Going to WAR...for Classic0

[Melville]

In a recent thread, a side conversation emerged concerning WAR.
ClassicO went to bat for WAR as his "go to" metric.
I correctly pointed out that it is not a stat and never will be.
CO then posed a quality question.
"What do you guys....think is the best statistic (or more) you guys argue that gives the best estimate of a total player worth, since that is what we are looking for when comparing players?"
"Show me yours..." he requested.
"I have a reputation for being long", said I.
Which is indisputably true.
I had not the time at the moment to go any deeper with my reply, but promised to revisit the conversation.
Doing so now - going to the WAR conversation just for CO, in a new thread dedicate to that purpose.
The problem with WAR is the premise itself - and that premise displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the game.
Even worse, a lack of appreciation for the game.
WAR pretends to measure players for comparable value - which is both an impossibility and betrayal of the game.
Baseball is not a collection of soloists.
It is a symphony performed on dirt and grass.
It is an art form as much as it is sporting contest.
Can the value of the flute be measured against the value of the trombone and the value of the bass drum and the value of the violin and the value of the cello and the value of the tuba?
Of course not.
They and other instruments contribute to the symphony and the finished product is infinity superior to the contribution of each piece.
So too baseball.
The sum is greater than the parts - and in just as many cases the sum is lesser than the parts.
Was Gibson greater than Brock - and can the exact number of "wins" each created over the course of a season or career be known?
No - it cannot.
Was Ozzie greater than McGee or Andujar in '82?
Unanswerable.
Did Holiday contribute more in 2011 - or was it Pujols - or in the greatest twist of all was it ultimately Freese?
Does it matter?
It is the sweet music produced by the entire roster that is the ultimate measurement.
Trying to compare a shortstop to a first basemen, or to the catcher, or to the centerfielder, or to today's starting pitcher is ludicrous.
WAR is a silly, meaningless fiction which sells short the game and the players alike.
Give me the roster and the standings - and I know all that is knowable.

[Clubmaker2]

Didnt Bill James specifically say you cant compare WAR across different positions, only the same position? So. War is the wrong tool.

[Hazelwood72]

In a recent thread, a side conversation emerged concerning WAR.
ClassicO went to bat for WAR as his "go to" metric.
I correctly pointed out that it is not a stat and never will be.
CO then posed a quality question.
"What do you guys....think is the best statistic (or more) you guys argue that gives the best estimate of a total player worth, since that is what we are looking for when comparing players?"
"Show me yours..." he requested.
"I have a reputation for being long", said I.
Which is indisputably true.
I had not the time at the moment to go any deeper with my reply, but promised to revisit the conversation.
Doing so now - going to the WAR conversation just for CO, in a new thread dedicate to that purpose.
The problem with WAR is the premise itself - and that premise displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the game.
Even worse, a lack of appreciation for the game.
WAR pretends to measure players for comparable value - which is both an impossibility and betrayal of the game.
Baseball is not a collection of soloists.
It is a symphony performed on dirt and grass.
It is an art form as much as it is sporting contest.
Can the value of the flute be measured against the value of the trombone and the value of the bass drum and the value of the violin and the value of the cello and the value of the tuba?
Of course not.
They and other instruments contribute to the symphony and the finished product is infinity superior to the contribution of each piece.
So too baseball.
The sum is greater than the parts - and in just as many cases the sum is lesser than the parts.
Was Gibson greater than Brock - and can the exact number of "wins" each created over the course of a season or career be known?
No - it cannot.
Was Ozzie greater than McGee or Andujar in '82?
Unanswerable.
Did Holiday contribute more in 2011 - or was it Pujols - or in the greatest twist of all was it ultimately Freese?
Does it matter?
It is the sweet music produced by the entire roster that is the ultimate measurement.
Trying to compare a shortstop to a first basemen, or to the catcher, or to the centerfielder, or to today's starting pitcher is ludicrous.
WAR is a silly, meaningless fiction which sells short the game and the players alike.
Give me the roster and the standings - and I know all that is knowable.

I totally enjoyed this description, Mr. Melville.

[Melville]

In a recent thread, a side conversation emerged concerning WAR.
ClassicO went to bat for WAR as his "go to" metric.
I correctly pointed out that it is not a stat and never will be.
CO then posed a quality question.
"What do you guys....think is the best statistic (or more) you guys argue that gives the best estimate of a total player worth, since that is what we are looking for when comparing players?"
"Show me yours..." he requested.
"I have a reputation for being long", said I.
Which is indisputably true.
I had not the time at the moment to go any deeper with my reply, but promised to revisit the conversation.
Doing so now - going to the WAR conversation just for CO, in a new thread dedicate to that purpose.
The problem with WAR is the premise itself - and that premise displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the game.
Even worse, a lack of appreciation for the game.
WAR pretends to measure players for comparable value - which is both an impossibility and betrayal of the game.
Baseball is not a collection of soloists.
It is a symphony performed on dirt and grass.
It is an art form as much as it is sporting contest.
Can the value of the flute be measured against the value of the trombone and the value of the bass drum and the value of the violin and the value of the cello and the value of the tuba?
Of course not.
They and other instruments contribute to the symphony and the finished product is infinity superior to the contribution of each piece.
So too baseball.
The sum is greater than the parts - and in just as many cases the sum is lesser than the parts.
Was Gibson greater than Brock - and can the exact number of "wins" each created over the course of a season or career be known?
No - it cannot.
Was Ozzie greater than McGee or Andujar in '82?
Unanswerable.
Did Holiday contribute more in 2011 - or was it Pujols - or in the greatest twist of all was it ultimately Freese?
Does it matter?
It is the sweet music produced by the entire roster that is the ultimate measurement.
Trying to compare a shortstop to a first basemen, or to the catcher, or to the centerfielder, or to today's starting pitcher is ludicrous.
WAR is a silly, meaningless fiction which sells short the game and the players alike.
Give me the roster and the standings - and I know all that is knowable.

I totally enjoyed this description, Mr. Melville.

That you enjoyed it indicates you possess a true enjoyment of the game itself and understand the greatness of it.
Only and always about the game.

[illiniriles]

I enjoyed it too, Herman. Well played, sir. Gotta go, Alonso just hammered a 3 run bomb!

[ClassicO]

In 12,232 words, Melville did not answer my question (no surprise).
I look at all stats, and even estimates, and actually cite them for support in my posts (unlike someone).
WAR is used for comparison purposes and does a good job.
People are hung up only on offensive stats, and WAR helps bring out the many other facets of the game.
It's not perfect, but as I've asked The Narcissist - how do you gauge a player's total value? (No answer.)

He can wax poetic all he wants about Gibby et al., but it's an avoidance mechanism.
Was Gibson greater than Brock? H*ll yes. Lou was horrible defensively. He didn't have power. I loved him, but he's nowhere close to Gibby's level.
Note: Gibby 89.2 WAR (47th all-time - vs Carlton - 45th); Brock 45.4 WAR (410th all-time vs Omar Vizquel - 45.6)
Vizquel and Brock are likely equally valued all-around to their teams, as were Gibby and Carlton.

So see, WAR punishes the weaknesses so people hopefully don't ask such dumb questions as did Melville (Gibby v Lou - ha).

Here's the bWARs all-time for the top 67 players. It seems to capture the top players in a good order (always arguments).

Screenshot 2025-07-15 at 9.01.25 PM.png (184.39 KiB) Viewed 917 times

Screenshot 2025-07-15 at 9.06.37 PM.png (184.46 KiB) Viewed 917 times

[Melville]

In 12,232 words, Melville did not answer my question (no surprise).

Oh, but I did.
You did not see it.
I will not judge as to whether that is a surprise.
By the way, your word count stat is incorrect.

[An Old Friend]

In 12,232 words, Melville did not answer my question (no surprise).

Oh, but I did.
You did not see it.
I will not judge as to whether that is a surprise.
By the way, your word count stat is incorrect.

He’s not wrong. You did some tribal dance around the question, but in the end, never came around to answering it.

[Goldfan]

Posted this in a different thread, but perfect for here…..

“Heyward was by far the Cards best player in 2015”

Carp
R 101
2b 44
HR 28
RBI 84
.272
.365
.505
.871
135 OPS+

Heyward
R79
2b 33
HR14
RBi 60
.293
.359
.439
.797
117 OPS+

Defense

Carp
CH 370
PO 102
A 254

Heyward
CH303
PO 290
A 10

Carp 4.8WAR
Heyward 7WAR

Now we all know that Carp wasn’t Arenado at 3b, but it is a much more difficult position than RF, with many more chances producing many more outs.
Carps offense was appreciably better and yet theres a HUGE disparity in the WAR #. If you weren’t aware of the giant holes in WAR you’d think Heyward outhit Carp by an incredible margin and Heyward must’ve saved at least as many games with his glove that Carp lost…….

[Melville]

In 12,232 words, Melville did not answer my question (no surprise).

Oh, but I did.
You did not see it.
I will not judge as to whether that is a surprise.
By the way, your word count stat is incorrect.

He’s not wrong. You did some tribal dance around the question, but in the end, never came around to answering it.

I most certainly answered with specificity and clarity - and also illustrated by an analogy.

[Jatalk]

I have to understand a formula before I give it any credit. Someone please proved the formula and explain each component of the formula. I’ve looked it up and it all comes back to a subjective comparable. SUBJECTIVE!!!!! Therefore has no true value. It’s just bannered about by people trying to demonstrate their expertise or supposed expertise.

[ClassicO]

This year's top 10 WARs. What is wrong with it? If you don't like it, give us your top 10.
If you look at it, does it:
1) stop you from thinking of Mel's loving memories: the grass, dirt, summer air, baseball and apple pie; or
2) give you a good idea of the top players' values vs another.

It's amazing that MLB uses a "fiction" so often (and organizations use it for several purposes).

Screenshot 2025-07-15 at 9.26.51 PM.png (46.82 KiB) Viewed 874 times

[spfldan]

I have to understand a formula before I give it any credit. Someone please proved the formula and explain each component of the formula. I’ve looked it up and it all comes back to a subjective comparable. SUBJECTIVE!!!!! Therefore has no true value. It’s just bannered about by people trying to demonstrate their expertise or supposed expertise.

good question

[Quincy Varnish]

I give the this thread a +23.75/3 on a scale of 5 - <~~18¡

[Bully4you]

In a recent thread, a side conversation emerged concerning WAR.
ClassicO went to bat for WAR as his "go to" metric.
I correctly pointed out that it is not a stat and never will be.
CO then posed a quality question.
"What do you guys....think is the best statistic (or more) you guys argue that gives the best estimate of a total player worth, since that is what we are looking for when comparing players?"
"Show me yours..." he requested.
"I have a reputation for being long", said I.
Which is indisputably true.
I had not the time at the moment to go any deeper with my reply, but promised to revisit the conversation.
Doing so now - going to the WAR conversation just for CO, in a new thread dedicate to that purpose.
The problem with WAR is the premise itself - and that premise displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the game.
Even worse, a lack of appreciation for the game.
WAR pretends to measure players for comparable value - which is both an impossibility and betrayal of the game.
Baseball is not a collection of soloists.
It is a symphony performed on dirt and grass.
It is an art form as much as it is sporting contest.
Can the value of the flute be measured against the value of the trombone and the value of the bass drum and the value of the violin and the value of the cello and the value of the tuba?
Of course not.
They and other instruments contribute to the symphony and the finished product is infinity superior to the contribution of each piece.
So too baseball.
The sum is greater than the parts - and in just as many cases the sum is lesser than the parts.
Was Gibson greater than Brock - and can the exact number of "wins" each created over the course of a season or career be known?
No - it cannot.
Was Ozzie greater than McGee or Andujar in '82?
Unanswerable.
Did Holiday contribute more in 2011 - or was it Pujols - or in the greatest twist of all was it ultimately Freese?
Does it matter?
It is the sweet music produced by the entire roster that is the ultimate measurement.
Trying to compare a shortstop to a first basemen, or to the catcher, or to the centerfielder, or to today's starting pitcher is ludicrous.
WAR is a silly, meaningless fiction which sells short the game and the players alike.
Give me the roster and the standings - and I know all that is knowable.

Mel,
This is an interesting topic.
Although, one that seems to be revisited here again and again.
Actually, when you think about it, in all sports it's very difficult to measure players against each other.
Especially so in baseball.
Each team has its various players and its own unique ballpark.
Maybe Ohtani or Judge wouldn't have the same high OPS numbers if they played on a team with a worst lineup.
And maybe a top flight defender wouldn't have the same defensive metrics playing on a team with different pitchers.
Also, the stadiums come into play.
Hitting at Fenway or Yankee Stadium vs. Bush stadium or pitching in those two ballparks vs. Busch.
What I'm getting at is nothing is truly comparable, but stats try and do the best they can to compare.
WAR tries to bring all facets of the game into play.
There is no other stat that does this.
Even the ballparks are factored in.
While it has its flaws (nothing is perfect), it does have its usefulness too.
If you just take a guys HR, RBI's and Runs scored, that can be flawed as well based on where they played, the lineup they were on etc.
So, all stats are in essence flawed.
You just have to take them for what they are.
It's the best we can do at this point.

[HorseTrader]

I give the this thread a +23.75/3 on a scale of 5 - <~~18¡

That's as bad as a WAR formula if there really is such a thing.