[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Hi, Garth. I agree with most of your points, although I don't put much stock in WAR. MLB Now had the person in charge of calculating defensive runs saved on the show, and when questioned by Ken Rosenthal, he freely admitted that a defensive run saved is not actually a defensive run saved, because the context in which the exceptional defensive play was made is ignored. One full defensive run saved is credited, for example, when a spectacular diving grab of a ball about to go through the hole between short and third is made with two outs and a runner at third, with a successful putout at first, as it should be, but a full defensive run save is also credited when the same play is made with a runner on first and nobody out. Obviously, the defensive component of WAR is thereby over-weighted. A comparison of defensive runs saved is valid between players of the same position in isolation who have played a similar number of innings at that position, because it reflects the greater and lesser number of great plays made by each.

Plus, WAR, as it is computed, over-weights baserunning. Bill James introduced an equation to accurately compute the number of runs a team would score from the various possible isolated events, which was consistently quite accurate within 2-3% (thus giving it a far better correlation to actual runs scored than batting average, OBP and even OBPS), and the only baserunning component it took under consideration was stolen bases versus number of times caught stealing.

Brian Kenny, who is the regular host of MLB now, has been told by expert guest after guest that WAR is just one thing to look at, and not the be-all and end-all of player evaluation, but he refuses to get it because he's tied his ego to it, even writing a book that is based almost entirely upon it.

There are also some very significant difficulties in computing defensive ratings for players of the past, as some of the total zone ratings come up with truly absurd results. I personally don't believe you can place a single number on a player to accurately evaluate his total worth, but to each his own. My problem is that WAR too often leads to obviously absurd results. Two years ago in June, Andrelton Simmons, was, by WAR, the best player in the American League. I doubt you could get even a single team GM to buy into that! As another example, Trout, before he was injured this past season, was supposedly on pace to establish the best season of all time, based on WAR. In fact, given the fact that Mantle was easily his equal as a defensive centerfielder and on the bases, he was on pace to essentially match Mantle's third best season, 1961, as their OPS+ numbers were at that point essentially identical (Trout subsequently dipped 7 points below Mantle by the end of his season). And I could easily name a half-dozen or more seasons that were clearly better off the top of my head: Ruth's 1921 and 1923 seasons; Williams' 1941 year (and probably several other of Ted's seasons as well, as he had a number of them where he created more than 300% of the league average runs created); Hornsby's triple crown years; Musial's 1948 season, etc., etc.

When your methodology yields questionable and even absurd results, the intelligent, objective person questions his methodology.

Just my opinion, but I think that the majority of fans are not buying into WAR as the ultimate total rating of a player. That being said, I do agree that Trout is getting very, very close to being voted into the HOF based on his existing achievements. Whether he is a first ballot guy or not will depend on the rest of his career--He could still be like Kiner, who is the only player to have led his league in HR's for 7 consecutive seasons (and the major leagues for six), together with 6 seasons of 100+ runs scored, plus a .398 career OBP, an incredible figure considering his lifetime .279 batting average), whose lifetime totals were curtailed by significant back problems. Kiner had the second best HR frequency to the Babe before the steroid era, and was often named as one of the three best outfielders in baseball by the Sporting News before injury caused his decline after those seven years. Or Mathews, who as noted, was derailed by a shoulder injury which he never fully overcame.

Wow, that's a long post! But if you like WAR, more power to you. It is, however, true that it has its' drawbacks.

Enjoy your collecting,

Larry

Hey Larry,

Long post, indeed, and a good one. Thanks for all the thoughts. I've been wanting to continue the conversation, but was on deadline at work. But that's done!

I don't watch MLB Now/Brian Kenny, but he sounds like someone I would turn the TV off for. I think anyone who claims any stat as the end-all-be-all should be tuned out. And the baseball entertainment sources I enjoy are clear that they consider WAR (or any stat) as one part of the puzzle, similarly that traditional scouting and modern sabermetrics can work together in creating a more rounded profile of a player. That's the camp that I'm in.

As for the methodology, I'd rather look at why questionable/absurd results, outliers as it were, occur. Questionable results naturally happen in poorly constructed methods, but don't let outliers spoil the soup, as it were. I think WAR does more good than harm in capturing a broad-stroke picture of a player, even if at times it does over/under rate some. And it seems as if pinpointing value on defense continues to be a great challenge in baseball (perhaps all sports), and all defensive metrics should be taken with a grain of salt.

WAR, in my view, is like ABV for beer. People tend to take it as a specific measurement down to the number after the decimal, when it isn't like that. Both WAR and ABV can be off, sometimes by a decent amount, and they are both not as specific as they appear. Comparisons should be made based on similar tiers of players or beers (5.0 ABV or WAR really might be about the same as 6.0 ABV or WAR). Same would go with career WAR - one player might have 85, but that isn't definitive that he was "better" than another with 78. WAR is more of an entry point, in a way, into the finer discussion of how they each got there, etc.

And when it comes to those half-season discussions about being on pace for record WAR or what not, that is just a topic to fill time on sports shows more than anything else. It's in the same boat as talking about how the guy who hits 3 HR on Opening Day is on pace to hit 486 HR that season...

Any which way it's sliced, I hope people enjoy Trout and what he is accomplishing. There are no guarantees that we'll ever see a run like it again in our lifetime. And I write this fully acknowledging that I have not taken advantage of watching Trout play as I should. I'll blame it on getting to watch Mookie Betts, who's certainly a fantastic player even if he isn't quite Mike Trout.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, Larry!