 either worth $3 million, or it is worth nothing.
The people who use WAR in this manner are in essence pretending that the $3 million ticket and the $2 ticket are of the same value, even though the lottery has been conducted. There is a "lottery" element in baseball, yes, a luck element, but we can’t ignore that. It’s part of the game.
Third, there are "luck" elements all over the statistics. You can’t adjust them out of existence; it’s impossible. A player hits.270 one year and.330 the next, and he’s the same hitter one year that he was the other, it’s just luck. Are you going to adjust that difference out of their values, because you know it is just luck? A player hits 32 homers one year, 25 the next; it’s just luck. Are you going to adjust that out of existence, because you can’t prove that it isn’t just luck?
A player draws 60 walks one year; the next year, because his team happens to face more pitchers who have poor control and he happens to have different umpires behind home plate, he draws 90 walks. It’s just luck. Are you going to adjust the statistics to remove that luck?
That’s petty luck, but what about the BIG luck? A player is a passenger in a car during spring training, gets into a car wreck and misses the first half of the season—or maybe the rest of his career. It is just luck. Are you going to adjust THAT luck out of existence?
Reality is the baseline for statistical analysis; not what reality should have been, but what it actually was. There is no other way to make statistical analysis work. It makes NO sense to selectively ignore this one element of luck, after you have accepted all of the other elements.
And fourth and finally, the connection between wins and other statistical accomplishments is the basis of statistical analysis. When you sever the connection between wins and statistics, you are no longer doing statistical analysis. What you are doing then the same thing that Maury Allen did in when he said that Johnny Bench was not an all-time great because he never hit.300. You are picking and choosing which stats you will pay attention to and which you will ignore, based not on their connection to wins and losses, but based on your own prejudices. When you do that, it is no longer valid statistical analysis.
The odd thing is that these analysts are faithful to the principle that the value of each statistical accomplishment is based on its relationship to wins all through their process, only to drop it just as they get to the finish line. If you backtrack the logic of their system, you can see that they base the value of a double or a walk or a stolen base on its relationship to wins. They make park adjustments, for example, which are of exactly the same nature; they are variances in the runs-to-wins ratio. If a one player creates 110 runs but in a hitter’s park and another player 105 runs but in a pitcher’s park, they acknowledge that the 105-run player has more value. Why? Because 105 runs in a pitcher’s park will win more games than 110 runs in a hitter’s park. There is no other reason for making that adjustment.
Of if a team scores 700 runs in 1965 but another team scores 720 runs in 1975, they will agree that the team which scores 700 runs in 1965 has the better offense. Why? Because 700 runs in 1965 has more win impact than 720 runs in 1975.
But if a team actually wins 80 games when they might have won 90...well, we’ll pretend that they won 90. It makes no sense.
There is one more argument that we have to deal with here. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this "run-based deviation" results primarily or entirely from luck, and in particular let’s look at the comparison between Eric Hosmer and Aaron Judge. Judge created more runs than Hosmer, with fewer outs, but Hosmer had more win impact because his team was more win-efficient based on the runs that they scored and allowed. Let’s assume that is just luck. Would you rather have Aaron Judge next year, or Eric Hosmer?
You would rather have Aaron Judge, obviously—and in fact I would; I would rather have Aaron Judge next year than Eric Hosmer. It is perfectly reasonable to create estimates of projected value in future seasons which are based on the usual and normal relationship of runs to wins.
But suppose you had a 21-year-old player who was in the International League this year, Triple-A, and suppose that in the International League he posted this batting record:
G
AB
R
H
2B
3B
HR
RBI
BB
SO
HBP
GDP
AVG
OBP
SLG
142
529
273
340
31
1
182
423
108
50
7
2
.643
.702
1.737
What that is, if you are curious, is Harmon Killebrew’s batting stats in the 142 best games of Killebrew’s career...not 142 consecutive games, obviously, but the best games from his long career. But suppose that you had a player in AAA who did that.
That player, looking forward, would be the most valuable property in baseball, would he not? He would outrank even the great Shohei Otani, I think you would have to agree.
He would be the most valuable property in baseball in the future, but would that make him the American League MVP this year?
Well, of course it would not. What a player may reasonably be expected to do in the future has nothing to do with his value in a season which is in the past. What creates value for a baseball player is winning games. You cannot discard that principle, and have a valid analysis.ATLANTA – As far as Derwin James is concerned, Florida State lost to Alabama on Saturday night, which means the Seminoles’ defense didn’t do enough.
But while it’s true that the Seminoles fell, 24-7, to the Crimson Tide in the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game, that final score is hardly a fair representation of FSU’s defensive effort.
For large stretches of the game, the Seminoles were outstanding in slowing down the Tide and, save for a few big plays scattered throughout, mostly kept Alabama’s offensive stars in check.
FSU limited Alabama to just 269 total yards and 4.5 yards per play, and the Seminoles allowed quarterback Jalen Hurts, the reigning Southeastern Conference offensive player of the year, to complete just 10 of 18 passes for 96 yards – the second-lowest total of his career.
The Crimson Tide hadn’t finished below the 300-yard mark since a 14-13 win over Arkansas on Oct. 11, 2014, a span of 38 games.
James is right, and FSU will have plenty to go over on both offense and special teams when it breaks down its film from the game.
But, for a defense shouldering heavy expectations this season, there’s plenty to feel good about moving forward.
Like the way senior safety Ermon Lane brought down Alabama’s Scarbrough – a 6-2, 236-pounder who is notoriously tough to tackle – in the open field on an early third down.
Or the way defensive end Josh Sweat shed a block to sack Hurts and force a field-goal attempt just moments after Alabama blocked a punt and took over on FSU’s 6-yard line.
Or how linebacker Matthew Thomas – two inches taller and 10 pounds heavier than Hurts – chased the Alabama quarterback from the far side of the field, closed in on him and forced a poor throw.
And they did it while playing through some almost impossibly difficult situations.
Thanks to a blocked field goal, a blocked punt and a pair of interceptions, Alabama’s average drive started at its own 44-yard line – 17 yards better than FSU’s (27).
It was even worse in the third and fourth quarters, when the Crimson Tide began five consecutive drives at the FSU 6-, 11-, 42-, 31- and 31-yard lines.
But with the game teetering out of reach, the Seminoles’ defense held firm, allowing only a touchdown, two field goals and 2.2 yards per play during those five possessions.
Despite the loss and despite the uncertainty surrounding quarterback Deondre Francois (he left late in the game with an apparent knee injury; Fisher has yet to update his status), the Seminoles appear to have a defense capable of winning a conference title – and, yes, maybe more.
And even with four more ranked teams left on the schedule, there’s a good chance that the Seminoles’ defense has already had its toughest test.
So, if FSU needs to lean on its defense for a while, those defenders feel like they’re up to the task.
After you have clicked the 4th corner, you have to click on the first corner again,then it will show you the area. So if you want the area of a rectangle, it will take 5 clicks, not just the 4 corners. You always have to click on your starting point to finish the command.Q: Warnings issued during compile phase of stan I get two warnings at the cpp compile phase with all the stan programs that I submit.  
C:/Larry/R/win-library/3.4/BH/include/