I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing that WAR gives me that I can't ascertain effectively by looking at a players slash stat line, his defensive valuations, and his team.

This all needs to be converted into a dollar amount somehow, and WAR is a pretty obvious means to doing that.

BTW, do you guys pronounce it war, like World War II, or waar, like car? I've always thought waar, since war is already a thing, but maybe I'm alone in that.

I say "waar" in my head, but the few times it's come up in an actual conversation, I've always just said "Wins Above Replacement", to avoid this very conundrum.

And that makes a difference how? The writer, and you now, are intentionally using the term vaguely enough so that it can mean two different things.

Well, no, not really. Language is vague, admittedly. Always has been, always will be. But there's nothing secretive or underhanded here. Anyone with a passing interest in baseball should know that "driving in runs" means "getting RBIs." They're called "Runs Batted In" for god's sake. You accumulate them by driving in runs. The runner on base accumulates Runs Scored by scoring on another player's RBI. This is Baseball 101, man. You can't not know this.

This all needs to be converted into a dollar amount somehow, and WAR is a pretty obvious means to doing that.

What interest would a casual fan have in converting an amalgam of various talents to a dollar amount?

49 - Look, I generally agree with you on WAR there. If we look at all the parts that go in, we'll have a better idea of how good a player is. For people who want to put in more than five minutes of work, you can do a lot better than simply WAR. I don't know who is arguing against that. But that's not what the writer says. He says that he just knows who the best players are already, so why bother with WAR. The reason he doesn't like it isn't because he has a better way of evaluating a player's overall ability, like you do.

What interest would a casual fan have in converting an amalgam of various talents to a dollar amount?

Understanding if a FA contract was good or bad?

I'd like to see your posts on this from the day. Besides, it's exactly the voting media types who need these kinds of tools.

Really? You don't think a vast majority of the stat minded people were already arguing about Nolan Ryan's overratedness "back in the day". Heck you don't need war, you just need era to argue that. Heck war is beyond a useless stat for a pitcher anyway, no reason to really use it, and anyone that brings war as an argument for a pitcher, is going to be rightfully ignored anyway.

War works decently for offensive players, provided you are dealing with comparing players with relatively the same playing time. It has it's flaws (Pitchers, catchers, first baseman, utility players) of course, but it's still a damn better tool than we have had in the past.

His argument here is in support of not dismissing RBI out of hand, so while everyone is jacked up, and some people ("clutch players") may feed off the environment, in his example one player won the battle and drove in the run.

Then he is wrong. RBI is one of the worse stats ever created. There is no rate component applied to it, nobody has bothered to try and improve on it, other than some esoteric decimal numbers that people have come up with, or the moronic WPA system. Either way they don't really tell you much. RBI needs a rate component to be useful, but everyone who has put it into a rate component form, has screwed it up by being too technical about it and making it a non-popular or incomprehensible number, so they have never caught on. I would prefer to look at risp over rbi, every day of the week, and I don't particularly like risp.

don't think it's quite a strawman in that I'm sure that people exist who write about WAR like it's absolute. And those people are arrogant. I just don't think they're influencing very many people. Not nearly as many people as the anti-stats writers reach.

Agree, there are war absolutist out there, that get defensive when you criticize war, who don't bother to do anything with it other than use it as a comparison tool and claim "see so and so is better" even if there is a difference in plate appearances, leagues, positions etc. Just because War says so. On this site, not so much, but in the short articles that do include war, oftentimes it is just to point to war and be done with it.

As an old radio guy, it actually took me quite a while to look at "WAR" and not think "call letters".

Well, no, not really. Language is vague, admittedly. Always has been, always will be. But there's nothing secretive or underhanded here. Anyone with a passing interest in baseball should know that "driving in runs" means "getting RBIs." They're called "Runs Batted In" for god's sake. You accumulate them by driving in runs. The runner on base accumulates Runs Scored by scoring on another player's RBI. This is Baseball 101, man. You can't not know this.

And now we just have a wordy "look at that dummy!"

And all of your wordiness doesn't change that you are intentionally conflating two ideas, what driving in runs means to a team, and what an individual's RBI total says about his own ability. You're smart enough to understand the difference, so I have no idea why you are pretending otherwise. The writer flat out says that stat nerds don't understand the former when everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows they are referring to the latter.

Blyleven is #39 in WAR all time and his election to the HoF was no certain thing.

Mussina is 57; Bagwell is 59; Schilling is 63; Whitaker is 74; Larry Walker is 81; Trammell is 91; Raines and Reuschel are tied at 97 and Smoltz is 100. What does it say about WAR that these players are unlikely to be elected by the BBWAA?

War for pitchers is useless... and is weighted for current pitchers anyway(and if you use fangraphs, even more so)

Bagwell would be in if it wasn't for swirling roid rumors. Walker perfectly illustrates the problem with a counting stat, never playing a full season, along with Coors discount. Trammell is the perfect example of why we need a stat like War. He was good at every aspect of the game, but wasn't a Ozzie like defender or a Ripken like hitter so he gets squeezed out. Raines and Whitaker also fit that description.(Raines gets dinged for being the second best leadoff hitter of all time though)

Have you never heard someone argue that "RBIs are meaningless?"

I say it all the time. Without a rate component it has no value or meaning. If you can't tell me the percentage he drove in relative to league, what good does it tell me about his ability? It's a counting stat driven by opportunities. Do some guys do a very good job at it and others not? Of course, but just looking at RBI, the information to tell me that isn't there.

Predictive Empirical Analysis, Circular Explanations

But that's not what the writer says. He says that he just knows who the best players are already, so why bother with WAR. The reason he doesn't like it isn't because he has a better way of evaluating a player's overall ability, like you do.

No, not really. The article is a direct response to Sam Miller's "WAR is the Answer" article from ESPN.com. He is explicitly debating a guy who is preaching WAR as the "answer" to all of baseball, and comparing people who don't need or use WAR to global warming denialists. You seem to be missing the entire point of the article in your rush to be morally offended that someone isn't taking your preferred stat as Word of God.

And now we just have a wordy "look at that dummy!"

It's ironic that you are accusing me of calling people "dummy" in a thread where I'm arguing in defense of an article asking stat absolutists to stop calling people who don't agree with their preferred stats idiots.

And all of your wordiness doesn't change that you are intentionally conflating two ideas, what driving in runs means to a team, and what an individual's RBI total says about his own ability. You're smart enough to understand the difference, so I have no idea why you are pretending otherwise.

I'm not conflating anything. When anyone talks about RBI, they're talking about a guy that drives in runs for his team. You're trying to turn that into a chicken-egg thing, maybe, but most people just mean "the guy that drives in the runs for the team. RBI is better tracked through SLG%, if you're interested in player evaluation, but it's not useless if you have RBI, a knowledge of the lineup constructions for his team, and his offensive environment.

Understanding if a FA contract was good or bad?

What does a casual fan care about that? If the Braves go out and resign Jeff Francoeur and he hits the game winning HR of Game 7 of the World Series, casual fans will call that contract good, no matter what.

The need to "properly value" contracts and such is derivative of fantasy baseball more than anything else. Most fans outside of fantasy are going to say "we signed a famous guy I've heard of, yay!"

And this is tangential to the point the article is making.

BTW, do you guys pronounce it war, like World War II, or waar, like car? I've always thought waar, since war is already a thing, but maybe I'm alone in that.

I pronounce it "whore," as in Aura and Mystique.

Understanding if a FA contract was good or bad?

WAR is inadequate for that task. At the very least, you need to consider a player's age and consistency, and then you have to make a projection about how likely he is to hold onto his skills. WAR doesn't do any of that. WAR doesn't care if a player is credited for being a 30-year-old great defensive centerfielder whose skills are likely to slip as he ages, or if he's a young player hitting gobs of doubles and triples who is likely to turn that into home run power.

Another way to look at it: Jose Bautista and Jamey Carroll had the same WAR last year. If they were on the free agent market this off-season, would they earn similar contracts? Should they?

Piggybacking Tom's point @65 - WAR doesn't really tell you anything useful about free agents outside of age, too. A SS with fantastic range and massive defensive value who can't hit may make sense for a team with an otherwise solid lineup and a bunch of young pitchers, or a ground ball heavy staff. Even if you lose some offense from the position. Raffy Belliard is sometimes the better pickup than Jeff Blauser. Or if you showed me two players with identical WAR, but one played 3B and one played the OF, I'd tell you in a heartbeat that the 3B option is more valuable to the Braves of 2013.

WAR gives you none of that.

WAR is inadequate for that task. At the very least, you need to consider a player's age and consistency, and then you have to make a projection about how likely he is to hold onto his skills. WAR doesn't do any of that. WAR doesn't care if a player is credited for being a 30-year-old great defensive centerfielder whose skills are likely to slip as he ages, or if he's a young player hitting gobs of doubles and triples who is likely to turn that into home run power.


Obviously you want to use projected WAR for a contract not last year's.

Understanding if a FA contract was good or bad?

Rickey and Tom took that comment to mean at the time of the signing, I took it to mean evaluating the contract after the fact.

They were right on it's flaw at evaluating a signing at the time of the signing, but war is perfectly useful tool for evaluating whether a signing was good after it's over.

Piggybacking Tom's point @65 - WAR doesn't really tell you anything useful about free agents outside of age, too. A SS with fantastic range and massive defensive value who can't hit may make sense for a team with an otherwise solid lineup and a bunch of young pitchers, or a ground ball heavy staff. Even if you lose some offense from the position. Raffy Belliard is sometimes the better pickup than Jeff Blauser. Or if you showed me two players with identical WAR, but one played 3B and one played the OF, I'd tell you in a heartbeat that the 3B option is more valuable to the Braves of 2013.

WAR gives you none of that.

To properly evaluate player acquisition and valuation, you have to attempt to put all players on a similar scale.

If you're trying to figure out whether the Braves should use their limited funds sign a #3 SP, or a slick fielding 3B with an average bat, or a slugging LF with atrocious D, you have to compare their vastly different abilities, and the contribution each makes to run scoring and run prevention.

WAR is far from perfect, but at least it gives you a framework to make the comparison.

Rickey and Tom took that comment to mean at the time of the signing, I took it to mean evaluating the contract after the fact.

They were right on it's flaw at evaluating a signing at the time of the signing, but war is perfectly useful tool for evaluating whether a signing was good after it's over.

Well, before hand, you'd use projected WAR, which is based on past WAR, age, trends, and a bunch of other stuff. After the fact, you'd use actuals.

If you don't like the WAR stat, you could achieve the same end by simulating 10,000 seasons with and w/o a player, and estimate his value to a particular team.

But somehow, when deciding to spend talent or dollars to acquire a player, you have to try and assess how many more wins he'll contribute to your team.

WAR is not a statistic, it's a methodology. There are different implementations of this methodology, which produce different statistics. (Win Shares is a WAR, for instance.)

It's a methodology aimed at expressing all of the different player contributions to wins in commensurate ways. For comparing players, it's highly useful, and it's very difficult to make these sorts of comparisons without using some sort of WAR-like method.

If you're trying to figure out whether the Braves should use their limited funds sign a #3 SP, or a slick fielding 3B with an average bat, or a slugging LF with atrocious D, you have to compare their vastly different abilities, and the contribution each makes to run scoring and run prevention.

If you're trying to compare a hitter to a pitcher using WAR, you've already done it wrong. Any front office who doesn't drill the crosstabs and depends on a all-in-one spitball stat like WAR is already behind the curve.

Any front office who doesn't drill the crosstabs and depends on a all-in-one spitball stat like WAR is already behind the curve.

But you need to use a WAR methodology to bring those "crosstabs" together.

But you need to use a WAR methodology to bring those "crosstabs" together.

Why?

If you have information that one guy is 7.5X and 2.5Y, and someone else is 3.5X and 4.5Y, you need a method for converting X into Y to compare them. That's WAR.

If you have information that one guy is 7.5X and 2.5Y, and someone else is 3.5X and 4.5Y, you need a method for converting X into Y to compare them. That's WAR.

Disagree. You ask yourself "what does my team need?" If your team needs X more than Y, you get guy one. If your team needs Y over X, you get guy two. It's false precision to pretend that X and Y are the same skill set.

EDIT: For the record, this is why I don't really use WAR too terribly often. Not because I'm just madly in love with those gauzy-framed stats of my youth, but because I don't like mixing offensive value and defensive value together as if they're merely differing brands of the same commodity.

If your team needs X more than Y, you get guy one. If your team needs Y over X, you get guy two.

That's simply not true. If your club has a weak defense and a solid pitching staff, you still shouldn't trade Trevor Bauer for Didi Gregorious. It's true that teams may choose a player with slightly less total projected value for roster fit reasons, but you have to know how much value you're losing in order to decide if it's the right choice. and that's where you need a WAR methodology.

There are different implementations of this methodology, which produce different statistics.

Which necessarily argues for the inaccuracy of any or all of them.

For comparing players, it's highly useful, and it's very difficult to make these sorts of comparisons without using some sort of WAR-like method.

I think people kind of elide over the fact that it's rare to have any practical use for one-to-one player comparisons expressed as a single number. In free agent acquisitions or trades, the projection is far more important than a backward-looking estimate of value. And as Sam notes, the needs of the team are also more important than that backwards value estimate.

I've asked this question before and never got a satisfactory answer: If I were in a major league front office, what would I use WAR for?

Which necessarily argues for the inaccuracy of any or all of them.

All of them, of course. All value statistics are necessarily estimates, which are necessarily inaccurate. This is a very dumb argument. Surely you don't object to every method of measurement which involves estimation.

If I were in a major league front office, what would I use WAR for?

Any time you're comparing players, perhaps as possible free agent signings, you're going to use something like a WAR methodology. If you don't have a way of expressing X in terms of Y and Y in terms of Z and so on, you won't be able to effectively say much of anything about player value. Everyone uses nonce versions of WAR constantly.

The best articulation of WAR methodology that I go back to are the Bill James essays on the Jim Rice / Ron Guidry and Don Mattingly / Roger Clemens MVP races. And the New Historical Abstract essay on Griffey vs. Biggio. James articulated the WAR method better than anyone else.

If I were in a major league front office, what would I use WAR for?

Err...defending your previous years' FA acquisitions? To ownership?

Disagree. You ask yourself "what does my team need?" If your team needs X more than Y, you get guy one. If your team needs Y over X, you get guy two. It's false precision to pretend that X and Y are the same skill set.

That's nonsense. It only applies if the players are equal in value.

Based on your argument the Indians would have been smarter giving $12M p.a. to Kyle Lohse rather than Bourn or Swisher b/c they "needed SP more".

I think people kind of elide over the fact that it's rare to have any practical use for one-to-one player comparisons expressed as a single number. In free agent acquisitions or trades, the projection is far more important than a backward-looking estimate of value.

Why do you keep pretending WAR can only be backward looking? For player acquisition everyone agrees you want to look at projected value (of which past value is a part, but only a part).

I've asked this question before and never got a satisfactory answer: If I were in a major league front office, what would I use WAR for?

What do you need RBI for?

The components of war is what matters, war just takes those components and put it into a single overall number. From a front office perspective, I don't see any reason that they would need that. War is a way to simplify the overall numbers into one number for the fan.

Why do you keep pretending WAR can only be backward looking? For player acquisition everyone agrees you want to look at projected value (of which past value is a part, but only a part).

Because as a combined number, it really doesn't have value, even as a projection tool. It's the components that matter, not the final number.

For player acquisition everyone agrees you want to look at projected value (of which past value is a part, but only a part).

Right. You can apply a WAR methodology to projections just as easily as to past statistics.

From a front office perspective, I don't see any reason that they would need that.

How could they not? If you want to figure out whether it's a good idea to offer a certain contract for someone, you want to know how much value they're projected to give you. If you don't have a method for estimating total value - which is what WAR is - how do you decide what makes a good contract for the club? You need more than a WAR methodology, but it's a necessary part of the process.

I've asked this question before and never got a satisfactory answer: If I were in a major league front office, what would I use WAR for?

What do you need RBI for?

The components of war is what matters, war just takes those components and put it into a single overall number. From a front office perspective, I don't see any reason that they would need that. War is a way to simplify the overall numbers into one number for the fan.

Because as a combined number, it really doesn't have value, even as a projection tool. It's the components that matter, not the final number.

But if you don't have a method for combining the numbers, or for producing commensurate numbers, you can't make full use of them. WAR is the method for producing commensurate numbers and combining them as needed.

WAR is mostly about expressing player value in terms of runs. If you're expressing the value of stolen bases in terms of runs, you're using a WAR method. If you're expressing the value of a hit prevented in terms of runs, you're using a WAR method.

The components of war is what matters, war just takes those components and put it into a single overall number. From a front office perspective, I don't see any reason that they would need that. War is a way to simplify the overall numbers into one number for the fan.

You need both. Predicted components, with deviation around those estimates, and a total.

What are you going to do with the fact that a player is +10 rBat, -2 rBaserunning, +1 rGIDP, and -4 rField if you don't add them up, at least implicitly?

What are you going to do with the fact that a player is +10 rBat, -2 rBaserunning, +1 rGIDP, and -4 rField if you don't add them up, at least implicitly?

If you have numbers that can be added up, you've already made use of a WAR methodology.

Without a WAR methodology, you'd have 9 home runs, 75 putouts, .274 batting average. Turning all of those into runs is the heart of WAR.

Any time you're comparing players, perhaps as possible free agent signings, you're going to use something like a WAR methodology.

But "something like a WAR methodology" is a very different thing from the use of a single-number WAR. The Indians used "something like a WAR methodology" when they decided to trade for Tris Speaker, but that's not what that "WAR Is the Answer" article was talking about. That was specifically about assigning a single number to a player's value.

And that's my question: When would I have any use for that single numerical value?

And that's my question: When would I have any use for that single numerical value?

Just to be clear. Would you object to one, two, none, or all of these sentences?

1) I project Nick Swisher to +27 RAR
2) I project Nick Swisher to +15 Bat, -2 Run, +21 Rep, -8 Pos, +1 Def, +27 RAR
3) I project Nick Swisher to +15 Bat, -2 Run, +21 Rep, -8 Pos, +1 Def

I think that it's best to say (2) rather than (1). If your argument is that we should use WAR methodology, but we should always express ourselves in terms of WAR components rather than single-number WAR, I don't have a particular problem with that.

I think it would be silly to object to (2) but not (3). I'm just adding in the WAR "added up" number for ease of reading, rather than forcing the reading to do the obvious addition in her head. You don't object to that, right? And if you don't, you don't object to WAR. You object to expressions of WAR which don't also include information about its components.

EDIT: Took out the contract thing, it's immaterial to the question at hand.

And that's my question: When would I have any use for that single numerical value?

When you're deciding whether to trade Trevor Bauer for Didi Gregorius.

Just to be clear. Would you object to one, two, none, or all of these sentences?

1) I project Nick Swisher to +27 RAR, and as such I don't think he's good value at his likely contract.
2) I project Nick Swisher to +15 Bat, -2 Run, +21 Rep, -8 Pos, +1 Def, +27 RAR, and as such I don't think he's good value at his likely contract.
3) I project Nick Swisher to +15 Bat, -2 Run, +21 Rep, -8 Pos, +1 Def, and as such I don't think he's good value at his likely contract.

I think that it's best to say (2) rather than (1). If your argument is that we should use WAR methodology, but we should always express ourselves in terms of WAR components rather than single-number WAR, I don't have a particular problem with that.

I think it would be silly to object to (2) but not (3). I'm just adding in the WAR "added up" number for ease of reading, rather than forcing the reading to do the obvious addition in her head. You don't object to that, right? And if you don't, you don't object to WAR. You object to expressions of WAR which don't also include information about its components.

I would object to (1) as it simplifies complexity that needs to be understood in it's complexity.

I would not object to (2) or (3), as they at least leave the complexity in the equation.

I do object to the notion that what you are arguing here, this idea of "the WAR methodology," is equivalent to the original "WAR Is The Answer" article which drove this column above. I think your position and that of the writer here is far more aligned than your position and Harris's arguments from ESPN.

The Indians used "something like a WAR methodology" when they decided to trade for Tris Speaker

I doubt it. The idea of converting value to a single unit of measurement and comparing player value between different categories based on these units is not something that was active in old-time baseball. It's reasonably new.

I would not object to (2) or (3), as they at least leave the complexity in the equation.

(2) includes WAR. You don't object to WAR. You object to certain kinds of expressions of WAR. That's completely different from what you've been saying all thread long.

Every stat, every measurement, every word can be used in dumb ways. WAR can be used in dumb ways. However, the WAR methodology is exceptionally useful for talking about baseball, you need to be clear and not talk about how much you dislike WAR when in fact you only object to a certain dumb expression of it.

I'd say that in expressing your opinion about WAR, you are simplifying a necessary complexity, when in fact you need to leave the complexity in the discussion.

(2) includes WAR. You don't object to WAR. You object to certain kinds of expressions of WAR. That's completely different from what you've been saying all thread long.

Every stat, every measurement, every word can be used in dumb ways. WAR can be used in dumb ways. However, the WAR methodology is exceptionally useful for talking about baseball, you need to be clear and not talk about how much you dislike WAR when in fact you only object to a certain dumb expression of it.

The WAR in the (2) is simply a combination of the details stated prior to the summary. If you leave in the crosstabs, I don't mind the executive summary, but I'm not going to look at it. I'm going to drill the crosstabs. What I dislike about WAR is twofold.

First, I dislike the idea of combining disparate elements of baseball skill into one "single unit of measure." Specifically, I hate the idea of taking offensive measurements, which we're pretty good at, and combining them linearly with defensive measurements, which we're better at than before, which gets to a point vaguely analogous to the high middle ages or something. We're still stupid about defense, just not as stupid as we were a few years back, and mushing defensive runs into a single equation with offensive runs falsifies the calculus. You're not building a better robot. You're building Frankenstien's monster. It is far better to maintain the complexity. The only reason I'm okay with your (2) is because it maintains the complexity at the beginning. (You can choose to ignore the RAR total if you like, and I would.)

Second, I dislike the arrogance with which WAR is deployed in baseball debates, this thread being exemplary of that in some ways. The article linked to above is an intellectually honest, perfectly rational and genuinely friendly and polite counter to Harris' rather silly bromide from ESPN. For his efforts, the guy has been called a "moron*" (@33) and a "dumb sportswriter" (@40). All while the people hurling mindless epithets at the guy for daring to not kowtow to the Holy Answerness That Is WAR accuse others of attempting to shut down debate.

I don't think that's out of bounds or unreasonable, and I think I've been clear on that throughout this thread.

I'd say that in expressing your opinion about WAR, you are simplifying a necessary complexity, when in fact you need to leave the complexity in the discussion.

Cute, but the punch was not landed. No points.

Why should we care about WAR?

Maybe because ...

Every GM relies on WAR today.

Every GM in the history of baseball has relied on WAR.

Every fan in the history of baseball has measured players in WAR at one time or another.

WAR is just wins. Almost every single trade ever made has been made with the participants believing that making the trade would gain them more wins at some point in the future. Every GM looked at every player in the deal as someone who could or couldn't net them more wins than what they could easily acquire out of their minor league system, someone else's, or the waiver wire.

They used WAR with ther own methodologies for calculating values, but they used the WAR framework to make decisions.

Just like fans do with players. Their main interest is never whether their team is gained someone who will lead the league in batting average, RBIs, or "pitchers wins", its how many more wins does this new player bring the team.

Now that their are standardized versions of WAR that use reasonable value calculations it gives everyone fair and unbiased starting points to argue players values in wins from. That's pretty awesome. Nerds didn't work for years to custom design value measures in WAR to show Mike Trout in the best possible light and expose all of Miggys flaws. They created the best possible value measures, and those measures said Trout was great.

Just like any statistic you can quibble with WAR values, they should be starting points, not endpoints to analysis and discussion. But today's WAR measures are good enough there isn't a lot more ground to plow in many cases. You can reject defensive measurements that said Trout was otherworldly and Cabrera bad, and Trout still crushes Miggy. You throw out WARs measures of base running and defense altogether and Miggys bat was still barely more valuable than Trouts. Thatt clearly tells you Trout was more valuable, because any set of eyes will tell you Trout added so much more value on defense and base paths that Miggy would have to have crushed Triout at the plate to make up for it.

When you're deciding whether to trade Trevor Bauer for Didi Gregorius.

Is it possible to object to that trade without using WAR? I think it is.

But today's WAR measures are good enough there isn't a lot more ground to plow in many cases. You can reject defensive measurements that said Trout was otherworldly and Cabrera bad, and Trout still crushes Miggy. You throw out WARs measures of base running and defense altogether and Miggys bat was still barely more valuable than Trouts. Thatt clearly tells you Trout was more valuable, because any set of eyes will tell you Trout added so much more value on defense and base paths that Miggy would have to have crushed Triout at the plate to make up for it.

At the end of the day, I think this is what drives most hardcore WAR believers these days; the terrible, horrendous, crime against humanity that happened when the voters awarded Miguel Cabrera the 2012 MVP because he was a triple crown winner, over the beloved youngster, Mike Trout. Good god, son. Get over it. It's neither the first nor the last time a guy with less stat-nerd chachet loses and MVP race.

Is it possible to object to that trade without using WAR? I think it is.

How do you compare the value of a good-glove, no-hit SS to a pitching prospect w/o some projection (in a common unit) of how much value each will deliver over the next X years?

Even simpler, let's take away uncertainty. Let's say I know for sure the production of the only 2 available LF. They both available for a 3/20 contract, and are the same age, and I need a LF. For the next 3 years, Sluggy Slotherton will have a 120 OPS+ with poor baserunning and average defense, with Speedy Gloverton will put up a 90 OPS+ with good baserunning and excellent defense.

How do I choose who to sign without evaluating their contributions in some common unit of measure?