How the heck did Tommy Edman earn 6.2 bWAR?

[Melville]

Absolutely.
Nothing but a short cut parlor game, which only those who do not understand the game place any credence in.
Smart people know better.

Do you even know how either fWAR or bWAR is calculated?
If so, explain how it’s a parlor game.
And for the umpteenth time, what is your best measure for a player’s overall value? RBIs! Ha ha ha
You have no clue. A smart person should know better than to make such an uninformed statement.

They don’t understand. I used to not understand. I used to think it was stupid. Then I decided to spend 30 minutes researching and it now makes perfect sense. It that simple.

I know "WAR" better than the fantasy baseball folks who created it.
I break down data and interpret it for a living
I know my client's businesses better than they do - because that is what I am paid to do.
Reality is, "WAR" is a reverse engineered scheme which is wildly inaccurate, extremely subjective, and should never be used to compare players or establish actual contribution value.
It is a toy for the lazy and uniformed who know little about the game

Would you rather have a 10 war player or a 1 war player?

Neither exist.
Both are fictional characters.

Now, now... one can apply the equations to someone and calculate their WAR as "10", if the inputs so dictate. The same equations could be applied to a different player, and the results might equal "1". They would be quite real, non-fictional people.

Now, whether you put any stock in the outputs of those equations and the interpretation one might make is a different story!

Appreciate your patience while my time has been consumed by meetings this week.
Allow me a few perfect points.
One, with respect, you are using the word "equation" rather loosely, which is not your usual practice.
An equation is a statement of value based on the known and established values of each included component.
For example: 12 + x = 15.
X, obviously, is "3".
All 3 components have a known and established value, which is required in order for any equation to be valid and useful.
Since the fiction of "WAR" is based on thousands of completely subjective and unverifiable components, by definition is can never be an equation.
Therefore, since there is no equation, logically there can be no outcome.
Two, since there is no equation, and no outcome, there is in fact nothing "to be applied to different players".
At best, the result is nothing other than a litany of assumptions which can be applied to different players simply for the purpose of amusement and theoretical debate - no different, nor more useful, than children trading baseball cards two generations past and debating the value of each when trading said cards (while chewing the included stick of gum).
Was a Johnny Bench card worth more than a Yastrzemski and a Carbo?
Or was it worth a Jim Palmer and a Davey Johnson?
No different than "WAR".
Neither real.
Three, even though I know this game better than anyone I have ever met or ever will, I would never claim the ability to apply a "score" each player in the game and accurately compare his relative contribution to that of every other player.
And if I cannot do so, it cannot be done (and would gladly explain further why that is indisputably a fact).
As you know, I am only as always about the game.
And no value will ever come anywhere near doing justice to this unmatched game.
Any attempt to do so is an exercise in both futility and vanity - and I practice neither of those two behaviors.

Thank you, Mel. I understand “real life” trumps CT!

I will stand by my use of the term “equation” as I was only thinking in terms of the arithmetic involved, each term stripped of its “definition”, simply a numerical value, nothing more. If you will permit me, were I to take that formula, void of definition of terms, input numerical values (that could be random, for all intents and purposes), it will yield a numerical output — in fact a purely “mechanical”, arithmetic process. Would that output have meaning? Not necessarily, other than the simple output value. Given that strict definition, I contend that it is an indeed an equation.

Given that, let’s examine the (for lack of a better term), “philosophy” behind the input values, the scalars in the formula, and the intended use of the formula. I readily grant you your interpretation of what each value represents, (or doesn’t) and whether each term is valid or not. Clearly, statistics such as batting average, slugging percentage, etc. are well-defined and accepted metrics, and therefore indisputable. Other terms that adjust for position, ballpark, era in which they played, etc., are subjective in nature and could be open for debate, therefore the crux of your argument. So given that, I gladly grant your interpretation that you eloquently explained.

As an engineer, I am fascinated by the concept of a single model that could succinctly quantify the “value” of each and every player, allowing them to be accurately compared. However, as a wise person once said, “All models are wrong. Some are useful.” As I’ve seen in my career, the results of even the most sophisticated, physics-based, industry-accepted models have to be constantly questioned and interpreted, and their results validated by intelligently selected test results. To put it in CT terms, the “eye test”. One must always ask the question, “Does what the model tell me make sense and can its result be supported by objective reality?”

So while WAR might provide some useful comparative values, I don’t think it should be considered as the single “source of truth” on player value. It’s a potentially useful tool, however, it and other formulae like it are based on subjective inputs, therefore their outputs are undeniably subjective as well. To me, as long as that is kept in mind, the value of WAR is up to the user. I readily accept your interpretation and valuation of WAR, and the grounds on which your conclusion is based.

As always, I enjoy our conversations. The fact that you are indeed, “only and always about the game” makes them fun for me.

Also speaking as an engineer, what about a WAR methodology are you considering "subjective?"

Subjective - def. - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

There are a lot of elements that go into a WAR methodology which are derived from statistical regression analyses - park factors, for example, have to be derived based on looking at players performance and statistically determining the effect that each park has on the universe of players who played in that park for a particular season.

The entire "linear weights" system that is the backbone of evaluating the run producing value of any particular event - a walk, single, double, etc. - has been statistically derived.

In fact, entire WAR methodologies have to be statistically evaluated against their ability to ultimately model team WAR vs. actual team wins (or maybe expected team wins).

But deriving weighting factors, model coefficients, etc. through statistical modelling is not "subjective".

You can call some of the choices a WAR methodology developer has to make about which underlying statistics to use to capture player performance - for example, bWAR using pitcher ERA vs. fWAR using K/9, BB/9, HR/9 to model pitcher performance; or which defensive metrics (UZR, DRS, etc.) to use - a "subjective" choice. But even those subjective choices have to be grounded by the ability of the overall WAR methodology to give results that track team WAR with actual team wins (or maybe expected team wins).

Any WAR methodology (fWAR, bWAR, etc.) which is going to be generally recognized as accurate simply can't subjectively give any random answer because of the developer's personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

The "positional adjustments" might be the only part of a WAR methodology I could really call "subjective" - but even those relate to what has been known as the "defensive spectrum", the notion of which positions it is simply more difficult for a player to be average defensively at.

C, SS, CF, 2B, 3B, RH, LF, 1B

Given that it is hard to find an athlete playing baseball who can be an average defensive catcher, catcher is assigned a higher positional value. 1B is the easiest position to find players who can be average defensively - if players don't start out at 1B, corner OF and 3Bs frequently move to 1B when they can't be good enough defensively at their original positions.

Thank you, Matt. I clearly spoke from a position of ignorance. I was unaware of how the coefficients were developed. I withdraw the term “subjective” for them.

I gladly admit I was wrong, thank you for the correction, and realize I need to do some homework. I still stand by the thought that one can’t blindly use WAR without analyzing whether the results make sense, but I also don’t think it’s useless if used thoughtfully. I think there must be a middle ground between SABR-heads and “WAR-deniers”.

And I agree with your statement.

Even people who develop and believe in WAR methodologies would say that, at the player level, WAR differences over a full season of ~600 PA which are within +/~ 0.5 (or maybe a bit less these days) can be considered effectively equivalent.

You can't really say that a 2.5 fWAR player was definitively "more valuable" than a 2.2 or 2.3 fWAR player, there is enough uncertainty in the modelling that you have to allow for some uncertainty bands.

So, yes, you do have to look at other information to put how a player achieved their WAR into context. We can all agree on that.

There are just a lot of people who don't understand the rigor involved in linear or non-linear statistical regression analyses, so they write all of that off as "subjective voodoo" when that is the furthest thing from what it actually is. I just don't want us to misunderstand what is really going on in the background to support all of these WAR methodologies.

"You can't really say that a 2.5 fWAR player was definitively "more valuable" than a 2.2 or 2.3 fWAR player, there is enough uncertainty in the modelling that you have to allow for some uncertainty bands."
Excellent statement- and an admission that 'WAR" is not accurate nor reliable.
It is, as I have always correctly stated, nothing but an imperfectly derived approximation.
An educated guess, at best.
Appreciate that admission.
But more is required before an actual understanding of the futility of 'WAR" is achieved.
Which I will now provide.
Interesting that you chose the phrase "more valuable", when 'WAR" actually purports to able to measure something far more.
'WAR" claims to produce a measurement of precisely how many "wins" each individual player contributes over the course of 162 games as compared to a mythical replacement figure.
"WAR" does not claim to compare the value of players, but rather to quantify exactly how many wins a player's contribution produced - in the case of this conversation, it claims Edman produced exactly 6.2 "wins" as compared to the contribution of a presumed "replacement level" substituted in his place.
If your admission that ""You can't really say that a 2.5 fWAR player was definitively "more valuable" than a 2.2 or 2.3 fWAR player" is true (which clearly is the case) then it is obviously exponentially truer that you can't really say that a player contributed 6.2 more wins than any other player - real or imaginary.

[rockondlouie]

There is more nuance to the game of baseball than can be calculated by these sabermetrics stats. The top bWAR on the 1982 Cardinals:

Keith Hernandez (1B): 6.5

That's a world series championship team. Which of those players is not better than Edman in 2025?

1982 K. Hernandez
94 RBI's
.299 .397 .413 .810
Gold Glove (G.O.A.T. defensively at 1st base!)
MVP voting #17
4.6 bWAR

2022 T. Edman
57 RBI
32 SB's
.265 .324 .400 .725
6.2 bWAR

ON NO PLANET was 2022 T. Edman a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +1.6 more bWAR?

Exactly.

I'm an f/bWAR fan, have been since they were first introduced.

But sometimes you just have to say..."H E L L NO"!

[NYCardsFan]

There is more nuance to the game of baseball than can be calculated by these sabermetrics stats. The top bWAR on the 1982 Cardinals:

Keith Hernandez (1B): 6.5

That's a world series championship team. Which of those players is not better than Edman in 2025?

1982 K. Hernandez
94 RBI's
.299 .397 .413 .810 (127 OPS+)
Gold Glove (G.O.A.T. defensively at 1st base!)
MVP voting #17
4.6 bWAR

2022 T. Edman
57 RBI
32 SB's
.265 .324 .400 .725 (107 OPS+)
6.2 bWAR

ON NO PLANET was 2022 T. Edman a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +1.6 more bWAR?

1982 O. Smith
43 RBIs
25 SBs
.248/.339/.314/.653 (84 ops+)
5.1 bWAR

"ON NO PLANET was 1982 O. Smith a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +0.5 more bWAR? "

[Quincy Varnish]

You can’t get a 6 WAR shortstop who has pedestrian hitting.

2017 Andrelton Simmons, 102 wRC+, 8.0 bWAR

[rockondlouie]

There is more nuance to the game of baseball than can be calculated by these sabermetrics stats. The top bWAR on the 1982 Cardinals:

Keith Hernandez (1B): 6.5

That's a world series championship team. Which of those players is not better than Edman in 2025?

1982 K. Hernandez
94 RBI's
.299 .397 .413 .810 (127 OPS+)
Gold Glove (G.O.A.T. defensively at 1st base!)
MVP voting #17
4.6 bWAR

2022 T. Edman
57 RBI
32 SB's
.265 .324 .400 .725 (107 OPS+)
6.2 bWAR

ON NO PLANET was 2022 T. Edman a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +1.6 more bWAR?

1982 O. Smith
43 RBIs
25 SBs
.248/.339/.314/.653 (84 ops+)
5.1 bWAR

"ON NO PLANET was 1982 O. Smith a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +0.5 more bWAR? "

I get it, premium position (SS) and yet another G.O.A.T. in Ozzie w/SB's..........but another one that makes me go at WAR.

(And again, I'm a big WAR fan)

[mattmitchl44]

There is more nuance to the game of baseball than can be calculated by these sabermetrics stats. The top bWAR on the 1982 Cardinals:

Keith Hernandez (1B): 6.5

That's a world series championship team. Which of those players is not better than Edman in 2025?

1982 K. Hernandez
94 RBI's
.299 .397 .413 .810 (127 OPS+)
Gold Glove (G.O.A.T. defensively at 1st base!)
MVP voting #17
4.6 bWAR

2022 T. Edman
57 RBI
32 SB's
.265 .324 .400 .725 (107 OPS+)
6.2 bWAR

ON NO PLANET was 2022 T. Edman a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +1.6 more bWAR?

1982 O. Smith
43 RBIs
25 SBs
.248/.339/.314/.653 (84 ops+)
5.1 bWAR

"ON NO PLANET was 1982 O. Smith a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +0.5 more bWAR? "

I get it, premium position (SS) and yet another G.O.A.T. in Ozzie w/SB's..........but another one that makes me go at WAR.

(And again, I'm a big WAR fan)

To try to put it simply, you could have put either Edman or Smith at 1B and they almost certainly would have been above average defensive 1Bs. Had you tried to put Hernandez at SS, it probably would have been pretty ugly, notwithstanding how good a 1B he was.

That's why above average to superior players at hard defensive positions get such a WAR bump over even superior defensive 1Bs.

[NYCardsFan]

There is more nuance to the game of baseball than can be calculated by these sabermetrics stats. The top bWAR on the 1982 Cardinals:

Keith Hernandez (1B): 6.5

That's a world series championship team. Which of those players is not better than Edman in 2025?

1982 K. Hernandez
94 RBI's
.299 .397 .413 .810 (127 OPS+)
Gold Glove (G.O.A.T. defensively at 1st base!)
MVP voting #17
4.6 bWAR

2022 T. Edman
57 RBI
32 SB's
.265 .324 .400 .725 (107 OPS+)
6.2 bWAR

ON NO PLANET was 2022 T. Edman a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +1.6 more bWAR?

1982 O. Smith
43 RBIs
25 SBs
.248/.339/.314/.653 (84 ops+)
5.1 bWAR

"ON NO PLANET was 1982 O. Smith a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +0.5 more bWAR? "

I get it, premium position (SS) and yet another G.O.A.T. in Ozzie w/SB's..........but another one that makes me go at WAR.

(And again, I'm a big WAR fan)

The references to G.O.A.T. are irrelevant, the conversation is about SINGLE seasons, not careers. But all joking aside, I actually think the example you've brought up is instructive.

Here are some key metrics for 2022 Edman versus 1982 Smith:

Defensive RAA:
Edman: +26
Smith: +30

Baserunning RAA:
Edman: +7
Smith: +5

OPS+:
Edman: 107 OPS+ (+3 RAA)
Smith: 84 OPS+ (-11 RAA)

The upshot: 2022 Edman graded out as a truly ELITE defensive middle infielder (just a tick below 1982 O.Smith, both at premium positions); a good baserunner (just a tick above 1982 O. Smith); and a slightly above-average hitter (significantly better than 1982 O. Smith). So if 1982 Smith's bWAR could grade out slightly above 1982 Hernandez's (a below-average year for Hernandez in his prime), is it really so inconceivable that Edman's career-best 2022 season could grade out higher as well?

I think some of you may be letting your views of Edman's overall career affect your specific evaluation of his 2022 season, which was by far his best. Sometimes, average-to-good players can have a great individual season (see: 1985 W. McGee).

[rockondlouie]

There is more nuance to the game of baseball than can be calculated by these sabermetrics stats. The top bWAR on the 1982 Cardinals:

Keith Hernandez (1B): 6.5

That's a world series championship team. Which of those players is not better than Edman in 2025?

1982 K. Hernandez
94 RBI's
.299 .397 .413 .810 (127 OPS+)
Gold Glove (G.O.A.T. defensively at 1st base!)
MVP voting #17
4.6 bWAR

2022 T. Edman
57 RBI
32 SB's
.265 .324 .400 .725 (107 OPS+)
6.2 bWAR

ON NO PLANET was 2022 T. Edman a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +1.6 more bWAR?

1982 O. Smith
43 RBIs
25 SBs
.248/.339/.314/.653 (84 ops+)
5.1 bWAR

"ON NO PLANET was 1982 O. Smith a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +0.5 more bWAR? "

I get it, premium position (SS) and yet another G.O.A.T. in Ozzie w/SB's..........but another one that makes me go at WAR.

(And again, I'm a big WAR fan)

The references to G.O.A.T. are irrelevant, the conversation is about SINGLE seasons, not careers. But all joking aside, I actually think the example you've brought up is instructive.

Here are some key metrics for 2022 Edman versus 1982 Smith:

Defensive RAA:
Edman: +26
Smith: +30

Baserunning RAA:
Edman: +7
Smith: +5

OPS+:
Edman: 107 OPS+ (+3 RAA)
Smith: 84 OPS+ (-11 RAA)

The upshot: 2022 Edman graded out as a truly ELITE defensive middle infielder (just a tick below 1982 O.Smith, both at premium positions); a good baserunner (just a tick above 1982 O. Smith); and a slightly above-average hitter (significantly better than 1982 O. Smith). So if 1982 Smith's bWAR could grade out slightly above 1982 Hernandez's (a below-average year for Hernandez in his prime), is it really so inconceivable that Edman's career-best 2022 season could grade out higher as well?

I think some of you may be letting your views of Edman's overall career affect your specific evaluation of his 2022 season, which was by far his best. Sometimes, average-to-good players can have a great individual season (see: 1985 W. McGee).

The reason I put that in there and why (IMO) it's not irrelevant since we're talking about the two G.O.A.T.'s defensively of all time at SS & 1B and defense is a large part of WAR.

They were both GREAT in the field every season in their primes (certainly in 1982 and even beyond?) thus accumulated a lot of WAR w/the gloves every year.

And those are only estimates on Ozzie's defense since DRS, OAA and of course WAR didn't exist in 1982.

2nd base was my position but SS is by far the more premium position defensively.

I'm taking nothing away from Edman, but give me 1982 Ozzie over 2022 Tommy 100/100 time.

JMO

[Melville]

in 2022. 107 OPS+, no GG, only 57 RBIs, .324 OBP. .265 BA, career high of 111 SOs. Nothing eye popping in the stats line.

Probably because WAR is made up and is essentially pointless.

Absolutely.
Nothing but a short cut parlor game, which only those who do not understand the game place any credence in.
Smart people know better.

Do you even know how either fWAR or bWAR is calculated?
If so, explain how it’s a parlor game.
And for the umpteenth time, what is your best measure for a player’s overall value? RBIs! Ha ha ha
You have no clue. A smart person should know better than to make such an uninformed statement.

They don’t understand. I used to not understand. I used to think it was stupid. Then I decided to spend 30 minutes researching and it now makes perfect sense. It that simple.

I know "WAR" better than the fantasy baseball folks who created it.
I break down data and interpret it for a living
I know my client's businesses better than they do - because that is what I am paid to do.
Reality is, "WAR" is a reverse engineered scheme which is wildly inaccurate, extremely subjective, and should never be used to compare players or establish actual contribution value.
It is a toy for the lazy and uniformed who know little about the game

Would you rather have a 10 war player or a 1 war player?

Neither exist.
Both are fictional characters.

Now, now... one can apply the equations to someone and calculate their WAR as "10", if the inputs so dictate. The same equations could be applied to a different player, and the results might equal "1". They would be quite real, non-fictional people.

Now, whether you put any stock in the outputs of those equations and the interpretation one might make is a different story!

Appreciate your patience while my time has been consumed by meetings this week.
Allow me a few perfect points.
One, with respect, you are using the word "equation" rather loosely, which is not your usual practice.
An equation is a statement of value based on the known and established values of each included component.
For example: 12 + x = 15.
X, obviously, is "3".
All 3 components have a known and established value, which is required in order for any equation to be valid and useful.
Since the fiction of "WAR" is based on thousands of completely subjective and unverifiable components, by definition is can never be an equation.
Therefore, since there is no equation, logically there can be no outcome.
Two, since there is no equation, and no outcome, there is in fact nothing "to be applied to different players".
At best, the result is nothing other than a litany of assumptions which can be applied to different players simply for the purpose of amusement and theoretical debate - no different, nor more useful, than children trading baseball cards two generations past and debating the value of each when trading said cards (while chewing the included stick of gum).
Was a Johnny Bench card worth more than a Yastrzemski and a Carbo?
Or was it worth a Jim Palmer and a Davey Johnson?
No different than "WAR".
Neither real.
Three, even though I know this game better than anyone I have ever met or ever will, I would never claim the ability to apply a "score" each player in the game and accurately compare his relative contribution to that of every other player.
And if I cannot do so, it cannot be done (and would gladly explain further why that is indisputably a fact).
As you know, I am only as always about the game.
And no value will ever come anywhere near doing justice to this unmatched game.
Any attempt to do so is an exercise in both futility and vanity - and I practice neither of those two behaviors.

Thank you, Mel. I understand “real life” trumps CT!

I will stand by my use of the term “equation” as I was only thinking in terms of the arithmetic involved, each term stripped of its “definition”, simply a numerical value, nothing more. If you will permit me, were I to take that formula, void of definition of terms, input numerical values (that could be random, for all intents and purposes), it will yield a numerical output — in fact a purely “mechanical”, arithmetic process. Would that output have meaning? Not necessarily, other than the simple output value. Given that strict definition, I contend that it is an indeed an equation.

Given that, let’s examine the (for lack of a better term), “philosophy” behind the input values, the scalars in the formula, and the intended use of the formula. I readily grant you your interpretation of what each value represents, (or doesn’t) and whether each term is valid or not. Clearly, statistics such as batting average, slugging percentage, etc. are well-defined and accepted metrics, and therefore indisputable. Other terms that adjust for position, ballpark, era in which they played, etc., are subjective in nature and could be open for debate, therefore the crux of your argument. So given that, I gladly grant your interpretation that you eloquently explained.

As an engineer, I am fascinated by the concept of a single model that could succinctly quantify the “value” of each and every player, allowing them to be accurately compared. However, as a wise person once said, “All models are wrong. Some are useful.” As I’ve seen in my career, the results of even the most sophisticated, physics-based, industry-accepted models have to be constantly questioned and interpreted, and their results validated by intelligently selected test results. To put it in CT terms, the “eye test”. One must always ask the question, “Does what the model tell me make sense and can its result be supported by objective reality?”

So while WAR might provide some useful comparative values, I don’t think it should be considered as the single “source of truth” on player value. It’s a potentially useful tool, however, it and other formulae like it are based on subjective inputs, therefore their outputs are undeniably subjective as well. To me, as long as that is kept in mind, the value of WAR is up to the user. I readily accept your interpretation and valuation of WAR, and the grounds on which your conclusion is based.

As always, I enjoy our conversations. The fact that you are indeed, “only and always about the game” makes them fun for me.

You don't post often, but when you do the discourse is always elevated.
This thread being an example.
Three points in response to your content above.
One, we will disagree concerning 'WAR" being the output of an equation.
True equations must have fixed values for each component, making outcomes testable and verifiably accurate.
"WAR" does not such thing.
Two, your fascination 'by the concept of a single model that could succinctly quantify the “value” of each and every player, allowing them to be accurately compared" is as old as the game itself and is one of the deeply imbedded and distinctive charms of the game.
That desire promotes dialogue ("Mays, Mantle, or Snider" dominated the debate in NYC for a number of years) - and wonderfully has never provided an answer and ever will.
I will grant that "WAR" is a model by which to contextualize a conversation - and certainly prefer the word "model" over "equation".
Three, I am reminded of a conversation I had a number of year ago with an NFL player at a social event - and that conversation could not possibly be of greater relevance to this thread.
"X" told me that while millions of fans are passionate about the game, few understand how it actually works or how wins and losses are achieved.
He mentioned that most fans, when they hear of "studying game film", assume that after a game has been played teams study film plays to evaluate what worked and what did not.
But that is not how it works.
He said that on every play there are 22 players, each of whom has one specific assignment.
The play is not evaluated by yards gained or lost.
Every player is evaluated on every play to determine if he had done his job - and not by the outcome of a play or a game.
There are more than 3,000 assignments in an NFL game - and therefore more than 3,000 evaluations, in every game.
All 11 players on offense may have successfully executed his assignment on a play- and yet no yards are gained.
Or, multiple players on defense can fail to execute the assignment, and yet a pass may still fall incomplete.
The goal of this NFL player, was to simply execute his assignment on every play, knowing that most of what he did or did not do individually did not impact the outcome of the game.
That is how he was evaluated by coaches, teammates, and himself.
Not by fictional comparisons to a fictional "replacement".
THAT is the difference between those who watch a game for entertainment and those who understand how contests are actually won or lost.
Baseball is no different.
And it is why "WAR" is completely ridiculous.

[ClassicO]

True equations must have fixed values for each component, making outcomes testable and verifiably accurate.

This is not true. Do yourself a favor and look it up on any AI site.

That's a really cool fictional story about your amazing meeting with former NFL player = "X!"
Too bad it had nothing to do with WAR...

[Cardinals1964]

True equations must have fixed values for each component, making outcomes testable and verifiably accurate.

This is not true. Do yourself a favor and look it up on any AI site.

That's a really cool fictional story about your amazing meeting with former NFL player = "X!"
Too bad it had nothing to do with WAR...

He wrote along blathering post hoping it would kill the thread and make him seem like he knew what he was talking about.

[WeeVikes]

in 2022. 107 OPS+, no GG, only 57 RBIs, .324 OBP. .265 BA, career high of 111 SOs. Nothing eye popping in the stats line.

Probably because WAR is made up and is essentially pointless.

Absolutely.
Nothing but a short cut parlor game, which only those who do not understand the game place any credence in.
Smart people know better.

Do you even know how either fWAR or bWAR is calculated?
If so, explain how it’s a parlor game.
And for the umpteenth time, what is your best measure for a player’s overall value? RBIs! Ha ha ha
You have no clue. A smart person should know better than to make such an uninformed statement.

They don’t understand. I used to not understand. I used to think it was stupid. Then I decided to spend 30 minutes researching and it now makes perfect sense. It that simple.

I know "WAR" better than the fantasy baseball folks who created it.
I break down data and interpret it for a living
I know my client's businesses better than they do - because that is what I am paid to do.
Reality is, "WAR" is a reverse engineered scheme which is wildly inaccurate, extremely subjective, and should never be used to compare players or establish actual contribution value.
It is a toy for the lazy and uniformed who know little about the game

Would you rather have a 10 war player or a 1 war player?

Neither exist.
Both are fictional characters.

Now, now... one can apply the equations to someone and calculate their WAR as "10", if the inputs so dictate. The same equations could be applied to a different player, and the results might equal "1". They would be quite real, non-fictional people.

Now, whether you put any stock in the outputs of those equations and the interpretation one might make is a different story!

Appreciate your patience while my time has been consumed by meetings this week.
Allow me a few perfect points.
One, with respect, you are using the word "equation" rather loosely, which is not your usual practice.
An equation is a statement of value based on the known and established values of each included component.
For example: 12 + x = 15.
X, obviously, is "3".
All 3 components have a known and established value, which is required in order for any equation to be valid and useful.
Since the fiction of "WAR" is based on thousands of completely subjective and unverifiable components, by definition is can never be an equation.
Therefore, since there is no equation, logically there can be no outcome.
Two, since there is no equation, and no outcome, there is in fact nothing "to be applied to different players".
At best, the result is nothing other than a litany of assumptions which can be applied to different players simply for the purpose of amusement and theoretical debate - no different, nor more useful, than children trading baseball cards two generations past and debating the value of each when trading said cards (while chewing the included stick of gum).
Was a Johnny Bench card worth more than a Yastrzemski and a Carbo?
Or was it worth a Jim Palmer and a Davey Johnson?
No different than "WAR".
Neither real.
Three, even though I know this game better than anyone I have ever met or ever will, I would never claim the ability to apply a "score" each player in the game and accurately compare his relative contribution to that of every other player.
And if I cannot do so, it cannot be done (and would gladly explain further why that is indisputably a fact).
As you know, I am only as always about the game.
And no value will ever come anywhere near doing justice to this unmatched game.
Any attempt to do so is an exercise in both futility and vanity - and I practice neither of those two behaviors.

Thank you, Mel. I understand “real life” trumps CT!

I will stand by my use of the term “equation” as I was only thinking in terms of the arithmetic involved, each term stripped of its “definition”, simply a numerical value, nothing more. If you will permit me, were I to take that formula, void of definition of terms, input numerical values (that could be random, for all intents and purposes), it will yield a numerical output — in fact a purely “mechanical”, arithmetic process. Would that output have meaning? Not necessarily, other than the simple output value. Given that strict definition, I contend that it is an indeed an equation.

Given that, let’s examine the (for lack of a better term), “philosophy” behind the input values, the scalars in the formula, and the intended use of the formula. I readily grant you your interpretation of what each value represents, (or doesn’t) and whether each term is valid or not. Clearly, statistics such as batting average, slugging percentage, etc. are well-defined and accepted metrics, and therefore indisputable. Other terms that adjust for position, ballpark, era in which they played, etc., are subjective in nature and could be open for debate, therefore the crux of your argument. So given that, I gladly grant your interpretation that you eloquently explained.

As an engineer, I am fascinated by the concept of a single model that could succinctly quantify the “value” of each and every player, allowing them to be accurately compared. However, as a wise person once said, “All models are wrong. Some are useful.” As I’ve seen in my career, the results of even the most sophisticated, physics-based, industry-accepted models have to be constantly questioned and interpreted, and their results validated by intelligently selected test results. To put it in CT terms, the “eye test”. One must always ask the question, “Does what the model tell me make sense and can its result be supported by objective reality?”

So while WAR might provide some useful comparative values, I don’t think it should be considered as the single “source of truth” on player value. It’s a potentially useful tool, however, it and other formulae like it are based on subjective inputs, therefore their outputs are undeniably subjective as well. To me, as long as that is kept in mind, the value of WAR is up to the user. I readily accept your interpretation and valuation of WAR, and the grounds on which your conclusion is based.

As always, I enjoy our conversations. The fact that you are indeed, “only and always about the game” makes them fun for me.

You don't post often, but when you do the discourse is always elevated.
This thread being an example.
Three points in response to your content above.
One, we will disagree concerning 'WAR" being the output of an equation.
True equations must have fixed values for each component, making outcomes testable and verifiably accurate.
"WAR" does not such thing.
Two, your fascination 'by the concept of a single model that could succinctly quantify the “value” of each and every player, allowing them to be accurately compared" is as old as the game itself and is one of the deeply imbedded and distinctive charms of the game.
That desire promotes dialogue ("Mays, Mantle, or Snider" dominated the debate in NYC for a number of years) - and wonderfully has never provided an answer and ever will.
I will grant that "WAR" is a model by which to contextualize a conversation - and certainly prefer the word "model" over "equation".
Three, I am reminded of a conversation I had a number of year ago with an NFL player at a social event - and that conversation could not possibly be of greater relevance to this thread.
"X" told me that while millions of fans are passionate about the game, few understand how it actually works or how wins and losses are achieved.
He mentioned that most fans, when they hear of "studying game film", assume that after a game has been played teams study film plays to evaluate what worked and what did not.
But that is not how it works.
He said that on every play there are 22 players, each of whom has one specific assignment.
The play is not evaluated by yards gained or lost.
Every player is evaluated on every play to determine if he had done his job - and not by the outcome of a play or a game.
There are more than 3,000 assignments in an NFL game - and therefore more than 3,000 evaluations, in every game.
All 11 players on offense may have successfully executed his assignment on a play- and yet no yards are gained.
Or, multiple players on defense can fail to execute the assignment, and yet a pass may still fall incomplete.
The goal of this NFL player, was to simply execute his assignment on every play, knowing that most of what he did or did not do individually did not impact the outcome of the game.
That is how he was evaluated by coaches, teammates, and himself.
Not by fictional comparisons to a fictional "replacement".
THAT is the difference between those who watch a game for entertainment and those who understand how contests are actually won or lost.
Baseball is no different.
And it is why "WAR" is completely ridiculous.

Great post, Mel. I played football in high school and what you described is exactly what our coaches did. Everyone who got in the game received a numerical percentage grade of how they performed their assignments that game.

Even when we don’t always see eye to eye on things, I always enjoy the discussion. It’s good knowing one can have an internet disagreement that won’t devolve into a flame war and personal insults. You and I have that manner of cordial, respectful relationship, and I know our discussions will always be that way.

Perhaps one day there will be a universally accepted metric that will accurately allow for the comparison of players of different positions, teams, and eras. Until that day…

[An Old Friend]

There is more nuance to the game of baseball than can be calculated by these sabermetrics stats. The top bWAR on the 1982 Cardinals:

Keith Hernandez (1B): 6.5

That's a world series championship team. Which of those players is not better than Edman in 2025?

1982 K. Hernandez
94 RBI's
.299 .397 .413 .810
Gold Glove (G.O.A.T. defensively at 1st base!)
MVP voting #17
4.6 bWAR

2022 T. Edman
57 RBI
32 SB's
.265 .324 .400 .725
6.2 bWAR

ON NO PLANET was 2022 T. Edman a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +1.6 more bWAR?

Exactly.

I'm an f/bWAR fan, have been since they were first introduced.

But sometimes you just have to say..."H E L L NO"!

It’s Wins Above Replacement.

There were 26 teams in 1982
There are 30 teams today… 130 more players in the league. More dilution means the replacement level player today isn’t as strong as the replacement level players 4 decades ago comparatively

But go on with your rants.

[mattmitchl44]

There is more nuance to the game of baseball than can be calculated by these sabermetrics stats. The top bWAR on the 1982 Cardinals:

Keith Hernandez (1B): 6.5

That's a world series championship team. Which of those players is not better than Edman in 2025?

1982 K. Hernandez
94 RBI's
.299 .397 .413 .810
Gold Glove (G.O.A.T. defensively at 1st base!)
MVP voting #17
4.6 bWAR

2022 T. Edman
57 RBI
32 SB's
.265 .324 .400 .725
6.2 bWAR

ON NO PLANET was 2022 T. Edman a superior player to 1982 K. Hernandez yet he's got +1.6 more bWAR?

Exactly.

I'm an f/bWAR fan, have been since they were first introduced.

But sometimes you just have to say..."H E L L NO"!

It’s Wins Above Replacement.

There were 26 teams in 1982
There are 30 teams today… 130 more players in the league. More dilution means the replacement level player today isn’t as strong as the replacement level players 4 decades ago comparatively

But go on with your rants.

I'd add - since the word "subjective" has been discussed elsewhere in this thread - getting yourself tied to the idea that someone (Hernanadez) is "the G.O.A.T" defensively and, therefore, many other things cannot possibly be true is highly subjective reasoning. That's not to say he wasn't an exceptional defensive 1B, but it leads to a conceptual overvaluing of how valuable his defense probably was.

To another example - enough people who should have known better awarded Derek Jeter 5 Gold Gloves even though he had a positive UZR/150 and DRS in only one (2009) of his 13 seasons.

[Melville]

Probably because WAR is made up and is essentially pointless.

Absolutely.
Nothing but a short cut parlor game, which only those who do not understand the game place any credence in.
Smart people know better.

Do you even know how either fWAR or bWAR is calculated?
If so, explain how it’s a parlor game.
And for the umpteenth time, what is your best measure for a player’s overall value? RBIs! Ha ha ha
You have no clue. A smart person should know better than to make such an uninformed statement.

They don’t understand. I used to not understand. I used to think it was stupid. Then I decided to spend 30 minutes researching and it now makes perfect sense. It that simple.

I know "WAR" better than the fantasy baseball folks who created it.
I break down data and interpret it for a living
I know my client's businesses better than they do - because that is what I am paid to do.
Reality is, "WAR" is a reverse engineered scheme which is wildly inaccurate, extremely subjective, and should never be used to compare players or establish actual contribution value.
It is a toy for the lazy and uniformed who know little about the game

Would you rather have a 10 war player or a 1 war player?

Neither exist.
Both are fictional characters.

Now, now... one can apply the equations to someone and calculate their WAR as "10", if the inputs so dictate. The same equations could be applied to a different player, and the results might equal "1". They would be quite real, non-fictional people.

Now, whether you put any stock in the outputs of those equations and the interpretation one might make is a different story!

Appreciate your patience while my time has been consumed by meetings this week.
Allow me a few perfect points.
One, with respect, you are using the word "equation" rather loosely, which is not your usual practice.
An equation is a statement of value based on the known and established values of each included component.
For example: 12 + x = 15.
X, obviously, is "3".
All 3 components have a known and established value, which is required in order for any equation to be valid and useful.
Since the fiction of "WAR" is based on thousands of completely subjective and unverifiable components, by definition is can never be an equation.
Therefore, since there is no equation, logically there can be no outcome.
Two, since there is no equation, and no outcome, there is in fact nothing "to be applied to different players".
At best, the result is nothing other than a litany of assumptions which can be applied to different players simply for the purpose of amusement and theoretical debate - no different, nor more useful, than children trading baseball cards two generations past and debating the value of each when trading said cards (while chewing the included stick of gum).
Was a Johnny Bench card worth more than a Yastrzemski and a Carbo?
Or was it worth a Jim Palmer and a Davey Johnson?
No different than "WAR".
Neither real.
Three, even though I know this game better than anyone I have ever met or ever will, I would never claim the ability to apply a "score" each player in the game and accurately compare his relative contribution to that of every other player.
And if I cannot do so, it cannot be done (and would gladly explain further why that is indisputably a fact).
As you know, I am only as always about the game.
And no value will ever come anywhere near doing justice to this unmatched game.
Any attempt to do so is an exercise in both futility and vanity - and I practice neither of those two behaviors.

Thank you, Mel. I understand “real life” trumps CT!

I will stand by my use of the term “equation” as I was only thinking in terms of the arithmetic involved, each term stripped of its “definition”, simply a numerical value, nothing more. If you will permit me, were I to take that formula, void of definition of terms, input numerical values (that could be random, for all intents and purposes), it will yield a numerical output — in fact a purely “mechanical”, arithmetic process. Would that output have meaning? Not necessarily, other than the simple output value. Given that strict definition, I contend that it is an indeed an equation.

Given that, let’s examine the (for lack of a better term), “philosophy” behind the input values, the scalars in the formula, and the intended use of the formula. I readily grant you your interpretation of what each value represents, (or doesn’t) and whether each term is valid or not. Clearly, statistics such as batting average, slugging percentage, etc. are well-defined and accepted metrics, and therefore indisputable. Other terms that adjust for position, ballpark, era in which they played, etc., are subjective in nature and could be open for debate, therefore the crux of your argument. So given that, I gladly grant your interpretation that you eloquently explained.

As an engineer, I am fascinated by the concept of a single model that could succinctly quantify the “value” of each and every player, allowing them to be accurately compared. However, as a wise person once said, “All models are wrong. Some are useful.” As I’ve seen in my career, the results of even the most sophisticated, physics-based, industry-accepted models have to be constantly questioned and interpreted, and their results validated by intelligently selected test results. To put it in CT terms, the “eye test”. One must always ask the question, “Does what the model tell me make sense and can its result be supported by objective reality?”

So while WAR might provide some useful comparative values, I don’t think it should be considered as the single “source of truth” on player value. It’s a potentially useful tool, however, it and other formulae like it are based on subjective inputs, therefore their outputs are undeniably subjective as well. To me, as long as that is kept in mind, the value of WAR is up to the user. I readily accept your interpretation and valuation of WAR, and the grounds on which your conclusion is based.

As always, I enjoy our conversations. The fact that you are indeed, “only and always about the game” makes them fun for me.

You don't post often, but when you do the discourse is always elevated.
This thread being an example.
Three points in response to your content above.
One, we will disagree concerning 'WAR" being the output of an equation.
True equations must have fixed values for each component, making outcomes testable and verifiably accurate.
"WAR" does not such thing.
Two, your fascination 'by the concept of a single model that could succinctly quantify the “value” of each and every player, allowing them to be accurately compared" is as old as the game itself and is one of the deeply imbedded and distinctive charms of the game.
That desire promotes dialogue ("Mays, Mantle, or Snider" dominated the debate in NYC for a number of years) - and wonderfully has never provided an answer and ever will.
I will grant that "WAR" is a model by which to contextualize a conversation - and certainly prefer the word "model" over "equation".
Three, I am reminded of a conversation I had a number of year ago with an NFL player at a social event - and that conversation could not possibly be of greater relevance to this thread.
"X" told me that while millions of fans are passionate about the game, few understand how it actually works or how wins and losses are achieved.
He mentioned that most fans, when they hear of "studying game film", assume that after a game has been played teams study film plays to evaluate what worked and what did not.
But that is not how it works.
He said that on every play there are 22 players, each of whom has one specific assignment.
The play is not evaluated by yards gained or lost.
Every player is evaluated on every play to determine if he had done his job - and not by the outcome of a play or a game.
There are more than 3,000 assignments in an NFL game - and therefore more than 3,000 evaluations, in every game.
All 11 players on offense may have successfully executed his assignment on a play- and yet no yards are gained.
Or, multiple players on defense can fail to execute the assignment, and yet a pass may still fall incomplete.
The goal of this NFL player, was to simply execute his assignment on every play, knowing that most of what he did or did not do individually did not impact the outcome of the game.
That is how he was evaluated by coaches, teammates, and himself.
Not by fictional comparisons to a fictional "replacement".
THAT is the difference between those who watch a game for entertainment and those who understand how contests are actually won or lost.
Baseball is no different.
And it is why "WAR" is completely ridiculous.

Great post, Mel. I played football in high school and what you described is exactly what our coaches did. Everyone who got in the game received a numerical percentage grade of how they performed their assignments that game.

Even when we don’t always see eye to eye on things, I always enjoy the discussion. It’s good knowing one can have an internet disagreement that won’t devolve into a flame war and personal insults. You and I have that manner of cordial, respectful relationship, and I know our discussions will always be that way.

Perhaps one day there will be a universally accepted metric that will accurately allow for the comparison of players of different positions, teams, and eras. Until that day…

Kind and gracious words, sir.
I would expect nothing less.
Bottom line.
There are thousands of actions and decisions (the overwhelming majority of which are unnoticed) in every baseball game which never appear in a box score - and some of those greatly impact the outcome of a game while many do not.
That indisputable fact makes the notion of measuring "wins above replacement" through the unmeasurable contribution of a player over the course of a season a quixotic pursuit.
The great debate of the unknowable continues.
I appreciate participating in that debate with you.

[Goldfan]

I hear ya Matt, so why not just stop using WAR as some kind of fact based stat. It’s not….it’s flawed…..and yet its thrown out there right along with BA, OBP, OPS, ERA, WHIP

Literally all those other stats have flaws too...

Really? Over the course of a full season, what flaw is there in BA? Give me 5 guys on the same team who hit .290+ over 150 games in a season and you'll have a good team. It's a factual stat, that has no debate.

Likewise ERA. If your team ERA is in the low 3s, youre going to win more than you lose. How is it flawed?

WAR on the other hand? Let's imagine how many wins this player results in vs if he didnt play. How is that even quantified without knowing what the "replacement " player did?

Seriously? Batting average treats all hits as equal. A single counts the same as a home run in batting average. A .290 pure singles hitter is no where near as valuable as a well rounded slugger (like vintage Pujols) who hits .290.

ERA is literally EARNED run average. A run being deemed earned is completely subjective on the official scoring on errors. Plus, a pitcher with a better defense behind them will be default have a lower ERA than a pitcher on another team with a (bleep) defense (all else being equal).

You arguing ERA isn't flawed is mind blogging.

Batting Avg>>>>hits/ab’s. Very simple equation. You now exactly how often a players hits the ball safely.
WAR>>>Start with fantasy AAA player baseline>>>>adjust for position>>>>adjust for Park>>>>compare against all other at position>>>gives you a 2 digit number with decimal>>>
So by viewing that number how do you know if the player has Power, hits for avg, great on D, runs bases well??? It doesn’t tell you anything. You need to go back to the basic stats for any detail

1. Hits/ABs - where hits are subjectively determined by the official scorer on whether the fielder should have converted into an out or not.
2. Everything you said about WAR was correct. However, it doesn't make the point you think you're making. WAR is like any other stat. It should be used in conjunction with other stats. Just like BA, OBP, SB, Errors, etc. by themselves in a vacuum doesn't tell you the whole story on a player.

Yes it's meant to take everything and boil it down to one number of value. And it does a reasonably good job. If you want to argue it overrates defense, that's fine. I agree with you. But overall, it pretty accurately reflects/differentiates who is replacement level (< 1), solid regular (1.5-3), all star level (4-5), and superstar (6+). Which is it's goal.

Yeah you can find some oddball outliers like a Tommy Edman or Jason Heyward every now and then. But it's not coincidence that the year end WAR leaders also dominate the MVP and CY leaderboards.

How many player hits are determined by the official scorer over the course of the season. And those that are fall under MLB rules
Point out the MLB rule to determine Fantasy AAA player used as the baseline……MLB rule for positional adjustment….etc
And as I’ve stated many times in this thread you need to look at the standard stats anyway to figure out what the WAR# represents…..so why not just begin there?

You can begin, end, or stop off in the middle wherever you want - no one is arguing against looking at more reliable information. But WAR values are part of that reliable information, along with all of the stats you prefer.

I've noted before - WAR is a GM-level statistic, a useful summary of how many more "wins" a player might bring if acquired, and therefore how much money the GM might want to offer to spend on that player.

But WAR isn't going to tell a manager how to use a particular player - what position they should play, where they should hit in the order, etc. The manager has to look at other information to decide that.

Do you think that number correlates to actual WINS? Bob Gibson in ‘68 had 13 SHO, now I don’t know anything more vital and specifically related to a SP and the game than the Pitcher throwing a SHO that would determine the WIN for his team. And he achieved a 11.2WAR. He was 22-9 1.12 ERA for the year.
In those 13 games there was no way the other could win because they didn’t score specifically because of him……

Pujols
‘09
.327, .443, .658, .1.101 , 189OPS+, 47HR, 135RBI, 374TB
9.7WAR
Is there anyone here who thinks AP playing 160games was only responsible for not even 10wins?

Pujols led MLB with that bWAR in 2009. Is that a problem?

“For instance, if a team has 80 wins, substituting a 5.0 WAR player for a replacement-level player theoretically brings the team to 85 wins,
as explained by Baseball Reference”

Does anyone think that with AP stats in his MVP year playing 160g that the difference if the Cards were an 80win team playing a slug “Replacement Player” vs Albert Pujols was only 89-90wins? Accounting for his 9.7WAR. This at it’s core is a ridiculous estimation and is exactly what WAR is declaring.

Anyone want to rationalize this?