Your Single Best/Favorite "Catch All" Statistic For Hitting, Pitching, and Defense

[Omar 382]

Hitting: wRC+. This one was the easiest for me. Based on wOBA, the second best statistic IMO, it compares how well a player hits compared to league average. wRC+ is also a park and league-adjusted, allowing one to to compare players who played in different years, parks, and leagues. I love rate stats, and I love wOBA and wRC, so I love wRC+.

Pitching: FIP-. This was an excruciatingly hard one for me, but I went with FIP- over ERA-. Again, it's a rate statistic, so it compares how good a pitcher is compared to league average; the big difference between it and offensive neutralized rate stats is that the lower, the better. I also went with FIP- over FIP because it takes into account league and park factors; in FIP, pitchers in San Diego almost always have lower FIP's than those in Colorado or Yankee Stadium, all other things being equal. It was close between ERA- and FIP-, and though some sabermetrician fans hate ERA, I don't hate it; I accept it for what it is- an indication of what really happened. Still, I like to factor in future performance as well, as I'm all about adding the best players to the Phillies, and I want to strip out defense, luck, and sequencing; and I believe FIP and FIP- does this best.

Fielding: Def. Also a very hard one for me, and I admit I'm the most ignorant of defensive statistics of any type of statistic, but I like the fact that Def is based on UZR and positional adjustment. For me, this makes it much more useful than UZR/150. Also, because it factors in positional adjustment, you can compare defensive players across all different positions, something you cannot do with just UZR or ever DRS. Lastly, because UZR accounts for league and park adjustment, so does Def, making it even better.

Of course, the idea of a "catch all" statistic is absurd; this thread is just for fun. One should always survey all the data available, not just one statistic. The best evaluation of a pitcher would be looking at his ERA/FIP/xFIP, K/9, BB/9, WAR, WPA, GB%, etc. The same for hitting and defense. I just wanted to see what you guys would like in a hypothetical situation where you had to evaluate two different MLB players based on only one statistic.

 

[broncosmitty]

There isn't one.

 

[Omar 382]

There isn't one.

Did you read my last paragraph, Bronco?

 

[broncosmitty]

Did you read my last paragraph, Bronco?

All I read was the Title.

I dislike what fans of your ilk have done to being a baseball fan though. Baseball is not a science. Eras, days, nights, parks, leagues, all different. And there isn't an equation to level the field. There isn't a true indicator to give any of those "+" signs merit.

Spreadsheets full of concoted numbers make for simple comparisons, easier assumptions and less discussion. But adjusting the actual performances on the field, however slanted it may be on account of this or that, in the sake of fairness, or whatever the sake it is that you people reference them, is a damn shame imo.

I don't like it. Never will.

 

[Omar 382]

All I read was the Title.

I dislike what fans of your ilk have done to being a baseball fan though. Baseball is not a science. Eras, days, nights, parks, leagues, all different. And there isn't an equation to level the field. There isn't a true indicator to give any of those "+" signs merit.

Spreadsheets full of concoted numbers make for simple comparisons, easier assumptions and less discussion. But adjusting the actual performances on the field, however slanted it may be on account of this or that, in the sake of fairness, or whatever the sake it is that you people reference them, is a damn shame imo.

I don't like it. Never will.

Combining the similar topics of science and math; baseball doesn't have 27 outs in a game, 4 bags, 3 outs to an inning; and the team with more runs doesn't win the game?

 

[Omar 382]

All I read was the Title.

I dislike what fans of your ilk have done to being a baseball fan though. Baseball is not a science. Eras, days, nights, parks, leagues, all different. And there isn't an equation to level the field. There isn't a true indicator to give any of those "+" signs merit.

Spreadsheets full of concoted numbers make for simple comparisons, easier assumptions and less discussion. But adjusting the actual performances on the field, however slanted it may be on account of this or that, in the sake of fairness, or whatever the sake it is that you people reference them, is a damn shame imo.

I don't like it. Never will.

Of course not. Not perfectly. Or at least if it is perfect, we'll likely never know. But we're talking about statistics and probabilities, not certainties. That's the whole point.

 

[williewilliejuan]

Wins. Because it pisses off all the stats nerds who try to wring all of the joy out of baseball by reducing it to a math equation.

 

[Omar 382]

Wins. Because it pisses off all the stats nerds who try to wring all of the joy out of baseball by reducing it to a math equation.

What's baseball about? Winning. What helps you win- knowledge of statistics to choose the right players, combined with some coaching to slightly teach the players, and a good coaching staff to keep their heads level. But if you don't like winning, that's your thing.

 

[williewilliejuan]

What's baseball about? Winning. What helps you win- knowledge of statistics to choose the right players, combined with some coaching to slightly teach the players, and a good coaching staff to keep their heads level. But if you don't like winning, that's your thing.

I see. Out of the past 100 World Series winning managers, how many were proponents of the specific statistics you mentioned in your opening salvo?

 

[Omar 382]

I see. Out of the past 100 World Series winning managers, how many were proponents of the specific statistics you mentioned in your opening salvo?

And of those 100 managers, how many of their 2,900 opposing managers were privy to this information and/or utilized it? It's a level playing field either way. Now if you want an advantage, smarten up and hit the data sets.

 

[williewilliejuan]

And of those 100 managers, how many of their 2,900 opposing managers were privy to this information and/or utilized it? It's a level playing field either way. Now if you want an advantage, smarten up and hit the data sets.

So....you can't answer if your stats helped anyone at all. You might as well say that the secret to winning is carrying a green rabbit's foot in your front left pocket.

 

[Omar 382]

Holyyyyy shit

 

[Omar 382]

So....you can't answer if your stats helped anyone at all. You might as well say that the secret to winning is carrying a green rabbit's foot in your front left pocket.

I could throw a graph at you or something, but since I don't feel like making one and since you'd refute it for no good reason anyway, let's do a simple exercise for a simple minded man, such as yourself. Check out this chart from 2016- Depth Charts » Team WAR | FanGraphs Baseball Notice how the Cubs are first, and the Indians are 6th? Notice how all the teams who made the playoffs are at the top of the list, without exception? Notice how all the teams who sucked are at the bottom of the list, without exception?

Good. Now, check out the 2015 chart and observe the same thing. Then the 2014 chart. Rinse and repeat until you slowly feel the retardness drip from your brain.

 

[williewilliejuan]

I could throw a graph at you or something, but since I don't feel like making one and since you'd refute it for no good reason anyway, let's do a simple exercise for a simple minded man, such as yourself. Check out this chart from 2016- Depth Charts » Team WAR | FanGraphs Baseball Notice how the Cubs are first, and the Indians are 5th? Notice how all the teams who made the playoffs are at the top of the list, without exception? Notice how all the teams who sucked are at the bottom of the list, without exception?

Good. Now, check out the 2015 chart and observe the same thing. Then the 2014 chart. Rinse and repeat until you slowly feel the retardness drip from your brain.

A list of Wins Above Replacement favors teams with more wins? You don't say.

How does that chart impact in-game decisioning?

 

[Omar 382]

A list of Wins Above Replacement favors teams with more wins? You don't say.

How does that chart impact in-game decisioning?

So you admit that a team should spend its resources accruing players with high WAR's, a statistic based on RC, wOBA, FIP, and Def? Just checking.

 

[Omar 382]

A list of Wins Above Replacement favors teams with more wins? You don't say.

How does that chart impact in-game decisioning?

Its derivative statistics say which relief pitchers to use in certain situations and which pinch-hitters to use in certain situations. Your point?

 

[williewilliejuan]

I could throw a graph at you or something, but since I don't feel like making one and since you'd refute it for no good reason anyway, let's do a simple exercise for a simple minded man, such as yourself. Check out this chart from 2016- Depth Charts » Team WAR | FanGraphs Baseball Notice how the Cubs are first, and the Indians are 6th? Notice how all the teams who made the playoffs are at the top of the list, without exception? Notice how all the teams who sucked are at the bottom of the list, without exception?

Good. Now, check out the 2015 chart and observe the same thing. Then the 2014 chart. Rinse and repeat until you slowly feel the retardness drip from your brain.

I note, with some amusement, that the stat I sarcastically threw out in response to your original question - wins - achieves the exact same result.

 

[williewilliejuan]

So you admit that a team should spend its resources accruing players with high WAR's, a statistic based on RC, wOBA, FIP, and Def? Just checking.

Not at all. That would be donkeycocktarded. See Angels, Los Angeles of Anaheim.

 

[Omar 382]

I note, with some amusement, that the stat I sarcastically threw out in response to your original question - wins - achieves the exact same result.

Wins are the end result, not the input. That'd be like being me and saying that I want to fuck Rachel McAddams. Yeah, that's great, now how am I going to do it?

 

[Wazmankg]

hitting - OPS
pitching - WHIP
fielding - eye test