We have a ton of people on this site that are very good with numbers...so I have a few questions.

For the sake of argument, lets say we've lost 10 WAR so far this off-season. Some people take that to mean that since we won 93 games last year, that we are now about a 83 win team.

I'd like to know how/why 1 WAR is equal to 1 tangible win. I know 1 WAR means that a player is worth 1 more win over a replacement player, but how does that translate to actual tangible wins. If you add up all the WAR for every player on the team, it won't equal to (or be close to) 93 wins, so why does a loss of 10 WAR equal to losing approximately 10 games in the standings. What is the baseline number of wins for a team theoretically comprised entirely of 0 WAR players? Is that team a .500 team or much worse?

I'm genuinely curious about this topic and I know there has to be someone on here that can explain it to me.

JV,

A theoretical team comprised of 0.0 WAR players would win about 47 games. So each Win Above Replacement would be added to that number.

In 2012, the Rangers generated about 49 fWAR, meaning the team should have won about 96 games. The team underachieved by only winning 93.

Thanks Eric. Now how/why do you come up with 47 wins? Don't get me wrong...it makes sense, I'm just curious what the logic is.

Weve only lost 10 WAR?

Thats not terrible. We can get it back.

THis link may help http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/misc/war/

Thanks Yu D.
I've read all of that before and feel like I have a solid grip on WAR as it pertains to individual players. I'm more interested in WAR as it relates to an entire team.

The "base" WAR varies from year-to-year. A team of replacement players will typically net around 45-50 wins. It changes from year to year.

Also, when you say losing 10 WAR isn't terrible, it actually is. 10 WAR is two borderline MVP, All-Star players, or one Mike Trout. When you consider there's only 2-3 positions in which the Rangers could fill those holes, that means you need 2-3 players to make up 10 WAR, which is not easy to do. Also consider some players (Murphy) has career years last year.

@JDB

I think it's fine if you voice your own opinion. I don't have any problem with that at all.

JDB,

What do you have against video games?

You guys are too young to appreciate the context of all of this.

i was a Cubs fan way back a long time ago when Grandpa Santo was at 3rd, Grandpa Kessinger at short, Beckert and Banks was the infield.

Back then, my buddies and I could debate for hours whether Grandpa Rick Monday was going to be better than Adolpho Phillips. There was no way of knowing really. There was not a good way to compare. Who really knew if Ferguson Jenkins was better then Kenny Holtzman or why the Miracle Mets won!

Now we have a common denominator--a way to compare the relative worths of a pitcher to a shortstop, or a centerfielder to a catcher. What is even better, is that park factors, baserunning, slugging, etc have all been considered, weighted scientifically and applied.

Gee, i wish i had had this way back when Jimbo and I were Cub fans playing Stratomatic baseball in the basement!

Jdb you can post your opinion but you cry everytime a video game nerd rebuttles and backs their opinion up with hard facts and that's why you get the venom. Posts like war is for nerds is venomous in itself and in my opinion very ignorant and almost everyone of your posts have no support or basis. But that's just my opinion

It's a shame, really. General human sociology dictates that people often fear what they don't understand. Ignorance leads to hate, and hate leads to stupid flame wars on little Internet forums.

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: Most anti-WAR circles have never taken the time to look up even the most basic principles of the concept. Instead they do the only thing they know how: Stay closed-minded, back themselves into the corner, and base their arguments on unsubstantiated truths, most of the time saying their perception is more accurate than the quantitative data.

The problem is, each individual has a different perception of the truth. The objective data doesn't lie, because, well, it has no reason to. That's why it's called objective. As an objectivist, I don't get offended by the measly tripe people dish out. After all, ignorance is bliss, right?

It all goes back to one of my favorite poems, back when I was about 16. You've probably heard of it, and have probably read it. It's called "Mending Wall" by Robert Frost. It asks the simplest of philosophical questions. That is, what's more valuable, tired traditionalism or a modern approach? If you believe in the former, you are exponentially limiting yourself.

And this doesn't only apply to baseball.

Must be OK to point out someone's grammatical mistake when you can't come up with a decent, intelligent point to make.

Hey look, it's the guy who posts under 47 different names and still gets no love.

When we say that the Rangers have lost roughly 10-13 WAR, that assumes that the players lost to FA (Hamilton, Nap, Adams, Koji) and the players lost to injuries (Lewis, Feliz) will be replaced by replacement level players. If that occurs, then you could expect the Rangers to lose roughly 10 more games than they lost last season.

Of course, some of the replacements may produce positive WAR and that will close the gap. But expecting Profar, Martin, Perez, and Olt to produce 10 WAR is asking a lot. Most rookies aren't very good.