Going to WAR...for Classic0

[Goldfan]

RBI, excellent breakdown of the equations.
Only thing is, baseball isn’t open to interpretation. An out is an out, a strike is a strike, a hit is a hit, a run is a run
This great disparity between the competing WAR houses completely invalidates WAR
Stats have Been recorded in the books since inception and those stats are what the player physically accomplished. Not what they might have or could have or a divider, multiplier, equator skewed to Offense or Defense.

I'm not sure how one could ever say that baseball isn't open to interpretation. Hits, errors, balls, strikes, out, safe... have all been an umpire's and an official scorer's interpretation since the beginning. All of those interpretations affect stats and outcomes.

Exactly this.

Sure and official outcome is the record……not some interpretation of the record……or maybe it could have been a run or an out and somehow extra credit is given…..
And as far as 2015 Carp/Heyward, even you give a wash to offense/defense skews which I doubt really exist. It’s still a wash and NOT 7WAR v 4.8WAR

Are you somehow disagreeing with my assertion that interpretation has always existed in baseball?

Cause you could just say, "that's true" rather than this short rambling whatever it is.

Are you going to start a ratings entity incorporating the incorrect ball or strike call…..with most umpire calls in the field replay should handle those now….and again all these inputs utiilized for WAR are based on the official record…..so if you’re saying the official record shouldn’t be relied on now then I guess WAR is even more full of holes. I don’t think “interpretation” calls you reference have any bearing on assessments once it’s an official record……unlike WAR that makes plenty of assumptions that never occur in real life

[Basil Shabazz]

"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?"

Doesn't seem this was answered?

I’ve answered this ClassicO question in another thread……
Use real offensive stats and whatever D metric you wish and perhaps watch the guy PLAY
I’d argue if this ONE stat(WAR) is the only thing that a FO looks at to assess a player then they should be immediately fired and when they ultimately need to review all the other stats anyway to get a complete picture then whats the point?
Lazy, entitled, and ignorant to think ONE number with a decimal point between 0-10, 11, 12 whatever can value a player.
Sorry, I guess it prints negative numbers as well

The bold quote from you is an exaggeration and a dramatic statement. There is not one player personnel employee in MLB who uses solely WAR as a decision maker on a said player. No need to be dramatic to try and make a point.

[renostl]

This is really well done and explained. Kudos.

Couple of notes on baserunning to add...
Carpenter took an extra base 44% of the time and made 11 outs on the bases
Heyward took an extra base 57% of the time and made 8 outs on the bases

All of these little things add up when quantifying

Again great dissection RBI
But even you narrate by saying “Fangraph thinks” “Baseball Ref thinks”…..these are opinions and most of their outcomes don’t align. So how can anyone look to this manipulated opinion analyses as reliable?

Then I would suggest that Baseball reference WAR is further away from what you see
as valuable compared to fangraphs.

In 2015 MC vs JH

There were 2 batting averages

.272 vs .293 which had more value?

oWAR gives those players a
5.2 vs 4.0 which may more closely aligned with some CT's positions.

[NYCardsFan]

Of course it depends on which WAR model/stat you use. The differences between them, for position players at least, is mostly on the defensive side of things.

The numbers you listed above are baseball-reference's WAR stats, or bWAR. bWAR uses DRS as it's defensive component while fWAR, fangraph's WAR model/stat, uses UZR. DRS typically has a wider spread of defensive metrics than UZR so you will see larger outliers, and Heyward is definitely an outlier defender (at least in 2015 he was).

WAR at its core is batting runs (above or below average) + base running runs + defensive runs + positional adjustment. There's adjustments for league and playing time but those can mostly be ignored when comparing teammates from the same year.

Batting runs 2015:
Carpenter +30.6 (+28 BBR)
Heyward +15 (+14 BBR)

I included the baseball reference number in parenthesis, the two models are in agreement at least in terms of direction and magnitude. Heyward was above average at the plate (117 OPS+, 121 wRC+) while Carpenter was about 20 points above that in both metrics (135 OPS+, 140 wRC+). That's about double the gap to average (100 is average for both) so his batting runs above average is about twice Heyward's. That should make sense.

Base running runs 2015:
Carpenter +1.3 (-1 BBR)
Heyward +7.2 (+6 BBR)

Base running doesn't generate anywhere close to the value of hitting or defense, but Heyward was much better on the bases both by standard metrics (23 SB vs. 4 for Carpenter, 3 CS for each) and advanced (shown above). Advanced metrics show a 6-7 run advantage for Heyward, given he stole 19 more bases and was caught the same amount of times I'd say 6-7 runs seems about right. That reduces the "offense runs" advantage Carpenter had at the place from 14-15 runs down to 8-9 runs overall.

Note: Baseball reference also has a Rdp metric, runs saved by avoiding double plays (Heyward was +5, Carpenter was 0). Fangraphs includes this in their base running runs shown above, so I guess the models actually start to differ a bit here, by 5 runs or so. So BBR it was +11 for Heyward and -1 for Carpenter, a 12 run difference, not a six run difference (that's 0.6 WAR difference right there).

Offense runs 2015:
Carpenter +31.9
Heyward +22.2

This is simply batting runs + base running runs, and the gap, at fangraphs, has been reduced to 9.7 runs. At baseball reference the gap would be 14 - 7- 5 = 2 runs.

Now we get to the point that always drives differences and makes people question things, because it is really hard to quantify defense just watching as a fan.

Fielding runs 2015:
Carpenter -4.8 (-3 BBR)
Heyward +17.4 (+28 BBR)

These metrics are relative to your position. Both UZR and DRS thinks Carpenter was a little below average (5 runs, and 3 runs, respectively), and they both think Heyward was great defensively but DRS thinks he was really great (a whole 10 runs saved better than UZR does, 28 vs. 17 runs saved, respectively). 10 runs is a win, in terms of WAR, so this is a huge part of the gap between the two metrics.

Heyward saved 22 extra runs compared to Carpenter, using UZR, and 31 runs using DRS.

Positional adjustment 2015:
Carpenter +2 (+3 BBR)
Heyward -6 (-5 BBR)

In both models there is a positional adjustment that adds 8 runs (almost a whole win) to Carpenter, relative to Heyward. That cuts those defensive gaps from 22 and 31 to 14 and 23 runs. That's 1.4 to 2.3 wins in WAR.

As we saw above on offense Heyward had a 9.7 run deficit on fangraphs, and a 2 run deficit on baseball reference.

Offense + defense (including position adj) runs 2015:
Carpenter +31.9 - 2.8 = 29.1 RAA (runs above average)
Heyward +22.2 + 11.4 = 33.6 RAA

Using baseball reference you get:
Carpenter +27 + 0 (+3 - 3) = 27 RAA
Heyward +25 + 23 = 48 RAA

This is runs above average. They had similar playing time so to drop the baseline from average to replacement level 18-20 runs (Carpenter got one extra run due to more playing time, he hit leadoff). Then you divide by 10 to convert runs to wins.

So fangraphs thinks Heyward was 3.5 runs or so better than Carpenter, or 0.3 fWAR (5.6 fWAR for Heyward, 5.3 fWAR for Carpenter).

Baseball reference thinks the gap is bigger because of how it views defense (11 extra runs saved, 2 extra for Carpenter) and base running (5 extra runs for avoiding GIDP by Heyward), leading to a gap about 1.5 WAR larger than fangraphs (it had an extra run in the batting gap, and another in regular base running as well) so the gap is about 1.7 WAR larger, plus the 0.3, which is really 3.5 runs difference, on fangraphs and you get an expected gap of about 2 WAR between Heyward and Carpenter in 2015, which is what baseball reference shows . . . 7.0 vs. 4.8 bWAR.

This is really well done and explained. Kudos.

Couple of notes on baserunning to add...
Carpenter took an extra base 44% of the time and made 11 outs on the bases
Heyward took an extra base 57% of the time and made 8 outs on the bases

All of these little things add up when quantifying the difference in value.

For context on defense, just 13 outfielders of 72 that played at least 750 innings saved 10 runs. By Fielding Bible, Heyward was 3rd overall at 26. Kiermaier blew everyone away with 38, and Ender Inciarte was 2nd with 27.

Of the 25 3B that played at least 700 innings at the position, Carpenter was 16th at -2. There were 4 3B that saved at least 10 runs, with Arenado and Machado leading the way with 22 and 18, respectively.

* took 750 and 700 innings to get roughly an equal positional player sample size *

Again, appreciate your post, very thorough.

Again great dissection RBI
But even you narrate by saying “Fangraph thinks” “Baseball Ref thinks”…..these are opinions and most of their outcomes don’t align. So how can anyone look to this manipulated opinion analyses as reliable?

bWAR and fWAR are two different statistics--with slightly different methodologies--that are attempting to capture/measure roughly the same underlying thing. Why is it a surprise--let alone some sort of indictment or "flaw"--that they don't necessarily match perfectly in every instance, especially when the thing they are trying to measure is fairly complex? On average, their "outcomes" align pretty well, but there are cases where bWAR and fWAR differ materially for an individual player. A deeper dive underneath the summary or index variables usually allows us to suss out the "why," even if the ultimate answer is indeterminate (e.g., there is no "right" answer between DRS and Fangraphs UZR using Statcast OAA--they are two different defensive measurement methods that sometimes disagree, especially over smaller samples like a single season, and the user must exercise judgment).

As for "manipulated opinion analyses": Batting Average penalizes a hitter for a ground out that scores a run, but doesn't penalize a hitter for a fly out that scores a run--doesn't that reflect a "subjective opinion," "judgement," or "assumption" about what is valuable, or what constitutes skill? You could easily construct a "New Batting Average" statistic that corrects for some of these legacy oddities in the traditional calculation, and you would then have two "batting averages" that didn't always agree (just like fWAR and bWAR). There are all sorts of embedded "subjective judgements" about what matters and why (and what is "skill" and what isn't) in traditional baseball statistics as well.

[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.

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.

Two quick points.
One, a stat is a fixed, defined data point.
Two, WAR is an estimate based on extremely subjective and assigned values.
Therefore, it is factually incorrect from anyone to refer to WAR as a stat.
It is not.
Never can be.
Simply not possible.
And folks who rely on WAR as meaningful are completely missing what makes baseball, baseball.

You may feel that way about WAR, but that is merely your opinion.
The definition of a statistic is as follows:

A statistic is a value that has been produced from a data collection, such as a summary measure, an estimate or projection. Statistical information is data that has been organized to serve a useful purpose.

I'd say WAR does all those things as per this definition.
It may not be a traditional stat, but it is a stat.
It is a summary measure.
It combines various stats to yield its own unique number.

WAR assigns some completely subjective values which are not based on any factual, measurable data point.
Riddled with assumptions.
By definition, it is not a stat and never can be.

What would you call it then?
Is it a theory?
I know it does assign those subjective values, such as the ballpark and the position played etc.
However, isn't there some rational, intelligent analysis that went into those figures?
Like I said, it is probably flawed, but so are all stats.
I don't think Bob Gibson would have had the same stats had he pitched his entire career in Fenway Park either.
It's a tough argument, but this is the only tool that can assess the all around game of a player.

What would I call it?
A parlor guessing game based on a fatally flawed premise
Perhaps amusing, but not to be taken seriously.

[Horseradish]

OP was a pathetic non-answer and not surprising at all given the source.

[riff raff]

It's a probability.

[Goldfan]

"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?"

Doesn't seem this was answered?

I’ve answered this ClassicO question in another thread……
Use real offensive stats and whatever D metric you wish and perhaps watch the guy PLAY
I’d argue if this ONE stat(WAR) is the only thing that a FO looks at to assess a player then they should be immediately fired and when they ultimately need to review all the other stats anyway to get a complete picture then whats the point?
Lazy, entitled, and ignorant to think ONE number with a decimal point between 0-10, 11, 12 whatever can value a player.
Sorry, I guess it prints negative numbers as well

The bold quote from you is an exaggeration and a dramatic statement. There is not one player personnel employee in MLB who uses solely WAR as a decision maker on a said player. No need to be dramatic to try and make a point.

Several have written here that it’s the main metric used by FO’s to value players/contracts. And if those FO types have to take a deep dive into the actual statistics after looking at the WAR number to figure out what the player IS GOOD AT….what’s the point of WAR?

[An Old Friend]

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…….

Of course it depends on which WAR model/stat you use. The differences between them, for position players at least, is mostly on the defensive side of things.

The numbers you listed above are baseball-reference's WAR stats, or bWAR. bWAR uses DRS as it's defensive component while fWAR, fangraph's WAR model/stat, uses UZR. DRS typically has a wider spread of defensive metrics than UZR so you will see larger outliers, and Heyward is definitely an outlier defender (at least in 2015 he was).

WAR at its core is batting runs (above or below average) + base running runs + defensive runs + positional adjustment. There's adjustments for league and playing time but those can mostly be ignored when comparing teammates from the same year.

Batting runs 2015:
Carpenter +30.6 (+28 BBR)
Heyward +15 (+14 BBR)

I included the baseball reference number in parenthesis, the two models are in agreement at least in terms of direction and magnitude. Heyward was above average at the plate (117 OPS+, 121 wRC+) while Carpenter was about 20 points above that in both metrics (135 OPS+, 140 wRC+). That's about double the gap to average (100 is average for both) so his batting runs above average is about twice Heyward's. That should make sense.

Base running runs 2015:
Carpenter +1.3 (-1 BBR)
Heyward +7.2 (+6 BBR)

Base running doesn't generate anywhere close to the value of hitting or defense, but Heyward was much better on the bases both by standard metrics (23 SB vs. 4 for Carpenter, 3 CS for each) and advanced (shown above). Advanced metrics show a 6-7 run advantage for Heyward, given he stole 19 more bases and was caught the same amount of times I'd say 6-7 runs seems about right. That reduces the "offense runs" advantage Carpenter had at the place from 14-15 runs down to 8-9 runs overall.

Note: Baseball reference also has a Rdp metric, runs saved by avoiding double plays (Heyward was +5, Carpenter was 0). Fangraphs includes this in their base running runs shown above, so I guess the models actually start to differ a bit here, by 5 runs or so. So BBR it was +11 for Heyward and -1 for Carpenter, a 12 run difference, not a six run difference (that's 0.6 WAR difference right there).

Offense runs 2015:
Carpenter +31.9
Heyward +22.2

This is simply batting runs + base running runs, and the gap, at fangraphs, has been reduced to 9.7 runs. At baseball reference the gap would be 14 - 7- 5 = 2 runs.

Now we get to the point that always drives differences and makes people question things, because it is really hard to quantify defense just watching as a fan.

Fielding runs 2015:
Carpenter -4.8 (-3 BBR)
Heyward +17.4 (+28 BBR)

These metrics are relative to your position. Both UZR and DRS thinks Carpenter was a little below average (5 runs, and 3 runs, respectively), and they both think Heyward was great defensively but DRS thinks he was really great (a whole 10 runs saved better than UZR does, 28 vs. 17 runs saved, respectively). 10 runs is a win, in terms of WAR, so this is a huge part of the gap between the two metrics.

Heyward saved 22 extra runs compared to Carpenter, using UZR, and 31 runs using DRS.

Positional adjustment 2015:
Carpenter +2 (+3 BBR)
Heyward -6 (-5 BBR)

In both models there is a positional adjustment that adds 8 runs (almost a whole win) to Carpenter, relative to Heyward. That cuts those defensive gaps from 22 and 31 to 14 and 23 runs. That's 1.4 to 2.3 wins in WAR.

As we saw above on offense Heyward had a 9.7 run deficit on fangraphs, and a 2 run deficit on baseball reference.

Offense + defense (including position adj) runs 2015:
Carpenter +31.9 - 2.8 = 29.1 RAA (runs above average)
Heyward +22.2 + 11.4 = 33.6 RAA

Using baseball reference you get:
Carpenter +27 + 0 (+3 - 3) = 27 RAA
Heyward +25 + 23 = 48 RAA

This is runs above average. They had similar playing time so to drop the baseline from average to replacement level 18-20 runs (Carpenter got one extra run due to more playing time, he hit leadoff). Then you divide by 10 to convert runs to wins.

So fangraphs thinks Heyward was 3.5 runs or so better than Carpenter, or 0.3 fWAR (5.6 fWAR for Heyward, 5.3 fWAR for Carpenter).

Baseball reference thinks the gap is bigger because of how it views defense (11 extra runs saved, 2 extra for Carpenter) and base running (5 extra runs for avoiding GIDP by Heyward), leading to a gap about 1.5 WAR larger than fangraphs (it had an extra run in the batting gap, and another in regular base running as well) so the gap is about 1.7 WAR larger, plus the 0.3, which is really 3.5 runs difference, on fangraphs and you get an expected gap of about 2 WAR between Heyward and Carpenter in 2015, which is what baseball reference shows . . . 7.0 vs. 4.8 bWAR.

This is really well done and explained. Kudos.

Couple of notes on baserunning to add...
Carpenter took an extra base 44% of the time and made 11 outs on the bases
Heyward took an extra base 57% of the time and made 8 outs on the bases

All of these little things add up when quantifying the difference in value.

For context on defense, just 13 outfielders of 72 that played at least 750 innings saved 10 runs. By Fielding Bible, Heyward was 3rd overall at 26. Kiermaier blew everyone away with 38, and Ender Inciarte was 2nd with 27.

Of the 25 3B that played at least 700 innings at the position, Carpenter was 16th at -2. There were 4 3B that saved at least 10 runs, with Arenado and Machado leading the way with 22 and 18, respectively.

* took 750 and 700 innings to get roughly an equal positional player sample size *

Again, appreciate your post, very thorough.

Again great dissection RBI
But even you narrate by saying “Fangraph thinks” “Baseball Ref thinks”…..these are opinions and most of their outcomes don’t align. So how can anyone look to this manipulated opinion analyses as reliable?

I re-read my post 3 times. I didn’t use the word “think” even once. For you to suggest that I did so in my narration is bizarre.

[rbirules]

"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?"

Doesn't seem this was answered?

I’ve answered this ClassicO question in another thread……
Use real offensive stats and whatever D metric you wish and perhaps watch the guy PLAY
I’d argue if this ONE stat(WAR) is the only thing that a FO looks at to assess a player then they should be immediately fired and when they ultimately need to review all the other stats anyway to get a complete picture then whats the point?
Lazy, entitled, and ignorant to think ONE number with a decimal point between 0-10, 11, 12 whatever can value a player.
Sorry, I guess it prints negative numbers as well

The bold quote from you is an exaggeration and a dramatic statement. There is not one player personnel employee in MLB who uses solely WAR as a decision maker on a said player. No need to be dramatic to try and make a point.

Several have written here that it’s the main metric used by FO’s to value players/contracts. And if those FO types have to take a deep dive into the actual statistics after looking at the WAR number to figure out what the player IS GOOD AT….what’s the point of WAR?

You're a GM or POBO, and you have $30M to spend this off-season. Should you sign an ace pitcher? A corner OF with a big bat? A GG SS that is a terror on the bases? WAR helps answer that. Exact same thing with trades. Same thing with allocating playing time (which players give us the best chance to win over the course of a season). To make any of those decisions you ultimately have to decide if something is fair, or close enough, value or which option is better so you can make a choice. You don't make those choices by having 5-10 metrics you're looking at on each side (5-10 different metrics perhaps if debating between a pitcher and position player), you have to distill it down to a single value or inequality to make your choice.

[Melville]

"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?"

Doesn't seem this was answered?

I’ve answered this ClassicO question in another thread……
Use real offensive stats and whatever D metric you wish and perhaps watch the guy PLAY
I’d argue if this ONE stat(WAR) is the only thing that a FO looks at to assess a player then they should be immediately fired and when they ultimately need to review all the other stats anyway to get a complete picture then whats the point?
Lazy, entitled, and ignorant to think ONE number with a decimal point between 0-10, 11, 12 whatever can value a player.
Sorry, I guess it prints negative numbers as well

The bold quote from you is an exaggeration and a dramatic statement. There is not one player personnel employee in MLB who uses solely WAR as a decision maker on a said player. No need to be dramatic to try and make a point.

Several have written here that it’s the main metric used by FO’s to value players/contracts. And if those FO types have to take a deep dive into the actual statistics after looking at the WAR number to figure out what the player IS GOOD AT….what’s the point of WAR?

You're a GM or POBO, and you have $30M to spend this off-season. Should you sign an ace pitcher? A corner OF with a big bat? A GG SS that is a terror on the bases? WAR helps answer that. Exact same thing with trades. Same thing with allocating playing time (which players give us the best chance to win over the course of a season). To make any of those decisions you ultimately have to decide if something is fair, or close enough, value or which option is better so you can make a choice. You don't make those choices by having 5-10 metrics you're looking at on each side (5-10 different metrics perhaps if debating between a pitcher and position player), you have to distill it down to a single value or inequality to make your choice.

"You're a GM or POBO, and you have $30M to spend this off-season. Should you sign an ace pitcher? A corner OF with a big bat? A GG SS that is a terror on the bases? WAR helps answer that. Exact same thing with trades."
Actually WAR addresses none of that.
Here is what does.
What pitchers do you have under contract for next season?
Who on your current roster appears ready to take on a bigger role?
Do you even need a corner outfielder with a big bat - or are you well enough set at that position to shift your focus elsewhere?
Do you have a SS - and if he is "glove first" or "bat first", how does that fit with the rest of your roster?
How does he fit with your pitching staff and pitching philosophy?
Do you have an injured player who is expected back full-strength next year?
Do you have a high end prospect you expect to see graduate to MLB next season?
Who stepped forward this year - and is that an anomaly or the beginning of a long term productive run?
Who on your roster will be in a FA year next season?
Again, and this is the key point:
A properly constructed roster is much more than the sum of the individual parts.
Like a symphony, it is all about how the parts are balanced and fit together.
WAR, being a complete fiction, addresses none of that.
WAR displays a fundamentally flawed understanding of the game.
One last note.
Fedde had a fictional, subjective, assigned WAR of 5.6 last year.
What if he had entered the market last October as a fully healthy 31 year old FA starting pitcher?
Would WAR have answered the question, as you claimed, of how large of a contract a team would have signed him to?
Or would relying on the fictional, subjective, assigned WAR of 5.6 last year resulted in a contract the signing team would be regretting today?
The answer is obvious.
Game.
Set.
Match.

[Melville]

OP was a pathetic non-answer and not surprising at all given the source.

It was a perfect answer.
Entirely inevitable, considering the source.

[rbirules]

"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?"

Doesn't seem this was answered?

I’ve answered this ClassicO question in another thread……
Use real offensive stats and whatever D metric you wish and perhaps watch the guy PLAY
I’d argue if this ONE stat(WAR) is the only thing that a FO looks at to assess a player then they should be immediately fired and when they ultimately need to review all the other stats anyway to get a complete picture then whats the point?
Lazy, entitled, and ignorant to think ONE number with a decimal point between 0-10, 11, 12 whatever can value a player.
Sorry, I guess it prints negative numbers as well

The bold quote from you is an exaggeration and a dramatic statement. There is not one player personnel employee in MLB who uses solely WAR as a decision maker on a said player. No need to be dramatic to try and make a point.

Several have written here that it’s the main metric used by FO’s to value players/contracts. And if those FO types have to take a deep dive into the actual statistics after looking at the WAR number to figure out what the player IS GOOD AT….what’s the point of WAR?

You're a GM or POBO, and you have $30M to spend this off-season. Should you sign an ace pitcher? A corner OF with a big bat? A GG SS that is a terror on the bases? WAR helps answer that. Exact same thing with trades. Same thing with allocating playing time (which players give us the best chance to win over the course of a season). To make any of those decisions you ultimately have to decide if something is fair, or close enough, value or which option is better so you can make a choice. You don't make those choices by having 5-10 metrics you're looking at on each side (5-10 different metrics perhaps if debating between a pitcher and position player), you have to distill it down to a single value or inequality to make your choice.

"You're a GM or POBO, and you have $30M to spend this off-season. Should you sign an ace pitcher? A corner OF with a big bat? A GG SS that is a terror on the bases? WAR helps answer that. Exact same thing with trades."
Actually WAR addresses none of that.
Here is what does.
What pitchers do you have under contract for next season?
Who on your current roster appears ready to take on a bigger role?
Do you even need a corner outfielder with a big bat - or are you well enough set at that position to shift your focus elsewhere?
Do you have a SS - and if he is "glove first" or "bat first", how does that fit with the rest of your roster?
How does he fit with your pitching staff and pitching philosophy?
Do you have an injured player who is expected back full-strength next year?
Do you have a high end prospect you expect to see graduate to MLB next season?
Who stepped forward this year - and is that an anomaly or the beginning of a long term productive run?
Who on your roster will be in a FA year next season?
Again, and this is the key point:
A properly constructed roster is much more than the sum of the individual parts.
Like a symphony, it is all about how the parts are balanced and fit together.
WAR, being a complete fiction, addresses none of that.
WAR displays a fundamentally flawed understanding of the game.
One last note.
Fedde had a fictional, subjective, assigned WAR of 5.6 last year.
What if he had entered the market last October as a fully healthy 31 year old FA starting pitcher?
Would WAR have answered the question, as you claimed, of how large of a contract a team would have signed him to?
Or would relying on the fictional, subjective, assigned WAR of 5.6 last year resulted in a contract the signing team would be regretting today?
The answer is obvious.
Game.
Set.
Match.

WAR can tell you which of the options adds the most value. Then within the context of your roster you can see which option adds the most marginal value, which is really what you are buying in FA. I didn't think I needed to spell out that these decisions would be made within the broader context of the team's roster and organizational depth.

[Melville]

"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?"

Doesn't seem this was answered?

I’ve answered this ClassicO question in another thread……
Use real offensive stats and whatever D metric you wish and perhaps watch the guy PLAY
I’d argue if this ONE stat(WAR) is the only thing that a FO looks at to assess a player then they should be immediately fired and when they ultimately need to review all the other stats anyway to get a complete picture then whats the point?
Lazy, entitled, and ignorant to think ONE number with a decimal point between 0-10, 11, 12 whatever can value a player.
Sorry, I guess it prints negative numbers as well

The bold quote from you is an exaggeration and a dramatic statement. There is not one player personnel employee in MLB who uses solely WAR as a decision maker on a said player. No need to be dramatic to try and make a point.

Several have written here that it’s the main metric used by FO’s to value players/contracts. And if those FO types have to take a deep dive into the actual statistics after looking at the WAR number to figure out what the player IS GOOD AT….what’s the point of WAR?

Correct.
Case in point.
Fedde had a fictional, subjective, assigned WAR of 5.6 last year.
What if he had entered the market last October as a fully healthy 31 year old FA starting pitcher?
Would WAR have answered the question, to your excellent point, of how large of a contract a team would have signed him to?
Or would relying on the fictional, subjective, assigned WAR of 5.6 last year resulted in a contract the signing team would be regretting today?
The answer is obvious.
Relying on WAR would have produces a terrible decision, because it ignores all the realities of the game.
Curious that no matter how many time the deep and self-evident flaws of WAR are exposed, folks double down on it being reliable as a means to prove comparative value.
It does no such thing.

[NYCardsFan]

"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?"

Doesn't seem this was answered?

I’ve answered this ClassicO question in another thread……
Use real offensive stats and whatever D metric you wish and perhaps watch the guy PLAY
I’d argue if this ONE stat(WAR) is the only thing that a FO looks at to assess a player then they should be immediately fired and when they ultimately need to review all the other stats anyway to get a complete picture then whats the point?
Lazy, entitled, and ignorant to think ONE number with a decimal point between 0-10, 11, 12 whatever can value a player.
Sorry, I guess it prints negative numbers as well

The bold quote from you is an exaggeration and a dramatic statement. There is not one player personnel employee in MLB who uses solely WAR as a decision maker on a said player. No need to be dramatic to try and make a point.

Several have written here that it’s the main metric used by FO’s to value players/contracts. And if those FO types have to take a deep dive into the actual statistics after looking at the WAR number to figure out what the player IS GOOD AT….what’s the point of WAR?

You're a GM or POBO, and you have $30M to spend this off-season. Should you sign an ace pitcher? A corner OF with a big bat? A GG SS that is a terror on the bases? WAR helps answer that. Exact same thing with trades. Same thing with allocating playing time (which players give us the best chance to win over the course of a season). To make any of those decisions you ultimately have to decide if something is fair, or close enough, value or which option is better so you can make a choice. You don't make those choices by having 5-10 metrics you're looking at on each side (5-10 different metrics perhaps if debating between a pitcher and position player), you have to distill it down to a single value or inequality to make your choice.

"You're a GM or POBO, and you have $30M to spend this off-season. Should you sign an ace pitcher? A corner OF with a big bat? A GG SS that is a terror on the bases? WAR helps answer that. Exact same thing with trades."
Actually WAR addresses none of that.
Here is what does.
What pitchers do you have under contract for next season?
Who on your current roster appears ready to take on a bigger role?
Do you even need a corner outfielder with a big bat - or are you well enough set at that position to shift your focus elsewhere?
Do you have a SS - and if he is "glove first" or "bat first", how does that fit with the rest of your roster?
How does he fit with your pitching staff and pitching philosophy?
Do you have an injured player who is expected back full-strength next year?
Do you have a high end prospect you expect to see graduate to MLB next season?
Who stepped forward this year - and is that an anomaly or the beginning of a long term productive run?
Who on your roster will be in a FA year next season?
Again, and this is the key point:
A properly constructed roster is much more than the sum of the individual parts.
Like a symphony, it is all about how the parts are balanced and fit together.
WAR, being a complete fiction, addresses none of that.
WAR displays a fundamentally flawed understanding of the game.
One last note.
Fedde had a fictional, subjective, assigned WAR of 5.6 last year.
What if he had entered the market last October as a fully healthy 31 year old FA starting pitcher?
Would WAR have answered the question, as you claimed, of how large of a contract a team would have signed him to?
Or would relying on the fictional, subjective, assigned WAR of 5.6 last year resulted in a contract the signing team would be regretting today?
The answer is obvious.
Game.
Set.
Match.

WAR can tell you which of the options adds the most value. Then within the context of your roster you can see which option adds the most marginal value, which is really what you are buying in FA. I didn't think I needed to spell out that these decisions would be made within the broader context of the team's roster and organizational depth.

Obviously, it's your time to spend as you see fit, RBI, but just know you are trying to reason with someone who operates entirely in bad faith.

[Melville]

"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?"

Doesn't seem this was answered?

I’ve answered this ClassicO question in another thread……
Use real offensive stats and whatever D metric you wish and perhaps watch the guy PLAY
I’d argue if this ONE stat(WAR) is the only thing that a FO looks at to assess a player then they should be immediately fired and when they ultimately need to review all the other stats anyway to get a complete picture then whats the point?
Lazy, entitled, and ignorant to think ONE number with a decimal point between 0-10, 11, 12 whatever can value a player.
Sorry, I guess it prints negative numbers as well

The bold quote from you is an exaggeration and a dramatic statement. There is not one player personnel employee in MLB who uses solely WAR as a decision maker on a said player. No need to be dramatic to try and make a point.

Several have written here that it’s the main metric used by FO’s to value players/contracts. And if those FO types have to take a deep dive into the actual statistics after looking at the WAR number to figure out what the player IS GOOD AT….what’s the point of WAR?

You're a GM or POBO, and you have $30M to spend this off-season. Should you sign an ace pitcher? A corner OF with a big bat? A GG SS that is a terror on the bases? WAR helps answer that. Exact same thing with trades. Same thing with allocating playing time (which players give us the best chance to win over the course of a season). To make any of those decisions you ultimately have to decide if something is fair, or close enough, value or which option is better so you can make a choice. You don't make those choices by having 5-10 metrics you're looking at on each side (5-10 different metrics perhaps if debating between a pitcher and position player), you have to distill it down to a single value or inequality to make your choice.

"You're a GM or POBO, and you have $30M to spend this off-season. Should you sign an ace pitcher? A corner OF with a big bat? A GG SS that is a terror on the bases? WAR helps answer that. Exact same thing with trades."
Actually WAR addresses none of that.
Here is what does.
What pitchers do you have under contract for next season?
Who on your current roster appears ready to take on a bigger role?
Do you even need a corner outfielder with a big bat - or are you well enough set at that position to shift your focus elsewhere?
Do you have a SS - and if he is "glove first" or "bat first", how does that fit with the rest of your roster?
How does he fit with your pitching staff and pitching philosophy?
Do you have an injured player who is expected back full-strength next year?
Do you have a high end prospect you expect to see graduate to MLB next season?
Who stepped forward this year - and is that an anomaly or the beginning of a long term productive run?
Who on your roster will be in a FA year next season?
Again, and this is the key point:
A properly constructed roster is much more than the sum of the individual parts.
Like a symphony, it is all about how the parts are balanced and fit together.
WAR, being a complete fiction, addresses none of that.
WAR displays a fundamentally flawed understanding of the game.
One last note.
Fedde had a fictional, subjective, assigned WAR of 5.6 last year.
What if he had entered the market last October as a fully healthy 31 year old FA starting pitcher?
Would WAR have answered the question, as you claimed, of how large of a contract a team would have signed him to?
Or would relying on the fictional, subjective, assigned WAR of 5.6 last year resulted in a contract the signing team would be regretting today?
The answer is obvious.
Game.
Set.
Match.

WAR can tell you which of the options adds the most value. Then within the context of your roster you can see which option adds the most marginal value, which is really what you are buying in FA. I didn't think I needed to spell out that these decisions would be made within the broader context of the team's roster and organizational depth.

Incorrect at face value.
How much dollar value would WAR have assigned to Fedde on the FA market last year?
Obviously, the fictional and ridiculous 5.8 number subjectively assigned to him would have done the EXACT OPPOSITE of "telling you which option adds the most value".