[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

An honest, non-sarcastic question here. I don't purport to understand this WAR, even less so when it comes to my favorite player, Billy Cox, so forgive if my question seems ridiculous.

You will find multiple accounts from Cox' contemporaries that he was the best defensive third baseman in the league. Some even felt perhaps the best ever until Brooks Robinson came along. I even heard it directly from Brooks himself that he was of the same opinion (naturally, the ever-humble Brooks did not add the "until I came along"!). If his own contemporaries, in addition to the man who most people feel was the greatest say this, then why is Cox' WAR only 10.1? Yes, he was a light hitter. From what I have read here, however, being at the top of your game defensively should serve to boost up your WAR.

Looking at Cox' fielding stats, it certainly doesn't show him as a league leader. Could all of those people who would have had an educated opinion and witnessed him in action be as wrong about him as his pitiful WAR would suggest? I'd venture not. Single season WAR totals are awful. So, what wasn't he doing? Or, dare I say it, is WAR not an ironclad formula to fairly rate every single player?

Is it all in the fact that he wasn't prone to being played throughout entire seasons? It may be apples and oranges for all I know, but look at Riggs Stephenson. He's another player who had some fancy stats (of course, remembered more for his BA) but struggled with games played each season. Still, his WAR is 32.8.

I agree with a lot of what you've said. I believe WAR does not and can not include the total value of a player when compared to his peers. There are intangibles that can not be quantified. If you've participated in team sports, you know who you value as a teammate considering everything you see day in and day out about that teammate. Peer evaluations have value. Just like WAR, they help to give us a clearer picture of the value of a player to his team.