Ok, I have articulated my views about being cautious when using WAR as a solid static number...this article explains better than I can why. I do use it, I just take it with a grain of salt. http://m.espn.go.com/mlb/story?storyId=8900693

WAR is for nerds who either never played baseball or just don't know how to watch a game.

WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

^^^
If you actually read the article you'd know he says war is a valuable tool, but isn't the end all measuring stick of a player.

@ Romeo212000- I don't know who posted that, but it's someone with a good sense of humor. "WAR" is a famous war (conflict) song sung by Edwin Starr.

Oh, I didn't realize that's who sung it. I got that he was making a reference to the song though. I get why it's funny then.

Good Lord Romro-THINK

Sorry, let me take that back. I'm just a trolling assclown with no substance whatsoever in any of my posts, so I apologize for that.

^^^^^^
Lmfao.

hey homro-nice try ass clown

I'm sorry, that was me lashing out in sexual frustration again. See, there's this boy in my gym class that's soooo hot, but I can't get him to notice me. I've decided to try to get his attention by slipping some sexy pictures of myself in his locker. I'll report back.

Read this on ESPN earlier today. I think WAR is an incredible statistic that gives a lot of additional insight into a player's overall value. However, I agree w/ Caple, and believe that it can't be used as a be-all statistic. Rather it should be used as one of many statistics to help evaluate a player. I thought the article was pretty solid.

And to Not that Eric - I played college ball and have watched plenty of games in my lifetime, and still recognize the fact that WAR offers some statistical value that other stats don't. In my opinion, you'd be ignorant to completely discount the merits of WAR.

Have you noticed that when Romro impersonates me he uses latent homosexuality to get across his point?

Just sayin!

I'm sorry that was a lie. Nobody is impersonating me. I'm still coming to terms with my latent homosexuality.

Caple's article is dumb. He speaks of WAR like he doesn't have a clear grasp on it. He talks about it like it's batting average or RBI, not taking into account that it's not a stat, it's a cumulative measurement to determine value.

I'm not a slave to WAR, I just use it. It helps to justify points and draw reasonable conclusions. I can no longer take people seriously who talk about BA, RBI, or pitching wins and losses, because, well, they don't mean anything.

Michael Young is a lifetime .300 hitter. He can't draw a walk to save his life. He can't run. He can't play defense. I don't need WAR to tell me that doesn't add up to a good player.

Cliff Lee went 6-9 in 2012. 6. And 9. His WAR? Right up there with David Price, Zack Greinke, and Yu Darvish (5.1 fWAR). It's 2013, people. If we have the information, why don't we use it?

I have to disagree Eric. WAR won't tell me who has the best OBP to lead off a game or who has the highest OPS to hit 3rd or 4th depending on how you roll. You can't fill out a lineup with WAR. W-L are ancient but without BA and RBI, how is one to even calculate WAR? Plus there are 2 different WAR for players, one being fangraphs and the other baseball reference, both of which calculate it differently. Until there is 1 solid calculation of "WAR," I won't be buying too much into it, although i will reference it occasionaly. But that doesn't mean I'm an insignificant shit for brains who likes a guy for hitting .300 with 80 RBI's even though his WAR is that of a donut.

I thought it was a great article, Eric, and your very objection to his article is the broad point he is making, and it's the flaw in the way WAR is so often used

You said "]WAR is] not a stat" but that's exactly his complaint, the way some people treat it as if it a stat.

WAR is one person's stab at blending and weighing various stats to try to figure out value. It's an evolution of "we count everything in baseball" that started with weighing players by BA, Runs, Wins, etc, which then was smartened into Slugging Pct and Total Bases, then further evolved into OPS. At their core, they are all stats.

Where WAR differs is that it has an opinion in its core, as the stats are weighed according to what the weigher thinks is most important. But the fact that WAR uses stats that are then blended using an opinion makes it feel like it's objective and definitive, and it's not. In the same way that 50 years ago 2 of us might have had different opinions over whether RBIs are more valuable than Runs Scored, or whether HRs are more valuable than BA, the calculation within WAR has already had someone decide subjectively which stats mean more.

It's informative to notice that, as Caple points out, there are two different WAR numbers. That's because two different persons (or groups) at some point used their own differing biases to try to formulate their own definition of what is most valuable to be able to do in the game of baseball.

Ultimately WAR is simply a numerically-derived opinion, not a fact, reflecting someone's opinion of who is more valuable. The failure to acknowledge that inherent subjectivity, and instead treat WAR as if it's somehow definitive and incontrovertible, is the flaw in the way it is so often used.

WAR is stat driven, and to simply state that this player is this # WAR as a matter of fact is not the true picture. For example A ROD has varied as much as 2.0 to 10.1. A range of 7.9 is the difference alone in a season of for example 85 wins [ nice, but no playoff games] to 93 and IN, and this just considering one player. And it does not measure the whole picture that makes as much separation in teams: conditioning, confidence, effort, knowledge of the games at any given position or situation, ability to adapt and adjust, and many other factors that stats and of that WAR can measure mathematically. But WAR has great value, if for no other reason as to quote one number on any given player, but the mathematical Range must be taken into consideration when quoting that given number.

I have to disagree Eric. WAR won't tell me who has the best OBP to lead off a game or who has the highest OPS to hit 3rd or 4th depending on how you roll.

Uhm, yeah, that's what I'm saying. WAR factors in every aspect of the game. Not just offense. If you want the guy with the best OBP leading off the game, you lead him off. It's simple.

You can't fill out a lineup with WAR. W-L are ancient but without BA and RBI, how is one to even calculate WAR?

You calculate offense through formulas. wOBA and wRC+ are the two best measurements. Check out the glossary at FanGraphs.

Plus there are 2 different WAR for players, one being fangraphs and the other baseball reference, both of which calculate it differently.

It's a philosophy thing. I prefer FanGraphs because I find the data to be easily sortable, and as far as pitching is concerned it shows who's likely to do better moving forward, rather than what's actually happened.

Until there is 1 solid calculation of "WAR," I won't be buying too much into it, although i will reference it occasionaly. But that doesn't mean I'm an insignificant shit for brains who likes a guy for hitting .300 with 80 RBI's even though his WAR is that of a donut.

If anything, there need to be more WAR calculations. Baseball Prospectus has the PECOTA system, which was created by Nate Silver if I'm not mistaken; bWAR is Bill James; I don't know who started FanGraphs. The more types of WAR there are, the better grasp we as fans have to make our judgements.

@bb

Ultimately WAR is simply a numerically-derived opinion, not a fact, reflecting someone's opinion of who is more valuable. The failure to acknowledge that inherent subjectivity, and instead treat WAR as if it's somehow definitive and incontrovertible, is the flaw in the way it is so often used.

Let's take the formula for wOBA (weighted on base average) for example:

wOBA = (0.69×uBB + 0.72×HBP + 0.89×1B + 1.26×2B + 1.60×3B + 2.08×HR + 0.25×SB -0.50×CS) / PA

As we see, they give a certain weight for a single, a higher weight for a double, an even higher weight for a triple, and obviously the highest for a home run. This makes sense, since, you know, a home run is worth 4 bases while a single is only worth one. It takes into account the value of a stolen base, and the subsequent penalty for being caught stealing. Also, walks are in the formula. Walks are important.

wOBA is a cumulative measurement.

Batting Average is not. Batting average gives the same number whether you hit a single or a home run, which is why BA loved Michael Young for so long. It was a mirage. To me, wOBA is a good example of what is, in fact, objective. However, we can look at a litany of other WAR measurements; this was simply one of the offensive tools.

I tend to think the Caple article was more of a troll piece. When there's nothing going on in the baseball world, let's bring up WAR and watch idiots argue! It wraps up an entire concept in, like, 4 paragraphs. How do you do that? You do it by staying basic, letting the people who believe in WAR to continue doing so, and giving people who are anti-SABR little nuggets to run with in their next analytics disagreement.

Analytics do mean something. There's a reason why franchises like the Rangers, and Rays, are going to continue to flourish, and why teams like Philadelphia will flounder.

what eric hasn't said, but would be appropriate to add to his response based on the statement "Ultimately WAR is simply a numerically-derived opinion, not a fact, reflecting someone's opinion of who is more valuable." is that the weights assigned to each of the outcomes specified in wOBA are in fact NOT "someone's opinion", but weights derived from linear weights, which are themselves derived from the run expectancy matrices of each situation. It should also be noted that the coefficients in the wOBA calculation are updated every season to match reality.

as for the utility of WAR, Dave Cameron on FanGraphs has a direct response to Caple's column, and sums things up better than I or any other hack on these forums can:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-war-is-good-for/

The issue isn't whether WAR has some value. It's whether it's misused and over-valued, and Caple does a great job of making exactly that point. It is a number based on subjective choices, rather than a stat.

As far as wOBA, your description sounded like you were confusing wOBA with OBP; I'm not sure why you brought that up in a discussion of WAR; and it was very unclear what you mean by "cumulative measurement" - are you acknowledging the subjectivity that is inherent in WAR and wOBA, or not, when you use that term?

well, wOBA was brought up because it is used in the offensive component of WAR. There is no confusion between the use of wOBA and OBP; they're simply used to measure 2 different things. There really is no subjectivity in the calculation of wOBA... it's based strictly on numbers.

The only subjective part in the calculation of WAR that I can think of is the individual metrics used by the two calculations to generate the single number, but they are still largely predicated on the calculation of runs above replacement:
Offense: both bWAR and fWAR use wOBA
Defense: fWAR uses UZR, bWAR uses Total Zone
Pitching: fWAR uses FIP, bWAR uses a proprietary calculation to neutralize park and opponent factors
Base Running: fWAR uses UBR, bWAR uses linear weights

So, aside from the decision about which metrics to use in the overall computation, each of which are designed to measure the same things in slightly different ways, let's get away from the opinion that WAR is subjective or an opinion. It is a meaure of total value based on a collection of other metrics. Is it the end-all/be-all of stats? No, it's merely a starting point.

As Eric mentioned, if you're of the opinion that your highest OBP guy needs to go first, then that's the metric you should use. If you want to put your highest OPS guy 3rd in the order, then that's the metric you should use. But when you're trying to compare players across teams, across seasons, and across eras, WAR is basically the best tool we have at this point, and even then, it only allows us to say "Player X was in the same ballpark as Player Y" when comparing their historical seasons...

Adam, what you are missing is that while the numbers and calculations are on top, the opinions and subjectivity are still there, just buried farther down the rabbit hole. There is subjectivity in each assumption that adds another calculation to the final equation, as well as to each underlying one, and those are based on the opinion of the one who created each formula. The legitimacy of linear weighting itself, as the accurate determiner of relative values, and the determination of how to reliably ascertain those linear weights, is itself a subjective decision.