fact that has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument at hand. No one is suggesting that teams shouldn't try to score more often and prevent close and late situations. This guy is suggesting, quite rightly so, that a late inning at bat in a pressure situation is physically distinct from other kinds of at bats. Your response here suggests strongly that you're not even considering the question properly.

Father, father
We don't need to escalate
You see, WAR is not the answer
For only love can conquer hate
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today!

His heart rate accelerates, he sweats more than usual and it takes more effort to focus his energy on the task at hand.

Has anyone measured whether pro athletes really experience this in pressure situations?

It just is, and that’s science, too.

It's science if you take your hypothesis and test it by collecting data. If you just assume all of your assertions are true, then not so much.

Has anyone measured whether pro athletes really experience this in pressure situations?

Measured? Probably not. You're unlikely to find a team or player willing to electrode up for the big at bat that decides the World Series. What we do have, however, is reams and reams of self-reported experience from baseball players suggesting that pressure at bats are distinct from non-pressure at bat. I realize this would mean we would have to assume that players talking about the game and how it feels is a valid data stream for analysis, but perhaps that's not a bridge to far in our desperate search for pristine "science?"

#3: speaking of "the argument at hand" are either you or the original author trying to argue that WAR is meant to or should measure the difficulty of the experiential nature of each at bat? That is to say, as opposed to what it is actually in fact purported to measure?

I'm not going to attempt to speak for the author, though I'll commit to clicking through and reading the entire article to at least put together a theory of what he is arguing. I am not arguing for using WAR to measure anything other than what WAR purports to measure, which are results that happened on the field, on both sides of the ball and on the bases, not the state of mind of the player when those events occurred.

Prior to click through of this article, I will also sign up for the position that WAR is terribly misused by a majority of baseball fans who cite it, though not by all. It is a fall back position that some sectors of the community pretend "wins the argument" regardless of what level of nuance the argument might be. That's a problem, in much the same way that people misusing RBI, not adjusting for chances provided by the teammates batting in front of you, or people misusing raw batting average without looking at other means of getting on base is problematic.

From the excerpt here, the guy makes a good point about RBI. When you do some nuanced looking you can use RBI as a useful metric, not perfectly on par with, but more or less tracking SLG%. The reason people hate RBI is because "old school baseball men" love it so much, not because it's not useful if deployed rationally.

My responses in this thread to date are meant to argue only what they have argued, that contrary to DL's post @3, the question at hand isn't "should teams try to score more early, rather than late and close," but rather is "are 'pressure' at bats different for batters than non-pressure at bats."

Although I am not an especial fan of WAR, I think it has many good uses. And I fear that in the end its broadest possible acceptance is going to be hindered by the catchy acronym.

The 'Wins' in WAR are not based on actual wins in the standings. It's much easier to sell 'batting runs' as measuring the number of runs a given batting line is likely to generate, than to market 10 such runs = 1 win.

For all its flaws, the Win Shares system would be an easier sell.

Also, if saberists were really saying 'Driving in runs is meaningless', then I'd agree with him about arrogance.

EDIT: to fix bad phrasing

Okay, I've RTFA and pardon the huge quote below, but this is the part immediately following the sentence "But there is not that much, people." That is to say, these are the next few (of many) paragraphs Repoz has replaced with that sneaky little, non-dare-call-it-a-troll ellipsis up there in the block quote:

There is certainly something to be gained by WAR.

But there is not that much, people.

Look through the year-by-year top 10 lists for WAR, and you’ll see pretty much 10 of the best players in baseball for any given year. Last year, the leaders among position players included Mike Trout, Robinson Cano, Buster Posey, Andrew McCutchen, Miguel Cabrera, Ryan Braun, David Wright, Adrian Beltre, Yadier Molina and Alex Gordon. Those were certainly 10 of the best players last season, but for one, they weren’t absolutely the 10 best players, and secondly, did you really need WAR to tell you that those guys were good?

Seven of those players were also in the top 10 in batting average, seven were in the top 10 in slugging percentage, six were in the top 10 in on-base percentage, five were in the top 10 in OPS and three were in the top 10 in home runs.

Expanding further, the top 10 WAR leaders (position players) all time are Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, Tris Speaker, Honus Wagner, Rogers Hornsby, Stan Musial and Ted Williams. All of them except Bonds are Hall of Famers (and Bonds’ exclusion has nothing to do with WAR), and all the HOF voters were able to tell those players were pretty good, long before WAR had ever made its way into baseball. In fact, the only players in the top 30 all time in WAR who aren’t in the Hall of Fame are either active players or named Barry Bonds. Opening it up to the top 50 overall WAR leaders (including pitchers), every single player who’s eligible for the Hall and hasn’t been linked to steroids (Bonds, Roger Clemens) is in Cooperstown. However did voters determine those players to be great without relying on WAR?

There's actually a lot of good stuff in this piece if you click through and read it, and I will go ahead and sign onto more of it than not as a good, solid argument.

More actual worlds from TFA:

To treat WAR as this revolutionary, incredible tool of perfection is just wrong. But that’s what some of these folks want to do.

I apologize for the forthcoming long excerpt from Miller, but it’s necessary.

“At the risk of grandiloquence, this is about more than one MVP race, about more than even baseball. We live in a world of disagreement on epochal issues that we can’t resolve even when the science is unambiguous: evolution, vaccines and climate change among them. These issues are daunting. Relying on science that’s hard to understand can be scary. So the tendency is to cling to the comforts of ideology and tradition — even when those ideologies are wrong, even when the traditions are outdated.

Fight it if you like, but baseball has become too complicated to solve without science. … WAR represents a chance to respond to the complexity of baseball with something more than ideology or despair.”

A little excessive, no?

I don’t need to sit here and try to break down every argument made by Miller. WAR makes him happy. He made that very clear. And it makes a lot of people happy. Hey, one number that can serve as a catch-all for everything in this wild and crazy game? Cool!

But WAR is not evolution of man. It is not the polio vaccine. It is not the melting of any polar ice caps.

It’s a baseball statistic.

I think it's true that (some) WAR supporters probably do need to town down their arrogance, but it's a little disingenuous to write this piece when WAR-detractors (people who dismiss it out of hand) are far more arrogant.

We all don’t need to war over WAR (damn, those terrible cliches are just so hard to resist).

And I fear that in the end its broadest possible acceptance is going to be hindered by the catchy acronym.

I really wish we could put an official indefinite moratorium on WAR/war-related puns (in particular the "what is it good for?" that seemingly appears every other article).

What we do have, however, is reams and reams of self-reported experience from baseball players suggesting that pressure at bats are distinct from non-pressure at bat. I realize this would mean we would have to assume that players talking about the game and how it feels is a valid data stream for analysis, but perhaps that's not a bridge to far in our desperate search for pristine "science?"

What we also have, is reams and reams of data, suggesting that the vast majority of players, in those specific situations, perform on par with any other situation. So even if the statement is true, why should we care?

all the HOF voters were able to tell those players were pretty good, long before WAR had ever made its way into baseball.

Well, duh. That's about as weak of an argument as you can make. Let's tackle the higher hanging fruit. It's really about sorting out the top 100-300, isn't it, for the HOF? That's where the real value of a statistical tool is. Your eyes and some 1 dimensional statistics might tell you that Nolan Ryan was close to the best pitcher of all time. Lots of people believe that. WAR, WS, etc. should give you pause and cause you to drill deeper down.

I think it's true that (some) WAR supporters probably do need to town down their arrogance, but it's a little disingenuous to write this piece when WAR-detractors (people who dismiss it out of hand) are far more arrogant.

I doubt this is the case. I suspect this is more confirmation bias on your part than anything like a statistical reality.

What we also have, is reams and reams of data, suggesting that the vast majority of players, in those specific situations, perform on par with any other situation. So even if the statement is true, why should we care?

Do we? We have reams and reams of data telling us that there's no large scale existence of "clutch hitting" if you define clutch hitting as hitting better in pressure situations. But I'm not sure the data says what you're saying here either. If we define clutch hitting as *not getting worse* rather than getting better, do we really have a large data set that shows most people maintain the baseline?

It's really about sorting out the top 100-300, isn't it, for the HOF? That's where the real value of a statistical tool is. Your eyes and some 1 dimensional statistics might tell you that Nolan Ryan was close to the best pitcher of all time. Lots of people believe that. WAR, WS, etc. should give you pause and cause you to drill deeper down.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of us were pointing out the fact that Nolan Ryan was overrated by the media that conveniently ignored all of those walks because of the seven no hitters and the strikeouts, back in the 90s, before WAR was a thing.

I really wish we could put an official indefinite moratorium on WAR/war-related puns (in particular the "what is it good for?" that seemingly appears every other article).

Or someone could create a new statistical acronym that spells out LOVE.

It's much easier to sell 'batting runs' as measuring the number of runs a given batting line is likely to generate, than to market 10 such runs = 1 win.

I was a fan of Runs Created, but from what I understand, the linear calculation is better than the TB*OBP approach. I know there's a way to calculate batting runs with zero as a baseline instead of average, but I forget it at the moment. Outs still have a negative value, but much lower than the value used by Palmer and his successors.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of us were pointing out the fact that Nolan Ryan was overrated by the media ... back in the 90s, before WAR was a thing.

I'd like to see your posts on this from the day. Besides, it's exactly the voting media types who need these kinds of tools.

And you know that if "we" switched and started bleeting about VORP or WS or some other tool, the same article would have been written, so whether WAR was around in the 90s or not is irrelevant.

What we also have, is reams and reams of data, suggesting that the vast majority of players, in those specific situations, perform on par with any other situation. So even if the statement is true, why should we care?

This. Hurley ignores the fact that in "those pressure-packed, late-inning situations, with a crowd of 40,000 going absolutely nuts" that the batter isn't working in a vacuum: every player is keyed up/nervous, whatever. In addition, isn't it just as likely that the players are feeding off the energy of this pressure situation and are more focused/performing better than normal?

In addition, isn't it just as likely that the players are feeding off the energy of this pressure situation and are more focused/performing better than normal?

His argument here is in support of not dismissing RBI out of hand, so while everyone is jacked up, and some people ("clutch players") may feed off the environment, in his example one player won the battle and drove in the run.

I doubt this is the case. I suspect this is more confirmation bias on your part than anything like a statistical reality.

Probably, but it's probably a confirmation bias most fans share. I'm far less likely to read random bloggers touting WAR (and even less likely to read Fangraphs or BPro) than I am to read something by a columnist who writes for a newspaper or outlet like ESPN.

I'd like to see your posts on this from the day.

The best I can suggest is a search of Google groups for rec.sport.baseball and the alt.sports.baseball* hierarchies for posts with "Hutcheson." Those conversations were probably in RSB, though I was all over the ASB groups in the late 90s.

Besides, it's exactly the voting media types who need these kinds of tools.

I don't think the "voting media types" need these types of tools, per se. I think you're conflating the politics of professional sportswriters, with the notion of an entrenched and entitled access via being "newspaper men," and their opposition to the amateurs of the internet that they identify as eating away their jobs, with statistics.

Or someone could create a new statistical acronym that spells out LOVE.

Low Observable Value Estimator

Probably, but it's probably a confirmation bias most fans share.

Not sure I agree with this. Fans who get their sports news from the dailies and ESPN probably don't care much for WAR, because they're not that into the question. They care if the home team won and if the superstar whose jersey they bought did well. Fans who get their news from the internets outside of the main sports broadcaster sites are going to lean your way when it comes to bias. I have no idea where the majority fo the fans lie in this regard, but I suspect that "most" are still getting their news from ESPN and such.

The complaint here seems to be that the article attacks something of a straw man and that the saberist community is more nuanced and doesn't really think the way his caricature does, doesn't treat WAR as the holy grail that the caricature does, etc. Which is probably valid, but also something the community might consider the inverse of the next time Repoz drops a Murray Chass doll into the arena for punching practice.

a lot of us were pointing out the fact that Nolan Ryan was overrated by the media that conveniently ignored all of those walks because of the seven no hitters and the strikeouts, back in the 90s, before WAR was a thing

The irony is that by the '90s, Ryan was no longer overrated: he'd become the pitcher the media'd thought he was all along. He led the league in K/W ratio at the age of 40, and in WHIP at the ages of 43 and 44. He was still throwing 100, striking out everybody in sight, pitching no-hitters, and he'd cut his walks by a third or 2/5. He wasn't that pitcher for very long, but it was awesome to watch.

As to the RBI, it is always extremely important to note that Runs is the only stat that counts towards winning. One should cheer for an RBI and be thankful one's team has guys who rack them up. No pennants are awarded for theoretical run production. The RBI only becomes less useful when trying to decide whether someone is actually a better hitter than someone else – and TFA notes that fact prominently.

"In of those pressure-packed, late-inning situations, with a crowd of 40,000 going absolutely nuts and the opposing team’s best reliever on the mound," how come the pitcher's heart rate remains the same? How come he doesn't sweat more than usual? How come he doesn't need to focus more...?

The complaint here seems to be that the article attacks something of a straw man and that the saberist community is more nuanced and doesn't really think the way his caricature does, doesn't treat WAR as the holy grail that the caricature does, etc. Which is probably valid, but also something the community might consider the inverse of the next time Repoz drops a Murray Chass doll into the arena for punching practice.

I don't think it's quite a strawman in that I'm sure that people exist who write about WAR like it's absolute. And those people are arrogant. I just don't think they're influencing very many people. Not nearly as many people as the anti-stats writers reach.

how come the pitcher's heart rate remains the same? How come he doesn't sweat more than usual? How come he doesn't need to focus more...?

Because Closers have a different mindset... because they're Closers. At least, that's what Mitch Williams tells me on TV.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_career.shtml?mobile=false

You need not go further than the top 100 by WAR all time to see big disconnects with the mainstream in perceptions about players.

Blyleven is #39 in WAR all time and his election to the HoF was no certain thing.

Mussina is 57; Bagwell is 59; Schilling is 63; Whitaker is 74; Larry Walker is 81; Trammell is 91; Raines and Reuschel are tied at 97 and Smoltz is 100. What does it say about WAR that these players are unlikely to be elected by the BBWAA?

Nolan Ryan is 65 all time, BTW.

Unless you start equating BABIP to good or bad luck. Then we would have to fight with our fists

Yes, there is good stuff in this morons screed.

And how can there ever be low pressure situations in baseball? EVERY at bat happens while you are alone, the sole object of focus for tens of thousands of people (unless you are in Tampa, hmmm, maybe I've discovered their organizational secret). How would you even begin to measure the additional stress difference of an important game or seasonal situation?

Mussina is 57; Bagwell is 59; Schilling is 63; Whitaker is 74; Larry Walker is 81; Trammell is 91; Raines and Reuschel are tied at 97 and Smoltz is 100. What does it say about WAR that these players are unlikely to be elected by the BBWAA?

Mussina, Baggwell, Shilling, Raines and Smoltz are all likely to make it, barring further steroid revelations.

Your eyes and some 1 dimensional statistics might tell you that Nolan Ryan was close to the best pitcher of all time. Lots of people believe that. WAR, WS, etc. should give you pause and cause you to drill deeper down.

I don't think this is true. People who think Nolan Ryan is close to the best pitcher of all time are focusing on two statistics: strikeouts and no-hitters. Looking at even his other basic stats shows him as a very good-but-not-great pitcher. His ERA (3.19) is very good, but not outstanding. His ERA+ (112) is actually pretty mediocre for a Hall of Famer. His winning percentage (.526) is about the same. Ryan never won a Cy Young (and his Cy Young shares total is 30th all-time, which isn't exactly legendary). Of course, he walked the most batters of any pitcher in history, by far.

His wins total is his most impressive number, aside from the Ks and no-hitters, but it's also exactly the same as Don Sutton's, and no one ever accused Don Sutton of being the greatest pitcher of all time.

Those are all very basic numbers, except for maybe ERA+. Anyone who takes five minutes to study Nolan Ryan's career statistics would quickly understand that he doesn't belong in the discussion for greatest pitcher of all time. You don't need WAR or Win Shares to lead you to that conclusion.

Those that ignore WAR are merely slipping into darkness.

Yes, there is good stuff in this morons screed.

And this is the problem.

"In of those pressure-packed, late-inning situations, with a crowd of 40,000 going absolutely nuts and the opposing team’s best reliever on the mound," how come the pitcher's heart rate remains the same? How come he doesn't sweat more than usual? How come he doesn't need to focus more...?

There's actually more evidence for "clutch" pitching than "clutch" hitting. At the extreme, the Steve Blass/Rick Ankiel, can't get withing a yard of the plate is as obviously "unclutch" as you can get.

And it makes sense, in that pitching is deliberative, and hitting is reactive. It's much easier to psyche yourself out when you have 30 seconds to hold the ball than when you have 0.7 seconds to swing.

BTW, do you guys pronounce it war, like World War II, or waar, like car? I've always thought waar, since war is already a thing, but maybe I'm alone in that.

WAR as in "war" for me.

This is more or less a copy and paste. Every once in a while, a dumb sportswriter stumbles on something new to attack WAR with, but its generally the same basic things: strawman (and usually about RBI) to attack, something to the extent of "the at bats I think are more difficult/important are more difficult/important because I think they are" type circular logic without anything to really back it up (this helps build a narrative to sell), and something else like "see all these players at the top of the WAR leaderboard, everyone already knows they're good so who cares!" nonsense. We don't need the home run or batting average leaderboard to know that Aaron and Cobb, or M Cabrera were/are good hitters, so why bother tracking those metrics either?

I would greatly enjoy some writer coming out and saying "I'm used to the stats I learned when I was nine and checked out a box score for the first time, and I'm too get-off-my-lawn to change my ways". That's what this article is really about. He talks about the stats nerds attacking him without realizing he's just as much of a stubborn ass. Is it too much to ask for one of these writers to admit to being an ass too?

This is more or less a copy and paste. Every once in a while, a dumb sportswriter stumbles on something new to attack WAR with, but its generally the same basic things: strawman

Says the second living embodiment of supposed "strawman" in this comment thread.

Says the second living embodiment of supposed "strawman" in this comment thread.

I'm excited for you to argue that he didn't write "'Driving in runs is meaningless!' they argue"

He's more than happy to demonstrate that he understands the limitation of RBI, but he characterizes the stat nerd as someone who refuses to think deeply about them and unable to understand their value.

He's more than happy to demonstrate that he understands the limitation of RBI, but he characterizes the stat nerd as someone who refuses to think deeply about them and unable to understand their value.

Have you never heard someone argue that "RBIs are meaningless?"

Have you never heard someone argue that "RBIs are meaningless?"

You've changed the quote, and specifically made it vague enough for the writer to sneak out. He said driving in runs, and no, I've never heard anyone say that tallying runs is meaningless. There's a whole ocean's worth of difference between that and what I have heard, that a player's RBI total is not a meaningful measure of ability.

Career Leaders & Records for Wins Above Replacement (B-R)

 Rank Bucket  #HOF  ACT  TOT  % HOF
      1- 100    72    6  100    77%
    101- 200    52   10  100    58%
    201- 300    33   10  100    37%
    301- 400    22    6  100    23%
    401- 500    11    7  100    12%
    501- 600     6    9  100     7%
    601- 700     4   12  100     5%
    701- 800     2   12  100     2%
    801- 900     3   10  100     3%
    901-1000     4   10  102     4%
       Total   209   92 1002    23% 

ACT = Active through 2012
TOT = Total number of players in bucket
% HOF = percentage of hall of famers among inactive (through 2012) players in bucket

I would greatly enjoy some writer coming out and saying "I'm used to the stats I learned when I was nine and checked out a box score for the first time, and I'm too get-off-my-lawn to change my ways". That's what this article is really about. He talks about the stats nerds attacking him without realizing he's just as much of a stubborn ass. Is it too much to ask for one of these writers to admit to being an ass too?

First, congratulations on admitting that you're being an ass. That's honest, at least.

Second, I'm not a professional sports writer or anything, but I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing that WAR gives me that I can't ascertain effectively by looking at a players slash stat line, his defensive valuations, and his team. Which is to say, if I'm a reasonably intelligent and informed baseball fan, I don't really need WAR much at all.

You've changed the quote, and specifically made it vague enough for the writer to sneak out. He said driving in runs, and no, I've never heard anyone say that tallying runs is meaningless.

Seriously? This is your argument? Let me clear this up quickly then. The phrase "driving in runs" is universally used in reference to "RBI men" in baseball.

First, congratulations on admitting that you're being an ass. That's honest, at least.

Second, I'm not a professional sports writer or anything, but I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing that WAR gives me that I can't ascertain effectively by looking at a players slash stat line, his defensive valuations, and his team. Which is to say, if I'm a reasonably intelligent and informed baseball fan, I don't really need WAR much at all.

For someone who just called out Repoz for sneakily excluding an important part of one's work, I'd figured you wait more than about 30 seconds to do the same yourself.

The writer doesn't need WAR to have a basic understanding that the top 10 or so players we're probably the actually top 10 players, at least according to him. Well, why do we need the slash stats to know that Cabrera was one of the best hitters in the game, or any defensive valuations to know that Trout was fantastic last year? Like I said, which you conveniently ignored, why bother tracking anything that is easy to see, like hits falling in or home runs going over the fence?

Well, why do we need the slash stats to know that Cabrera was one of the best hitters in the game, or any defensive valuations to know that Trout was fantastic last year?

Here's a thought: we don't actually need slash stats to know Cabrera could rake or that Trout was an outstanding five tool player. Slash stats allow me to assess how a player I don't see play very often contributes to his team (or fails to) but we don't need them if we see the players. If you watched Mike Trout play baseball on a daily basis, you wouldn't need his slash line or his zone ratings to ascertain his value. Those stats are most useful for general managers looking to evaluate potential roster additions more than anything else.

Like I said, which you conveniently ignored, why bother tracking anything that is easy to see, like hits falling in or home runs going over the fence?

Baseball has always tracked stats. I'm not at all sure what you're trying to get at here. WAR is not a statistical marker of an event that happened in the world. It's a derived amalgam of many, disparate events, sort of glommed together to create a short hand for people who don't want to look at the details very closely. As the article notes, actually.

Seriously? This is your argument? Let me clear this up quickly then. The phrase "driving in runs" is universally used in reference to "RBI men" in baseball.

And that makes a difference how? The writer, and you now, are intentionally using the term vaguely enough so that it can mean two different things. You two seem to think that only you two get to decide when to separate those two ideas, and mainly just to say "look at those dummies!".