WAR is Nonsense

[Inside Pitch]

Second - the problem with WAR is that it is being used by people who do not understand it. WAR is a tool designed to provide a deeper understanding of the sport, but the majority of people discussing WAR (pro or con) do not understand how the tool works. 

 

THIS.   Most people ignore that WAR is primarily an attempt to measure value.  As in return on investment.   $$$.

 

ESPN is among the biggest culprits IMO.

[Inside Pitch]

Just how does WAR measure these?

 

Percentage of clean to dirty uniforms per game.

[AngelsLakersFan]

The fact that Weaver's value is being disproportionately assigned to the defenders (and the defenders are arguably seeing their WAR increase) means that WAR by itself cannot be used as a one-stop-shop number to quantify that one player is a better overall player than another.

 

This is correct, although it is far more of an issue for pitcher WAR than for position player WAR. This is typically the reason why different versions of WAR come up with different numbers. It's hard to say exactly where the stat is off in this area, I feel like the stat is shorting pitchers far more that benefiting defenders. I think there might be some value left unaccounted for.

 

 

I personally prefer Win Probability Added (WPA), or context-netural win probability added (WPA/LI). These seem to agree with the "eyeball test" significantly better (particularly in my earlier example of of Weaver vs Kendrick).  I think stat is a much better starting point than WAR for fans who want to argue about who a team's MVP is.

 

 

Both figures are dependent on context and teammates etc. and both stats make arbitrary judgment calls when it comes to dividing up credit for plays, but in the case of win probability, the term "win" is actually appropriate. You can by definition sum up the win probability of all the players on the team and end up with the team's overall winning record. I agree with others who said that there might be less confusion if WAR were named something that didn't include the word "wins".

 

WPA is fun, but it has some significant issues. Number one being that a run in the 8th inning is not more valuable than a run in the 2nd inning. WPA does a good job of measuring how we should feel about performance but it ignores a lot of truly valuable things such as defense.

[AZMike]

WPA is fun, but it has some significant issues. Number one being that a run in the 8th inning is not more valuable than a run in the 2nd inning. WPA does a good job of measuring how we should feel about performance but it ignores a lot of truly valuable things such as defense.

 

One thing neither of these stats fairly take into account (underrated by WAR, overrated by WPA) is that pitchers often pitch differently in high leverage situations.

 

In a bases-empty situation early in a game the pitcher is likely to throw more pitches in the zone or pitch to contact to try to get the batter on fewer overall pitches since the downside of them getting a solo HR in that spot is not that significant. OTOH in a one-run deficit game with two men on base, the pitcher's likely going to throw more pitches and tougher pitches in an effort to get a K.

[Hubs]

You seem to be getting hung up on the semantics, not saying that to be dismissive in any way, it just seems you just have issues with what is being defined as more than what it's actually trying to measure..  Would you like it more if they called it VAR?  Value over replacement?

Actually, I think I would. Value can be expressed in a different constant than a solid number of wins, which would negate the positional adjustment and be easy to show on a scale, like wOBA. It's offensive to people in the traditional stat community to say that Player X was so many wins better than player Y.

 

Last year if the Angels and Tigers swapped centerfielders and thirdbaseman, is there a net gain for either team in wins? A-Jax had a 5.2 WAR, Cabrera was 6.9. Trout had 10.7 and Callaspo 3.2. Would this have resulted in a 2 win loss for the Angels and a 2 win gain for the Tigers?

 

WAR says it does….I doubt that would have happened in real life.

 

Still, It's not the name "Win" thing that really bugs me, it's the use of positional adjustments twice, in both oWAR and dWAR which makes very little sense. Where someone plays is not relevant to their offense. I understand that theoretically a first baseman is easier to replace than a second baseman, but in reality that's just not always true. Anyone can play anywhere…and defensively that makes a difference, but theoretically a team full of Miguel Cabrera's would be horrible fielding the ball, but might score 1100 runs. Likewise a team full of Mike Trout's would be great offensively and defensively, as Trout is much more athletic…This shows in the WAR, but because of positional adjustment, is it an accurate measure?

[YouthofToday]

Who knew AZMike is actually Jack Morris! Welcome to the community Jack. Don't take it personally I don't think you belong in the hall and are probably the 6th best SP on the next ballot.

[Lifetime]

Re your scenario, WAR does not say that. That's a misapplicatiion of the stat IMO. The purpose is to calculate the value a player had (based on production) to his team in a particular year. This is based on opportunities and results. Moving a player to another team changes both opportunities and results. IOW, a player may actually rate higher with a different team because he has more opportunities. This is also why WAR values will vary some year over year.