Surprisingly low WAR

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I grew up with the Bronx Zoo Yankees of the late 1970s. In addition to Randolph, there was Graig Nettles with 67.9 career WAR.

Added in Edit: His more famous teammate on those teams, Reggie Jackson, had career WAR of 74. Reggie was certainly Hall-worthy, but you would think he would be separated from Nettles by more than 6.1 WAR.

Nettles comes up in these discussions a lot, I was trying to focus on guys who don't, but I agree. Nettles is tragically underrated.

[tod41]

WAR is a flawed tool that is overused. Steve Garvey's war is only 38 while Willie Randolph's is 65. Does that really tell you the story? Who was the more impactful player? To me, its Garvey by a mile.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tod41

WAR is a flawed tool that is overused. Steve Garvey's war is only 38 while Willie Randolph's is 65. Does that really tell you the story? Who was the more impactful player? To me, its Garvey by a mile.

Then again, long before the new metrics, Garvey got little love for the Hall despite all the counting stats.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I'll never understand people who dismiss WAR because it doesn't tell them what they feel is right. Isn't that the POINT of a new stat? Why would we need a stat to tell us what we already knew?

You can argue about it's supposed shortcomings, but to dismiss it out of hand because it disagrees with you instead of learning WHY it disagrees with you doesn't seem to be a productive way of going about things.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I'll never understand people who dismiss WAR because it doesn't tell them what they feel is right. Isn't that the POINT of a new stat? Why would we need a stat to tell us what we already knew?

You can argue about it's supposed shortcomings, but to dismiss it out of hand because it disagrees with you instead of learning WHY it disagrees with you doesn't seem to be a productive way of going about things.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

[packs]

How about the prototype for the current slugger Adam Dunn? He hit 462 homers, hit 40 homers 5 years in a row and finished with 17.9. Ouch he even walked a lot.

On the pitching side there’s Joe Niekro. He spent 22 years in the league, pitched more than 3500 innings and won 221 games. His career WAR is 29.7.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by packs

How about the prototype for the current slugger Adam Dunn? He hit 462 homers, hit 40 homers 5 years in a row and finished with 17.9. Ouch he even walked a lot.

Adam Dunn's glove cost him. He holds the record (by a lot) for worst single season dWar with an epically bad -5.2 in 2009. While that was his worst season, he was never a plus fielder. Only a valuable hitter gets a chance to cost you that many games with his glove.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then again, long before the new metrics, Garvey got little love for the Hall despite all the counting stats.

Maybe so. But he got more love than current Hall of Famers like Ted Simmons and Jim Kaat (both over 50 WARs)

[timn1]

Originally Posted by tod41

WAR is a flawed tool that is overused. Steve Garvey's war is only 38 while Willie Randolph's is 65. Does that really tell you the story? Who was the more impactful player? To me, its Garvey by a mile.

Garvey was an out-making machine and a defensive liability! Randolph was a helluva player, a winner (and this from a Yankee-hater).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by timn1

Garvey was an out-making machine and a defensive liability! Randolph was a helluva player, a winner (and this from a Yankee-hater).

8 straight all star appearances, but stunningly, in the "WAR7" metric reflecting the peak 7 years, he is 55th among first basemen.

[Musashi]

As a Dodger fan, I always felt that Garvey was over rated. When WAR came out , I eagerly checked to see if it would confirm my suspicion that Garvey was the second most valuable member of the that infield behind Ron Cey.

In this case WAR did not confirm my bias. Garvey was third behind Cey and Lopes

(note: if you count just their time together instead of their whole careers, it does indeed go Cey-Garvey-Lopes, but this is more fun to say)

[YazFenway08]

I was just discussing Joe Carter with a friend last week.

I realize that the RBI is not a favored new age stat and the “clutch gene” cant really be measured quantitatively, but his WAR seems to really run counter to what I saw when I watched him. He is one of the few on this list where I saw his entire career and it just doesn’t add up.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by YazFenway08

I was just discussing Joe Carter with a friend last week.

I realize that the RBI is not a favored new age stat and the “clutch gene” cant really be measured quantitatively, but his WAR seems to really run counter to what I saw when I watched him. He is one of the few on this list where I saw his entire career and it just doesn’t add up.

Carter hit .259 and never walked. Career .258 with 2 outs and RISP and .239 in late & close situations.

He drove in a lot of runs because he got a ton of chances. He had 115 RBI in 1990 in his one year with the Padres - while putting up a .681 OPS. He stunk that season, somehow still had 115 RBI.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

8 straight all star appearances, but stunningly, in the "WAR7" metric reflecting the peak 7 years, he is 55th among first basemen.

Getting way off topic, but Garvey also won 4 Gold Gloves. But, I have ceased to put weight on awards like that. The fact that Derek Jeter won 5 Gold Gloves and Jim Kaat won the Gold Glove in 1969 despite a .826 fielding percentage tells me that the GG is often more about flash than fundamentals.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Getting way off topic, but Garvey also won 4 Gold Gloves. But, I have ceased to put weight on awards like that. The fact that Derek Jeter won 5 Gold Gloves and Jim Kaat won the Gold Glove in 1969 despite a .826 fielding percentage tells me that the GG is often more about flash than fundamentals.

And Palmeiro won one in a year I believe he only played 30 games at the position.

[z28jd]

WAR is one of the only newer stats that I actually care about. Some of the others just take the fun out of baseball when people start yapping about them. WAR rewards complete players. If you're slow and awful on defense, WAR reminds you that your team isn't getting the greatest value, despite the offense. One-tool hitters feel the wrath of WAR. Mark Belanger is one of the greatest defensive players ever, plus he had a few decent hitting seasons (mostly due to walks/steals), yet he was 41.0 WAR. Almost all of that is defense.

I'll say the one player who surprised me was Willie Montanez with 1.6 career WAR. I never saw him play, he retired in 1982, so my surprise was from what I remembered as a kid. I got some slightly older cards and remembered seeing the very small print on the back of his 1982 Topps card, with some big RBI seasons (101, 99, 96). I always figured he was a better overall player, but he lost a lot of value for poor defense, plus he's one of the few players with a below 50% success rate stealing bases and more than a handful of attempts. He homered 30 times one year, yet he hit just 139 homers in 14 years.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And Palmeiro won one in a year I believe he only played 30 games at the position.

Yeah, but what a glorious 30 (actually 28) games those were.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by timn1

Garvey was an out-making machine and a defensive liability! Randolph was a helluva player, a winner (and this from a Yankee-hater).

Check Garvey's post season numbers. He was winner enough. Higher OPS than Mantle in the Post Season.