WAR is the dumbest stat known to mankind (Trout vs. Betts)

[Bellhorn04]

And again...

 

Yes, I know that both Fangraphs and Baseball Reference acknowledge that their formula isn't perfect but is there anyone among us who, when they see that Player A has a WAR of 1.0 and Player B has a WAR of 1.3, they don't assume that Player B is the better player?

 

We've become so enamored with statistics and numbers that we believe that when one number is larger than another it must be showing a disparity between the two, and that not only may not be true but Fangraphs and BR both say it's not true. Yet we continue to use BR as a defining metric.

 

You have to speak for yourself on this, really. I have learned to be a little skeptical about all these metrics, which doesn't mean I don't also see value in them and find them interesting.

 

Nobody is forcing anybody to believe anything they don't want to believe, IMO

[notin]

And for what it is worth, Fangraphs has Betts with 3.6 WAR and Trout with 3.3.

 

Citing wither player as the "greatest of all time" for bWAR or fWAR or anything like that is a little silly, given the complete lack of defensive data on players like Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb..

[notin]

When two (or three) different sources give differing values for WAR for a player saying "It's better than anything else", that's a pretty low bar. As you said, every calculation that gets put into WAR is flawed in one way or another so I'll ask it again. When does it become "garbage in, garbage out"?

 

Even though every site that calculates WAR says that it's not an exact science they also can't (or won't) give a margin of error. That makes me believe that they don't even know what that margin of error is. And yet we're supposed to have faith in the calculation.

 

DEfense is like that.

 

You have said - and while I don't disagree - that the Sox outfield defense is better with Bradley in CF. But how do you quantify that? What is the margin of error?

[S5Dewey]

DEfense is like that.

 

You have said - and while I don't disagree - that the Sox outfield defense is better with Bradley in CF. But how do you quantify that? What is the margin of error?

 

Hey, don't ask me. I'm not one of those "trained observers" or even a sabermetriciain. Since I haven't seen every player play every game I'm not qualified to say. Which puts me in the same group with just about everyone else. All I'm doing is pointing out that maybe we should be paying a little more attention to they eye test and our instincts and less attention to a hodgepodge of flawed statistics which get rolled into another flawed statistic... or data.. or whatever.

 

I respect the statistics and WAR - for what they are - but at the same time I think there's a lot to be said for the years of experience too.

[mvp 78]

Hey, don't ask me. I'm not one of those "trained observers" or even a sabermetriciain. Since I haven't seen every player play every game I'm not qualified to say. Which puts me in the same group with just about everyone else. All I'm doing is pointing out that maybe we should be paying a little more attention to they eye test and our instincts and less attention to a hodgepodge of flawed statistics which get rolled into another flawed statistic... or data.. or whatever.

 

I respect the statistics and WAR - for what they are - but at the same time I think there's a lot to be said for the years of experience too.

 

Whose years of experience?

[Maxbialystock]

This brings us around to my skepticism about WAR to begin with. Every statistic is flawed to some degree, whether it's BA, OPS, CS, SLG, etc. etc. etc. and yet when all these flawed statistics are poured into one calculation the outcome is accepted at being gospel. At what point does it become "garbage in, garbage out"?

 

Yes, I know that both Fangraphs and Baseball Reference acknowledge that their formula isn't perfect but is there anyone among us who, when they see that Player A has a WAR of 1.0 and Player B has a WAR of 1.3, they don't assume that Player B is the better player?

 

I love your final point because it demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of WAR. If one player is 1.0 and the other is 1.3, the real point is that they are roughly the same overall caliber even though one may be the better defender and the other the better hitter.

 

I also object to the implied meaning of "flawed" when you use it because you really seem to mean, "not perfect and therefore to be disregarded." I always liked batting averages, but like OBP even more and OPS even more than that. Each of those stats tells me something that just looking at a player swing the bat will never tell me. Results count in baseball, and stats are for the most part tabulations of results. That said, I do have my doubts about defensive stats like range factor, etc because measuring defense is not nearly as easy as measuring offense.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Maxbialystock

[Maxbialystock]

I'm not saying this proves WAR is right, but to me, it proves it's more "right" than any other single number used to compare player value.

 

Can you give me another single number stat that does a better job at showing a player's total value?

 

I get the argument that even trying to get to a single number is a futile endeavor, so if you feel that way, fine. It's flawed. I get it. So is BA, OBP and Flg%.

 

Eye test is fine but not for comparative analysis.

 

Pretty good stuff, moonslav, especially coming from someone who likes stats a lot. And I think your central point is dead on: yes, WAR is certainly flawed, but it's the best attempt so far to measure the whole ballplayer.

 

As I said earlier, the OP misses the real point, which is that, if Trout and Mookie are rated at 3.9 and 3.6, they are both very good and probably too close to call on who is better because WAR is and must be an approximation.

 

The eye test is best practiced by experienced scouts, and even they agree they can make mistakes.

[moonslav59]

When two (or three) different sources give differing values for WAR for a player saying "It's better than anything else", that's a pretty low bar. As you said, every calculation that gets put into WAR is flawed in one way or another so I'll ask it again. When does it become "garbage in, garbage out"?

 

I guess that's a personal decision.

 

My opinion is this: while the numbers fed into the system may be imperfect, they are not garbage. When the sample sizes are large enough, most things have a way of evening out, such as bad scorer decisions, strength of opponent and other factors.

 

All I'm saying is that WAR represents the best number I know of that shows a players overall value and not just hitting, power, defense, running and more...

 

I'm sure teams have their own formulas, and my guess would be that their results would be pretty close to WAR, in terms of comparative player value.

 

If you are the type of person that thinks this is not possible or not something you even want, even if "perfect", then WAR would be worth 'absolutely nothing!"

 

To me, it has value, but it is not the be-all-end-all.

 

[kenmeister]

Here is today's update. I don't have a huge amount of time so this will be brief. Here are the 4 players with an OPS over 1:

 

Trout - 4.0, 1.072

Betts - 3.8, 1.198

Manny Machado - 2.3, 1.070

JD Martinez - 2.3, 1.077

 

OPS is a stat I've always admired. It's amazing that according to WAR, Trout is worth almost as much as Machado and Martinez combined. I think it's nuts. Let's talk about Manny Machado. He seems to be having one heck of a season:

61 hits (tied for 1st), 14 homers (tied for 3rd), 42 RBI (1st), and this production from the shortstop position. He's awesome. I can't fathom WAR.

[mvp 78]

Here is today's update. I don't have a huge amount of time so this will be brief. Here are the 4 players with an OPS over 1:

 

Trout - 4.0, 1.072

Betts - 3.8, 1.198

Manny Machado - 2.3, 1.070

JD Martinez - 2.3, 1.077

 

OPS is a stat I've always admired. It's amazing that according to WAR, Trout is worth almost as much as Machado and Martinez combined. I think it's nuts. Let's talk about Manny Machado. He seems to be having one heck of a season:

61 hits (tied for 1st), 14 homers (tied for 3rd), 42 RBI (1st), and this production from the shortstop position. He's awesome. I can't fathom WAR.

 

Machado looked like s*** at SS this past series. JD has played a ton of DH which impacts WAR.

 

oWAR:

 

Betts 28

Trout 23.8

Machado 19.9

Martinez 18.9

[moonslav59]

Here is today's update. I don't have a huge amount of time so this will be brief. Here are the 4 players with an OPS over 1:

 

Trout - 4.0, 1.072

Betts - 3.8, 1.198

Manny Machado - 2.3, 1.070

JD Martinez - 2.3, 1.077

 

OPS is a stat I've always admired. It's amazing that according to WAR, Trout is worth almost as much as Machado and Martinez combined. I think it's nuts. Let's talk about Manny Machado. He seems to be having one heck of a season:

61 hits (tied for 1st), 14 homers (tied for 3rd), 42 RBI (1st), and this production from the shortstop position. He's awesome. I can't fathom WAR.

 

First of all, 4.0 is not worth "almost" 4.6.

 

4.6 is 15% higher than 4.0.

 

Second of all, defense and base running factors into WAR. Machado and JD are both negative on defense.

 

Helpful hint, if you can't fathom WAR, then don't use it or pay any attention to it.

Edited May 21, 2018 by moonslav59

[bosoxmal]

It's runs that count,BAIBIE!

 

Betts 48

Trout 38

[notin]

Still don't know if WAR gives you credit for Productive Outs, that help win games. Or a Players Hustle, on plays, that help win games too.

 

It doesn't. Do you know a stats that does?

[notin]

Hey, don't ask me. I'm not one of those "trained observers" or even a sabermetriciain. Since I haven't seen every player play every game I'm not qualified to say. Which puts me in the same group with just about everyone else. All I'm doing is pointing out that maybe we should be paying a little more attention to they eye test and our instincts and less attention to a hodgepodge of flawed statistics which get rolled into another flawed statistic... or data.. or whatever.

 

I respect the statistics and WAR - for what they are - but at the same time I think there's a lot to be said for the years of experience too.

 

It does seem like to take every opportunity to undermine it...

[notin]

Hey, don't ask me. I'm not one of those "trained observers" or even a sabermetriciain. Since I haven't seen every player play every game I'm not qualified to say. Which puts me in the same group with just about everyone else. All I'm doing is pointing out that maybe we should be paying a little more attention to they eye test and our instincts and less attention to a hodgepodge of flawed statistics which get rolled into another flawed statistic... or data.. or whatever.

 

I respect the statistics and WAR - for what they are - but at the same time I think there's a lot to be said for the years of experience too.

 

1. WAR does use the "eye test" but against a standard. Many many fans advocate the Eye Test, but not one I have ever heard of has any sort of standard. In fact, too often the eye test degenerates into "I saw that guy make a couple errors once." Sometimes, it just evolves into the Reputation Test, where you hear a guy is an excellent defender so if he does nothing wrong when you watch him, hey, it must be true.

 

2. Using your instincts leaves you with quantifiable opinions, right? If I asked you who is the best defensive CF, you might say Bradley or Pillar or Buxton or Cain or some other candidate. What would you say if I asked you to support that opinion? Even i I asked you to support Benentendi/Bradley/Betts OF over Martinez/Benintendi/Betts OF, how would you support the opinion - probably shared by many including me - that it was better? This isn't an attack on you or anyone. It's the nature of what we see when watching games and how we all watch them given the massive imbalances in the players we see.

 

3. WAR most definitely has flaws, but it still is absolutely more encompassing than we are fans are able to achieve by watching games. Especially watching games on TV, where you don't have any option on what part of the play you watch. I see plenty of people talk about the jump an outfielder gets on flyballs - good or bad. That type of evaluation - important for defense - is something you rarely if ever can see from a televised game.

 

4. In the past, you have often said WAR has too many moving parts, and any system that has more moving parts is more likely to break down. Maybe true, But look around your house. I bet you have a car and not a horse. I bet you have a washing machine and not a washboard. I bet you have a refrigerator and not an icehouse. I bet you have an oven and not a rotatiing spit over a flame pit. I bet you have an air conditioner and not a hand-held fan. Every device I mentioned has more moving parts than predecessor I compared it to. Every device I mentioned is more likely to break down than its predecessor. Yet they all have another thing in common - they all work better than their predecessor, too.

[mvp 78]

It doesn't. Do you know a stats that does?

 

Well, basketball has Tommy Points.

 

Maybe the Sox need Dirt Doggers?

[S5Dewey]

Whose years of experience?

 

How many cumulative years of experience do those of us who post here and don't completely buy into WAR have? That many years of experience.

[S5Dewey]

 

4. In the past, you have often said WAR has too many moving parts, and any system that has more moving parts is more likely to break down. Maybe true, But look around your house. I bet you have a car and not a horse. I bet you have a washing machine and not a washboard. I bet you have a refrigerator and not an icehouse. I bet you have an oven and not a rotatiing spit over a flame pit. I bet you have an air conditioner and not a hand-held fan. Every device I mentioned has more moving parts than predecessor I compared it to. Every device I mentioned is more likely to break down than its predecessor. Yet they all have another thing in common - they all work better than their predecessor, too.

 

They work better when they work but they're not as reliable. I don't doubt that WAR works fine in some instances, the problem is that we don't know which instances.

[S5Dewey]

It does seem like to take every opportunity to undermine it...

 

No more than some posters here who say that they don't completely discount the eye test but take every opportunity to drive home their point that the stats are more meaningful than the eye test.

 

I guess I'm just not someone who's willing to take someone else's (flawed) calculations as the be-all, end-all.

[mvp 78]

How many cumulative years of experience do those of us who post here and don't completely buy into WAR have? That many years of experience.

 

This is basically the SBF argument as to why he knows more than anyone else, because he's old as dirt. There are plenty enough gray haired people that can enjoy stats for what they are.

[S5Dewey]

This is basically the SBF argument as to why he knows more than anyone else, because he's old as dirt. There are plenty enough gray haired people that can enjoy stats for what they are.

 

Thanks. I respect your opinions too.

[kenmeister]

First of all, 4.0 is not worth "almost" 4.6.

 

4.6 is 15% higher than 4.0.

 

Second of all, defense and base running factors into WAR. Machado and JD are both negative on defense.

 

Helpful hint, if you can't fathom WAR, then don't use it or pay any attention to it.

 

Honestly I was doing a pretty successful job ignoring it until that ESPN article about Trout hitting a whole .292 having the greatest season of all time.

[notin]

They work better when they work but they're not as reliable. I don't doubt that WAR works fine in some instances, the problem is that we don't know which instances.

 

But are they more reliable than the eye test? The entire crux of your argument about WAR is that it is flawed. Are you saying the eye test isn't?

[notin]

They work better when they work but they're not as reliable. I don't doubt that WAR works fine in some instances, the problem is that we don't know which instances.

 

But are they more reliable than the eye test? The entire crux of your argument about WAR is that it is flawed. Are you saying the eye test isn't?

[Kimmi]

I mean WAR is a good stat to use to support arguments, but its not the only metric in deciding whose better. Mookie is great, Trout is great, I'm glad we have Mookie, I don't care if he has a worse WAR than one of the best players I've ever seen or not, and I'm sure Mookie doesn't care either.

 

If you want a quick, single metric to compare players, then WAR is the best one to use. It is the most comprehensive stat.

 

As is the case with any evaluation tool, the more you look at, the better the assessment will be.

[Kimmi]

If somebody asked me who is having the best season, so far, I'd probably put the top 5 in an order very similar to this:

 

1. Mookie

2. Trout

3. Ramirez

4. Machado

5. Lindor

 

That's exactly how fWAR has them lined up!

 

What's a better stat?

 

OPS or wOBA?

Betts, JDM, Trout, Machado, Bryant?

 

wRC+?

Betts, Trout, JDM, Machado, Belt?

 

Of course any metric that tries to quantify every aspect of the game and combine them into one number will be flawed, maybe even seriously in some areas, but I've yet to hear any WAR naysayer come up with and adequately defend the choice of one other stat or metric that is better at quantifying total player value for purposes of comparing player values.

 

The bottom line is that WAR does a pretty darn good job. Just because a stat is flawed does not mean that it's not a good stat.

[Kimmi]

I think only a very select few treat WAR as the gospel. I know I don't, and I'm widely considered a "numbers guy."

 

When we have water cooler discussions about who is best or better, we often throw around flawed stats and data that support our positions. We might minimize defense or base running, or maximize the power tool, or go to RBI or clutch stats to try and tip the balance our way.

 

All WAR does is try, and I don't use the word "try" lightly, to combine all areas by weighing their importance and creating a simple one number to value players.

 

I think WAR is just the starting point to any debate on who is better or best.

 

Others who like WAR may view it differently.

 

No one in the history of baseball has ever treated WAR as gospel.

 

I will defend it as a very good and reliable metric, flaws and all, until I'm blue in the face, but I know that it's not the end all be all.

[Kimmi]

If Player A has a 5.0 WAR and Player B has a 5.3 WAR, I wouldn't necessarily say that either player is better or worse. I would say they are comparable. However, if Player C has a 3.0 WAR, I'd assume that A and B are far superior to C. WAR is just a way to compare players from different teams and different positions for the overall value they provide to a team. Is the calculation the greatest thing in the world? No, but I'm not sure there is one silver bullet stat or metric that is the end all be all. However, stats at least try to mitigate the biases that hurt the value of the "eye test."

 

!!!

[Kimmi]

It doesn't. Do you know a stats that does?

 

WAR doesn't give credit for productive outs, but it does give credit for a player's hustle. Obviously, it's not recorded as 'hustle', but if a player is hustling on the bases and avoids an out or takes an extra base, that player will be credited in his base running stats. Likewise for defense.

[a700hitter]

The bottom line is that WAR does a pretty darn good job. Just because a stat is flawed does not mean that it's not a good stat.

Like RBI