Dave Cameron今天有段話在講BR跟FG投手WAR的計算方式我覺得很一針見血
This is the thing that people get wrong about pitcher WAR the most. FIP-based
WAR doesn’t measure anything that did not actually happen. It is not
comprehensive in its measurements of things that did happen, but it also does
not claim to be comprehensive. It is an incomplete measure of pitcher
performance, but it exclusively measures events that demonstrably occurred.
很多人都搞錯了(BR在還原過去這方面做得比較好)。以FIP為基礎的WAR(FG版)並沒有
放進任何不曾發生的原素。它並不能完整的反映發生過的每一件事，但它也從沒宣稱
它做得到。它是一個不完整的投手估量系統，但它並不估量從未發生的事。
Using an RA based WAR and then making adjustments for assumed defensive
contribution — as B-R does — makes that pitching WAR construct guilty of
the thing that FIP-based WAR is most often incorrectly accused of doing. When
you start making guesses about how much a pitcher or a fielder contributed to
the results of their balls in play, then you are no longer measuring what
actually happened.
以RA為基礎然後修正防守(BR版)才犯了這個大家都拿來指控FG版的錯。當你開始猜測
哪些貢獻歸投手哪些歸防守者的時候，你才放進了從未發生的事情。
(你搞錯了，你全家都搞錯了)
It is completely fair to criticize FIP-based WAR for not measuring everything
that happens, much like it is fair to criticize current catcher defense
ratings for not measuring everything that catchers do that impact run
prevention. It is incorrect to state that FIP measures things that did not
happen or represents a hypothetical. FIP constrains itself to only measuring
things that we know were almost entirely dependent on solely the
pitcher/hitter match-up. Starting at RA9 and working your way backwards from
there introduces the hypotheticals, not the other way around.
你完全可以說FG版不完整，就像你可以說捕手的守備貢獻計算不完整一樣，但說FG放進
沒發生的事情或者放進假設出來的情境就大錯特錯了。FIP反映的是目前我們所知幾乎
只跟投手與打者有關的原素。從RA出發再一樣樣修正回去才真正設了一堆假設。
: 對我個人來說完全無法理解BR這樣做是為什麼，BR承認他們相信BABIP不受控制(在統計上
: 來看這沒有不承認的道理)，那麼這樣大費周章的校正到底所為何來呢？而且守備校正本
: 來就是爭議最多的地方，既然同樣是想還原不受守備影響的投手本身的能力，除非他今天
: 不相信BABIP不能被控制，不然這樣實在沒有道理