The WAR fallacy

[Frobby]

I feel like I am reading too many discussions that go like this: "Last year we won 69 games, and if we add a player with X WAR, next year's team will only win about 69 + X, plus or minus a couple of games."

To me, this is an oversimplified and incorrect use of WAR. In the first place, the existing talent on the team is not static. Not everyone is going to produce at the same rate as the year before. Baseball history is full of examples of teams that won 20+ games more or fewer than the year before, with pretty small changes in personnel.

Second thing is that WAR is a useful way to measure a player's worth, but in my opinion it is wrong to think that the addition or subtraction of a player is a math exercise when it comes to computing effect on the W/L. A lot of times, a team just has certain needs, and if they are met, the effect can be much greater than a player's WAR value.

Now, I am not raising this point in order to argue that the Orioles will be contenders if they acquire Prince Fielder and Edwin Jackson, for example. I'm simply saying that baseball is a complex, interactive, non-static game, and not a simple mathematical exercise. (Thank God.)

[33rdst]

I feel like I am reading too many discussions that go like this: "Last year we won 69 games, and if we add a player with X WAR, next year's team will only win about 69 + X, plus or minus a couple of games."

To me, this is an oversimplified and incorrect use of WAR. In the first place, the existing talent on the team is not static. Not everyone is going to produce at the same rate as the year before. Baseball history is full of examples of teams that won 20+ games more or fewer than the year before, with pretty small changes in personnel.

Second thing is that WAR is a useful way to measure a player's worth, but in my opinion it is wrong to think that the addition or subtraction of a player is a math exercise when it comes to computing effect on the W/L. A lot of times, a team just has certain needs, and if they are met, the effect can be much greater than a player's WAR value.

Now, I am not raising this point in order to argue that the Orioles will be contenders if they acquire Prince Fielder and Edwin Jackson, for example. I'm simply saying that baseball is a complex, interactive, non-static game, and not a simple mathematical exercise. (Thank God.)

Finally! A rep for you sir. How many peopl picked the Diamondbacks in the NL west last year? How Many did not pick the Red Sox?

[Tony-OH]

I feel like I am reading too many discussions that go like this: "Last year we won 69 games, and if we add a player with X WAR, next year's team will only win about 69 + X, plus or minus a couple of games."

To me, this is an oversimplified and incorrect use of WAR. In the first place, the existing talent on the team is not static. Not everyone is going to produce at the same rate as the year before. Baseball history is full of examples of teams that won 20+ games more or fewer than the year before, with pretty small changes in personnel.

Second thing is that WAR is a useful way to measure a player's worth, but in my opinion it is wrong to think that the addition or subtraction of a player is a math exercise when it comes to computing effect on the W/L. A lot of times, a team just has certain needs, and if they are met, the effect can be much greater than a player's WAR value.

Now, I am not raising this point in order to argue that the Orioles will be contenders if they acquire Prince Fielder and Edwin Jackson, for example. I'm simply saying that baseball is a complex, interactive, non-static game, and not a simple mathematical exercise. (Thank God.)

As usual you are right on the mark. I've been seeing this a lot as well and I think some people use WAR or similar WAR based derivatives stat to determine how much better the Orioles will be next year. If WAR was the perfect measure we would be able to add up the WAR from the season's past rosters and the teams would have records to match. It doesn't work that way.

As we said last year and it as it stands it still rings true. The Orioles will only be as good as it's young pitching. If Britton takes a step forward, Arrieta stays healthy and takes a step, Matusz rebounds, Chen and Wada have decent years, Hunter rebounds, Johnson can be an effective closer and the rest of the bullpen can be solid and not blow games like Gregg did last year, the team could be competitive. That's a lot of ifs of course, but those things don't show up in WAR but they are all very, very important.

[MrOrange82]

In preparing to respond to this thread, I discovered that Google-image-searching "sabermetric blasphemy" results in photos of Angry Jesus, Cheez Whiz, the WTC Towers exploding, a bald eagle, an internet meme featuring the Soup Nazi, and this guy:

I'm hanging up my Google cleats for the day.

[Frobby]

Finally! A rep for you sir. How many peopl picked the Diamondbacks in the NL west last year? How Many did not pick the Red Sox?

Your rep just pushed me to 5 birds!

[TonySoprano]

In short...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mn91L9goKfQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[maybenxtyr]

I agree. Stats are great, and there are many ro digest, but the games still need to play out. I'm not trying to judge anyone, but some people seem to not enjoy the games because they allow themselves to be consumed by statistical analyzing. I have nothing against people that have a better understanding of stats, but sometimes a player may appear to be better than the numbers indicate.

I also believe an individuals worth can change by the other talent around them. Just my opinion.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Excellent thread, Frobby. The oversimplification of things on this board can be very very misleading. It's not as easy as saying "we won 69 games last year so let's subtract X players and add Y players who have a difference of 13 WAR and we will be .500!"

If it was, there wouldn't be any need to play the freaking games.

This misunderstood theory can also lead to the support of spending big money on one player when that one player won't help you achieve the success you are looking for.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Your rep just pushed me to 5 birds!

Where on your resume would this go?

"-OriolesHangout Plus Member September 2003-Present

*Achieved 5-bird status; January 19, 2012"

[Pedro Cerrano]

In preparing to respond to this thread, I discovered that Google-image-searching "sabermetric blasphemy" results in photos of Angry Jesus, Cheez Whiz, the WTC Towers exploding, a bald eagle, an internet meme featuring the Soup Nazi, and this guy:

I'm hanging up my Google cleats for the day.

Can this guy become the unofficial OH mascot? Can we pay him a per diem to appear at Hangout Nights?

[MrOrange82]

Can this guy become the unofficial OH mascot? Can we pay him a per diem to appear at Hangout Nights?

I think he'd probably work for candy and park access.

(FYI, if someone photoshops an O's logo onto his cap, I think I'd die laughing)

[Pedro Cerrano]

I think he'd probably work for candy and park access.

(FYI, if someone photoshops an O's logo onto his cap, I think I'd die laughing)

And porn. Lots and lots of porn.

[SrMeowMeow]

I feel like I am reading too many discussions that go like this: "Last year we won 69 games, and if we add a player with X WAR, next year's team will only win about 69 + X, plus or minus a couple of games."

To me, this is an oversimplified and incorrect use of WAR. In the first place, the existing talent on the team is not static. Not everyone is going to produce at the same rate as the year before. Baseball history is full of examples of teams that won 20+ games more or fewer than the year before, with pretty small changes in personnel.

Second thing is that WAR is a useful way to measure a player's worth, but in my opinion it is wrong to think that the addition or subtraction of a player is a math exercise when it comes to computing effect on the W/L. A lot of times, a team just has certain needs, and if they are met, the effect can be much greater than a player's WAR value.

Now, I am not raising this point in order to argue that the Orioles will be contenders if they acquire Prince Fielder and Edwin Jackson, for example. I'm simply saying that baseball is a complex, interactive, non-static game, and not a simple mathematical exercise. (Thank God.)

1. As described, the first bolded passage is certainly a poor argument. However, the problem isn't WAR, it's that this hypothetical person thinks that our W/L record last year is the best projection of the roster's true talent for 2012.

2. Re: the second bolded passage, I don't think WAR perfectly describes a player's contributions. But I have yet to see any evidence of this "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" kind of thing that people love to talk about. I'm not saying they don't exist to some degree, but there's no evidence. And more often than not it is invoked as a flimsy ex post facto justification for something as yet unexplained.

In conclusion (replace terms where appropriate)

[atomic]

From what I have read about WAR it is far from being the stat that tells you everything. It concludes a walk is worth so much, a single so much, a homer so much etc. But there is the timely hitting. A walk to lead off an inning is more valuable to a team than a single to lead off an inning on the first pitch. a solo home run when down 12-0 in the bottom of the ninth is worth 100 times less than a 3 run home run when down 4-2 in the same bottom of the ninth.

Does WAR even count stolen bases? I believe that Markakis is a much better hitter with roberts batting in front of him than an average player. The speed distracts the pitcher and he will get more fast balls. Also I believe that WAR doesn't count Intentional base on balls. It should. Great hitters will get more IBB's than poor players.

RBI and runs seem to be stats that people ignore. But they are important. Fast players will get more runs. Clutch hitters more rbis.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Just because people use a tool poorly, doesn't make it a poor tool.

If you see your handyman trying to hammer in a screw with a piece of sandpaper, you don't start in on the problems with the tools, you try and help them learn how to use the tools correctly. If they still don't get it, you call them a tool and make a note to hire a new handyman

I think this thread probably should have just been a PM to a few particular people. OK, one particular person.