Here is a Problem I have with WAR

[MurphDogg]

Never once have I bought any WAR stat. I know what I see, and I know what the important stats are. Pitching wise the only stat that matters is did you give me a chance to win today. Guts allowed 5 runs but was able to keep the team in it and give them a chance to win. That's all that matters. Sure it doesn't help the old ERA but my take away from the game is he pitched 7 innings, left with a tied game and went deep enough to not expose the pen. That's basically all you can ask out of any starter.

Guthrie only kept the team in it because they happened to score 5 runs too. If Guthrie had allowed 5 and the Orioles were shut out, would you really say that he kept the team in it?

[waroriole]

I am drowning in ignorance! Help!

You've been a bit full of yourself recently. I agree that some of the posters on here (those making WAR jokes) don't add anything, but it's not unreasonable to say that fWAR is not a reliable statistic.

[DrungoHazewood]

You've been a bit full of yourself recently. I agree that some of the posters on here (those making WAR jokes) don't add anything, but it's not unreasonable to say that fWAR is not a reliable statistic.

Let's put this in context, ok? The argument againt fWAR is similar to the argument against Democracy - which is the worst form of government except for all the others.

Really, all joking aside, fWAR makes some assumptions that have a lot of grounding in reality and rates a player. And does that, arguably (and I believe definitely) better than the traditional numbers used to rate pitchers. If you're going to eviscerate a stat for not being perfect, or taking a particular point of view and quantifying it, please be fair and rip into the other metrics, too.

I mean, we don't have long, involved threads where the entire community tears apart ERA. ERA is fantastically absurd on so many levels. It tells me that the very same pitcher isn't as valuable if his starting shortstop took the day off and a lesser fielder took his place. It tells me that a pitcher is totally absolved of all runs that score after a questionable scoring decision awards an error to one of his fielders with two outs. It tells me that a pitcher who pitches in PETCO with a 4.00 ERA is better than a pitcher who pitches to a 4.05 in Coors.

C'mon. WAR is a solid metric whose results are well matched with qualitative observations a big majority of the time, with an underlying set of assumptions that may or may not be what you're looking for. Most of the stuff commonly used tocay are halfway decent metrics with underlying assumptions that range from ridiculous to decent.

This thread reminds me a bit of the Markakis or Roberts criticisms. They have flaws and sometimes produce results that aren't what we expect, so let's talk mostly about how disappointing and overrated they are.

[Phantom]

Seriously. There are problems with WAR, but it is by far one of the best stats available. The fact that it does not match up with your "eye" simply means that your eye is probably wrong. Don't worry, advanced stats have proved that most everyone's eye is wrong a good bit of the time.

I know it does not seem to make sense that a 5 ERA pitcher could be more valuable than a 3 ERA pitcher, but that does not mean it cannot be true. If you are going to attack WAR, then attack it on its predictive value, not on how you "feel" about it. WAR doesn't care about your feelings, or for that matter how a player appears to be playing. In fact, it would be a terrible stat if it did.

Advanced stats have revolutionized the way people think about the game, and turned conventional knowledge on its head. I want to believe that winning one run games is a skill. I want to believe that a great closer is as valuable as a great position player. I want to believe that a player will hit better when batting in front of a great hitter. I want to believe in clutch, and the sacrifice bunt, and pitching to the score, and that a single is better than a walk. SABR does not care what I want, clearly.

I think the proper argument here is not about Tillman or Britton, but the fact that Guthrie might be one of those rare individuals that can outperform his peripheral statistics on a consistent basis. Remember that FiP and its friends are young, and not perfect. Guts might just be a Fip freak.

[Fan4Life]

Seriously. There are problems with WAR, but it is by far one of the best stats available. The fact that it does not match up with your "eye" simply means that your eye is probably wrong. Don't worry, advanced stats have proved that most everyone's eye is wrong a good bit of the time.

While this may be generally true, the OP cites an example where the eye is better than this stat reflects. And while finding an example here or there that demonstrates the flaw in a stat isn't enough to make the stat worthless, what it does do is have you asking yourself anytime you look at that stat and haven't seen the player behind the stat, can I really trust what it's telling me or is this another Guthrie/Tillman example?

[JERSEYORIOLE]

Let's put this in context, ok? The argument againt fWAR is similar to the argument against Democracy - which is the worst form of government except for all the others.

Really, all joking aside, fWAR makes some assumptions that have a lot of grounding in reality and rates a player. And does that, arguably (and I believe definitely) better than the traditional numbers used to rate pitchers. If you're going to eviscerate a stat for not being perfect, or taking a particular point of view and quantifying it, please be fair and rip into the other metrics, too.

I mean, we don't have long, involved threads where the entire community tears apart ERA. ERA is fantastically absurd on so many levels. It tells me that the very same pitcher isn't as valuable if his starting shortstop took the day off and a lesser fielder took his place. It tells me that a pitcher is totally absolved of all runs that score after a questionable scoring decision awards an error to one of his fielders with two outs. It tells me that a pitcher who pitches in PETCO with a 4.00 ERA is better than a pitcher who pitches to a 4.05 in Coors.

C'mon. WAR is a solid metric whose results are well matched with qualitative observations a big majority of the time, with an underlying set of assumptions that may or may not be what you're looking for. Most of the stuff commonly used tocay are halfway decent metrics with underlying assumptions that range from ridiculous to decent.

This thread reminds me a bit of the Markakis or Roberts criticisms. They have flaws and sometimes produce results that aren't what we expect, so let's talk mostly about how disappointing and overrated they are.

I don't disagree with anything you say, because I have no idea how WAR works, nor do I really care, my personal opinion is, that it would take the fun out of being a fan. I prefer to watch a player and drawm my own opinion. Having said that. Let me ask you this. Of course these metric's would be more useful if you were not seeing a player on a regular basis. I'm assuming you watch most or not all Oriole games. How often does WAR differ from the eye test on players you are seeing on a regular basis? How often does it occur, that you see a player regularly, have an opinion and then looking at his WAR, it shows something completely different?

[Tony-OH]

Fangraphs WAR uses Fielding Independent Pitching, which ignores the results of the actual at-bats and games, and instead only looks at walks, strikeouts, and home runs (with some modifications).

IMO, it's a pretty bad system, since it uses predictive stats to generate a metric that sounds descriptive.

Baseball-reference uses a different calculation for pitcher WAR that you may prefer:

Guthrie: 1.5 WAR this season

Tillman: 0.5 WAR this season

Britton: 2.5 WAR this season

(To me, that looks a lot more in line with, you know, the results of how they've pitched.)

This looks a lot more palatable to me. I've never been a fan of WAR for pitchers because they seem low lots of times, but I always used the Baseball-Reference stats anyways so their WAR normally makes sense to me.

[PaulFolk]

WAR!!! What is it good for? absolutely nothing!!

Thus marking the 64th consecutive WAR-related thread in which someone has made this exact joke. The streak continues!

[SrMeowMeow]

You've been a bit full of yourself recently. I agree that some of the posters on here (those making WAR jokes) don't add anything, but it's not unreasonable to say that fWAR is not a reliable statistic.

I'm okay with it. Half the posts in this thread are basically saying "that elaborate statistic (that I didn't even take the time to try to understand) disagrees with my gut feeling on player value."

[square634]

It seems to me that if you want a WAR that describes how many wins a player has been worth so far, given actual in-game runs allowed, then use BB-Ref. If you want a WAR that predicts how many wins the player will be worth in next batch of games at the same sample size, use Fangraphs.

[Mizerooskie]

Seriously. There are problems with WAR, but it is by far one of the best stats available. The fact that it does not match up with your "eye" simply means that your eye is probably wrong. Don't worry, advanced stats have proved that most everyone's eye is wrong a good bit of the time.

I know it does not seem to make sense that a 5 ERA pitcher could be more valuable than a 3 ERA pitcher, but that does not mean it cannot be true. If you are going to attack WAR, then attack it on its predictive value, not on how you "feel" about it. WAR doesn't care about your feelings, or for that matter how a player appears to be playing. In fact, it would be a terrible stat if it did.

Advanced stats have revolutionized the way people think about the game, and turned conventional knowledge on its head. I want to believe that winning one run games is a skill. I want to believe that a great closer is as valuable as a great position player. I want to believe that a player will hit better when batting in front of a great hitter. I want to believe in clutch, and the sacrifice bunt, and pitching to the score, and that a single is better than a walk. SABR does not care what I want, clearly.

I think the proper argument here is not about Tillman or Britton, but the fact that Guthrie might be one of those rare individuals that can outperform his peripheral statistics on a consistent basis. Remember that FiP and its friends are young, and not perfect. Guts might just be a Fip freak.

I call bull****. If that were the case, then the eye of every single baseball analyst and fan of the Orioles is wrong with regard to Tillman and Britton.

None of the statistical metrics are even close to perfect, hence the fact that there are new favorite metrics for the stat heads seemingly every season.

This is coming from someone who thinks statistical analysis is a very good tool. I just think that these "invented" stats are too inconsistent to be useful. Give me basic stats (LD %, GB/FB, K/9, BB/9, etc.) that can't be influenced by how a particular service values various factors every time.

Down with WAR.

[Skeletor]

My problem with WAR is more how it's used than the stat itself. I'm not convinced that a 4.6 WAR left fielder is worth more than a 4.2 third baseman. The defense component alone makes it pretty hazy to me.

[now]

I call bull****. If that were the case, then the eye of every single baseball analyst and fan of the Orioles is wrong with regard to Tillman and Britton.

None of the statistical metrics are even close to perfect, hence the fact that there are new favorite metrics for the stat heads seemingly every season.

This is coming from someone who thinks statistical analysis is a very good tool. I just think that these "invented" stats are too inconsistent to be useful. Give me basic stats (LD %, GB/FB, K/9, BB/9, etc.) that can't be influenced by how a particular service values various factors every time.

Down with WAR.

Yeah but...

All those micro-stats you cite are fine for what they measure, but each is so limited. So while they may be unquestionably accurate, we are left with the familiar question: What are they good for?

Some of us keep looking for the bigger picture - how to get a more holistic view of a pitcher's effectiveness, a player's value to the team, a contribution of the whole skill set to wins or losses. So we invent ways to combine the "facts on the ground" to create a virtual picture of the whole player and his whole value to the team; and ultimately (for that GM in all of us) a reliable way to compare one player to another - even a way to compare a starter to a reliever, or a pitcher to a position player. Granted, the result is also limited: virtual, not real.

Still, the quest continues...

[Nite]

Guthrie only kept the team in it because they happened to score 5 runs too. If Guthrie had allowed 5 and the Orioles were shut out, would you really say that he kept the team in it?

No you are right. He would have failed his goal. But that's why each game is different. He allowed 5 early runs, but was given 5 early runs back. He then pitched 5 shut out innings to keep the team in it. That's the beauty of the game. Gut's stat line wasn't great, but he accomplished his goal.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't disagree with anything you say, because I have no idea how WAR works, nor do I really care, my personal opinion is, that it would take the fun out of being a fan. I prefer to watch a player and drawm my own opinion. Having said that. Let me ask you this. Of course these metric's would be more useful if you were not seeing a player on a regular basis. I'm assuming you watch most or not all Oriole games. How often does WAR differ from the eye test on players you are seeing on a regular basis? How often does it occur, that you see a player regularly, have an opinion and then looking at his WAR, it shows something completely different?

Do you also discount the opinions of analysts and announcers?