STLtoday.com

"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?

Goldfan wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 21:28 pm 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…….

WAR Honks…..parse out this 50% higher number for me……very intrigued. Heyward must’ve have been juggling, while performing brain surgery, while sending probes to Mars as he was catching balls in RF

Bully4you wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 07:36 am

Melville wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 19:38 pm 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.

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 08:12 am "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

WAR- The World is a Ghetto.

That’s how old WAR is- don’t you know; that’s it’s true. That for me; and for you. The world is a ghetto.

Melville wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 08:14 am

Bully4you wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 07:36 am

Melville wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 19:38 pm 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.

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 08:12 am "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?

It was.
Very clearly.
Let me repeat:
"WAR pretends to measure players for comparable value - which is both an impossibility and betrayal of the game."
"...can the exact number of "wins" each created over the course of a season or career be known? No - it cannot."
"Unanswerable."
"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."
And so, what stat shows a player's worth?
What are we looking for when comparing players?
The very premise of these questions is ridiculous.
There is no such stat (and most certainly not WAR - which by definition is no stat at all).
It does not exist.
And never will.
Like it or not, that is the correct answer.
It is the only answer.
It is the very reason folks have been debating for over 100 years.
Ruth or Aaron?
Williams or Robinson?
Johnson or Maddux?
There is no answer.
And searching for something that does not exist turns attention away from the true greatness 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.
The sum is greater than the parts - and in just as many cases the sum is lesser than the parts.
Don't diminish it by looking for a lazy and nonsensical shortcut.
Instead, enjoy the debates and conversations that are as old as the game itself.

Bully4you wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 08:33 am

Melville wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 08:14 am

Bully4you wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 07:36 am

Melville wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 19:38 pm 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.

Melville wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 08:34 am

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 08:12 am "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?

It was.
Very clearly.
Let me repeat:
"WAR pretends to measure players for comparable value - which is both an impossibility and betrayal of the game."
"...can the exact number of "wins" each created over the course of a season or career be known? No - it cannot."
"Unanswerable."
"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."
And so, what stat shows a player's worth?
What are we looking for when comparing players?
The very premise of these questions is ridiculous.
There is no such stat (and most certainly not WAR - which by definition is no stat at all).
It does not exist.
And never will.
Like it or not, that is the correct answer.
It is the only answer.
It is the very reason folks have been debating for over 100 years.
Ruth or Aaron?
Williams or Robinson?
Johnson or Maddux?
There is no answer.
And searching for something that does not exist turns attention away from the true greatness 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.
The sum is greater than the parts - and in just as many cases the sum is lesser than the parts.
Don't diminish it by looking for a lazy and nonsensical shortcut.
Instead, enjoy the debates and conversations that are as old as the game itself.

Good write.

Melville wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 08:37 am

Bully4you wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 08:33 am

Melville wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 08:14 am

Bully4you wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 07:36 am

Melville wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 19:38 pm 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.

WAR is not the end all be all, but it does a good job of showing who adds the most value to their teams. There will always be outliers and flaws with any statistic. It’s not perfect. But it usually gives a very good picture of who the best players in the game are.

Goldfan wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 21:28 pm 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.

Melville wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 21:24 pm

ClassicO wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 21:19 pm In 12,232 words, Melville did not answer my question (no surprise).

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

No one sees an answer. What specific number or stat do you do to compare value in trades or drafts? That is what WAR attempts to provide. You may say it isn't a stat (true) but it uses stats to create a singular number for comparison and is as far as I can see the best thing out there.

Melville wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 21:29 pm

An Old Friend wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 21:26 pm

Melville wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 21:24 pm

ClassicO wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 21:19 pm In 12,232 words, Melville did not answer my question (no surprise).

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

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

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

Ultimately, your answer was:

Give me the roster and the standings - and I know all that is knowable.

Which is in no way was a specific or clear answer to his question.

AZ_Cardsfan wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 09:23 am

Melville wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 21:24 pm

ClassicO wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 21:19 pm In 12,232 words, Melville did not answer my question (no surprise).

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

No one sees an answer. What specific number or stat do you do to compare value in trades or drafts? That is what WAR attempts to provide. You may say it isn't a stat (true) but it uses stats to create a singular number for comparison and is as far as I can see the best thing out there.

The answer is that everybody uses WAR either directly by using the metrics available or indirectly by subjectively creating their own version of it. And the real kicker is, everybody has been doing this for decades.

It is exactly how we answer questions like the ones you asked. "who should we draft?" "Should I trade my ace for a MOTO bat who has 40 HR, 100 RBI but is a slug on the bases and a 1B, or should I go after the 20 HR, 40 SB GG SS instead?" Before WAR came around and objectively measured all components of baseball (with a repeatable but albeit imperfect method) we would have to weight power, RBIs, base running (usually steals), and defense (position and usually awards won) in our heads to determine if a trade was "fair value" or not. That is exactly what WAR does, just in a structured framework to allow you to reduce all those inputs to a single number, to make a decision. It's just measuring skills that lead to run differential and stacking them together. Then you put the stacks on a scale to see if a trade is fair or in your favor. As I mentioned prior to WAR the "weights" on the scale were GG defense, .300 hitter, 100 RBI bat, 30 SBs, 40 HRs, workhorse SP, shutdown reliever, etc.

rbirules wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 09:45 am

AZ_Cardsfan wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 09:23 am

Melville wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 21:24 pm

ClassicO wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025 21:19 pm In 12,232 words, Melville did not answer my question (no surprise).

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

No one sees an answer. What specific number or stat do you do to compare value in trades or drafts? That is what WAR attempts to provide. You may say it isn't a stat (true) but it uses stats to create a singular number for comparison and is as far as I can see the best thing out there.

The answer is that everybody uses WAR either directly by using the metrics available or indirectly by subjectively creating their own version of it. And the real kicker is, everybody has been doing this for decades.

It is exactly how we answer questions like the ones you asked. "who should we draft?" "Should I trade my ace for a MOTO bat who has 40 HR, 100 RBI but is a slug on the bases and a 1B, or should I go after the 20 HR, 40 SB GG SS instead?" Before WAR came around and objectively measured all components of baseball (with a repeatable but albeit imperfect method) we would have to weight power, RBIs, base running (usually steals), and defense (position and usually awards won) in our heads to determine if a trade was "fair value" or not. That is exactly what WAR does, just in a structured framework to allow you to reduce all those inputs to a single number, to make a decision. It's just measuring skills that lead to run differential and stacking them together. Then you put the stacks on a scale to see if a trade is fair or in your favor. As I mentioned prior to WAR the "weights" on the scale were GG defense, .300 hitter, 100 RBI bat, 30 SBs, 40 HRs, workhorse SP, shutdown reliever, etc.

+1