Off-Topic Forum

First, Rest In Peace, Kenny "Zamboni" Reitz. He was the Cubs starting third basemen at the only opening day I ever went to.
Second, Reitz was a good player. Period. Not a great one. Not even a Hall of Very Good one. But a good one. I was happy the Cubs got him. He was a reliable hitter and won a Gold Glo...sorry, fielding award. So how in the hell is his career WAR -3.2?!?! Do not tell me the average minor league replacement player gave Reitz's teams a better chance to win. I admit to being pretty old school, but WAR, while kinda useful, often fails the eye test. 
I have spoken. Carry on with your lives. 
v3

R.I.P. Ken! Yet another person gone lately who played for both the Cubs and the Cards. Yes, he was a good player.

I couldn't care less about WAR stats and certainly don't think they can be accurately used for players from 30+ years ago. The game was different then than it is now.

Well, the point of WAR is that it's adjusted for every year, every era. So, in theory, the changes in the game shouldn't matter. 
Maybe if I understood it better, I'd buy it more, but I doubt it. 

Heard the name, have the cards, never seen the player actaully play. Looking at his stats I can see why his WAR is what it is, OBP under 300 and slugged barely over 350. Well below average OPS+ for his era. Coming from neural stance of course. He does sound like one of those fan favorities who went out and did his thing, grinding away, contributing as he could and the fans loved it. Two here say so.

RIP

You have to be careful with WAR as different sites use different measurements, baseball reference has him at -3.2 and fangraphs has him at +3.2. It's not an exact sciene. 

Exactly! Most stat people like hard numbers, not strange calculations that fluctuate from one calculator to the other. You're right; I used "B-WAR" as opposed to "F-WAR." You've strengthened my point that it's an ok stat, but not much better than wins. They are both rough estimates of a player's worth. Not be-all, end-all stats.

v3

So you're saying WAR, what is it good for? 

Just to clarify my previous reply about how the game is played now: I didn't mean any rule changes by MLB or bigger/smaller stadiums or any other thing along that line. I meant the mentality of the game since the 1980's. Coaches and Managers have changed their approach to every situation greatly since then. Players really aren't allowed to steal a base just b/c they see the opportunity. They have to do what the manager or base coaches tell them to do in that situation now. When is the last time we saw a player steal 100 bases in a season? I'm honestly asking that question because I don't know the answer! With so many defensive pinch and squeeze formations these days, that greatly changes the fielding stats from what was used in the past. It also alters the batting appearances in the same situations. Moving the runner is more about what happens with the batter than what the runner is going to do today. Before the steriod era, the pitcher gave equal attention to the batter at the plate as he did for any baserunner. During the steriod era, the pitcher paid more attention to baserunners hoping to pick them off instead of giving up a huge hit to the batter. Today's pitchers really only need to worry about a baserunner if he is on 2nd base and then they have to rely on the catcher to make the play to get him out at third. Stealing 2nd base isn't the big deal it used to be and managers would rather keep that runner on the base than have him thrown out trying to take 2nd. Stealing home is extremely rare and also rarely works, so only stealing 3rd base is worth the risk these days and then ONLY in the right situation, mostly born from desperation late in a game. Outfielders usually only moved closer to the bases or closer to the wall, now they shift left or right as well. And then there is the pinch-hitter, especially to replace a pitcher in the NL. That rarely ever happened 25+ years ago b/c every team needed as many pitchers available as possible. The pinch-hitter is very common late in close baseball games now, along with the double-switch. You almost never saw that stuff back in the 80's and before then.

To me it sounds like you miss the "good old days of baseball", which I actually agree with you if that is the case.  I understand playing the strategies but watching the sport doesn't seem as fun anymore.  I still do because I have always been a baseball fan, and even with new rules every year (extra inning runners, ugh), I will hopefully still enjoy it enough to keep watching.

However I'm not sure I agree with you that they needed more pitchers available 25 plus years ago.  Back then starters were given the chance to pitch much longer and nobody cared about pitch counts.  It also seemed that managers allowed starters to pitch their way out of jams a lot more.  Today with the first sign of trouble, managers pull pitchers in the 2nd inning or sooner. I think a lot of that has been because of the more home run friendly games today then before the 1994 strike.  As I've said many times, I'd rather see a 1-0 pitchers duel than a 14-10 slugfest (though to be honest I was quite entertained by 14-10 Royals win yesterday), and before ranting on, I'll just say I hope we see a lot more low scoring games this year.  I think MLB needs to worry about keeping the fans they still have instead of trying to find new ways to bring in new ones.

As for the rest of your comments, yep!  I miss stolen bases and wish there were less emphasis on "new age stats".  Leave that to the managers, I couldn't care less about WAR's and whatever other new calculations they come up with.  I want to see good games.  Though I guess at least managers are starting to earn their money a bit more these days.