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

[mvp 78]

A couple of years back.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/03/03/bob-ryan-declares-war-war/ErbD99zVKGfn1XjonlmBBK/story.html

I too love to hitch my wagon to washed out ancient writers who haven’t been relevant since Thriller was released.

Edited May 20, 2018 by mvp 78

[moonslav59]

Wait is it a stat or not?

 

It's a metric.

[mvp 78]

It's a metric.

 

Boogie woogie woogie

[Kimmi]

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.

 

WAR does not give credit for productive outs. Productive outs are not as important as most people think they are.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by hustle (base running or defensively?), but either way, 'hustle' is accounted for in some form or another.

[Natick to NC]

All I know is the two best players I've seen are Mookie and Machado thus far this year and both there numbers are fantastic .....I love Trout but to me Trout is maybe the 4th best player ? Thus far atleast ? ....Trout may not even be the MVP on his own team .

[S5Dewey]

WAR does not give credit for productive outs. Productive outs are not as important as most people think they are.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by hustle (base running or defensively?), but either way, 'hustle' is accounted for in some form or another.

 

Wow. It seems like not many things "are as important as most people think they are." But it's nice to know that hustle is accounted for "in some form or another" in the WAR calculations, which is the same as saying, "I don't know if it is or not but since I'm a proponent of WAR I'm going to say it is."

[Spudboy]

I see it referred to as a statistic in some places, a calculation in others. It's kind of splitting hairs to say it isn't a stat, really.

 

It's a metric!

[Kimmi]

This is a pretty solid read on the breakdown of Trout vs. Betts, and why WAR may not be the best way to evaluate guys that play different positions.

 

https://redsoxunfiltered.com/2018/05/20/mike-trout-versus-mookie-betts-looking-beyond-the-war/

 

fWAR adjusts for ball parks. Mookie is going to get more credit playing right field at Fenway than Judge will get for playing right field at Yankee Stadium.

 

bWAR only counts balls that would be in play in any ball park. This is somewhat of a 'park adjustment', but I think it would hurt Mookie for plays that he makes that would be 'out of range' in other parks. But Mookie would not be penalized for not making a play that would be 'out of range' in another park.

[Spudboy]

fWAR adjusts for ball parks. Mookie is going to get more credit playing right field at Fenway than Judge will get for playing right field at Yankee Stadium.

 

bWAR only counts balls that would be in play in any ball park. This is somewhat of a 'park adjustment', but I think it would hurt Mookie for plays that he makes that would be 'out of range' in other parks. But Mookie would not be penalized for not making a play that would be 'out of range' in another park.

 

Whew!!!!

 

I think I got that.

[S5Dewey]

WAR was created as a way to compare other players to Mike Trout's greatness, so obviously nobody else would be ahead of him.

 

Actually WAR was around long before Mike Trout, but I'm fairly certain that if WAR didn't prove that he's the best player in baseball they'd adjust their formulas so he would be.

[Jasonbay44]

All I know is the two best players I've seen are Mookie and Machado thus far this year and both there numbers are fantastic .....I love Trout but to me Trout is maybe the 4th best player ? Thus far atleast ? ....Trout may not even be the MVP on his own team .

 

Trout is definitely the MVP of his own team, and is at worst the 2nd best player in the league right now.

[Jasonbay44]

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.

[dgalehouse]

WAR is just a player evaluation system that someone came up with. Take it for what it is. Or use your own . No matter how you want to look at it , Mookie is the best in the game right now. You can't give it to Trout on reputation alone. As for ESPN , their credibility is not very good , to say the least.

[CliffKlowers]

I can respect and honor all of the all time greats baseball players. Mantle was great, Williams may have been the greatest pure hitter. Willie Mays and Roberto Clemente were super versatile. It was a joy to see or read about all of them. I do not need to rank them. Same with basketball and hockey. Any metric that attempts to rank them is futile and meaningless. If I were a St. Louis fan then I would say Musial but I am not. Why bother? It depends on who you rooted for. Such wasted energy trying to do so.

[Maxbialystock]

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.

 

About where I am. The OP's rage against WAR ignores the fact that it ranks Trout and Betts very close together and presumably includes all five tools: catch, throw, run the bases, hit, and hit with power.

 

Here are some things that might be in Trout's favor:

 

10 vs. 11 Mookie stolen bases, but 0 CS while Mookie has been caught twice.

3 outfield assists vs. Mookie 2.

If you believe all the stuff about how valuable JBJ's defense is, part of that assumes centerfield is tougher than right field.

Mookie is part of a very good offense and Trout isn't, so Trout gets walked a lot.

Trout is bigger: 6'2" vs. 5'9"

Mookie has the green monster, which presumably is good for a righty hitter. He has more than twice as many doubles as Trout.

 

I think both are very good and am delighted one of them plays every day for the Sox. I did see an article online in espn that torqued me, however, because it says Trout could be having the greatest season--using WAR as the measuring rod--in the history of MLB and makes zero mention of Mookie whose WAR is 3.6 to Trout's 3.9.

[Bellhorn04]

It's a metric.

 

Now try to explain why WAR ISN'T a statistic.

[moonslav59]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

Now try to explain why WAR ISN'T a statistic.

 

Because it's a metric based on a formula created by humans who weight various stats the way they feel they should be weighted.

 

They are not perfect and admit it.

 

It's not about being perfect.

 

While BA is a perfect stat for gauging a hitter's batting skill, it too is flawed due to game scorer's opinions, strength of opposing pitcher, defense and park size.

 

WAR attempts to simplify player evaluation into one number, so we don't have to say, yes, but player B has more power and is a better defender, followed by, "But, player A runs the bases better and hits better in the clutch", and so on...

 

It's a flawed number, no doubt, but it tried to do what we all do when arguing who is the better OVERALL PLAYER.

[Bellhorn04]

Because it's a metric based on a formula created by humans who weight various stats the way they feel they should be weighted.

 

 

So is OPS a statistic?

[moonslav59]

So is OPS a statistic?

 

We can argue semantics all day, but I'd say no.

 

It is more flawed than WAR, since it clearly weights SLG as being equal to OBP, and it isn't.

 

It also duplicates the same values for somethings but not others.

 

BTW, I have no issues with calling all these numbers stats, but I don't view WAR as one, since too much opinion goes into the weighting of the formula.

[S5Dewey]

Because it's a metric based on a formula created by humans who weight various stats the way they feel they should be weighted.

 

They are not perfect and admit it.

 

It's not about being perfect.

 

While BA is a perfect stat for gauging a hitter's batting skill, it too is flawed due to game scorer's opinions, strength of opposing pitcher, defense and park size.

 

WAR attempts to simplify player evaluation into one number, so we don't have to say, yes, but player B has more power and is a better defender, followed by, "But, player A runs the bases better and hits better in the clutch", and so on...

 

It's a flawed number, no doubt, but it tried to do what we all do when arguing who is the better OVERALL PLAYER.

 

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?

[S5Dewey]

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.

 

 

So here's what I've gathered from previous conversations regarding the eye test and WAR:

 

1) Since WAR passes the eye test it must be right.

 

2) The eye test is unreliable because those people conducting the 'eye test' don't see every player playing every inning and making every play.

 

Therefore WAR must be a correct calculation.

[Bellhorn04]

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?

 

There's nothing wrong with approaching all the numbers with some skepticism and wanting to dig into them a little further to see what's really going on.

 

When it comes to WAR, to use another old adage, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".

[Bellhorn04]

So here's what I've gathered from previous conversations regarding the eye test and WAR:

 

1) Since WAR passes the eye test it must be right.

 

2) The eye test is unreliable because those people conducting the 'eye test' don't see every player playing every inning and making every play.

 

Therefore WAR must be a correct calculation.

 

But nobody is actually saying 'WAR must be correct' that I know of.

[moonslav59]

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 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.

[moonslav59]

So here's what I've gathered from previous conversations regarding the eye test and WAR:

 

1) Since WAR passes the eye test it must be right.

 

2) The eye test is unreliable because those people conducting the 'eye test' don't see every player playing every inning and making every play.

 

Therefore WAR must be a correct calculation.

 

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.

[S5Dewey]

But nobody is actually saying 'WAR must be correct' that I know of.

 

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.

 

I can't conclusively say that Mookie is better this year than Trout because I haven't seen Trout play much but nearly every metric that goes into WAR says it's true, and yet when one looks at BR they're going to assume that Trout is having the better year because WAR says so. Shouldn't that in itself bring into question the validity of WAR?

[S5Dewey]

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.

 

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.

[mvp 78]

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."

[notin]

This is a pretty solid read on the breakdown of Trout vs. Betts, and why WAR may not be the best way to evaluate guys that play different positions.

 

https://redsoxunfiltered.com/2018/05/20/mike-trout-versus-mookie-betts-looking-beyond-the-war/

 

That's a big part of it.

 

Defensively, center field is considered more important than RF so it has a bigger input on the defensive factors in WAR, which were not accounted for in the OP.

 

Don't forget, WAR is for Wins Above Replacement at your position. So if the Replacement Level CF is starting from a higher baseline, the numbers are not apples to apples when comparing CF to RF...