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

[sk7326]

I would say that leading in WAR does help Ramirez' case. Definitely. However, at the end of the season, he may not still be leading Betts.

 

And the "most people" who vote are the BBWAA, and they as a collection appear to have varying degrees of acceptance of WAR. But there will be those who say it is too close to be a factor and those who ignore it completely in favor of traditional stats. In fact, I would not be surprised if more votes go to Khris Davis and his 2.6 fWAR over Matt Chapman and his 5.4 fWAR, simply because Davis got hot at the right time and could easily be the AL home run leader.

 

But WAR at least puts Chapman into the argument, which a lot of the traditional stats do not necessarily do. And if you like to argue this is a game played by human beings and not by statistics, WAR does a much better job of making that the case than simply looking at who leads the league in home runs. After all, what else is putting Chapman into the argument?

 

WAR rankings of past AL MVPs

 

2017 - Altuve #1

2016 - Trout #1

2015 - Donaldson #2 (Trout was #1)

2014 - Trout - #2 (Kluber was #1)

2013 - Cabrera - #4 (Trout)

2012 - Cabrera - #5 (Trout)

2011 - Verlander - #1

2010 - Hamilton - #1

2009 - Mauer - #3 (Greinke)

2008 - Pedroia - #2 (Markakis)

 

Now there have been some silly votes. Victor Martinez finishing 2nd in the MVP in 2014, or Mark Texeira in 2009 (neither were in the AL Top Ten). But the writers have gotten smarter about the new tools.

 

If we go with bWAR it's Betts, Trout, Ramirez, Chapman, Lindor ...fWAR has a harder time with Chapman compared to the other 4 ... but again none of them are BAD choices. WAR is not a way to end the discussion, but a way to start it.

[Slasher9]

WAR is not a way to end the discussion.

 

yet so many use it exactly this way......

[sk7326]

yet so many use it exactly this way......

 

True - and that is a mistake. But WAR can cull big differences - and then the little ones become where you have to make your own decisions. Again - RBIs and Wins are used the same way and they are far more problematic as stats.

[S5Dewey]

That's because those people would be stupid to look at WAR that way. In fact, simply saying the player with 4.5 fWAR is having the best season would be the simplest and probably most common and maybe even most correct way to look at it.

 

I don't even disagree with that, but I'll stand by what I said that 'it's not as valuable as most people say it is." Most people, when they see two numbers, assume that the higher number is the most valuable or in this case the most talent. You can call them stupid if you want and I may even agree with you but as they say, "it is what it is".

This 17% tolerance appears to be your creation. The article you cited says a 6 fWAR player might be between 5 WAR and 7 WAR, but that doesn't mean they are even defining a range or a tolerance as much as they are trying to make a point, which is that it isn't anything specific. A big part of this is it isn't measuring anything, which really makes the notion hat it has a tolerance as useless.

 

Let's back up just a minute. This morning you said, "There is no "margin of error". WAR is, was, and always meant to be an approximation, not a definitive value." I'll give you that it's an approximation but Fangraphs set the range for the "approximation", not me. So saying it's "my creation" is more than a little disingenuous. It's also worth mentioning that because it's an "approximation" the range may even be more (or less) than what FG says. Even they don't know. To paraphrase what they said, "This isn't a perfect number and there may or may not be a big variation in the values we set." Well, Duh! LOL

 

because of the way I did this the forum is making me put in at least three characters. This is them.

[notin]

because of the way I did this the forum is making me put in at least three characters. This is them.

 

The article says “WAR is not meant to be a perfectly precise indicator of a players’s contribution but rather an estimate of their value to date” and goes on to say “a 6.0 WAR player might be worth 5.0 to 7.0 WAR, but it is pretty safe to say they are at least an all star level player and potentially an MVP.”

 

That’s not the same as saying it has a 17% margin of error.

[notin]

True - and that is a mistake. But WAR can cull big differences - and then the little ones become where you have to make your own decisions. Again - RBIs and Wins are used the same way and they are far more problematic as stats.

 

Which is the opposite of many traditional stats. For example, a pitcher with a 2.78 ERA is usually thought to be better than a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA. But the difference is those numbers equates to 5 earned runs over 200 innings. Is that really a big difference?

[Maxbialystock]

Here's a current headline on ESPN:http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23520017/los-angeles-angels-mike-trout-pace-greatest-season-mlb-history. So then I looked:

 

Trout right now is 3.7

Betts is 3.5

 

Both are elite defenders, so I'm going to concentrate on their offense.

 

Mike Trout right now is hitting .292 with 38 walks, 8 stolen bases, 9 doubles, 2 triples, 13 homers, 26 RBI, and a 1.046 OPS. That's certainly a good season, but greatest of all time?

 

Mookie Betts right now is hitting .368 with 19 walks, 11 stolen bases (2 caught), 18 doubles, 1 triple, 15 homers, 32 RBI, and a 1.205 OPS. But he's behind Trout in WAR ???

 

Trout has more walks - a lot more - but otherwise is behind Mookie in every category. So two questions arise:

1) How on Earth can someone say that Trout is having the greatest season of all time?

2) How does Trout have a higher WAR than Mookie Betts? Or Machado? Machado only has a 2.3 WAR, but is hitting .347 with 14 homers, 42 RBI, and an overall OPS of 1.089.

 

Can someone enlighten me as to how WAR has any basis in reality?

 

I thought I'd call up the OP one more time because of those last 7 words, "how WAR has any basis in reality?" That to me is a stunningly ignorant statement. WAR is imperfect--it almost has to be given that it is looking at the whole player, offense and defense--but is nothing if not based on the reality that the whole player counts, not just rbi's or HR's or BA or OPS or whatever. It also has to take into account the number of games a player has played that season.

 

Just above this are some interesting stats on the correlation between WAR and MVP voting, which argues strongly that those voters think WAR is pretty darn useful.

 

As for the specifics of this season and Mookie vs. Trout, right now the three top AL WAR's belong to Mookie (8.5), Trout (7.9), and Ramirez (7.0). Well below them at 5.9 is JDM, who is having a fantastic year, leading MLB in rbi's and 2d in dingers with an OPS of 1.059, etc. But he is mostly a DH and loses WAR value because of it. I agree with that.

 

I can only add that to me, if the WAR's are close--which they were way back when this thread was started and Mookie was at 3.5 to Trout's 3.7--, the voters and us fans are certainly entitled to argue who is really better--bringing in other stats or impressions or whatever--because WAR is not definitive. It is merely a very good attempt at measuring the whole player.

[S5Dewey]

The article says “WAR is not meant to be a perfectly precise indicator of a players’s contribution but rather an estimate of their value to date” and goes on to say “a 6.0 WAR player might be worth 5.0 to 7.0 WAR, but it is pretty safe to say they are at least an all star level player and potentially an MVP.”

 

That’s not the same as saying it has a 17% margin of error.

 

This has to be one of the craziest debates I've ever been in.

 

Fangraphs says that when the value is 6 they are approximately within one point either way of the value they assigned. You can call it "margin of error" or "approximate to within" but however you shake it they are saying that it's within 17% (or 16.6666666... to be precise) of that 6. The only thing I did was the math.

 

I don't expect you to back down on this. You've got too much invested in it now. But this is pretty simple stuff!

[S5Dewey]

Here's a current headline on ESPN:http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23520017/los-angeles-angels-mike-trout-pace-greatest-season-mlb-history. So then I looked:

 

Trout right now is 3.7

Betts is 3.5

 

Both are elite defenders, so I'm going to concentrate on their offense.

 

Mike Trout right now is hitting .292 with 38 walks, 8 stolen bases, 9 doubles, 2 triples, 13 homers, 26 RBI, and a 1.046 OPS. That's certainly a good season, but greatest of all time?

 

Mookie Betts right now is hitting .368 with 19 walks, 11 stolen bases (2 caught), 18 doubles, 1 triple, 15 homers, 32 RBI, and a 1.205 OPS. But he's behind Trout in WAR ???

 

Trout has more walks - a lot more - but otherwise is behind Mookie in every category. So two questions arise:

1) How on Earth can someone say that Trout is having the greatest season of all time?

2) How does Trout have a higher WAR than Mookie Betts? Or Machado? Machado only has a 2.3 WAR, but is hitting .347 with 14 homers, 42 RBI, and an overall OPS of 1.089.

 

Can someone enlighten me as to how WAR has any basis in reality?

 

You need to be careful here. Them's fightin' words to some folks!

[S5Dewey]

True - and that is a mistake. But WAR can cull big differences - and then the little ones become where you have to make your own decisions.

Yes. Thank you.

 

The rub comes in the definition of "big". Some people (like me) think 17% is big. Some don't. My issue is when someone points out a difference of .2 or .3 (or even .5 as the numbers get bigger) as proof that one player is better than another and it ends the debate.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

When it comes to WAR, I always refer to Edwin Starr.

[Bellhorn04]

My issue is when someone points out a difference of .2 or .3 (or even .5 as the numbers get bigger) as proof that one player is better than another and it ends the debate.

 

Does that really ever happen on this forum? I think most people here are too feisty to back down from a debate so easily!

[notin]

This has to be one of the craziest debates I've ever been in.

 

Fangraphs says that when the value is 6 they are approximately within one point either way of the value they assigned. You can call it "margin of error" or "approximate to within" but however you shake it they are saying that it's within 17% (or 16.6666666... to be precise) of that 6. The only thing I did was the math.

 

I don't expect you to back down on this. You've got too much invested in it now. But this is pretty simple stuff!

 

You are looking way too deep into that example. The writer of the article was merely pointing out that WAR is inexact, not that it had a +/- 1.0 tolerance. You did do math, but no math was needed there. The entire point of the sentence was NOT to establish the range, but to point out that it’s an estimation and not a definitive value.

 

WAR is an abstract and unprovable concept. So how could they establish a range and cite a 17% margin of error?

[S5Dewey]

You are looking way too deep into that example. The writer of the article was merely pointing out that WAR is inexact, not that it had a +/- 1.0 tolerance. You did do math, but no math was needed there. The entire point of the sentence was NOT to establish the range, but to point out that it’s an estimation and not a definitive value.

 

WAR is an abstract and unprovable concept. So how could they establish a range and cite a 17% margin of error?

 

You tell me. I didn't do it!!

 

But it's nice to see that you're coming over to the 'light' side with your comment about WAR being an abstract and unprovable concept. That paraphrases what I've been saying all along!

[Bellhorn04]

WAR is an abstract and unprovable concept. So how could they establish a range and cite a 17% margin of error?

 

'Inexact science' seems to me a more appropriate description than 'abstract concept'.

[moonslav59]

Current fWAR Leaders

 

8.2 Ramirez (has 54 more PAs)

7.7 Betts (being 2nd does not mean you're not more valuable to your team)

7.6 Trout (missed a lot of time)

6.5 Lindor (playing SS helps)

6.1 Sale

5.9 Bauer

5.5 Chapman (81 less PAs than Ranirez)

5.4 JD, G Cole & Bregman

 

NL

6.9 de Grom (deserves MVP but won't get it)

6.0 Scherzer

5.4 Nola

5.3 Corbin

5.0 Goldschmidt & Freeman (Closer race than AL)

4.9 Arenado & Carpenter

4.7 Cain

 

[sk7326]

Yes. Thank you.

 

The rub comes in the definition of "big". Some people (like me) think 17% is big. Some don't. My issue is when someone points out a difference of .2 or .3 (or even .5 as the numbers get bigger) as proof that one player is better than another and it ends the debate.

 

17% is the difference between 60 and 70 RBIs ... that is not big

 

WAR is not abstract - nothing abstract has that sort of detailed explanation.

[sk7326]

When it comes to WAR, I always refer to Edwin Starr.

 

The Springsteen cover on the Live album is almost as good.

[notin]

You tell me. I didn't do it!!

 

But it's nice to see that you're coming over to the 'light' side with your comment about WAR being an abstract and unprovable concept. That paraphrases what I've been saying all along!

 

But you did start making a big deal of this so- called 17% margin of error on page 21 of this thread. Those of us who cite WAR know the inadequacies and imperfections, but also recognize that it is valuable in spite of them. You on the other hand see these imperfections as a means to negate the entire concept.

 

One might think someone who likes defense and thinks stats place too much emphasis on offense might spend less time disparaging the one stat that takes defense into account with offense...

[a700hitter]

LOL@ a stat that acknowledges a 17% margin of error. I agree with Notin that I don't know how they could come up with such a figure, but if that is what they state as the margin of error, it is a worthless stat.

[S5Dewey]

But you did start making a big deal of this so- called 17% margin of error on page 21 of this thread. Those of us who cite WAR know the inadequacies and imperfections, but also recognize that it is valuable in spite of them. You on the other hand see these imperfections as a means to negate the entire concept.

 

One might think someone who likes defense and thinks stats place too much emphasis on offense might spend less time disparaging the one stat that takes defense into account with offense...

 

That is absolutely untrue. I'll say again what I said on the previous page. Some people (like me) think 17% is big. Some don't. My issue is when someone points out a difference of .2 or .3 (or even .5 as the numbers get bigger) as proof that one player is better than another and it ends the debate.

[moonslav59]

That is absolutely untrue. I'll say again what I said on the previous page. Some people (like me) think 17% is big. Some don't. My issue is when someone points out a difference of .2 or .3 (or even .5 as the numbers get bigger) as proof that one player is better than another and it ends the debate.

 

I'm not sure anyone has ever said WAR proves a 1.2 player is better than a 1.1 player or a 6.5 player better than a 6.0 player.

 

They might use it as supporting data, but as far as I know, only harmony is a slave to WAR (and even projected WAR).

[notin]

That is absolutely untrue. I'll say again what I said on the previous page. Some people (like me) think 17% is big. Some don't. My issue is when someone points out a difference of .2 or .3 (or even .5 as the numbers get bigger) as proof that one player is better than another and it ends the debate.

 

It doesn’t end the debate. It starts it.

 

For example, say you say “Betts deserves AL MVP.”

 

And then I come back with “Jose Ramirez has better WAR.”

 

It only ends the debate there if you quit. But ideally you were basing your nomination of Betts on some sort of data or observation. And this might be a good time to present it...

[S5Dewey]

It doesn’t end the debate. It starts it.

 

For example, say you say “Betts deserves AL MVP.”

 

And then I come back with “Jose Ramirez has better WAR.”

 

It only ends the debate there if you quit. But ideally you were basing your nomination of Betts on some sort of data or observation. And this might be a good time to present it...

 

Have you even been reading these forums???? Statistics end debate.

 

Those of us who have been advocating for the human element in baseball have been buried under a barrage of statistics and data "proving" that 1) Protection doesn't exist, 2) "Clutch" doesn't exist, and 3) It was only after a lengthy discussion that some begrudgingly agreed that "choke" might exist. The attitude is that if you can't prove something statistically then it doesn't exist, and if one has the numbers to "prove" something it does exist.

 

One of my complaints with this board is that there is increasingly no respect for those of us who've played or coached. It's now becoming a numbers game here with the sabre-people having with the condescending attitude of, "I've got the numbers to support my position. Do YOU???" Obviously we don't because we're relying on personal experience - which is invariably trumped by numbers. In many arenas the sabre-people haven't made believers out of us - they've just shut us up.

 

In the ongoing debate over whether JBJ is the best CF in the league for example, many of us think he just might be that. However, when we say so what we hear is that JBJ's dwar is 'X.xx', Kiermyer's dWAR is higher. When we start to talk about the idiosyncrasies of Fenway Park and why it's difficult to play there we're told that that's all accounted for in the range factor. When we question Range Factor we're told that we're old-fashioned and we need to get with the system. When we question the system we're told that these people are trained observers and you're not - so what you think doesn't mean s***. (paraphrasing a bit there)

 

Statistics end discussions.

 

If you'd like some idea of how ridiculous WAR can be at times, are you aware that according to BR, for 2018 JBJ's oWAR is higher than is dWAR? Yep. That's right. According to BR, JBJ's offense is more valuable than is defense. We have an entire thread dedicated to whether we should trade him because he's a streak hitter and yet they rate his hitting higher than his defense - and he's GG caliber defensively. But, of course, that has to be the way it is because his defense is rated by "trained observers".

 

The more I see about WAR the more I realize that it's not as meaningful as most people think it is.

[Bellhorn04]

Have you even been reading these forums???? Statistics end debate.

 

Those of us who have been advocating for the human element in baseball have been buried under a barrage of statistics and data "proving" that 1) Protection doesn't exist, 2) "Clutch" doesn't exist, and 3) It was only after a lengthy discussion that some begrudgingly agreed that "choke" might exist. The attitude is that if you can't prove something statistically then it doesn't exist, and if one has the numbers to "prove" something it does exist.

 

One of my complaints with this board is that there is increasingly no respect for those of us who've played or coached. It's now becoming a numbers game here with the sabre-people having with the condescending attitude of, "I've got the numbers to support my position. Do YOU???" Obviously we don't because we're relying on personal experience - which is invariably trumped by numbers. In many arenas the sabre-people haven't made believers out of us - they've just shut us up.

 

In the ongoing debate over whether JBJ is the best CF in the league for example, many of us think he just might be that. However, when we say so what we hear is that JBJ's dwar is 'X.xx', Kiermyer's dWAR is higher. When we start to talk about the idiosyncrasies of Fenway Park and why it's difficult to play there we're told that that's all accounted for in the range factor. When we question Range Factor we're told that we're old-fashioned and we need to get with the system. When we question the system we're told that these people are trained observers and you're not - so what you think doesn't mean s***. (paraphrasing a bit there)

 

Statistics end discussions.

 

If you'd like some idea of how ridiculous WAR can be at times, are you aware that according to BR, for 2018 JBJ's oWAR is higher than is dWAR? Yep. That's right. According to BR, JBJ's offense is more valuable than is defense. We have an entire thread dedicated to whether we should trade him because he's a streak hitter and yet they rate his hitting higher than his defense - and he's GG caliber defensively. But, of course, that has to be the way it is because his defense is rated by "trained observers".

 

The more I see about WAR the more I realize that it's not as meaningful as most people think it is.

 

Dewey, a few pages ago you said you were exhausted with this topic. Now that was pretty funny.

[notin]

Have you even been reading these forums???? Statistics end debate.

 

Those of us who have been advocating for the human element in baseball have been buried under a barrage of statistics and data "proving" that 1) Protection doesn't exist, 2) "Clutch" doesn't exist, and 3) It was only after a lengthy discussion that some begrudgingly agreed that "choke" might exist. The attitude is that if you can't prove something statistically then it doesn't exist, and if one has the numbers to "prove" something it does exist.

 

One of my complaints with this board is that there is increasingly no respect for those of us who've played or coached. It's now becoming a numbers game here with the sabre-people having with the condescending attitude of, "I've got the numbers to support my position. Do YOU???" Obviously we don't because we're relying on personal experience - which is invariably trumped by numbers. In many arenas the sabre-people haven't made believers out of us - they've just shut us up.

 

In the ongoing debate over whether JBJ is the best CF in the league for example, many of us think he just might be that. However, when we say so what we hear is that JBJ's dwar is 'X.xx', Kiermyer's dWAR is higher. When we start to talk about the idiosyncrasies of Fenway Park and why it's difficult to play there we're told that that's all accounted for in the range factor. When we question Range Factor we're told that we're old-fashioned and we need to get with the system. When we question the system we're told that these people are trained observers and you're not - so what you think doesn't mean s***. (paraphrasing a bit there)

 

Statistics end discussions.

 

If you'd like some idea of how ridiculous WAR can be at times, are you aware that according to BR, for 2018 JBJ's oWAR is higher than is dWAR? Yep. That's right. According to BR, JBJ's offense is more valuable than is defense. We have an entire thread dedicated to whether we should trade him because he's a streak hitter and yet they rate his hitting higher than his defense - and he's GG caliber defensively. But, of course, that has to be the way it is because his defense is rated by "trained observers".

 

The more I see about WAR the more I realize that it's not as meaningful as most people think it is.

 

 

What about those of us who have played, coached and see the relevance of stats?

 

Why is it you assume that it is an either/or scenario? That anyone who likes stats could not possibly have played the game? Or anyone who uses math? Do you assume this about people who compile stats, too? That the people at STATS, Inc or Fangraphs do not watch or know baseball and just use spreadsheets? Do you even know the origin of the term "sabermetrics"?

 

Stats don't remove the human element from the game.

 

Stats are a numerical recording of history. And WAR is a stat that attempts to encompass a player's offensive and defensive contribution into a single stats. It's a big task. It's the Manhattan Project of baseball stats. I know you like to say ou have nothing against WAR, but you only mention when in front of the words "is flawed". And saying "i not as important as you think it is" implies you know how strong we think it is."

 

And once again, you refuse to look at alternative viewpoints. you get angry because some fans like stats as proof a concept exists. Yet somehow you think it needs exist because you say so. "Clutch" for example. Someone cites a study someone did that says it does not exist and you say it does but with no proof. Why should anyone believe you over someone with proof? I'm not saying there is no reason, but you never want to provide it. The debate eds these because you get angry your word isn't enough. Sure, you played in high school. So what? So did I. So did a lot of people on this board, and the division isn't "former players vs stat geeks;" the overlap is significant.

 

Even at this stage of the debate, you still want to point out all the flaws of WAR. "Baseball Refernce dWAR sometimes falls behind oWAR." really? (Hint: It doesn't actually say what you said it says.)

 

The problem with arguments like JBJ's defense is you seem to want everyone to believe it because you say so. His dWAR, his DRS and elements like that are only argument starters. not enders. Unless you have nothing else to counter with besides your personal beliefs...

[S5Dewey]

Dewey, a few pages ago you said you were exhausted with this topic. Now that was pretty funny.

 

I know. I said at the time that I wasn't going to get baited back into this discussion again and yet.... :-( And then when I saw someone saying that numbers don't mean what they say they mean I couldn't resist.

 

I'm ashamed.

[S5Dewey]

 

The problem with arguments like JBJ's defense is you seem to want everyone to believe it because you say so. His dWAR, his DRS and elements like that are only argument starters. not enders. Unless you have nothing else to counter with besides your personal beliefs...

 

Wrong yet again. It's the sabre-folks who want everyone to believe what they have to say because "the numbers say so" and completely discounting what not only posters but people who have played the game professionally say. I'd venture a guess that if you ask ANY professional baseball players what they think about "protection", "clutch" and "choke" an overwhelming majority of them would say they exist. At least that's been my experience from listening to them. Are they ALL wrong???

 

But....

 

Thank you for reaffirming what I said here:

 

One of my complaints with this board is that there is increasingly no respect for those of us who've played or coached. It's now becoming a numbers game here with the sabre-people having with the condescending attitude of, "I've got the numbers to support my position. Do YOU???" Obviously we don't because we're relying on personal experience - which is invariably trumped by numbers. In many arenas the sabre-people haven't made believers out of us - they've just shut us up.

[S5Dewey]

17% is the difference between 60 and 70 RBIs ... that is not big

 

WAR is not abstract - nothing abstract has that sort of detailed explanation.

 

I think you replied to the wrong person with your post. I'm not the one who said it was abstract.

[S5Dewey]

 

Even at this stage of the debate, you still want to point out all the flaws of WAR. "Baseball Refernce dWAR sometimes falls behind oWAR." really? (Hint: It doesn't actually say what you said it says.)

 

 

I apologize for continually finding flaws in WAR.

 

Are you sure I said that? I've posted a lot here and I guess it's possible but that doesn't even sound like my phraseology. If you can point it out I'll believe I said it but I have too much of a life outside of TalkSox to take the time to go back and find out.