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

[moonslav59]

You're talking about players that everyone knows are having great seasons.

 

But I also look at the WAR for players that I haven't seen play and don't really know much about.

 

To me, that's really where WAR is most serviceable. I don't watch more than a handful of games a year that the Sox are not one of the teams playing. That means I never watch some teams play. I only watch some teams for 3 games and others for 6. It's hard to know anything about other players except through stats, and WAR gives one number that tries to capture just about all aspects of what gives a player value: hitting, power, defense and base running. It saves me from having to look at ech player's BA, OBP, SLG, UZR/150, DRS, Running indexes and more and then compare 12 stats to dozens of other players to try and figure out if the guy I never see play is average, above average or worse than others.

 

It's not perfect, but it turns a complicated task into an easier one, for me, even though I don't take WAR as the gospel.

[moonslav59]

Yes, my examples talked about players who are having great seasons but the same principle is true for players who are having mediocre or even bad seasons

 

I'm not at all sure where the WAR line is between good, mediocre, and bad players are but I think it's safe to say say that there are more mediocre players than good or "bad" ones. WAR doesn't define which of those mediocre players are better or worse than others in that group because due to that 17% thing they're all statistically the same. Yet we've become so dependent on WAR that we tend to think of a player with a WAR of 3.5 to be a better player than someone with a WAR of 2.5 when, even according to Fangraphs, there's no evidence to support that.

 

Look, I didn't title this thread and that title doesn't reflect my beliefs. I think WAR is useful. It's just not as useful as most people think it is.

 

Just because the margin or error may be 17% does not mean anyone with 17% of another is the same. If WAR has a player listed as 0.4 and another at 0.5, my guess is the second one is having a better season (or career) than the first one in a pretty significant majority of the time.

 

The 17% margin you speak of works better when you compare a 6.1 player to a 6.3 player, since both fall within the 17% range, but a 0.4 and 0.5 player are not within 17% of each other, even though they are closer to each other in terms of raw number differential. The 0.4 player is 20% worse than the 0.5 player.

[S5Dewey]

Just because the margin or error may be 17% does not mean anyone with 17% of another is the same. If WAR has a player listed as 0.4 and another at 0.5, my guess is the second one is having a better season (or career) than the first one in a pretty significant majority of the time.

 

The 17% margin you speak of works better when you compare a 6.1 player to a 6.3 player, since both fall within the 17% range, but a 0.4 and 0.5 player are not within 17% of each other, even though they are closer to each other in terms of raw number differential. The 0.4 player is 20% worse than the 0.5 player.

 

Yes, the lower the WAR the closer the spread, but when we're talking about players with a WAR of

[greenwell]

Just because the margin or error may be 17% does not mean anyone with 17% of another is the same. If WAR has a player listed as 0.4 and another at 0.5, my guess is the second one is having a better season (or career) than the first one in a pretty significant majority of the time.

 

The 17% margin you speak of works better when you compare a 6.1 player to a 6.3 player, since both fall within the 17% range, but a 0.4 and 0.5 player are not within 17% of each other, even though they are closer to each other in terms of raw number differential. The 0.4 player is 20% worse than the 0.5 player.

 

I don't think you can use percentages like this. Would you say a 0.1 WAR player is 100% better than a 0.0 WAR player?

[Hugh2]

Given the number of data points we have (all the players in MLB for how many years?) it's hard to say that any stat with that many data points and a 17% margin of error is a "good stat". I'll give you this though, it's the best bad stat currently in use.

 

Ok, so if all stats alone are bad stats, then I don't disagree with you at all. I guess I'm more of a the glass is half full type of guy with WAR.

[notin]

WAR tells us what we already know so we tend to believe it. It tells us that JDM is a better player than, say, Christian Vazquez and that Mookie is better than Brock Holt.

 

However, we as consumers tend (want?) to believe that any value expressed as an integer is concise and WAR doesn't work that way. Fangraphs in it explanation of how WAR works says that "Given the imperfections of some of the available data and the assumptions made to calculate other components, WAR works best as an approximation. A 6 WAR player might be worth between 5.0 and 7.0 WAR..." and then goes on to say that player in that group is probably an All-Star, etc.

 

That's a 17% margin for error and it means that a player with a WAR of 3.0 may actually be worth somewhere between 2.5 & 3.5. Yet when we see a player with a WAR of 3.5 we assume that he's 1/4 again as good as that 2.5 player when actually they may be the same player once the variables are accounted for. What we do know from WAR is that Mookie is better than a player with a WAR of 3.0 - but we already knew that from watching them.

 

Yes, WAR is valuable in confirming what we already know but when we're comparing two players whose WAR are within a couple of points WAR is essentially meaningless.

 

So... WAR isn’t specific enough for you?

[S5Dewey]

So... WAR isn’t specific enough for you?

 

I'll go back to what I said on the previous page:

 

"Look, I didn't title this thread and that title doesn't reflect my beliefs. I think WAR is useful. It's just not as useful as most people think it is."

[Slasher9]

plus the name itself is deceiving. what if my replacement is Acuna?

[Bellhorn04]

plus the name itself is deceiving. what if my replacement is Acuna?

 

I think replacement level is essentially defined as the caliber of a guy you would call up from AAA to replace an injured player. Bare minimum major league level.

[kenmeister]

I'll go back to what I said on the previous page:

 

"Look, I didn't title this thread and that title doesn't reflect my beliefs. I think WAR is useful. It's just not as useful as most people think it is."

 

I titled it, but I've softened on my angst against WAR. One thing I've noticed WAR models well is games played. If Mookie plays 40 games and hits 20 dingers, but misses 40 other games, doesn't make him equal to a player that takes 80 games to hit 20.

[Slasher9]

I think replacement level is essentially defined as the caliber of a guy you would call up from AAA to replace an injured player. Bare minimum major league level.

 

exactly. acuna was called up April 25th.

[Bellhorn04]

exactly. acuna was called up April 25th.

 

I get what you're saying, but it's just a hypothetical value - like I said, bare minimum major league level.

 

That's why when you see a negative WAR, it is big-time sucking LOL

[Slasher9]

I have the answer.

 

WAA

Edited August 16, 2018 by Slasher9

[Slasher9]

name one stat better at evaluating a player.

 

waa

[Slasher9]

Mookie 6.7

trout 6.2

Ramirez 6.1

 

WAA

[Slasher9]

eff WAR. i am all about that WAA.

[Slasher9]

Sale 5.3

Severino 2.7

verlander 2.9

degrom 5.9

 

WAA

[Slasher9]

dont come at me with WAR anymore...your f***ed.

 

http://www.highheatstats.com/2012/07/wins-above-replacement-war-vs-wins-above-average-waa/

 

In my work, I’m not building rosters, I’m trying to figure out who the greatest players of all time were. For this reason, WAA might be a better metric for me to use than WAR. When considering someone for the Hall of Fame, do you say “Wow, he was so much better than the AAA players of his day?” or “Wow, he was so much better than everyone else?” I find WAA is a better way to measure how much a player was better than “everyone else”.

 

Why? WAR rewards you for just being there. WAA does not.

62% of WAR is Just Showing Up

 

For Pete Rose, it was.

 

Pete Rose was worth 76.7 WAR for his career. But he was also worth just 29.2 WAA. That’s a huge difference. Take Charlie Keller. He’s on the opposite end of the spectrum. Keller was worth 40.6 WAR, but 29.0 WAA. Yes, King Kong Keller’s WAA was about the same as Pete Rose’s.

 

What’s happening here? Rose played forever (15,890 PA). Keller didn’t (4,604 PA). WAR rewards you for playing time, as long as you’re better than a AAA player. WAA, meanwhile, will rip you apart if you’re below average.

[Bellhorn04]

dont come at me with WAR anymore...your f***ed.

 

http://www.highheatstats.com/2012/07/wins-above-replacement-war-vs-wins-above-average-waa/

 

In my work, I’m not building rosters, I’m trying to figure out who the greatest players of all time were. For this reason, WAA might be a better metric for me to use than WAR. When considering someone for the Hall of Fame, do you say “Wow, he was so much better than the AAA players of his day?” or “Wow, he was so much better than everyone else?” I find WAA is a better way to measure how much a player was better than “everyone else”.

 

Why? WAR rewards you for just being there. WAA does not.

62% of WAR is Just Showing Up

 

For Pete Rose, it was.

 

Pete Rose was worth 76.7 WAR for his career. But he was also worth just 29.2 WAA. That’s a huge difference. Take Charlie Keller. He’s on the opposite end of the spectrum. Keller was worth 40.6 WAR, but 29.0 WAA. Yes, King Kong Keller’s WAA was about the same as Pete Rose’s.

 

What’s happening here? Rose played forever (15,890 PA). Keller didn’t (4,604 PA). WAR rewards you for playing time, as long as you’re better than a AAA player. WAA, meanwhile, will rip you apart if you’re below average.

 

Some might argue that you should be rewarded for showing up and playing.

[moonslav59]

I don't understand how WAA works, so it must suck.

[Bellhorn04]

You could always figure out WAR per game or per inning, too...

[S5Dewey]

I titled it, but I've softened on my angst against WAR.

 

I thought there might be a certain amount of poetic license in that title. Unfortunately some people have apparently thought the title mirrors my view of WAR because I have the temerity to point out the potential problems with it. In today's jargon that would be called "Fake news".

 

I applaud the effort put into WAR and I certainly believe it's better than nothing at what it attempts to do. How much better than nothing is where some of us disagree.

[moonslav59]

You could always figure out WAR per game or per inning, too...

 

I always wondered why they didn't list this as an important stat.

[Slasher9]

Some might argue that you should be rewarded for showing up and playing.

 

Those “some” are the Neanderthals that worship WAR instead of WAA.

[Slasher9]

You could always figure out WAR per game or per inning, too...

 

.00000000022

[Bellhorn04]

.00000000022

 

How bout WAR per 150 games?

[Slasher9]

How bout WAR per 150 games?

 

WAR is dead to me. It’s WAA only.

[notin]

I'll go back to what I said on the previous page:

 

"Look, I didn't title this thread and that title doesn't reflect my beliefs. I think WAR is useful. It's just not as useful as most people think it is."

 

That can be said about any stat and really about anyone's observational skills...

[S5Dewey]

That can be said about any stat and really about anyone's observational skills...

 

...or postings!

[Kimmi]

I'll go back to what I said on the previous page:

 

"Look, I didn't title this thread and that title doesn't reflect my beliefs. I think WAR is useful. It's just not as useful as most people think it is."

 

No, not true for the most part.

 

1. Stat geeks understand the shortcomings of WAR.

2. You are making a far bigger deal out of the 17% margin of of error than it is.