They really aren't.
Sure, some of the advanced metrics are not as simple and clear-cut as 'this stat shows this %'. But they all incorporate the same basic data, the advanced metrics just do so in a much more in-depth way to attempt to explain things better. You just see the final product, which is 'this player is worth X WAR'. You don't see all the underlying data, or statistics, but that's all it is: a calculation of statistics.
So while BA will always tell you exactly what % of ABs end in H, and in that sense be completely accurate at all times, and WAR is more complex and may not tell you literally the number of wins a player was worth or contributed, that doesn't necessarily make BA a better measure of anything. The issue with BA is what it doesn't tell you and the fact that it is a very poor measure of a player's overall worth. The issue with WAR is that it isn't clearly measured and may not be entirely accurate. What I don't understand is using one as some kind of absolute measure of worth while discounting the other entirely. IMO, BA should be used for exactly what it measures, and WAR should be taken into account as a rough measure of a player's overall ability and taken with a grain of salt. They are both using data to describe something, and both are useful if used correctly.
In the end, though, statistics are just particular interpretations of data.
I've never heard anybody argue against data in and of itself (except, perhaps, quibbles with collection methods), but I've read many criticisms of statistical models.
I mean ... the data is the game itself.
Yes, correct. This is why it's beneficial to look into these statistical models to find out what they measure, how they get there, and how well they seem to hold up. You can then choose to use them however you wish.
What I don't understand is the dismissal out of hand of these newer, more in-depth models simply because they are new and not as easily understood. They shouldn't be treated as fact or used by someone who doesn't understand how they are calculated, but they also shouldn't be dismissed as meaningless.
Right. The data would be those graphs from baseball savant we had last week. They showed Heyward allowed around 50 less hits or so than Kemp did in similar chances. The stat would be how to convert that to useful information like runs saved. It's up to you if you choose to believe what that stat is saying.
But even then, it shouldn't be a case of, 'I don't see how you can possibly assess how many runs you'll save by making one play, so that's a useless stat'. You should try to find out why they say a play is worth a certain amount of runs and determine if you think that's accurate. Again, I have no issue if someone has a legitimate issue with the way a statistic is calculated or believes it is limited in some way. I do have an issue with someone refusing to learn more and just dismissing it out of hand because it isn't immediately intuitive.
What I don't understand is the dismissal out of hand of these newer, more in-depth models simply because they are new and not as easily understood. They shouldn't be treated as fact or used by someone who doesn't understand how they are calculated, but they also shouldn't be dismissed as meaningless.
Right, but for example, let's say the young guys made some reasonable progression, so the rotation was projected to be:
Teheran: 3-4 WAR
Folty: 2-3 WAR
Wisler: 2-3 WAR
Blair: 1-2 WAR
Colon: 1-2 WAR
The Braves could have afforded to make some substantial changes to the offense:
C - Castro
1B - Freeman
2B - Jace/SRod/Albies
SS - Swanson
3B - Valbuena/SRod
LF - Ces/Braun/Cutch
CF - Inciarte
RF - Markakis
I think that team would have easily projected to win 85+ games and been a true WC contender.
Unfortunately, the young pitchers almost all fell flat on their faces in 2016, and the Braves were forced to spend their resources acquiring short term fixes to make the team "palatable" going into the new stadium. The only silver lining is that they were able to construct a roster with a non-zero chance of winning 80 games without mortgaging any of the future.
All we can hope for is this 1 year stall tactic works and the pitchers develop this season. If they don't the Braves won't be good for a few more years since the majority of their eggs are in the young pitching basket.