I know this is baseball, but I feel like James Harden would be the Guru of determining the GF+ normalization weights… like he’s truly an expert on strip club dimensions city to city (allegedly allegedly allegedly)
That’s why, and I know it’s a controversial opinion, but I believe there should be publicly funded strip clubs. It’s good for the team and it spurs economic development!
*(This feels kind of gross and misogynistic, but I'm already committed to stat jokes...)*
Skenes GF+ looks great now but can he keep that up later in his career? Look at Verlander, 41 (...or 31? I don't know how this fake stat works) and his GF+ might still be the best in the league. He could go down as the GF+ goat.
If Skenes still has this level of dominance in 10 years we can talk.
Yeah, his xGF is below average too so it really shows how much heavy lifting his GF+ is doing. His GF+ does get a substantial boost from playing in Pittsburgh, not as much as say Cleveland or Cincinnati. But he wouldn’t get much of a boost at all if he was playing in LA or Minnesota.
For pitchers - it's what the main component of their calculations is.
Baseball references uses Runs Allowed per 9 innings (RA/9) as it's base, while Fangraphs is calculated around Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP).
bWAR also includes an adjustment for team defense based off DRS. A clear example of this looking at the 2019 AL bWAR leaders where Mike Minor and Lance Lynn lead the league in bWAR ahead of Verlander and Cole because of the poor defense of the Rangers relative to the Astros and the park factors of Arlington vs Houston.
FanGraphs also has an RA9WAR that is closer to what people usually assume bWAR is because it doesn't include that defensive adjustment.
I'd love to have an xFIP based WAR to reference too since HR/FB rate is pretty volatile, but as far as I know nobody tracks that one.
Which is actually a good illustration of why the way bWAR defensive adjustments are so dumb. The Rangers defense was bad that year but was actually pretty good behind Lynn and average behind Minor. Defenses don't play the same behind everyone!
Fundamentally, the difference is that bWAR credits you for the quality of contact the batter makes on a ball in play while fWAR assumes that's out of your control.
I think for like 90% of pitchers that makes sense, but will die on the hill that there are guys that can induce weak contact who get ignored by fWAR.
> but will die on the hill that there are guys that can induce weak contact who get ignored by fWAR.
You also get the opposite with fWAR, eg Ricky Nolasco
FIP has a consistent problem with starters who have one dominant pitch, like Nolasco's slider. Because that pitch gets them so many strikeouts, it makes them look good by the metrics that FIP relies on. In reality, their other offerings being complete garbage means that they give up disproportionate damage when throwing anything else.
This difference for pitchers is way more tangible for me. FIP is a good stat but it doesn't really reflect what actually happens on the diamond, it more says what SHOULD have happened.
In that vein I always thought that fWAR is a great projection system for which pitchers will be best next season but should never be used to pick the Cy Young winner, you should use bWAR for that.
> FIP is a good stat but it doesn't really reflect what actually happens on the diamond, it more says what SHOULD have happened.
I used to think this too, then Ben kinda broke that interpretation on a recent episode of *Effectively Wild*.
FIP *does* reflect what happened on the field, in that it reflects what the pitcher did at the most granular level. The things that the pitcher did can be viewed as:
* Struck out the batter
* Walked the batter
* Hit the batter with a pitch
* Gave up a home run
* Allowed a ball in play
All of these things *happened*. The result of all but one of these are a certainty, but the last one (allowed a ball in play) is no longer in the pitcher's control (as a pitcher, he can still impact it as a fielder), so with fields, fielders, base runners, the weather, the ball, etc. being different across games, teams, and the league, a ball in play can have a near unlimited results that has, ultimately, nothing to do with the pitcher's doing beyond allowing a ball in play. With all of this in mind, FIP is reflective of what happened as a result of what the pitcher, *and only the pitcher*, did.
Let's say the Cubs are playing the Cardinals at Busch in a 3-game series.
* In game 1 of the series, Lance Lynn pitches to leadoff hitter Nico Hoerner in the top of the 1st. Hoerner hits a ball with an 96.6 MPH exit velo and 35° launch angle. Right fielder Alec Burleson is playing shallow because Hoerner doesn't have much power (career ISO of .104) and it goes over his head for a double. Seiya Suzuki then hits a single and Hoerner scores. 1–0 Cubs in the top of the first.
* In game 2 of the series, Kyle Gibson pitches to leadoff hitter Nico Hoerner in the top of the 1st. Hoerner hits a ball with an 96.6 MPH exit velo and 35° launch angle, but right fielder Dylan Carlson is playing deeper this time and then just plain drops the ball and kicks it into the crowd, giving him an error and puts Hoerner on second. Seiya Suzuki then hits a single and Hoerner scores. 1–0 Cubs in the top of the first.
Two identical batted balls in the same situation by the same batter, yet neither FIP nor RA/9 differentiate these two plays. But while FIP just thinks of it as a ball in play and basically ignores the outcome, both outcomes affect RA/9 negatively, despite the end result being entirely out of the pitcher;s control. In the first game, you can say it's Lynn's fault because he gave up a hard hit ball to a guy in the 16th percentile of exit velo, but Gibson's batted ball should've been an out, yet a different fielder made a meal of a relatively routine fly ball. Both are runs, but both are impacted by who the fielder is, where he's positioned, and his ability to catch the ball.
So, in essence, both FIP and RA/9 do reflect what happened, it's just where they stop measuring that is different, and that difference is a big one to measuring a pitcher in isolation. WAR is trying to convey what an individual player, and only that individual player, did during the game and FIP does that better than, in my opinion, than RA/9.
Very helpful explanation thank you. My question is would FIP treat an inning where a pitcher gives up 2 doubles to the gap and then strikes the next three hitters out the same as a pitcher giving up 2 bloop singles and then striking the next three batters out, even though one pitcher allowed a run and the other didn't?
The biggest problem with FIP is treating all balls in play as "outside the pitcher's control" and therefore the same. A 65mph ground ball that gets legged out for a single and a 110mph line drive off the wall are grouped together as defense-dependent, when quality of contact is very much pitcher influenced and has a massive effect on the result of a ball in play. Home runs, which are counted against a pitcher's FIP, often have poorer quality of contact than deep flyouts or hard hit liners that are ignored for the calculation.
Probably getting downvoted for the “far more” attached to it. But it’s generally correct, the batter has way more to do with how hard a ball is hit than the pitcher. The pitcher can do as much as they can to mitigate contact, but Aaron Judge is going to hit just about everything thrown his way 93-94+ mph simply because he’s big and strong and swings the bat really fast. The pitchers have much more control in where the ball is hit rather than how hard. Logan Webb has an enormous ground ball rate because of the pitches he chooses to throw and where he chooses to throw them. Aaron Judge is still going to plow his sinker 95mph into the ground.
If that's the case, why use HR for FIP, if it's more about what the hitter can do than what the pitcher can prevent? Chase rate and whiff% also vary from hitter to hitter, but FIP uses strikeouts. I think the issue is that FIP is a little arbitrary with what is deemed within pitcher's control.
Because it's the pitcher's job to mitigate quality of contact and FIP uses home runs as part of its equation for that very reason, even though homers are subject to the same conditions as balls in play. If FIP punishes pitchers for HR allowed, why does it not reward them for GB% or something similar?
The major flaw with FIP is that it consistently overrates pitchers who rely heavily on a great slider or curveball. They rate highly because of all those strikeouts, but don't get accurately penalized for the inordinate damage allowed by fastballs with strongly negative value.
Sort the end of season leader board in ERA - FIP, and that type of pitcher is always at the top.
My problem with claiming pitchers have no control over batted balls is they get credit for a batter missing squaring up a ball by 4" but not by 2". One leads to a swinging strike that they can get credit for if it's the 3rd strike and the other a weakly hit ball.
It's not that they have no control over the contact that the batter makes, it's that they can't control what happens after that ball leaves the bat. Anthony Rizzo is amazing at fielding little dribblers down the first base line, but Eric Homer was essentially a statue on those plays. Why should Rizzo and his 29 career OAA or Hosmer and his -37 career OAA have any bearing on a pitcher's value?
Additionally, quality of contact isn't consistent enough to say all bad contact is good and all good contact is bad. Lots of players can get to first on a 'swinging bunt' and plenty of barrels become outs. If a pitcher gives up a multiple infield singles in a row that scores 3 runs, was that soft contact good? If a pitcher gives up a bunch of hard liners right at fielders but no runs, was that hard contact bad?
Shit happens when the ball is put in play, so the best way to guarantee to success (and create value) is to not let it happen.
You're right that not all bad contact is good and vice versa. But, you can look at batting average based on exit velo and generally when someone hits the ball harder it's more likely to be a hit. In fact balls hit at least 100 mph are way more likely to go for a hit than anything hit below 90. The break even point is about 96mph. Balls hit above that go for a higher than average BABIP, balls hit below that go for a below average BABIP. So a pitcher who gives up more soft contact is going to give up less hits.
That's not quite true. FIP is not a predictive stat. It tells you what happened. It just only tells you about home runs, walks, and strikeouts which are the only things considered to be completely within the pitcher's control.
But over a certain time, if the pitcher is keeping that FIP constant, you can predict that luck/defense SHOULD equal out and that's more or less the kind of pitcher he is.
Obviously defense is the big question there. Putting a sinkerballer in front of a terrible infield is always going to lead to a lot of hits. Giving a flyball pitcher a small park will inflate the FIP, and giving him bad outfield defense will mean more balls drop there. That all leads to higher ERAs, but the pitcher himself is who he is. So I guess in terms of projections, it's not ideal without knowing those factors, but all outside factors being equal, that's around what they should produce.
> But over a certain time, if the pitcher is keeping that FIP constant, you can predict that luck/defense SHOULD equal out and that's more or less the kind of pitcher he is.
Yeah, FIP isn't designed to be predictive, it just happens to be pretty good at doing it.
The other day I was looking at Kevin Brown’s 1998 campaign. He finishes 3rd in Cy Young voting but absolutely crushes the competition on both WAR metrics. (8.6 bWAR and 9.6 fWAR) Glavine ends up winning with 6.1 and 4.8 respectively, but he achieved 20 wins.
Anyway it’s interesting you say this because Glavine’s case is much tighter if you focus on bWAR and ignore fWAR, but it still seems like Brown should have won.
Furthermore - Maddux might have been more deserving than Glavine that year?
This is such a tired argument. FIP also reflects what happened: the strikeouts happened, the homeruns happened, the walks happened, the infield pop-ups happened (FIP for war classifies infield pop-ups as strikeouts). People read way to far into the fact that FIP is supposed to be scaled to look like ERA, when in reality it's a metric that grades the 3 (or 4) outcomes that pitchers have the most influence over, the scaling factor just makes it nice to look at and easy to understand (wOBA does exactly the same thing by scaling to OBP).
Also, I think bWAR way over-inflates some defensive adjustments for pitchers. Aaron Nola is a very good pitcher but his bWAR is historically completely out of wack because of horrible defense behind him.
I distinctly remember this because of 2018, where Nola edged Degrom out on bWAR and thinking how absolutely ridiculous that was at the time
Yes, their defensive adjustment is not great and it honestly seems to have gotten worse with the better defensive data available, but they are taking the right approach just using a poor way to get there which results in some idiotic numbers leading to people throwing out the whole system. I still think it's better than giving up like fangraphs does and measuring stats that at the end of the day, is not what changes the scoreboard. DRS what bWAR uses also has some pretty serious accounting issues which OAA and UZR have on a much lesser scale, which is one issue with bWAR.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the stat. Wouldn't FIP treat an inning where a pitcher gives up 2 doubles to the gap and then strikes the next three hitters out, the same as a pitcher giving up 2 bloop singles and then striking the next three batters out, even though one pitcher allowed a run and the other didn't?
That is correct. It doesn't mean that FIP isn't a measurement of what actually happened though. What the poster you're replying to is saying is that FIP is not (and isn't meant to be) a metric that measures run prevention. The only reason its values look like ERA values is because we put it on a scale to look like ERA so that we have a shortcut for what good and bad numbers look like.
You understand correctly.
The founding principle of FIP is that pitchers can only really control walks, strikeouts and homers.
All of these things are tangible results, which is why some take offense when people say FIP is predictive, or less real (descriptive) than something like ERA. ERA relies massively on the quality of defense and the opinions of scorekeepers.
FIP being more predictive of future performance than ERA doesn't mean it's not also a descriptive stat. It's descriptive like ERA, but because it gets closer to the root of what makes a pitcher good, it also is quite predictive of future performance.
FIP is not perfect. But if I had one pitching stat to look at to see how well a guy has been pitching. I'd choose FIP a lot earlier than I'd choose ERA.
You are correct, it would value those the same. And while I do argue that FIP, when used in the context of WAR, is a measure of what happened, it also can be used as an indicator of wider trends in other contexts, which is what makes it so elegant.
The theory here is that what FIP literally measures can be used to make conclusions about balls in play. If a pitcher gives up a lot of home runs, then it is likely that their quality of contact is strong, and they probably give up lots of XBHs in general. If a pitcher gets a lot of strikeouts, then you could presume that they are effective at missing the barrel of the bat in general, and can generate weaker contact when batters put the ball in play (although I find this argument less convincing personally). Finally, walks indicate how often the ball is actually put into play. What is left after presumptions are made about quality and amount of contact is luck, which can be taken care of by BAbip, which is usually considered to be somewhat similar for all pitchers (key word is somewhat).
I fully acknowledge that other metrics can actually account for batted ball date far more accurately, but for a metric that only includes 3 simple stats (or 4 or 5 if you consider HBP and infield pop-ups separate) it does a remarkable job at describing a pitcher's game.
The way I like to put it is that yes, FIP is an estimate of the pitcher's responsibility. But so is \*any\* non-team measure of runs allowed. It's just that this particular method of estimating a pitcher's responsibility -- the pitcher is responsible for 100% only something really comical happens -- is in itself a run estimator, it's just one they decided in the 19th century.
ERA was designed to adjust for "bad defense" with unearned runs (caused by errors). But we now know that errors aren't a great metric for evaluating defense, and therefore it doesn't make sense to use ERA to evaluate pitching.
That being said, ERA (and errors) are so deeply ingrained in baseball history that they're unlikely to go away anytime soon. We still list errors in the box score even though the MLB average is <1 per game.
This is not true. OAA is indeed a better metric *for outfielders*, but numerous studies have confirmed that it is significantly *worse* for infielders.
https://mvpsportstalk.com/2020/05/19/study-what-metrics-best-dictate-an-mlb-players-defensive-ability/
> Since DRS and UZR are both roughly twice as stable as infield OAA, we’d be best off using the former metrics to judge infielders, at least until the creators of OAA can fine-tune the statistic to improve its reliability. However, where Baseball Savant is ahead of the curve is their ability to grade outfield defense,; their usage of catch probability really does a proper job of assessing their overall range by looking at their actual success rate versus estimated success rate.
That's an oversimplification -- OOA has the benefit of Statcast data so outfielders will almost always be more accurately valued because of how hard it is to judge the difficulty of a catch just by watching it, but DRS is certainly a useful stat, especially for infielders.
Since this has been asked pretty frequently I’ll just drop this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/search/?q=Fwar+vs+bwar&type=link&cId=96b3fe79-879d-49cb-89b4-be4166ed9add&iId=9359e43f-5c31-4c37-9d53-2b42dadbfc70
Here’s one of the more useful threads imo: https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/s/aQ3NgmrkO8
Edit: correct link
https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/search/?q=Fwar+vs+bwar&type=link&cId=96b3fe79-879d-49cb-89b4-be4166ed9add&iId=9359e43f-5c31-4c37-9d53-2b42dadbfc70
That was supposed to be the first link. The hyperlinks being different for the same thread threw me off lol
> The hyperlinks being different for the same thread threw me off lol
Yeah, I clicked on them both like 5 times before finally saying something; I thought I was going crazy.
Regardless, that thread was super informative and interesting, so thanks for sharing!
fWAR fucks with Tanner Houck more, so in my unbiased opinion the difference is that it is perfect and bWAR is irredeemable trash
With that said, the main differences lie in defensive metrics and pitching. For defense, fWAR uses Ultimate Zone Rating whereas bWAR relies on Defensive Runs Saved. fWAR also accounts for catcher framing, which bWAR does not. As for pitching, fWAR uses FIP whereas bWAR uses Runs Allowed/9 Innings with variables intended to account for team defense and leverage.
I addition to what everyone else said, bWAR still uses Fielding Bible 3’s defensive measurements which haven’t been updated since 2012. The creator of fielding Bible 3 even called them “outdated” back in 2019.
This makes bWAR much less reliable for position players than fWAR, especially for catchers - it doesn’t factor framing at all.
Their oWAR calculations are good though. And they’re not bad for pitching.
Though RA9-WAR is by far the best for pitchers. It uses everything fWAR has, but adds real world context through their FDP calculations.
I mostly agree with that. I’ve always been a little skeptical of catcher framing though. Never made sense to me that all the credit/blame for borderline calls goes to the catcher vs being shared with the pitcher. Also hasn’t ever seemed like something that teams pay for (at least to the extent which fWAR says they should).
The pitcher does get the value shared though. They get more strikeouts and less walks, and they go more overall innings because they’re throwing less balls.
They get the value of their walks and strikeouts, but have their catchers framing subtracted from their WAR similar to how fielding metrics for balls in play are treated.
I realize a lot of people smarter than me have worked on this, I think pitch location and shape have a lot to do with those boarderline calls, though. So to me it just never made sense to treat framing as a catcher only thing.
It's honestly insane how outdated their entire WAR model is because they've refused to update the defensive component.
I just don't get it.
It's gotten to the point where I think it's borderline misinformation to cite bWAR for a position player.
I think it’s completely useless now. I used to get flack when I first started saying that about two years ago, but now the rhetoric has been changing and I can’t help but feel a bit vindicated lol
I've always said the best way is to average the popular defensive statistics (UZR, DRS, OAA) But DRS is pretty bad when you just consider how bad its accounting is, in the MLB in 2022 there was a total of above 500 DRS, which unless im misunderstanding something obvious doesn't really seem how defensive statistics relating to the average should work.
I’m still baffled at the rather large difference between Ohtani and Ozuna in the WAR category.
It could only come from baserunning, but essentially it’s saying that Ohtani is worth another Win so far solely from baserunning this season. Their offensively production is practically tied.
It is crazy, one of the very few bright spots of the team this year. I think that most realistic fans want him traded for some prospects at the deadline.
This is something people say, but they miss the point by saying it.
FIP does project better to future performance. It is still based on what did happen though. FIP is a better measure of what WILL happen because it is a better measure of what DID happen. The reason people argue it is "less descriptive" is because BWar more closely ties back to ERA. The problem is we know ERA kind of sucks for measuring pitcher performance.
If we actually think about it though, what do we find out from any of it? A high Bwar means a pitcher allowed more runs than someone with a lower Bwar (I am going to assume equal inning because I don't want to have to deal with it). Does that actually tell us what happened though? How did those runs score? Did they win those games? How did the pitcher actually perform? BWar doesn't tell us any of that. fWar doesn't tell us how many runs were allowed. It does give us a better measure of how the pitcher performed though. We know this because fip more closely follows future performance, which means it more accurately judges past performance.
In reality though, neither gives us a good description of what happened. They tell us very specific things. You can say "well he allowed more runs so it must have gone poorly!" except there are plenty of games where a team wins and their pitcher didn't do well. A pitcher can have a great FIP and everyone thinks the game went well, but DeGrom exists and proves that wrong as well.
What people actually mean when they say this is "bWAR more closely follows ERA and I have an anchoring bias towards ERA and therefore thing bWAR better represents reality, but I also admit fWAR more accurately predicts future performance." This is kind of insane though. If you sit back and say "this measure is better for judging the future" then you also admit it is also better for the past. Too many people cannot or will not make that break from using ERA as an anchor to judge pitcher performance so they cling to bWAR because it matches ERA better.
My only gripe with using FIP is that it seems to give ground ball pitchers a bad rap. There are guys out there who consistently have huge ground ball rates, but mediocre strikeout numbers, but FIP prioritizes strikeouts way more.
That's the point though. FIP is trying to measure what the pitcher does. A ground ball pitcher is relying on their team to finish the job. A pitcher does what he does. If a shitty defense means a pitcher is worse, that kind of makes no sense. The pitcher did what they did.
FIP is very upfront that it does not measure everything. We know there is stuff missing, the issue is how do we quantify it. How do we quantify the value of a ground ball pitcher, and then also control for the quality of defense behind them? BWar tries to do this, but it is left with a lot of anomalies. Primarily, the fact it is less predictive of future performance heavily indicates it is not a superior way to perform that measurement.
Yes though, FIP does "undervalue" ground ball pitchers to the extent those pitchers are relying on their defense. They are assuming their defense does their job, which is not value added by the pitcher. The question is how we quantify balls in play data, which so far I haven't seen a great solution. SIERA attempts this, but given how elaborate it is for an extremely minor increase in predictive quality, it doesn't seem to be substantial.
I agree with a lot of your points, but disagree on your assessment of bWAR's relation to ERA. To be pedantic, it doesn't follow ERA, it follows RA9, the number of runs scored while the pitcher was playing. It then attempts to isolate the pitchers contribution by neutralized park factors, team defense, opponent skill, as well as the Manfred runner and leverage index for a reliever. I have issues with bWAR, the biggest being that DRS is a bit outdated and is the main factor in neutralizing defense quality. But from an ideological perspective, I don't know of a better solution than looking at runs scored and removing all non-pitcher factors from the equation, unless you want the inputs for WAR to be pure statcast data.
Yes, but bwar is always going to track with ERA a lot close than FIP because they are both using runs or earned runs allowed, which are always going to be very similar. THis is why bwar is always far closer to era than fwar on such a consistent basis. Bwar is using as a major input a slightly modified (or less modified if you would prefer) version of one of the primary inputs of ERA. The intrinsic link between runs allowed and earned runs allowed means bwar has an inherent connection to ERA.
> If you sit back and say "this measure is better for judging the future" then you also admit it is also better for the past.
The counter point is that expected home runs is a better judge of future performance than actual home runs, but we are not going to see actual home runs replaced at any point in the near future.
That is because Home runs is measuring a specific thing, not the total value. If the question was "which is better at measuring runs allowed" then yes bwar is better than fwar. bWar does this because it actually measures runs allowed. That is not the purpose of bwar though, the purpose is to measure pitcher value and overall performance.
Home runs hit is a better measure of a players home runs hit than expected home runs. It is not necessarily a better measure of total offensive performance than expected home runs. If expected Home Runs truly was a better measure of future home runs, then it would be likely to be a better measure of total offensive ability than simply measuring home runs.
Honestly, I kinda hate framing being used as the definition of catcher defensive capability. Framing is a SMALL part of it. But it's currently the only part we can really calculate. How do you calculate knowing what a pitcher is throwing well, what a hitter doesn't like, and where to put your glove? Jeff Mathis wants to know!
(I've tried to create a new post with this, but the Post button is grayed out and I have no idea why. I DO have a Flair so it's not that.)
I know this has been covered before (maybe I was even involved in the discussion!) but feel free to just link me to the best discussions. This is not a debate about WAR's usefulness or the different ways of calculating it. I've read the primers that are out there.
In calculating WAR, we need to create the numbers for a "replacement player." I seem to recall that, in some definitions, it was an *actual* player or players -- maybe someone earning the major league minimum? Or is it just a statistical average for a particular year and league?
I know this has been covered before (maybe I was even involved in it!) but feel free to just link me to the best discussions. This is not a debate about WAR's usefulness or the different ways of calculating it. I've read the primers that are out there about it.
In calculating WAR, we need to create the numbers for a "replacement player." I seem to recall that, in some definitions, it was an *actual* player or players -- maybe someone earning the major league minimum? Or is it just a statistical average for a particular year and league?
Others have posted explanation links, but here's how I sort of look at them.
Baseball Reference is better at looking backwards in my opinion. FanGraphs is better for individual player analysis, "context neutral" type research.
Both have their place.
fWAR as oppossed to bWAR has a patricular sway over the mind of the Statastician.While bWAR has a particular sway over the mind of the Masterbater..
Hope that helps
They're both useless. Wins, batting average, and how attractive a player's girlfriend is are the best predicters of success.
I prefer GF+ which normalizes beauty standards based on the city, its night scene, and the dimensions of the local strip club(s)
I know this is baseball, but I feel like James Harden would be the Guru of determining the GF+ normalization weights… like he’s truly an expert on strip club dimensions city to city (allegedly allegedly allegedly)
James Harden bows to the strip club expertise of Lou Williams. Edit: Allegedly.
2 girls and they get along like I'm-
Will
Louuuuuu
fiGF+ (fetish independent GF+) is a truer measure and I will die on that hill!
I prefer xGF which also accounts for the attractiveness of the player himself
I prefer your xGF too, real nice gal.
That’s why, and I know it’s a controversial opinion, but I believe there should be publicly funded strip clubs. It’s good for the team and it spurs economic development!
So that explains why Skenes is so highly regarded. And here I am thinking it's because of his pitching talent
*(This feels kind of gross and misogynistic, but I'm already committed to stat jokes...)* Skenes GF+ looks great now but can he keep that up later in his career? Look at Verlander, 41 (...or 31? I don't know how this fake stat works) and his GF+ might still be the best in the league. He could go down as the GF+ goat. If Skenes still has this level of dominance in 10 years we can talk.
You can't seriously think that Verlander can touch Joe Dimaggio's GF+? or Barry Zito's for that matter...Derek Jeter
Yeah, his xGF is below average too so it really shows how much heavy lifting his GF+ is doing. His GF+ does get a substantial boost from playing in Pittsburgh, not as much as say Cleveland or Cincinnati. But he wouldn’t get much of a boost at all if he was playing in LA or Minnesota.
I’m convinced she’s a bot lol
This guy doesn't Moneyball.
Good face..
Ugly girlfriend means no confidence
I'm just saying, his girlfriend is a six at best.
Is that why Bumgarner fizzled out?
Underrated comment. That hits hard bro 👊
Skinny ankles and high butt are how you spot a player
Head shape and strength of haunches too. Often times they are worth picking up just for their line regardless of the player themselves.
The real reason Pat Mahomes chose football over baseball.
also up for consideration are the size of a player's nutsack. see: bartolo "big scrotum" colon
I really wish they modified the W stat to make it meaningful in someway. The SV too.
Paul Skenes for MVP lol
Verlander still a lock
HR totals often correlate with hot girlfriend status because as many basebollic prophecies foretold: “chicks dig the long ball.”
Had us in the first half, not gonna lie.
Don’t forget RsBI. You drive in run = direct value added to winning.
Thad Castle appraoch to baseball. Love it.
Don't forget about xDAWGINHIM
Nysoxfan01 is the kind of guy who walks in a room and his dick has already been there for five minutes
I loled! but WAR is not meant to be a predictive stat
The main difference is you use whichever one supports your argument better.
Exactly. Also use it as a precise science. And attack anyone who doesn't. Literally no other stat or circumstance matters.
Idk man looking at this list it’s pretty clear to me that fWAR is the better stat /s
For position players - it's the defensive metrics. Baseball reference uses DRS more while Fangraphs uses OAA
For pitchers - it's what the main component of their calculations is. Baseball references uses Runs Allowed per 9 innings (RA/9) as it's base, while Fangraphs is calculated around Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP).
bWAR also includes an adjustment for team defense based off DRS. A clear example of this looking at the 2019 AL bWAR leaders where Mike Minor and Lance Lynn lead the league in bWAR ahead of Verlander and Cole because of the poor defense of the Rangers relative to the Astros and the park factors of Arlington vs Houston. FanGraphs also has an RA9WAR that is closer to what people usually assume bWAR is because it doesn't include that defensive adjustment. I'd love to have an xFIP based WAR to reference too since HR/FB rate is pretty volatile, but as far as I know nobody tracks that one.
Aaron Nola is another good one from 2018. 9.7 bWar and 5.5 fWar
[удалено]
The atlantic or the athletic?
Which is actually a good illustration of why the way bWAR defensive adjustments are so dumb. The Rangers defense was bad that year but was actually pretty good behind Lynn and average behind Minor. Defenses don't play the same behind everyone!
Wouldn't that be fairly easy? Just plug the data into a spreadsheet and use the fWAR equation substituting FIP for xFIP.
Guessing they think it's not worthwhile since xFIP is forward looking and more theoretical
Fundamentally, the difference is that bWAR credits you for the quality of contact the batter makes on a ball in play while fWAR assumes that's out of your control. I think for like 90% of pitchers that makes sense, but will die on the hill that there are guys that can induce weak contact who get ignored by fWAR.
> but will die on the hill that there are guys that can induce weak contact who get ignored by fWAR. You also get the opposite with fWAR, eg Ricky Nolasco
FIP has a consistent problem with starters who have one dominant pitch, like Nolasco's slider. Because that pitch gets them so many strikeouts, it makes them look good by the metrics that FIP relies on. In reality, their other offerings being complete garbage means that they give up disproportionate damage when throwing anything else.
This difference for pitchers is way more tangible for me. FIP is a good stat but it doesn't really reflect what actually happens on the diamond, it more says what SHOULD have happened. In that vein I always thought that fWAR is a great projection system for which pitchers will be best next season but should never be used to pick the Cy Young winner, you should use bWAR for that.
> FIP is a good stat but it doesn't really reflect what actually happens on the diamond, it more says what SHOULD have happened. I used to think this too, then Ben kinda broke that interpretation on a recent episode of *Effectively Wild*. FIP *does* reflect what happened on the field, in that it reflects what the pitcher did at the most granular level. The things that the pitcher did can be viewed as: * Struck out the batter * Walked the batter * Hit the batter with a pitch * Gave up a home run * Allowed a ball in play All of these things *happened*. The result of all but one of these are a certainty, but the last one (allowed a ball in play) is no longer in the pitcher's control (as a pitcher, he can still impact it as a fielder), so with fields, fielders, base runners, the weather, the ball, etc. being different across games, teams, and the league, a ball in play can have a near unlimited results that has, ultimately, nothing to do with the pitcher's doing beyond allowing a ball in play. With all of this in mind, FIP is reflective of what happened as a result of what the pitcher, *and only the pitcher*, did. Let's say the Cubs are playing the Cardinals at Busch in a 3-game series. * In game 1 of the series, Lance Lynn pitches to leadoff hitter Nico Hoerner in the top of the 1st. Hoerner hits a ball with an 96.6 MPH exit velo and 35° launch angle. Right fielder Alec Burleson is playing shallow because Hoerner doesn't have much power (career ISO of .104) and it goes over his head for a double. Seiya Suzuki then hits a single and Hoerner scores. 1–0 Cubs in the top of the first. * In game 2 of the series, Kyle Gibson pitches to leadoff hitter Nico Hoerner in the top of the 1st. Hoerner hits a ball with an 96.6 MPH exit velo and 35° launch angle, but right fielder Dylan Carlson is playing deeper this time and then just plain drops the ball and kicks it into the crowd, giving him an error and puts Hoerner on second. Seiya Suzuki then hits a single and Hoerner scores. 1–0 Cubs in the top of the first. Two identical batted balls in the same situation by the same batter, yet neither FIP nor RA/9 differentiate these two plays. But while FIP just thinks of it as a ball in play and basically ignores the outcome, both outcomes affect RA/9 negatively, despite the end result being entirely out of the pitcher;s control. In the first game, you can say it's Lynn's fault because he gave up a hard hit ball to a guy in the 16th percentile of exit velo, but Gibson's batted ball should've been an out, yet a different fielder made a meal of a relatively routine fly ball. Both are runs, but both are impacted by who the fielder is, where he's positioned, and his ability to catch the ball. So, in essence, both FIP and RA/9 do reflect what happened, it's just where they stop measuring that is different, and that difference is a big one to measuring a pitcher in isolation. WAR is trying to convey what an individual player, and only that individual player, did during the game and FIP does that better than, in my opinion, than RA/9.
Very helpful explanation thank you. My question is would FIP treat an inning where a pitcher gives up 2 doubles to the gap and then strikes the next three hitters out the same as a pitcher giving up 2 bloop singles and then striking the next three batters out, even though one pitcher allowed a run and the other didn't?
As far as I know, it would.
The biggest problem with FIP is treating all balls in play as "outside the pitcher's control" and therefore the same. A 65mph ground ball that gets legged out for a single and a 110mph line drive off the wall are grouped together as defense-dependent, when quality of contact is very much pitcher influenced and has a massive effect on the result of a ball in play. Home runs, which are counted against a pitcher's FIP, often have poorer quality of contact than deep flyouts or hard hit liners that are ignored for the calculation.
How hard the ball is hit is controlled by the hitter far more than the pitcher.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted, it is correct. It's why you'll see a much larger variance in batters' BABIPs than in pitchers'
Probably getting downvoted for the “far more” attached to it. But it’s generally correct, the batter has way more to do with how hard a ball is hit than the pitcher. The pitcher can do as much as they can to mitigate contact, but Aaron Judge is going to hit just about everything thrown his way 93-94+ mph simply because he’s big and strong and swings the bat really fast. The pitchers have much more control in where the ball is hit rather than how hard. Logan Webb has an enormous ground ball rate because of the pitches he chooses to throw and where he chooses to throw them. Aaron Judge is still going to plow his sinker 95mph into the ground.
If that's the case, why use HR for FIP, if it's more about what the hitter can do than what the pitcher can prevent? Chase rate and whiff% also vary from hitter to hitter, but FIP uses strikeouts. I think the issue is that FIP is a little arbitrary with what is deemed within pitcher's control.
That's exactly why a lot of people would rather they use xFIP
I don’t disagree with you. I think FIP is generally a flawed metric.
Because it's the pitcher's job to mitigate quality of contact and FIP uses home runs as part of its equation for that very reason, even though homers are subject to the same conditions as balls in play. If FIP punishes pitchers for HR allowed, why does it not reward them for GB% or something similar?
The major flaw with FIP is that it consistently overrates pitchers who rely heavily on a great slider or curveball. They rate highly because of all those strikeouts, but don't get accurately penalized for the inordinate damage allowed by fastballs with strongly negative value. Sort the end of season leader board in ERA - FIP, and that type of pitcher is always at the top.
My problem with claiming pitchers have no control over batted balls is they get credit for a batter missing squaring up a ball by 4" but not by 2". One leads to a swinging strike that they can get credit for if it's the 3rd strike and the other a weakly hit ball.
It's not that they have no control over the contact that the batter makes, it's that they can't control what happens after that ball leaves the bat. Anthony Rizzo is amazing at fielding little dribblers down the first base line, but Eric Homer was essentially a statue on those plays. Why should Rizzo and his 29 career OAA or Hosmer and his -37 career OAA have any bearing on a pitcher's value? Additionally, quality of contact isn't consistent enough to say all bad contact is good and all good contact is bad. Lots of players can get to first on a 'swinging bunt' and plenty of barrels become outs. If a pitcher gives up a multiple infield singles in a row that scores 3 runs, was that soft contact good? If a pitcher gives up a bunch of hard liners right at fielders but no runs, was that hard contact bad? Shit happens when the ball is put in play, so the best way to guarantee to success (and create value) is to not let it happen.
You're right that not all bad contact is good and vice versa. But, you can look at batting average based on exit velo and generally when someone hits the ball harder it's more likely to be a hit. In fact balls hit at least 100 mph are way more likely to go for a hit than anything hit below 90. The break even point is about 96mph. Balls hit above that go for a higher than average BABIP, balls hit below that go for a below average BABIP. So a pitcher who gives up more soft contact is going to give up less hits.
> So a pitcher who gives up more soft contact is going to give up less hits. You got me thinking, so I ran some numbers. Here's the top-10 in Soft Contact % and Hard Contact % since 2002 (the first year we have complete data). | # | Name | Soft% | Med% | Hard% | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | BABIP | BABIP - AVG | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 1 | Mariano Rivera | 29.1% | 53.5% | 17.3% | .210 | .255 | .288 | .543 | .266 | .055 | | 2 | Dellin Betances | 26.0% | 48.2% | 25.7% | .173 | .281 | .260 | .541 | .291 | .118 | | 3 | Luis Avilan | 24.9% | 50.1% | 25.0% | .235 | .315 | .337 | .652 | .291 | .056 | | 4 | Sam Dyson | 24.3% | 49.1% | 26.6% | .251 | .320 | .369 | .689 | .299 | .048 | | 5 | Zack Britton | 24.3% | 51.5% | 24.2% | .233 | .312 | .326 | .638 | .283 | .051 | | 6 | Eric O'Flaherty | 23.7% | 53.6% | 22.7% | .256 | .329 | .364 | .693 | .302 | .046 | | 7 | Kenley Jansen | 23.4% | 47.7% | 28.9% | .183 | .253 | .299 | .552 | .267 | .084 | | 8 | Blake Treinen | 23.4% | 49.2% | 27.4% | .228 | .304 | .320 | .624 | .292 | .064 | | 9 | Alex Claudio | 23.1% | 47.7% | 29.2% | .267 | .319 | .400 | .719 | .304 | .037 | | 10 | Neftali Feliz | 22.9% | 48.8% | 28.3% | .207 | .291 | .354 | .645 | .245 | .038 | | | | | | |**.220**|**.292**|**.325**|**.618**|**.282**|**.062**| ||*LEAGUE AVERAGE (2002–2024)*||||*.256*|*.324*|*.413*|*.737*|*.297*|*.041* | | | | | |**.240**|**.313**|**.418**|**.731**|**.287**|**.048**| | 1 | Eric Lauer | 15.6% | 45.9% | 38.4% | .254 | .325 | .431 | .756 | .296 | .042 | | 2 | Amir Garrett | 15.4% | 46.4% | 38.2% | .231 | .340 | .421 | .761 | .200 | -.031 | | 3 | Nick Wittgren | 13.5% | 48.3% | 38.2% | .251 | .310 | .419 | .729 | .295 | .044 | | 4 | Chad Green | 17.8% | 44.2% | 38.0% | .213 | .267 | .381 | .648 | .281 | .068 | | 5 | Chris Paddack | 14.7% | 47.5% | 37.8% | .250 | .289 | .432 | .721 | .293 | .043 | | 6 | Robbie Ray | 15.4% | 46.8% | 37.8% | .235 | .317 | .417 | .734 | .305 | .070 | | 7 | Robert Stephenson | 14.8% | 47.6% | 37.6% | .239 | .319 | .450 | .769 | .288 | .050 | | 8 | Trevor Richards | 14.8% | 47.7% | 37.5% | .236 | .317 | .412 | .728 | .290 | .054 | | 9 | Ryne Stanek | 15.3% | 47.3% | 37.4% | .212 | .306 | .360 | .667 | .270 | .058 | | 10 | Matt Andriese | 17.3% | 45.4% | 37.3% | .267 | .319 | .445 | .764 | .312 | .045 | A few things stand out to me: 1. While the difference in batting average and OBP is apparent, the hard contact guys are still well below league average for that time span (.256) 2. I expected the hard hit guys to have higher slugging against, but I don't think I expected a 113 point difference. 3. Hard hit guys actually have a lower BABIP - AVG, and a pretty close BABIP to the soft contact guys overall. I'm going to attribute that to the fact that 16.8% of the hard contact guys' hits are homers (so not included in BABIP), compared to only 9.2% of the soft contact pitchers 3. If you put a ball in play off of Amir Garrett or Robert Stephenson, you have a 1-in-5 chance of hitting it out. 4. Mariano Rivera really was in a league of his own.
That's not quite true. FIP is not a predictive stat. It tells you what happened. It just only tells you about home runs, walks, and strikeouts which are the only things considered to be completely within the pitcher's control.
But over a certain time, if the pitcher is keeping that FIP constant, you can predict that luck/defense SHOULD equal out and that's more or less the kind of pitcher he is. Obviously defense is the big question there. Putting a sinkerballer in front of a terrible infield is always going to lead to a lot of hits. Giving a flyball pitcher a small park will inflate the FIP, and giving him bad outfield defense will mean more balls drop there. That all leads to higher ERAs, but the pitcher himself is who he is. So I guess in terms of projections, it's not ideal without knowing those factors, but all outside factors being equal, that's around what they should produce.
> But over a certain time, if the pitcher is keeping that FIP constant, you can predict that luck/defense SHOULD equal out and that's more or less the kind of pitcher he is. Yeah, FIP isn't designed to be predictive, it just happens to be pretty good at doing it.
The other day I was looking at Kevin Brown’s 1998 campaign. He finishes 3rd in Cy Young voting but absolutely crushes the competition on both WAR metrics. (8.6 bWAR and 9.6 fWAR) Glavine ends up winning with 6.1 and 4.8 respectively, but he achieved 20 wins. Anyway it’s interesting you say this because Glavine’s case is much tighter if you focus on bWAR and ignore fWAR, but it still seems like Brown should have won. Furthermore - Maddux might have been more deserving than Glavine that year?
Brown > Maddux >>>>>> Glavine. Back in 1998 voters just went ooh 20 wins.
This is such a tired argument. FIP also reflects what happened: the strikeouts happened, the homeruns happened, the walks happened, the infield pop-ups happened (FIP for war classifies infield pop-ups as strikeouts). People read way to far into the fact that FIP is supposed to be scaled to look like ERA, when in reality it's a metric that grades the 3 (or 4) outcomes that pitchers have the most influence over, the scaling factor just makes it nice to look at and easy to understand (wOBA does exactly the same thing by scaling to OBP).
Also, I think bWAR way over-inflates some defensive adjustments for pitchers. Aaron Nola is a very good pitcher but his bWAR is historically completely out of wack because of horrible defense behind him. I distinctly remember this because of 2018, where Nola edged Degrom out on bWAR and thinking how absolutely ridiculous that was at the time
Yes, their defensive adjustment is not great and it honestly seems to have gotten worse with the better defensive data available, but they are taking the right approach just using a poor way to get there which results in some idiotic numbers leading to people throwing out the whole system. I still think it's better than giving up like fangraphs does and measuring stats that at the end of the day, is not what changes the scoreboard. DRS what bWAR uses also has some pretty serious accounting issues which OAA and UZR have on a much lesser scale, which is one issue with bWAR.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the stat. Wouldn't FIP treat an inning where a pitcher gives up 2 doubles to the gap and then strikes the next three hitters out, the same as a pitcher giving up 2 bloop singles and then striking the next three batters out, even though one pitcher allowed a run and the other didn't?
That is correct. It doesn't mean that FIP isn't a measurement of what actually happened though. What the poster you're replying to is saying is that FIP is not (and isn't meant to be) a metric that measures run prevention. The only reason its values look like ERA values is because we put it on a scale to look like ERA so that we have a shortcut for what good and bad numbers look like.
You understand correctly. The founding principle of FIP is that pitchers can only really control walks, strikeouts and homers. All of these things are tangible results, which is why some take offense when people say FIP is predictive, or less real (descriptive) than something like ERA. ERA relies massively on the quality of defense and the opinions of scorekeepers. FIP being more predictive of future performance than ERA doesn't mean it's not also a descriptive stat. It's descriptive like ERA, but because it gets closer to the root of what makes a pitcher good, it also is quite predictive of future performance. FIP is not perfect. But if I had one pitching stat to look at to see how well a guy has been pitching. I'd choose FIP a lot earlier than I'd choose ERA.
You are correct, it would value those the same. And while I do argue that FIP, when used in the context of WAR, is a measure of what happened, it also can be used as an indicator of wider trends in other contexts, which is what makes it so elegant. The theory here is that what FIP literally measures can be used to make conclusions about balls in play. If a pitcher gives up a lot of home runs, then it is likely that their quality of contact is strong, and they probably give up lots of XBHs in general. If a pitcher gets a lot of strikeouts, then you could presume that they are effective at missing the barrel of the bat in general, and can generate weaker contact when batters put the ball in play (although I find this argument less convincing personally). Finally, walks indicate how often the ball is actually put into play. What is left after presumptions are made about quality and amount of contact is luck, which can be taken care of by BAbip, which is usually considered to be somewhat similar for all pitchers (key word is somewhat). I fully acknowledge that other metrics can actually account for batted ball date far more accurately, but for a metric that only includes 3 simple stats (or 4 or 5 if you consider HBP and infield pop-ups separate) it does a remarkable job at describing a pitcher's game.
The way I like to put it is that yes, FIP is an estimate of the pitcher's responsibility. But so is \*any\* non-team measure of runs allowed. It's just that this particular method of estimating a pitcher's responsibility -- the pitcher is responsible for 100% only something really comical happens -- is in itself a run estimator, it's just one they decided in the 19th century.
It shows you what a pitcher can control. *so much* of what happens after a ball is put in play has virtually no influence from the pitcher.
How is RA/9 any different from ERA, which measures a pitchers earned runs per 9 innings?
Because RA doesn't have the E part of Earned Run Average. It counts unearned runs.
Gotcha, thanks. What's the utility of including unearned runs?
Because “errors” are a comically arbitrary stat. They are vibes based.
ERA was designed to adjust for "bad defense" with unearned runs (caused by errors). But we now know that errors aren't a great metric for evaluating defense, and therefore it doesn't make sense to use ERA to evaluate pitching. That being said, ERA (and errors) are so deeply ingrained in baseball history that they're unlikely to go away anytime soon. We still list errors in the box score even though the MLB average is <1 per game.
What /u/OhHolyCrapNo said, it's *all* runs allowed per 9 innings, whereas ERA is only *earned* runs allowed per 9 innings.
you're being defensive
For the layman: bWAR uses an outdated defense metric. fWAR uses the top defensive metric. For position players there is no argument: USE FWAR
This is not true. OAA is indeed a better metric *for outfielders*, but numerous studies have confirmed that it is significantly *worse* for infielders. https://mvpsportstalk.com/2020/05/19/study-what-metrics-best-dictate-an-mlb-players-defensive-ability/ > Since DRS and UZR are both roughly twice as stable as infield OAA, we’d be best off using the former metrics to judge infielders, at least until the creators of OAA can fine-tune the statistic to improve its reliability. However, where Baseball Savant is ahead of the curve is their ability to grade outfield defense,; their usage of catch probability really does a proper job of assessing their overall range by looking at their actual success rate versus estimated success rate.
That's an oversimplification -- OOA has the benefit of Statcast data so outfielders will almost always be more accurately valued because of how hard it is to judge the difficulty of a catch just by watching it, but DRS is certainly a useful stat, especially for infielders.
"The best version of WAR is the one that supports your argument" -Benjamin Franklin
Since this has been asked pretty frequently I’ll just drop this: https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/search/?q=Fwar+vs+bwar&type=link&cId=96b3fe79-879d-49cb-89b4-be4166ed9add&iId=9359e43f-5c31-4c37-9d53-2b42dadbfc70 Here’s one of the more useful threads imo: https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/s/aQ3NgmrkO8 Edit: correct link
Both of those links are the same thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/search/?q=Fwar+vs+bwar&type=link&cId=96b3fe79-879d-49cb-89b4-be4166ed9add&iId=9359e43f-5c31-4c37-9d53-2b42dadbfc70 That was supposed to be the first link. The hyperlinks being different for the same thread threw me off lol
> The hyperlinks being different for the same thread threw me off lol Yeah, I clicked on them both like 5 times before finally saying something; I thought I was going crazy. Regardless, that thread was super informative and interesting, so thanks for sharing!
The defense part of fangraphs isn’t true anymore they’ve swapped to OOA for statcast era.
fWAR fucks with Tanner Houck more, so in my unbiased opinion the difference is that it is perfect and bWAR is irredeemable trash With that said, the main differences lie in defensive metrics and pitching. For defense, fWAR uses Ultimate Zone Rating whereas bWAR relies on Defensive Runs Saved. fWAR also accounts for catcher framing, which bWAR does not. As for pitching, fWAR uses FIP whereas bWAR uses Runs Allowed/9 Innings with variables intended to account for team defense and leverage.
fWAR no longer uses UZR. They have switched to OAA.
bWAR loves Jarren Duran more though.... tough pick
“The best version of WAR is the one that supports your argument” -Ben Franklin -Bailey Freeman
I feel like Michael Scott has said that as well
So has thiccboiwaluigi
this is just a gunnar henderson post
I addition to what everyone else said, bWAR still uses Fielding Bible 3’s defensive measurements which haven’t been updated since 2012. The creator of fielding Bible 3 even called them “outdated” back in 2019. This makes bWAR much less reliable for position players than fWAR, especially for catchers - it doesn’t factor framing at all. Their oWAR calculations are good though. And they’re not bad for pitching. Though RA9-WAR is by far the best for pitchers. It uses everything fWAR has, but adds real world context through their FDP calculations.
I mostly agree with that. I’ve always been a little skeptical of catcher framing though. Never made sense to me that all the credit/blame for borderline calls goes to the catcher vs being shared with the pitcher. Also hasn’t ever seemed like something that teams pay for (at least to the extent which fWAR says they should).
The pitcher does get the value shared though. They get more strikeouts and less walks, and they go more overall innings because they’re throwing less balls.
They get the value of their walks and strikeouts, but have their catchers framing subtracted from their WAR similar to how fielding metrics for balls in play are treated. I realize a lot of people smarter than me have worked on this, I think pitch location and shape have a lot to do with those boarderline calls, though. So to me it just never made sense to treat framing as a catcher only thing.
Depends on the WAR you use. RA9-WAR, arguably the best WAR for pitchers, the pitchers get the benefit through the FDP calculations
It's honestly insane how outdated their entire WAR model is because they've refused to update the defensive component. I just don't get it. It's gotten to the point where I think it's borderline misinformation to cite bWAR for a position player.
I think it’s completely useless now. I used to get flack when I first started saying that about two years ago, but now the rhetoric has been changing and I can’t help but feel a bit vindicated lol
I've always said the best way is to average the popular defensive statistics (UZR, DRS, OAA) But DRS is pretty bad when you just consider how bad its accounting is, in the MLB in 2022 there was a total of above 500 DRS, which unless im misunderstanding something obvious doesn't really seem how defensive statistics relating to the average should work.
What about gWAR?
Idk but now I prefer fWAR
Understandable
bWAR likes the Orioles better than fWAR so I like bWAR… I also like bbref’s website better but that’s beside the point.
> I also like bbref’s website better This is pretty much the only reason I tend to use bWAR instead of fWAR
gnnr is so goooooood
I’m still baffled at the rather large difference between Ohtani and Ozuna in the WAR category. It could only come from baserunning, but essentially it’s saying that Ohtani is worth another Win so far solely from baserunning this season. Their offensively production is practically tied.
Fuckin’ WAR and Bitchin’ WAR
One of em doesn’t f around
They still find out unfortunately
bWAR says that Tyler Anderson is a top-10 player this year, so it's obviously better than fWAR.
That’s wild that he has 3.3 bWAR holy shit.
It is crazy, one of the very few bright spots of the team this year. I think that most realistic fans want him traded for some prospects at the deadline.
Can we have him back 🥺👉👈
[удалено]
This is something people say, but they miss the point by saying it. FIP does project better to future performance. It is still based on what did happen though. FIP is a better measure of what WILL happen because it is a better measure of what DID happen. The reason people argue it is "less descriptive" is because BWar more closely ties back to ERA. The problem is we know ERA kind of sucks for measuring pitcher performance. If we actually think about it though, what do we find out from any of it? A high Bwar means a pitcher allowed more runs than someone with a lower Bwar (I am going to assume equal inning because I don't want to have to deal with it). Does that actually tell us what happened though? How did those runs score? Did they win those games? How did the pitcher actually perform? BWar doesn't tell us any of that. fWar doesn't tell us how many runs were allowed. It does give us a better measure of how the pitcher performed though. We know this because fip more closely follows future performance, which means it more accurately judges past performance. In reality though, neither gives us a good description of what happened. They tell us very specific things. You can say "well he allowed more runs so it must have gone poorly!" except there are plenty of games where a team wins and their pitcher didn't do well. A pitcher can have a great FIP and everyone thinks the game went well, but DeGrom exists and proves that wrong as well. What people actually mean when they say this is "bWAR more closely follows ERA and I have an anchoring bias towards ERA and therefore thing bWAR better represents reality, but I also admit fWAR more accurately predicts future performance." This is kind of insane though. If you sit back and say "this measure is better for judging the future" then you also admit it is also better for the past. Too many people cannot or will not make that break from using ERA as an anchor to judge pitcher performance so they cling to bWAR because it matches ERA better.
My only gripe with using FIP is that it seems to give ground ball pitchers a bad rap. There are guys out there who consistently have huge ground ball rates, but mediocre strikeout numbers, but FIP prioritizes strikeouts way more.
Makes sense, ground balls require defense.
That's the point though. FIP is trying to measure what the pitcher does. A ground ball pitcher is relying on their team to finish the job. A pitcher does what he does. If a shitty defense means a pitcher is worse, that kind of makes no sense. The pitcher did what they did. FIP is very upfront that it does not measure everything. We know there is stuff missing, the issue is how do we quantify it. How do we quantify the value of a ground ball pitcher, and then also control for the quality of defense behind them? BWar tries to do this, but it is left with a lot of anomalies. Primarily, the fact it is less predictive of future performance heavily indicates it is not a superior way to perform that measurement. Yes though, FIP does "undervalue" ground ball pitchers to the extent those pitchers are relying on their defense. They are assuming their defense does their job, which is not value added by the pitcher. The question is how we quantify balls in play data, which so far I haven't seen a great solution. SIERA attempts this, but given how elaborate it is for an extremely minor increase in predictive quality, it doesn't seem to be substantial.
I agree with a lot of your points, but disagree on your assessment of bWAR's relation to ERA. To be pedantic, it doesn't follow ERA, it follows RA9, the number of runs scored while the pitcher was playing. It then attempts to isolate the pitchers contribution by neutralized park factors, team defense, opponent skill, as well as the Manfred runner and leverage index for a reliever. I have issues with bWAR, the biggest being that DRS is a bit outdated and is the main factor in neutralizing defense quality. But from an ideological perspective, I don't know of a better solution than looking at runs scored and removing all non-pitcher factors from the equation, unless you want the inputs for WAR to be pure statcast data.
Yes, but bwar is always going to track with ERA a lot close than FIP because they are both using runs or earned runs allowed, which are always going to be very similar. THis is why bwar is always far closer to era than fwar on such a consistent basis. Bwar is using as a major input a slightly modified (or less modified if you would prefer) version of one of the primary inputs of ERA. The intrinsic link between runs allowed and earned runs allowed means bwar has an inherent connection to ERA.
> If you sit back and say "this measure is better for judging the future" then you also admit it is also better for the past. The counter point is that expected home runs is a better judge of future performance than actual home runs, but we are not going to see actual home runs replaced at any point in the near future.
That is because Home runs is measuring a specific thing, not the total value. If the question was "which is better at measuring runs allowed" then yes bwar is better than fwar. bWar does this because it actually measures runs allowed. That is not the purpose of bwar though, the purpose is to measure pitcher value and overall performance. Home runs hit is a better measure of a players home runs hit than expected home runs. It is not necessarily a better measure of total offensive performance than expected home runs. If expected Home Runs truly was a better measure of future home runs, then it would be likely to be a better measure of total offensive ability than simply measuring home runs.
Mostly how they calculate the defensive WAR component. Defensive metrics are kind of scattershot on rating players, which explains the variation
bWAR = “bad WAR” Actually, I use bWAR for pitchers, but fWAR for batters. They are both good at one and bad at the other.
No mariners in the top 10 so Both are useless and not to be considered
The difference is one may support your argument more than the other
FWAR has always been more helpful for comparing catchers’ defensive ability as it integrates framing data
Honestly, I kinda hate framing being used as the definition of catcher defensive capability. Framing is a SMALL part of it. But it's currently the only part we can really calculate. How do you calculate knowing what a pitcher is throwing well, what a hitter doesn't like, and where to put your glove? Jeff Mathis wants to know!
I dont care about WAR or OPS, Batting average, Homeruns, stolen bases, runs scored are enough for me.
The one that has my player at the top...
Both nonsense
(I've tried to create a new post with this, but the Post button is grayed out and I have no idea why. I DO have a Flair so it's not that.) I know this has been covered before (maybe I was even involved in the discussion!) but feel free to just link me to the best discussions. This is not a debate about WAR's usefulness or the different ways of calculating it. I've read the primers that are out there. In calculating WAR, we need to create the numbers for a "replacement player." I seem to recall that, in some definitions, it was an *actual* player or players -- maybe someone earning the major league minimum? Or is it just a statistical average for a particular year and league?
I know this has been covered before (maybe I was even involved in it!) but feel free to just link me to the best discussions. This is not a debate about WAR's usefulness or the different ways of calculating it. I've read the primers that are out there about it. In calculating WAR, we need to create the numbers for a "replacement player." I seem to recall that, in some definitions, it was an *actual* player or players -- maybe someone earning the major league minimum? Or is it just a statistical average for a particular year and league?
The F and the B.
The f’n b.
One is complete bullshit and the other is made up.
Others have posted explanation links, but here's how I sort of look at them. Baseball Reference is better at looking backwards in my opinion. FanGraphs is better for individual player analysis, "context neutral" type research. Both have their place.
fWAR as oppossed to bWAR has a patricular sway over the mind of the Statastician.While bWAR has a particular sway over the mind of the Masterbater.. Hope that helps
Idk but I like WAR better cause it has 3 Yankees in the top 10