Basically, if I lead my team in outbound calls, inbound calls, and get great surveys……..then anyone but strong overall performance would indicate poor luck based off some of these measures *BABIP* for example, which is a ridiculous stat, one of the most worthless ones i’ve ever seen. Using that stat to prove anything except a pitcher who has more than a .300 BABIP against is probably a terrible pitcher, is doing injustice to the whole system.

As far as hitting goes. OPS is great, I agree, but its still not direct tangible results. Home Runs, RBI’s, Runs scored, Hits, batting average……are results. People focus on results because they are all that matters. 200 bunt singles are no less valuable than 200 one hop line drives to an outfielder.

I have no problem with things like FIP and xFIP as far as they go. The issue I have is that pitchers actually do have fielders behind them and the better ones can maximize or minimize their impact as the situation warrants.

I have a lot of problem with the “luck” concept, except in the smallest of sample sizes. If major league hitters are feasting on you, I don’t buy unlucky. If you want to provide a meaningful stats based argument for, say, the great “was Charlie Morton awful or unlucky” debate of 2010, I’d think line drive rates or, if they exist, speed of batted ball stats would be much more telling.

I’m also off-put by the total dismissal of the value of RBI’s. I understand the opportunity side of the issue. That doesn’t mean it’s. a worthless stat. If you want to convince me, you’ll have to come up with a better argument than one that begins, “assume your lead off guy hits a triple every time he comes to the plate…” — someone on bucs dugout actually tried that. A good RBI total indicates, at least for a given season, that the player produced when opportunities presented themselves.

We all know there are stats outliers (eg. Tommy Herr’s 100 RBI year) but you don’t need to be Keith Law to recognize them. But it’s Uncanny how the baseball card stats quite frequently identify quality performers.

Personally, I rely on ops, whip, K and BB rates in addition to the baseball card stats.

But, I object to the sweeping generalizations made in your piece and in a larger sense, how Advanced Stat Guy perceives Traditional (and other) Guys. I’m down with just about every advanced stat, and have at least a rudimentary (or better) understanding of how they’re calculated. But what if I’m not sure about one, or don’t like how one is applied? For example, Barmes may be all that with the glove, but suppose I don’t see how even a defensive god could be worth 2 dWAR? Regardless of my reasons, I’m lumped in with the knuckle-draggers touting batting average and wins? To wit:

>You can usually tell who is in the second group.

Of course, “he’s one of THOSE people.”

>there are other advanced stats we often use on this site, and a lot of them get similar reactions to WAR (usually from the same crowd that is against WAR)

Really? You track who makes what comment? This is what I mean, I’ve rarely commented here, but if I criticize dWAR value (not dWAR itself), what, I’m a dunce all the way? It feels like it sometimes. Maybe not from you, but, ahem, people you probably know.

>You don’t focus on whether it’s been Nate McLouth’d — where a simple play turns into a highlight reel play…

As a matter of fact, I do. But if I say I’m an Eye Test guy, I’m just lumped in with the Joe Blows who are just out to the ballpark for a game and a couple cold ones.

There are a subset of people that watch the game differently than either the Advanced Stat Guy or The Traditional Stat Guy. Advanced Stat Guy (seems to) see two circles, one with Advanced Guys, one with Traditional Guys, and the circles don’t touch, or just barely touch each other. I see a Venn Diagram with 3 or maybe 4 circles, with Advanced, Traditional, and Coach and Scout Guys, and the circles overlap.