Yeah, it's almost like there is "exhaustive introduction to WAR" available right on the website for anyone who is interested to read.

When explaining how wicked awesome WAR is, you may want to leave out the part where Darwin Barney is ahead of Josh Hamilton, Prince Fielder, and Joe Mauer this year.

When explaining how wicked awesome WAR is, you may want to leave out the part where Darwin Barney is ahead of Josh Hamilton, Prince Fielder, and Joe Mauer this year.

Why?

Because Darwin Barney isn't having a better year than any of those guys. Duh.

But his WAR is better! What part of WAR don't you understand?!

Oh, the d part. Fair enough.

Sean, you better be careful when you start calling out a bunch of angry geezers. Some of those old guys might still be using slide rules--and some of those are classified as deadly weapons, at least east of the Mississippi... :-)

I don't understand why WAR is the battleground for this debate. Can't you argue for Trout without it?

what goes into war?

soldiers, a whole bunch of wasted money and a lot of greedy businesspersons/politicians

That's the whole post up there but y'all should click the link anyway. The first comment there is kind of amazing.

Darwin Barney helped his baseball team more than Josh Hamilton. Sure.

When explaining how wicked awesome WAR is, you may want to leave out the part where Darwin Barney is ahead of Josh Hamilton, Prince Fielder, and Joe Mauer this year.

The point of understanding or explaining WAR isn't to endorse it as the final word in player evaluation. It's to explain how WAR works. With a player like Barney, who has an outlying defensive evaluation and middling offense, understanding WAR should lead you to being skeptical of his defensive evaluation in the stat.

However, I will note that one of the players you listed there, Prince Fielder, is a great test case for WAR. Prince Fielder is about as bad a baseball player as you can be while playing every day and putting up a 900 OPS. He costs his team 10-15 runs between his baserunning and defense. The fact that guys like Alex Rios, Austin Jackson, Ben Zobrist, Dustin Pedroia, and Adrian Beltre have been clearly better baseball players than Prince Fielder is something that WAR usefully illuminates.

It's the duty of people who claim expertise to communicate it to the general population, preferably without whining about it.

Tenured sports columnists != the general population

Or, is #12 a criticism of said sports columnists? It could play either way.

Sean Forman has already won. Guys like Madden are like lost Japanese soldiers after WWII hiding in California coastal caves waiting for the invasion that will never come, destined to die alone, confused and really, really sick of shellfish and seaweed...

There were Japanese soldiers hiding out in California?

The fact that guys like Alex Rios, Austin Jackson, Ben Zobrist, Dustin Pedroia, and Adrian Beltre have been clearly better baseball players than Prince Fielder is something that WAR usefully

And clearly players like Darwin Barney, Michael Bourn, and Denard Span have been better as well.

There were Japanese soldiers hiding out in California?

It's a California/West Coast legend. I'm not sure if it has a basis in fact or not.

Prince Fielder is about as bad a baseball player as you can be while playing every day and putting up a 900 OPS.

Eyeballing all of the 900+ OPS seasons in history, Prince's 4.1 WAR falls short of the average (~5.5), but it's hardly the worst: Adam Dunn, 2009. 267/398/529...and a -0.6 WAR, thanks to a horrific Rfield of -43, the lowest in baseball history.

Sean Forman has already won. Guys like Madden are like lost Japanese soldiers after WWII hiding in California coastal caves waiting for the invasion that will never come, destined to die alone, confused and really, really sick of shellfish and seaweed...

####### Numenoreans.

That's the whole post up there but y'all should click the link anyway. The first comment there is kind of amazing.

I'm surprised Jack Keefe was able to go a whole comment without spelling errors.

Darwin Barney helped his baseball team more than Josh Hamilton. Sure.

Adam Dunn, 2009. 267/398/529...and a -0.6 WAR, thanks to a horrific Rfield of -43, the lowest in baseball history.

You should be equally skeptical of both of those defensive numbers.

When explaining how wicked awesome WAR is, you may want to leave out the part where Darwin Barney is ahead of Josh Hamilton, Prince Fielder, and Joe Mauer this year.

Which makes WAR -- to be charitable -- highly dubious. Why would anyone expect veteran beat writers to contact him to get his opinion on how Darwin Barney has been a better baseball player than Josh Hamilton ... and then publicly whine about not being contacted?

When you don't persuade people of the wisdom of what you're hocking, it's your problem -- not theirs.

The point of my post is not to claim that WAR is the end-all be-all. My point is that Madden and co. are savaging the stat while expressing little to no interest in understanding what we are trying to do. If they want to point out particular issues, we can talk about those, but they are merely arguing that the stat is stupid and leaving it at that.

The point of my post is not to claim that WAR is the end-all be-all. My point is that Madden and co. are savaging the stat while expressing little to no interest in understanding what we are trying to do. If they want to point out particular issues, we can talk about those, but they are merely arguing that the stat is stupid and leaving it at that.

There's nothing to really point out, and some of them have surely pointed things out.

1. Darwin Barney isn't a better player than Josh Hamilton.

2. Mike Trout hasn't been as good a hitter as Miguel Cabrera and shouldn't get a ca. 13% bonus for playing in Anaheim.

3. Risk-free replacement-leval production is not obtainable in the marketplace.

4. Last year's AL WAR leader was Ben Zobrist -- where was his MVP support?

5. Justin Verlander had more WAR than all the other serious MVP candidates in 2011, yet wasn't pushed as the clear winner by the same people pushing Mike Trout this year.

Mike Trout hasn't been as good a hitter as Miguel Cabrera and shouldn't get a ca. 13% bonus for playing in Anaheim.

Aren't the PF's displayed the raw ones and the actual bonus only half that?

When you don't persuade people of the wisdom of what you're hocking, it's your problem -- not theirs.

This comes off as really smug SugarBear. If Madden, et al. understood the workings of WAR and criticized it it would be one thing, but they don't even make an effort which is Sean's point. Willful ignorance isn't Sean's problem, it's Madden's.

WAR has become a great strawman IMO. If a writer wants to give the award to Cabrera because of the triple crown or because he doesn't want to give it to a 20 year old, WAR is a convenient hook for him to hang his hat: "I'm not going to vote for Trout just because some stupid stat I don't understand tells me to." That allows them to avoid looking too closely at the more obvious stuff like baserunning and defense.

The biggest conceptual problem with WAR is that risk-free replacement-level production is not obtainable in the marketplace. There are some good things about WAR, but that problem damages the model pretty badly. While the "old guard" may not have said exactly this, they've certainly noted things like the replacement player being fictitious.

WAR is analogous to the concept of excess return in finance, but the risk-free rate of return (typically a US treasury) is actually available.

The biggest conceptual problem with WAR is that risk-free replacement-level production is not obtainable in the marketplace. There are some good things about WAR, but that problem damages the model pretty badly.

While this is true in general, I think Trout probably has more WA0 (Wins Above 0) or wins above bottom-level replacement (like Audy Ciriaco or Kole Calhoun) than Cabrera does too.

2. Mike Trout hasn't been as good a hitter as Miguel Cabrera and shouldn't get a ca. 13% bonus for playing in Anaheim.

Are you making a Cabrera for MVP argument? Even if I concede that Trout hasn't been quite as good a hitter as Cabrera, Trout is a good CF with a 40 SB advantage and 20 fewer GIDP. There's no need to bring WAR into the discussion to make a case for Trout.

The biggest conceptual problem with WAR is that risk-free replacement-level production is not obtainable in the marketplace. There are some good things about WAR, but that problem damages the model pretty badly.

I'm a little skeptical of this, too, and more skeptical of the defensive component of WAR. I tend to look at offensive WAR and then make an adjustment on my own for defense. Really, the best stats about defense I've seen are those sites that did crowd sourcing on a player's defensive performance. That was an interesting concept, I thought. My one big criticism of that is that the "crowd" was largely reliant on tv to make their judgements and I think you get a much better feel for the ground a player is covering seeing the game in person.

Eyeballing all of the 900+ OPS seasons in history, Prince's 4.1 WAR falls short of the average (~5.5), but it's hardly the worst: Adam Dunn, 2009.

Yup. Least WAR, OPS > .900, 400 minimum PA

My only surprise is that there aren't MORE Rockies on that list.

SugarBear, the reason for the questions you ask is that the people who are espousing Trout this year are not solely basing it on WAR. And that is true of the other questions; Zobrist, Verlander, etc...people are using WAR to inform but aren't blindly saying "Trout has a better WAR so he wins now I'm sticking my fingers in my ears."

I really don't see how this is at all controversial. Forget about the advanced metrics, the slash stats of the two players are relatively similar and Trout adds incredible value on the bases and certainly more defensive value (by both talent and position) than Cabrera.

The defensive issues that WAR has are well known and discussed. I think they are fair concerns and like so many others I have a real problem with that. Further, I'll agree with you that the park factors look a little wobbly to me but...

.321/.395/.557 plus 48 out of 52 in steals and great outfield defense
.325/.390/.601 plus average 3rd base defense

looks like a pretty easy call.

As for your argument about replacement level not being obtainable I fail to see how that's meaningful. There needs to be a baseline and if you'd prefer it be average there's a metric for that. Pick your baseline, Wins Above Francoeur? Wins Above Some Guy in Rookie Ball? Fine, the number winds up a bit different but it is the same end result.

Eyeballing all of the 900+ OPS seasons in history, Prince's 4.1 WAR falls short of the average

Not adjusted for risk. Prince Fielder's production is quite predictable and dependable. That has significant value.

As for your argument about replacement level not being obtainable I fail to see how that's meaningful.

Because the Cubs didn't win 5 more games with Darwin Barney than they would have with freely-available Kevin Frandsen at 2B every day.

The whole model is based on a level of production level that isn't obtainable -- at least not with a high level of risk of variance. Freely and actuall available talent has an extremely high likelihood of surprising to the upside or downside of "replacement-level" production.

The defensive issues that WAR has are well known and discussed. I think they are fair concerns and like so many others I have a real problem with that. Further, I'll agree with you that the park factors look a little wobbly to me but...

Among us, but not among people unfamiliar with the Stat.

The biggest issue with WAR is the outliers (e.g. Barney). They make it too easy to dismiss the whole construct based on wonky results.

Darwin Barney vs. Josh Hamilton. Look at it this way, how would a team of nine Darwin Barneys and an average pitching staff do against a team of nine Josh Hamiltons with the same pitching staff? I realize this oversimplifies the issue, but I can't imagine anyone arguing that the team of Barneys would win. When you think of it this way, it seems to me that the value WAR is placing on Barney's fielding is way too high. And, I think the positional adjustments are too extreme.

7. PreservedFish Posted: October 01, 2012 at 12:49 AM (#4249660)
I don't understand why WAR is the battleground for this debate. Can't you argue for Trout without it?

This. Mike Trout does not need WAR to show he has been the better player. His raw stats can't compete with any intangible story line from which Cabrera migh benefit (i.e moving positions to accomodate Prince), but its not like Cabrera's destroying the league on offense. He's barely slugging .600, his OBP is only .390, and his BA is only .325. If he won the Triple Crown with a .350/.450/.675 line and 50 homers I could see how that could overshadow Trout's very obvious overall offensive and defensive package, even if his WAR only happned to be 8.5 to Trout's 10.5. Cabrera is having one of the weakest TC seasons ever - its not like this is the second coming of Yaz '67, Robinson '66, or Mantle '56.

EDIT - I should just buy a 6-pack of Cokes.

Not adjusted for risk. Prince Fielder's production is quite predictable and dependable. That has significant value.

And that's useful for team building purposes but for determining a player's actual, single season value, it's not really relevant.

The whole model is based on a level of production level that isn't obtainable -- at least not with a high level of risk of variance. Freely and actuall available talent has an extremely high likelihood of surprising to the upside or downside of "replacement-level" production.

But are you saying this makes a difference in Trout v. Cabrera or just in the idea of WAR?

The biggest issue with WAR is the outliers (e.g. Barney). They make it too easy to dismiss the whole construct based on wonky results.

And that's why the Madden's of the world should contact Sean. In the next several months as Dan does his ZiPS projections if he comes up with Jose Iglesias as a .340 hitter for 2013 I'll post a comment asking how such a thing happened and Dan will likely respond. At that point I'll understand where the numbers come from and then I'll have the knowledge that allows me to make an informed decision.

If Madden had an understand of WAR and was rejecting it that would be perfectly fair. As frustrating as SBB is I think he raises some legitimate concerns. However, to just use outliers is lazy and sloppy journalism.

But are you saying this makes a difference in Trout v. Cabrera or just in the idea of WAR?

The idea of WAR.

The only problem I have with Trout over Cabrera as MVP is the insistence that Trout has been as good a hitter because of the silly Anaheim/Comerica park adjustment. (Park factors are part of WAR and sometimes make no sense.) I have no problem with saying Trout has been nearly as good a hitter, but more than makes up the gap in baserunning and fielding.

3. Risk-free replacement-leval production is not obtainable in the marketplace.

That is just a concept that is setting a base level. The existence of actual replacement players doesn't matter when comparing actual major league players.

5. Justin Verlander had more WAR than all the other serious MVP candidates in 2011, yet wasn't pushed as the clear winner by the same people pushing Mike Trout this year.

Verlander is a pitcher and has the caveats that apply to pitchers in all MVP discussions. Not just because of war, but the fact that many people do not seriously consider pitchers in MVP discussions. (regardless of the ballot rules)

And that's why the Madden's of the world should contact Sean.

But why? Should mainsteram people contact Lyndon Larouche to get the true story of the Trilateral Commission?

Some things are so silly that they warrant spending finite time on Earth concerning oneself with something else. A model that says Darwin Barney over Josh Hamilton is one of those things. (*)

It's not just that, of course -- as noted above, the Cubs did not win 5 more games with Barney at 2nd than they would have with freely-available Kevin Frandsen. (Frandsen was just the first name that popped into my head; he might not even be the best example.)

(*) It should be noted here that I've read most or all that BB-ref has written on WAR and freqeuently consult the WAR numbers. Which has helped me understand its limitations.

Speaking of the WAR measurements, Bryce Harper is now officially the greatest teenage position player in MLB history according to both of them.

the silly Anaheim/Comerica park adjustment.

Again, why is it silly? For 3-4 years now, the Angels have scored and allowed far fewer runs at home than on the road.

Petco has the same park factor, is approximately the same elevation, and is almost the same size*, and no one disputes that it is a tough hitting park.

*According to ballparks.com, distance from left to right:

Anaheim - 330, 365, 406, 365, 330
Petco - 334, 367, 402, 387, 322

Kevin Frandsen

I think if we're going to compare players to real replacements we need to look at the replacement's projections (maybe 25th and 75th percentile projections) and not their actual stats. Otherwise you get guys having seasons like Cody Ransom (positive) or Ryan Raburn (negative) did this year.

You don't need WAR to make Trout's case.

Let's say that park factor boosts Trout's numbers but not to the extent that bWAR boosts them. So let's turn the Angel Stadium park factor from 92 to 96. This means Trout's adjusted OPS+ goes from 168 to 162. That's under Cabrera's 164, but close. Trout's OPS is more OBP-heavy, though: Trout's OBP is .395 to Miggy's .390. Given that we know OBP is underweighted in OPS, at worst we can figure that Trout's OPS+ is roughly equivalent to Cabrera's.

But that's a rate stat and Cabrera played 22 more games than Trout. That's true and a real advantage. However, we now have to add in Trout's advantage in baserunning, both in stolen bases and GDP, and that should make up for his deficit in games played. Voters took baserunning into account when Ichiro! won his MVP, and when Rickey won his, so we know baserunning can have substantial value. On that basis, Trout has a big enough advantage on baserunning that we can say that the two are roughly even on total "offense."

Now there's defense. First, we need to agree that defense is a significant part of a player's total value. Even without looking at WAR numbers, we know that Ozzie Smith and a lot of other "glove" guys were deserving All-Stars, MVPs (see Keith Hernandez or, more recently, Jimmy Rollins) and even Hall of Famers based on defense. If we can reasonably agree that defense is a major part of player value, we have to note that Cabrera's defensive case is that he switched to 3B and wasn't terrible there. I will point out that I have not heard anyone say that Miggy has been good, just that he has been surprisingly non-awful at 3B. Maybe even satisfactory. Within the context of Cabrera's career and the Tigers' needs, that is good. However, being not-awful at 3B provides a lot less value than being gold glove-quality in CF. And no one is arguing against the assessment that Trout has been excellent in CF. If offense is roughly even between them, defense must push the advantage in value to Trout.

Now let's talk about team performance. Cabrera has helped his team to the division title. In some voters' eyes, this gives him an advantage in the MVP race. If we are thinking that this is a close race for MVP, this indeed could be a tie-breaking sort of factor. However, Trout's Angels as of today had a better record than the Tigers. Trout helped lead the Angels to be a contender for the wild card down to the final series -- and the team performed noticeably better once he joined them: just look at the difference between their first 22 games and the following 137. So here again, I see the advantage as leaning a bit towards Trout or at worst dead even.

So unless you view defense as significantly less valuable than the mainstream has viewed it, Trout is clearly the more valuable all-around player.

SBB, if you mislike replacement value so much, just take it out of the equation. Better still, Sean does it for you. Trout is at 8.6 WAA, Cabrera 4.4.

The only problem I have with Trout over Cabrera as MVP is the insistence that Trout has been as good a hitter because of the silly Anaheim/Comerica park adjustment.

Even without a park adjustment, there's only a .040 difference in OPS. I'd say that qualifies as "as good a hitter".

(*) It should be noted here that I've read most or all that BB-ref has written on WAR and freqeuently consult the WAR numbers. Which has helped me understand its limitations.

Isn't that the arguement, though? You raise questions, based on research; the noted writers dismiss WAR, yet don't seem to know the first thing about it and don't seem to care to.