WAR Talk - which is your preferred, and why?

[Angelsjunky]

One of the fine points of WAR that I haven't read up on enough is the defensive component, so I was trying to better understand that. Originally my preference was for Fangraphs WAR, but after reading up a bit I'm not so sure. BR's defensive metric is actually a bit more complex, although that doesn't necessarily make it superior. I'm also a bit leery about the catching adjustment FB made - I like the fact that it gives catchers more value, as WAR has tended to undervalue them, but it seems a bit over the top (e.g. Jonathan Lucroy being the 4th best player in baseball from 2011-14 with 27.1 WAR, despite a 119 wRC+).

There's a bigger gap with pitching, as BR is based on Runs Allowed while Fangraphs is based on FIP. I dislike FIP on principle--it is a classic stathead "what should have happened" statistic, but on the other hand, BR leads to some pretty wonky outliers - like Aaron Nola's 10.2 WAR in 2018 (wtf).

So I'm left confused. I have problems with each, and I don't even touch WARP due to the subscription wall.

What do you think? Convince me of your preference.

Edited November 13, 2020 by Angelsjunky

[tdawg87]

Fangraphs because they don't hilariously overvalue pitchers and also dWAR is for fuckin plebs.

[tdawg87]

Oh and ESPN uses bWAR and ESPN can gargle my nards.

[Adam]

BR cuz I talked way too much shit on fangraphs years ago that I’m ashamed to show my face there. 

 

[Stradling]

I use baseball reference exclusively, but for no other reason than I used it when I first started really looking at WAR.  

My belief is it doesn’t matter what you use as long as you don’t cross compare.  So you don’t judge one player using fangraphs and another using baseball ref.

[NrM]

fangraphs because it makes trout look better

[Inside Pitch]

I use both, FG for analysis, BR for quick looks.   

The BR version can be pretty nuts with its dWAR and pitching info.   I think the key to both is to know where the two systems can go off the rails.

In truth I simply prefer predictive data over any counting results stat.   But it all has its place imho.

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

I use both, FG for analysis, BR for quick looks.   

The BR version can be pretty nuts with its dWAR and pitching info.   I think the key to both is to know where the two systems can go off the rails.

In truth I simply prefer predictive data over any counting results stat.   But it all has its place imho.

This is basically where I'm at, but was hoping someone would convince me that one is better than the other.

[Yes We Can]

I use BR WAR because I use baseball reference for other non-deep dives daily. It's my go to site.

[T.G.]

Cisco Kid was a friend of mine...

[Docwaukee]

3 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

I use both, FG for analysis, BR for quick looks.   

The BR version can be pretty nuts with its dWAR and pitching info.   I think the key to both is to know where the two systems can go off the rails.

In truth I simply prefer predictive data over any counting results stat.   But it all has its place imho.

yep.  That's pretty much what I look at as well.  

NERD ALERT!

I actually like to compare the various sites to see the differences because I'm super cool and fun at parties. 

[Pancake Bear]

I'm no expert. Not even close. But BR's defensive ratings seem high to me for a rating that is somewhat difficult to measure. Same with pitching, but to a lesser degree. So I typically use FG, though I tend to compare them just out of curiosity.

[Taylor]

Fangraphs is more accurate, but I prefer BR's interface when looking up players' stats.