Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
WPA is ####### useless, and when you see article after article bringing it up in an MVP discussion, you really can't trust anything else those people have to say about the subject. Factor in their moronic methodology for pitchers war and you have two of their headlining stats that are clearly crap, that it makes you not trust the rest so much.
People know what an average OPS+ is, what a good OPS+ is, what a great OPS+ is. They know that a 140 OPS+ is only 20% better than average and that if they get that wrong that Walt will fix it. We have a feel based on tens of thousands of player seasons of OPS+ numbers.
So this spiel about FanGraphs navigability is petty ########. It takes, what, 2 seconds longer to load up a FanGraphs player page than a B-R one.
I think this hurt the BP stats, but it was better for their writing. I think it's always better to use stats that everyone knows and knows the scale of. Fangraphs writers use their wOBA and their ERA- and I have no idea (hyperbole for wOBA, literally true for ERA-) what those numbers represent while ERA+ and OPS+ are on a scale that anyone can understand.
I think lack of exposure hurts wOBA greatly. Its actually scaled to OBP, so it should be a fairly intuitive stat to use. If a wOBA would be a good OBP then its good. The linear weights system feels right, a hit will be on average worth x amount of runs, and setting the whole thing to a rate stat makes sense. There's really know reason that wRC+ should be used that much more than wOBA except that one is much better known and set to the very familiar scale we've gotten used to. I think anybody who read Tango in the Book explain wOBA would find it their preferred stat.
There's really know reason that wRC+ should be used that much more than wOBA except that one is much better known and set to the very familiar scale we've gotten used to.
I think there are different uses for different stats. If I'm actually doing calculations, I'm not going to be using OPS+ or wRC+ or wOBA. I'm going to use linear weights divided by PA. The scaling part of wOBA is only to make it conversational. If I'm just posting a comparison here, I'm going to use OPS+ because there might be people here who have no idea what a .360 wOBA means.
Why use wOBA, based on a scale of OBP from a specific point in time, when you can use something with the same underlying methodology but a far more intuitive and useful scale?
our opinion on this is so ####### stupid its incredible. FIP WAR provides a good benchmark if you want to isolate repeatable skills, it offers one component of value and it's incredibly useful for what it tries to do. Looking at FIP WAR and RA WAR is a great combination to understanding a pitchers true value. WPA is basically like a better version of RBI's. WPA/LI is better obviously, but WPA is perfectly good at telling you what it's trying to do.
Even if those stats were worthless, wRC+ and ERA- are clearly superior to their alternatives. So this spiel about FanGraphs navigability is petty ########. It takes, what, 2 seconds longer to load up a FanGraphs player page than a B-R one. Plus FanGraphs has velocity and movement data, and other useful stuff especially for pitchers. Get your head out of your ass!
Edit: obviously you can do whatever you want, but it's not FanGraphs fault that you don't like using their stuff.
Fangraphs writers use their wOBA and their ERA- and I have no idea (hyperbole for wOBA, literally true for ERA-) what those numbers represent while ERA+ and OPS+ are on a scale that anyone can understand.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (7 members)
Page rendered in 0.3066 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed