Hey Bill Madden and Jerry Green, pick up your rotting Inspector Henderson phones and give Sean Forman a call about WAR!
You may have heard that the AL MVP is between a player who may win the Triple Crown and a player who most (if not all) of the stathead-friendly sites say is the best player in the league this year. There have been a number of articles being written by veteran writers about how stupid WAR is—complaining it’s incomprehensible, stupid, meaningless, dumb, formulas are different, etc. etc.
Here are a couple of recent examples:
Here is Bill Madden in the New York Daily News
Here is Jerry Green in the Detroit News
Now I’m painting the baseball media with a broad brush, but each of these types of articles gets my hackles up. I’m a fellow card-carrying-member of the BBWAA and one would think that I would be afforded some professional courtesy before having a stat we produce being berated in print.
Not a single member of the print media, the broadcast media or radio has reached out to me to learn more about WAR since this MVP controversy has erupted. Not one. First, I apologize to the curious and hard working media members who put in the time to study the game and its analysis in detail. You know who you are, and I appreciate your hard work. I’m sure many have taken the time to read our exhaustive introduction to WAR. But in the last two months not a single person has called or e-mailed asking for more information and that includes Bill Madden and Jerry Green.
So if you are a member of the media who is skeptical about WAR and want to get some questions answered. Or if you are a radio or tv host want to talk to me on the air or on the record to excoriate me for WAR’s failings. Let me know. I’ll appear on any radio show to discuss WAR and make time for any writer who wants to learn something about it or debate its merits.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Why?
Oh, the d part. Fair enough.
soldiers, a whole bunch of wasted money and a lot of greedy businesspersons/politicians
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.
Or, is #12 a criticism of said sports columnists? It could play either way.
And clearly players like Darwin Barney, Michael Bourn, and Denard Span have been better as well.
It's a California/West Coast legend. I'm not sure if it has a basis in fact or not.
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.
####### Numenoreans.
I'm surprised Jack Keefe was able to go a whole comment without spelling errors.
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.
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.
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.
Aren't the PF's displayed the raw ones and the actual bonus only half that?
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 is analogous to the concept of excess return in finance, but the risk-free rate of return (typically a US treasury) is actually available.
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.
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.
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.
Rk Player WAR/pos OPS OPS+ Rfield PA Year Tm Lg1 Adam Dunn -0.6 .928 144 -43 668 2009 WSN NL
2 Don Hurst 0.6 .923 115 -13 451 1930 PHI NL
3 Ryan Klesko 0.9 .908 128 -11 466 1999 ATL NL
4 Jeromy Burnitz 1.0 .916 121 -15 606 2004 COL NL
5 Dante Bichette 1.0 .984 130 -18 612 1995 COL NL
6 Brad Hawpe 1.1 .903 125 -16 588 2009 COL NL
7 Adam Dunn 1.2 .940 136 -26 632 2007 CIN NL
8 Brad Hawpe 1.3 .926 130 -17 606 2007 COL NL
9 Pat Burrell 1.3 .902 128 -17 598 2007 PHI NL
10 Kip Selbach 1.3 .901 119 -7 426 1894 WHS NL
11 Adam LaRoche 1.4 .915 130 -11 557 2006 ATL NL
12 Mike Stanley 1.4 .900 132 -5 415 1997 TOT AL
13 Dick Stuart 1.4 .911 141 -13 450 1959 PIT NL
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.
Not adjusted for risk. Prince Fielder's production is quite predictable and dependable. That has significant value.
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.
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.
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.
And that's useful for team building purposes but for determining a player's actual, single season value, it's not really relevant.
But are you saying this makes a difference in Trout v. Cabrera or just in the idea of WAR?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I used to look at war and make the adjustments due to defense, unfortunately the update has ruined that as it puts the defense adjustment into the oWar component. I much more preferred oWar with just offensive components(batting runs and running runs) in the equation and let me make the mental adjustment for positional advantage.
I know Sugarbear is being a little over the top, but it really is somewhat difficult to think that offensively only, that Trout is noticeably better offensively than Cabrera. Cabrera has better rate stats and in more games, Trout makes most of that up with his baserunning and park factors, but war not only has him making up the gap, but exceeding it (rbat+ rbase put Trout at 60 runs vs Miggy at 50....just on batting events only it has them equal) Otherwords
Miggy's .325/.390/.601/.991 over 687 plate appearances produced 50 rbat(offensive runs)
and Trout's .321/.395/.557/.952 over 625 pa also produces 50 rbat... intuitively them being equal is a stretch. That just seems like a large park adjustment that is helping Trout out, especially when you remember how Detroit was being held as a pitchers park for a large portion of it's existence.
I agree. I'm not defending Madden.
I'm just saying that using WAR as the keystone of your argument for Trout is a mistake. His case is fine w/o it, and the flaws in WAR make it too easy to dismiss, and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Of course you pick the guy who has a fluky 118 OPS+ in 197 PAs this year. :)
And I second what #50 says. Willful ignorance on the part of the reporters should be embarrassing to them. But these guys seem above being embarrassed.
the vast majority of teh war values make intuitive sense. they jibe with what a reasonable fan sees on the field.
the vast majority of teh war values make intuitive sense. they jibe with what a reasonable fan sees on the field.
I don't know about you Harveys, but when someone who works for me hands me a document or a spreadsheet with a really glaring, honking error, I tend to distrust the whole piece of work.
I agree WAR is a useful construct, but, you're not going to convince the skeptics when there are such blatantly non-sensical results included.
Come on make an argument that Comerica and Anaheim are equivalent parks other than "I don't believe it."
If you don't like the defensive numbers we give you the numbers assuming everyone is average defensively.
Says you. You've offered nothing to back this up. Nothing.
Fine use wins above average. Set replacement wherever you want and Trout has a big lead.
Perhaps they shared your mistrust of the defensive numbers.
See #4. I'm not pushing anyone. I'm responding the critiques that WAR is crazy and baseless.
it's also possible that there are things being represented that folks are otherwise missing
i don't folks here are in a position to declare what is and is not an error
i think folks like to think they can recognize such things
I have a lot of respect for Sean and his site, but I have to agree that I didn't like the tone of his post. I think he should stay above the mud slung by the Bill Maddens of the world.
And I've been carefully going through the description of WAR. There's a lot there, and the explanations aren't particularly easy to grasp.
EDIT: And the method of calculating the stat keeps changing, sometimes markedly - which is fine, and necessary - but it adds to the confusion. I just realized last night in reading it that the calculations have changed such that oWAR and dWAR no longer add up to WAR.
You do not need to point to war for Trout's argument in the least. War is only a piece of data that you use after you have presented to argument to "confirm" the argument, not the start of the argument.
You have two players, with the following numbers.
.325/.390/.601/.991 over 687 pa, with a league leading 28 double plays and 4 stolen bases vs
.321/.395/.557/.952 over 625 pa with 7 double plays, league leading 48 steals (4 cs)
Meanwhile Anaheim is a pitchers park and Detroit is now a hitters park, add in the defensive advantage of a centerfielder vs a third baseman, along with the quality of their defense, Miggy is average at best, while Trout is a pretty good defender even compared to other centerfielders.
Bringing war into the discussion, in my opinion, hurts your argument because the massive discrepency doesn't really line up with the visual evidence. Realistically it's pretty clear that Trout is having the better year, but it's not so obvious that he is having a 4 war better year(10 vs 6 is a pretty big discrepency)
Except that that's what many people do, and everyone knows it, so to deny that serves little purpose.
They start with WAR and then it's really difficult to move them off what WAR is telling them.
And the main problem with WAR is that the defense portion breaks the stat. And yet many people pretend that this is not what the situation is.
Comerica is bigger and the weather is worse in Detroit than Anaheim. Plus Trout has hit much better at home.
That might be fine to mentally adjust for one player or a few players in a comparison, but unless I'm missing it the play index doesn't let you pull up a list of players ranked by oWAR rather than WAR.
Comparing raw double plays doesn't account for the fact that Trout bats leadoff and thus stands to have fewer opportunities to hit into a double play.
Trout would have approximately five more double plays if he hit 3rd for the Tigers instead of 1st for the Angels.
I meant where was the saber drive for ZOBRIST FOR MVP!! last year? If he had the most WAR, why wasn't he the MVP?
(And didn't that change? I don't remember Zobrist topping the list during the year last year.)
"No, I've moved the goalposts over here now, you guys."
Agree, but it doesn't really matter.
It's another reminder of how batting order can create a counting stat. If someone is arguing for Cabrera, you bring in the gidp, they then bring in the argument for lineup spots, which of course then leads into the argument against raw rbi.
There are many other things that go into how a park plays - batter's eye, foul territory, wind, elevation. You can't estimate a park factor based on size and climate.
He was among the top if not the top last year also. War also has Bourn as top 6 in the NL and that is more extreme than Zobrist last year.
Does anyone seriously think Ben Zobrist was the AL MVP last year because he had the most WAR? Is it that difficult to see why people with other full-time jobs within baseball may not want to use their finite time engaging a model that spits out Ben Zobrist at the top for the 2011 American League? Or, even, with the argument that Mike Trout is the clear-cut 2012 AL MVP because he has more WAR?
You're demanding that people recogize Trout as the clear MVP because of a metric that put Ben Zobrist at the top in 2011.
Again, most of us here have engaged with WAR, but sometimes we have to try to put ourselves in other peoples' shoes.
The problem is that if you have a list of players who are between 40 and 60 WAR, you really don't have much more than a first cut at things - but that's not the way most people are using the stat. It's a huge problem. I think being able to pull up a list of players sorted by oWAR would help, but I don't think b-r allows that.
It matters a little, which is why you presented the information at all, and yet the way you presented it was misleading.
Well, no. In fact I recall several discussions here about Zobrist that year. here's one.
It mostly consists of using WAR as the starting point rather than an end to the discussion (just as Sean is urging for it to be used here). Positional adjustment, positional versatility, and defensive values all come up as issues beyond merely accepting WAR at face value. I don't think anyone is saying Trout is MVP over Cabrera because of WAR, end of discussion. In fact most people here seem to be saying, "Trout is MVP over Cabrera, who needs WAR to see that?".
What the heck are you arguing here? I don't think there is a meaningful movement for Zobrist as 2011 AL MVP which refutes the idea of widespread "WAR and nothing else" use. Trout should be the 2012 AL MVP because he has been the most valuable player in the league. His offensive rate stats are very similar to Cabrera's, he appears to be playing in a worse hitters' park and while he suffers some playing time penalty I believe he more than offsets that with his defensive and base running contributions.
Turn this around. If you don't believe Trout should be MVP, what is your argument in favor of Cabrera?
I think this is true, though I'm not sure what more we can do with WAR except urge everyone (and ourselves) to use it as a starting point rather than a finishing point for discussion. From my experience BTF is pretty good for that. You're probably right that the wider world might be less good for it. Some dismiss WAR out of hand, and some slavishly rely on it.
Then why the bemoanment of insufficient engagement by Madden, et al., with WAR and its creators?
Hopefully everyone can see the problems with a model that sometimes matters a lot, sometimes a little, sometimes in the middle -- irrespective of the names and numbers it's spitting out. If there's a name that otherwise makes sense -- Mike Trout -- it matters a lot (which is why Sean explicitly tied together the lack of old guard curiousity and this year's MVP race); if there's a name that doesn't -- Ben Zobrist -- then it doesn't matter so much.
That's not a particularly strong and robust model.
I think BTF is pretty horrible at that, and most of the wider world isn't using it.
Was it Verlander?
For all the hoopla that comes along with MVP voting I remember the results for about 2 days.
Recent MVPs: I recall Howard and Rollins won it, (I only remember because it's funny that Utley's better than both). Morneau won one (I only remember because he's Canadian). I assume Pujols won a bunch. Has A-Rod won one while with the Yankees? I keep thinking Kemp won last year, but it was Braun wasn't it?
Is it? I suppose it depends on your standard for "good" and "horrible", but isn't there a thread on the merits, feasibility, and limitations of WAR about once a week?
I think you are imagining arguments that isn't happening. You are about the only poster on this board who believes in absolutes, everyone else on here will point to war along with other arguments for any case they are trying to make.
Verlander; there wasn't a runaway offensive player.
From Madden's article;
"Here's the biggest problem with the wins against replacement argument: Even the people who invented the 'stat' can't agree on how to calculate it!" - Problem 1 is the sub-head of the article. Admittedly the fact that there are two stats titled the same thing is confusing but while it's a fair question, it's one a phone call or an e-mail probably could have helped clear up.
Then a couple of fun quotes;
"that nebulous (I would say ludicrous) new-age sabermetric stat called WAR."
"According to one blogger last week, Trout’s superior WAR demonstrates that “he has helped his team win roughly three to four more games than Cabrera has helped his.” Don’t ask how that conclusion is reached."
I love this, "Don't ask how that conclusion is reached." If Madden wants to be critical that is very fair but he owes it to fair discussion to get the answers to these questions if he's going to make statements like calling WAR ludicrous or be critical of the 3-4 win variance between Trout and Cabrera.
I don't need Madden (or others) to use WAR, but if they are going to criticize it, then they should understand it.
I also agree with the notion above that single season park factors can be flaky. Weather and the unbalanced schedule are two variables that immediately come to mind. I can't think of an immediate reason why Detroit's stadium would favor offense more than the one in Anaheim.
Was it Verlander?
For all the hoopla that comes along with MVP voting I remember the results for about 2 days.
Recent MVPs: I recall Howard and Rollins won it, (I only remember because it's funny that Utley's better than both). Morneau won one (I only remember because he's Canadian). I assume Pujols won a bunch. Has A-Rod won one while with the Yankees? I keep thinking Kemp won last year, but it was Braun wasn't it?
Right. WAR has it's limitations; BBWAA MVP votes are jokes. Yes, they occasionally get the right guy. But not if it isn't perfectly clear who that is. If there are 2 or 3 guys within hailing distance of the top, they go all aflutter with narratives and intangibles. That sometimes works out and it sometimes doesn't.
I'm seriously not clear why anyone gives a damn about the MVP and the Cy Young.
No. But he should be in the discussion. WAR has a standard error of something just over a win. Verlander's 8.3 and Zobrist's 8.5 are actually of indistinguishable value.
Now a big issue with Zobrist is exactly how good he was defensively and I think there's a case to be made that totalzone (which has him as basically average at second) is closer to the truth than plus/minus -- which has him as a brilliant 2B (because he's getting credit in plus minus for a fair number of out of zone plays when he was shifted -- and the Rays shifted a lot).
WAR's good enough that you should be able to point to a specific issue before just dismissing somebody.
I think Ellsbury (or Bautista) was probably the pick around here among the position players and you can totally see how the season narrative would hurt his chances (even though Ellsbury actually played very well from September 1 on). As I recall it, Verlander was the consensus pick around here.
Because they're using it as a strawman instead of engaging in an intelligent debate about Cabrera vs. Trout. Almost no one is arguing that Trout should be MVP simply because he has leads in WAR.
Zobrist is another strawman. Last year he didn't have a significant lead in WAR over Ellsbury and Verlander, so there was no reason to tout Zobrist for MVP because of that one number. And everyone recognizes that the defensive component of WAR, the main reason Zobrist's WAR was so good, isn't as reliable as the other parts. Moreover, while I agree with you that Zobrist didn't deserve the MVP over those other guys, it's certainly not crazy to use WAR to argue that Zobrist is a far better player than most people realize.
But you can be a perfectly competent baseball writer and commentator without making that phone call or sending that e-mail. It's very arrogant to think otherwise. The output of the model is often bizarre, and the methodology is frequently changing and controversial.
"that nebulous (I would say ludicrous) new-age sabermetric stat called WAR."
That's a perfectly valid description.
If Madden wants to be critical that is very fair but he owes it to fair discussion to get the answers to these questions if he's going to make statements like calling WAR ludicrous or be critical of the 3-4 win variance between Trout and Cabrera.
There is no obligation to get to the bottom of a model that spits out Ben Zobrist in 2011, or that says that Mike Trout has had a 50-60% better year than Miguel Cabrera. That's also an arrogant perception. Both of those are plainly silly, warranting no additional inquiry before saying so.
And if the adjustments were based on one year totals out of whack with historical norms, they might have a point. But that's not the case.
Anaheim 1 and 3 year PFs - 92/91 and 92/92
Detroit - 103/103 and 103/102
Isn't that true though, even forgetting about fWAR? Sean and Sean keep changing how bWAR is calculated.
Mind you I think Madden's criticism is dumb - changing the calculation is done to improve the stat which is a good thing - but he's right that they can't seem to find an equilibrium on how to calculate it. Which inherently reveals how shaky the stat is. This didn't have to be done with, say, EqA.
And most of this is because the defense component is so fluid and therefore inherently unreliable. Certainly the defense component is not as reliable as the offense component, and, yet, no effort is made by Sean and Sean to blunt the impact of the defense component. It's presented in WAR with just as much confidence as the offense component.
And calling the defense component for, say, Dwight Evans and that for Nick Swisher both "RField" is pretty misleading, as the two are calculated in completely different ways.
oWAR always had position adjustments. The new update added the position adjustments to dWAR as well, which means oWAR and dWAR no longer add up to WAR.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main