Also, when applying total WAR (which you've failed to do) in conjunction with pythagorean wins, one gets a pretty good idea whether a team has under/over achieved. For instance, say you apply a baseline of 46 wins (which is roughly the actual baseline for a replacement level team) and then add a team's total WAR-you then have an idea of whether a team has under-over achieved it's collective on field performance.

Texas 46 + 50 WAR = 96 wins. Actual wins = 93. Underachieved.
LAAA 46 + 47 WAR = 93 wins. Actual wins = 88. Underachieved.

Oh, look - that falls in line with conventional and professional analysis and prognostications. And if calling you a blockhead is offensive, i apologize but your "logical reasoning" needs a major overhaul.

You think I don't even know what my own point was? How funny. I know what my point was, whether you listened or not. It was always pertaining to the fact that in primi's list, the Angels TOTAL WAR for 2012 was twice as much as the Rangers, with other illogical anomalies as well.

We know now he was using the wrong number for total WAR, but all I was trying to highlight was that for some reason or another, what he had had to be wrong, because it made no sense. And I was right. That galls you, doesn't it? LOL

In fact, in your futile crusade to try to make me to be wrong when I wasn't, you don't even want to admit that they were his numbers, not mine, do you? Too funny. (I never claimed I had checked them in any way. I merely cited them, and questioned their validity.)

#1

"Primi, it appears to me there's a huge mistake in your charts. Maybe the problem is with WAR itself, or maybe it lies elsewhere. [Yeah, the root of the problem lies with your comprehension of the metric]

Isn't a "replacement player" by definition one who produces the league average at his position? Therefore, if you have a whole team of players who are "replacement level" you have an average team, right? And mathematically the average team wins 81 games.

So when you calculate the Angels as a team credited with +37 Above Replacement Wins in 2012, ummm no that didn't happen. Their players, all together, only created a +8.

In any event, simply calculate dollars per win, using total payroll above average and total wins above average, and you probably get a better analysis of what each team paid for WAR. And the Angels, with about $140M in payroll and 89 wins, paid through the nose for their extra wins, contrary to what your chart says.

Something is wrong in the methodology here. Or WAR is not as accurate and helpful as some claim it to be.

November 24, 2012 at 10:10 AM | David

The quoted blurb (especially the bolded section) points to how little you know about the metric itself whether you have a problem with primi's ADJUSTED valuation or not.

#2

TxBall, clearly my point is over your head. But thanks for trying.

WAR is supposed to tell us the impact on winning that players have. But if it actually did it accurately, then the teams who won more would have more WARs and the teams who won less would have fewer.

If we see that the WAR totals don't bear out in actual wins, and that teams with far more WARs can win less, it's clear that the WAR stat fails to accurately weigh some aspects of baseball properly. Or if, as you say, primi has "adjusted" the stats, then it's his adjustments gave a very skewed result. Because he is showing that the Angels - with fewer wins than the Rangers - with over twice as many 2012 WARs as the Rangers, and by the very definition of the metric, something's very wrong in those results.

Again, the bolded section shows that you have a CLEAR misconception of the subject matter and you haven't even attempted to double check the numbers.

#3

Primi, if you're addressing me there, then you've fallen into the same "missing the point" mindset that those others did, regarding what I was trying to point out initially. As my point really didn't pertain to the details of WAR, I didn't take time to worry about those details in that post and just made my point in general.

........

November 25, 2012 at 5:28 PM | David

Again, the bolded section shows here that you're flat out saying that "others" don't understand your "points" when it's been shown repeatedly that you're using, first, poorly preconceived ideas of a rather straightforward application of an ever evolving metric, and, then, using circuitous reasoning and feeble attempts at a retraction while doubling back and tripping over your strawman arguments.

Case. Closed. Again, with all due respect, shut up and do some research.

As far as the points you keep belaboring about the WAR baseline, I understood them the first time you said them - but what you fail to recognize, is that the exact baseline itself was always meaningless in relation to the point I've been making.

The gross totals weren't ever my focus, only the comparative totals. So whether the WAR baseline is an average team with 81 wins (as I wrongly guessed in making my point at first), or 46 wins as you now say, or 42.2 wins as fangraphs says, it doesn't really matter (other than the fact that it sent you into hater mode, though I suspect you'd have found a different excuse to brandish your characteristic vitriol anyhow.)

What mattered - and what I was pointing out to primi - was that the 37+ 2012 Wins he had for LAA were more than twice as many as the 18 that he had for Texas, and that was logically wrong considering the seasons those two teams had. I kept telling you that my point was the irrationality of the numbers he was offering, and you kept obsessing over things not really germane to my point..

Yet you want to attack me for him having the wrong numbers? LOL All along I was trying to get him to perhaps recheck his work, by showing how it was logically wrong. I didn't claim to check his work or try to figure out where his mistake was. And it's not MY research, so that's not my job. I at least offered a heads up that something was wrong, before you obsessively and comically began trying to derail the conversation with your haterade.

At least you've been entertaining in your demanding irrationality. Thanks for that, it's been a slow weekend after the holiday!

To be fair, I didnt read primi's post. I read your response and noticed an obvious misunderstanding of the metric which could have been due to the quoted numbers. However, logically, anyone who possesses the requisite curiousity to respond to his post (and primi has more than earned his due respect around here with work/research he's put forth) should have the werewithal to, perhaps, double check any numbers that may seem out of sorts. My responses were concisely constructed only at the points with which you misconstrued based on your response. Not until you curiously replied with the "over your head" weak jab did I respond as to why you would probably have misconstrued the subject matter. The only evidence I had was the bolded blurbs which STILL point out that you do not have a solid understanding of the metric nor did you bother to check. Regardless of primi's numbers, that point still holds. Now you can view this as an attack on your "intelligence" or whatever have you, but laziness that leads into several immature barbs at more than one poster who appear to possess more #want in regards to all that is baseball and/or intelligence (based on your repeated malaise at doing a bit of research) is all on you. That point remains. As you were fond of saying, "thanks for trying".

Txball, I addressed primi's posted numbers because they logically didn't wash. I didn't have any desire to do his project, so I tried to explain WHY it looked out of sorts and then let him make sure he didn't make some mistake. Is it better to let him think his numbers are right and then flow off into analysis based on those flawed numbers? Or, in noticing something amiss, is it better to say, "Hey, this looks screwy - something's wrong here" like I did? I simply don't accept your assertion that I am somehow required to figure out exactly where the mistake lies, or otherwise say nothing and leave him in error.

Heck, you didn't even read the context of my initial reply to him, and it was posted right above what i wrote. I have to take the time do a research project to reply to primi, while you should just swing wildly without bothering to read the post above to know why I'm replying as I am? LOL Either that's a core quest to hate, or a lack of fundamental fairness in your approach. You can decide. I'll get my popcorn ready.

It's also funny that you refer to something that I wrote using a guess (and guessed wrongly), and then you cite it as if it's still my understanding, as if I couldn't read the ensuing discussion about baselines or have looked it up. I never tried to defend the guessed-at baseline, only noting how it wasn't really my point (and explaining more than once what my point was, in case you didn't follow) ...Yet here you are, seeming to think that because the post with my erroneous guess is still there, I couldn't and wouldn't have looked it up since then? You continue to amuse with your lack of awareness about others, and thanks for being so silly with such haterism. Too funny.

Sigh all childish barbs aside, you exhibited a clear fundamental lack of comprehension of a metric and, armed with that blunt device, you proceeded in a contorted fashion of not doing even a minimal search of basic facts while blunderingly attacking a metric and other posters. It is you who seemed to not understand that basic comprehension of the metric (baseline notwithstanding since its apparent that you refuse to acknowledge that total WAR comprises postional players + pitchers) would perhaps better aide you in your purported "assistance" of primi's misquotes; however, instead of acknowledging that very fact, you instead kept backtracking to your confused main point, which could have been easily remedied if you showed even Michael Young level #want. There is no "hate". The only thing that remains true is you're lazy and that you'd rather attack posters with, i dunno, barbs derived from your own insecurities? Save yourself the embarrassment and just. Look. It. Up. It's not a research project, I assure you. Also, educated guesses by posters armed with the requisite knowledge is a BIT different than wild stabs in the dark due to misinformation and lack of comprehension. Just sayin'. Have a good one.

Txball, in your quotes, you simply omitted ones showing I immediately got your point about the WAR baseline, and where I specifically clarified to you what my point was (and that it had nothing to do with the WAR baseline). Yet then and now, you've continued to act as if none of that was ever said.

You also opt to try to put words in my mouth I'm not even saying. For example, "its apparent that you refuse to acknowledge that total WAR comprises positional players + pitchers" is complete poppycock of your invention, but nothing from me anywhere anytime in this thread! You assert I was "attacking a metric and other posters" when what I was questioning was NUMBERS in a post - and numbers that were indeed wrong.

That's why I find this so funny. Even though I show I understand what you're conveying, and clarify my points, you simply refuse to read or acknowledge them and opt to try to asset I'm saying things that I'm not. At first it was a bit frustrating but I've simply decided you're doing nothing more than trying to create a game of "gotcha," even if you have to ignore what I'm actually saying to invent your gotchas. I find amusement in games, even if they're silly ones like you're playing here.

One last thing...

Replacement level player is league average? Which led to the "average" team wins 81 games?

Is it just me or does "replacement level" and average seem like two completely different terms. Also, logically using 81 as a baseline and even adding primi's misquoted totals...uh 81 + 37.6 = 118.6 wins. How in the world does that make any sense? Yet, you're sitting here attacking other posters with impotent blanks and chiding them for (now, this is the amusing part) lack of intelligence?

C'MON, MAN. Get real. All you have to do is apologize to those you've childishly offended (and I assure you we find you more amusing than you do us) or, well, not and just say ya did.

A little bit of research doesn't hurt.

You're one of the very few who I've ever known to wonder why something seemed to be amiss, question a poster and indirectly question the metric (any bored or inquisitive individual can go back and read your views on WAR itself on this very thread) yet not arm yourself with even the most basic parameters involved with the subject matter at hand.

Some of us even gave you the simple reference points, yet it took you this long to look up a few lousy numbers? And there ya go, still the kid in the corner with the invisible dunce cap that only you can see hoping that no one goes back and actually reads your, excuse me for this, garbage posts about WAR and other posters.

Whatever floats your boat.

At first it was a bit frustrating but I've simply decided you're doing nothing more than trying to create a game of "gotcha," even if you have to ignore what I'm actually saying to invent your gotchas.

Or maybe you simply don't comprehend what I'm saying, and not saying. That's what I thought at first.

And it's either you're deliberately ignoring me (such as obsessively focusing on something I wrote one time without looking it up, never said again, and pretend like it's some sort of ongoing mantra I'm using - while ignoring the points I've been making repeatedly) ...or you're totally failing to comprehend, one or the other. LOL

Nah, you're just being goofy and trying to win a game of your own invention. You just can't unintentionally be that unobservant and mistaken. Quite entertaining little game you've chosen. Games are fun, aren't they?

Do me a favor - link where you've got that baseline from because it seems to me all you did was averagete baseline from Texas and LAAA. For instance, Baltimore's baseline is 93 - 32 WAR = 61 wins. I'm just curious since some of us were nice enough to reference our sources, I figured you would do the same. Thanks in advance.

No offense, but I only play games (such as poker) with competent individuals...or at least I try to. This isn't a game. This is just becoming a beat down of a discussion.

David, even though you got me figured out, thanks for falling for my troll for so long. You know they say you shouldn't feed a troll, but I disagree. I'm always hungry. Please keep it up. :-)

PS I'm off my meds and into the bottle a bit tonight, So don't take anything I said too seriously while trolling. No one else does, and you shouldn't either.

LOL Too funny.

No problem!

That's a great ender. Thanks.

Peace. ~Out.~

LOL ^ you do know the moderators can see your ip address, right? And, y'know, since we're the only two posters here...anyone with a lick of intelligence could probably deduce that you've resorted to your childish tactics like I knew you were known for. Y'know, like those who can tell that 81 + 37.6 = 118.6 wins for LAAA makes absolutely NO SENSE. Those kind of people.

I don't know about you guys, but I sure have missed the real Txball on these boards. Welcome back!

I did it for the nookie. And #splifftalk. Good to be back bro now lets hit up some turntable

BTW, "David" - I'm still waiting on the link.

A team running at "replacement level" wins something like 37 games..just wanted to throw that out there.

Fajita, it could possibly in any given year but the range is actually fairly wide - from mid 30's to high 40's and I would definitely believe that number; however, I am altogether unlikely to give David any credit whatsoever especially since he didn't understand the concept at the point of contention and just quoted a false baseline for 2012.

Trivia: How many games would a team win if it fielded a team exclusively of 2012 #Face-level players?

Answer?

A million.

^powpow

blam.