Yeah, but ... have you read the comments on ESPN.com? If anything, I'd take those voting results as a feather in WAR's cap.

I suspect of the general public seeing 37% have any clue what WAR is is a good thing. I did prefer WARP as the term though... must be the Trekkie in me :)

actually we are underestimating the voters, they actually all just have an even more complicated metric they feel is technically superior to WAR. it's coming from the other side of the debate.

Yet there is still a lot of push back against stats like WAR. The majority of fans still don’t trust it or believe in it. A few weeks ago, SportsNation asked on ESPN.com, “Do you consider WAR to be a useful statistic in evaluating baseball players?”

Ugh. Not that I blame these guys since it's common practice on much more important topics, but questions like this should always be preceded or followed by questions to determine whether the person has any idea what they're talking about.

For example, ask people if the US should spend less money on foreign aid and you get a heavy tilt towards yes. Ask them how much of the budget the US spends on foreign aid and you'll get answers like 20-30% (it's less than 1% still I believe). Similarly I'm sure you get much different answers if you asked "Should the US spend $1 billion a year on foreign aid?" vs. "Should the US spend 1% of its budget on foreign aid?"

There's also a problem around "evaluating baseball players". What does that mean? Evaluate for what purpose and along what dimension (talent or performance)?

questions like this should always be preceded or followed by questions to determine whether the person has any idea what they're talking about.

I think a person should have to take a quick test on the basics of the current issues and the candidates' positions before voting, but just try implementing that and you'll be branded a racist or elitist classist or something, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with race or class (unless newspapers have gotten much more expensive than I think they have).

With that in mind, I think they framed the question pretty well. They didn't ask whether WAR was the most useful, or the "best," just whether it was "a useful statistic." I think everyone here, even those of us who are suspicious of aspects of WAR, would answer yes to that question.

Yet there is still a lot of push back against stats like WAR. The majority of fans still don’t trust it or believe in it. A few weeks ago, SportsNation asked on ESPN.com, “Do you consider WAR to be a useful statistic in evaluating baseball players?” The “no” votes outweighed the “yes” votes 63 to 37 percent. It was a landslide rebellion against new metrics.

A gross misinterpretation of the results.

Most fans don't know what WAR is, or don't understand its uses. So for them it's not a "useful statistic". This is very different from "push back" or "rebellion", it is simply ignorance. Once you understand it even a little, it becomes useful to reference it.

It takes time for new metrics to penetrate into public consciousness and be widely understood enough to be "useful". Look at on-base percentage. It took 30 years after Branch Rickey and Allan Roth introduced it for it to become an official statistic, and another 20 years to be widely used and understood.

Why are we discussing the results of an online click poll at all? As I tell my beginning statistics students, such a poll isn't completely worthless--but it's so close to being completely worthless that it might as well be.

As I tell my beginning statistics students, such a poll isn't completely worthless--but it's so close to being completely worthless that it might as well be.

That's how I usually describe RBI.

The false precision in WAR renders it almost useless.(*) The defensive numbers are very untrustworthy, as is the scale of comparison of baserunning and batting.

It's really that simple.

(*) Under the strict definition of the term, meaning WAR doesn't really tell you anything you can't glean from reviewing data other than WAR.

The false precision in WAR renders it almost useless.(*)

(*) Under the strict definition of the term, meaning WAR doesn't really tell you anything you can't glean from reviewing data other than WAR.

Do you mean that in the same sense that it is true that a country's GDP doesn't really tell you anything you can't glean from reviewing every transaction conducted in that country for a good or service provided to an end-user in a given year?

Do you mean that in the same sense that it is true that a country's GDP doesn't really tell you anything you can't glean from reviewing every transaction conducted in that country for a good or service provided to an end-user in a given year?

No.

WAR isn't like GDP, which represents a tangible concept that makes sense -- and measures actual events.

that makes sense -- and measures actual events

"What is REAL?" asked the Rabbit one day,.."Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?"

"What is REAL?" asked the Rabbit one day,.."Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?"

No, it doesn't mean that.

I'll just drop in to say the SBB has no ####### idea what he's talking about.

I'll just drop in to say the SBB has no ####### idea what he's talking about.

Could you drop by the politics thread, and reiterate that?