The WAR fallacy

[CA-ORIOLE]

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.)

Wins and WAR correlate pretty well. I think we all understand it's not a 1 to 1 correlation. We also know that high WAR players project better than lower WAR players in terms of consistency of performance. I have l lot less of a problem projecting value from WAR (understanding it's limitations) than I do from a worth standpoint. I'm guessing your main point here is about the myopic use of one years stats, consideration of projections and/or inconsistencies in performance.

[BaltimoreTerp]

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.

OK, two particular people.

[CA-ORIOLE]

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.

Yep. Does his name begin with a "J"

[SilentJames]

I thought we debunked this last year when one illustrious poster tried to claim that there would be three 100-game winners in the AL East using WAR.

WAR is not a predictor, it is an evaluator.

[weams]

I

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.

I'm simply saying that baseball is a complex, interactive, non-static game, and not a simple mathematical exercise. (Thank God.)

Excellent stuff.

[weams]

Your rep just pushed me to 5 birds!

It's about time!. Congrats/

[CA-ORIOLE]

I thought we debunked this last year when one illustrious poster tried to claim that there would be three 100-game winners in the AL East using WAR.

WAR is not a predictor, it is an evaluator.

Really. So past performance/statistics has no relevance to future performance?

[TiredofLosing20]

I'm simply saying that baseball is a complex, interactive, non-static game, and not a simple mathematical exercise.

This does not compute.

Please re-enter your variables and start again.

[Frobby]

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.

I am hoping that Duquette is creating an environment where the young pitchers can succeed, and will have to compete to do so. I still believe there is good talent there, if it can be properly polished up.

[SrMeowMeow]

Also, JTrea misusing something is not evidence that the "something" is flawed. Otherwise we'd have to reassess just about everything that exists.

[mikegallo]

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.)

My first reaction was Duh but your right...But WAR does equate to wins at a roughly 80% ratio...

Clearly adding or subtracting a teams wins with one or several players WAR is ineffective but for a quick comment on a message board I don't have a problem with it, not every post should require a huge effort/time on the posters part.

Where WAR is most effective compairing one players value to another...One could say "player A was worth 3 WAR and player B was worth -1 WAR so replacing player A with B would result in a several win upgrade for the team." There is no way to give a legit absolute estimate on the teams overall wins next year based on replacing those player(s) with the others, just because those player are not gonna produce the same year in and year out let alone everyone else on the team producing the same...There are just way to many variables to give a total win number.

In comparing what players we should get or comparing a set of players value to us versus a previous set of players value it makes sense to use, but in trying to project how a total team will perform based on the WAR of any player obtained is clearly futile. I guess that can be said using any stat but since WAR is commonly used I can see why you would harp on it.

[CA-ORIOLE]

My first reaction was Duh but your right...But WAR does equate to wins at a roughly 80% ratio...

Clearly adding or subtracting a teams wins with one or several players WAR is ineffective but for a quick comment on a message board I don't have a problem with it, not every post should require a huge effort/time on the posters part.

Where WAR is most effective compairing one players value to another...One could say "player A was worth 3 WAR and player B was worth -1 WAR so replacing player A with B would result in a several win upgrade for the team." There is no way to give a legit absolute estimate on the teams overall wins next year based on replacing those player(s) with the others, just because those player are not gonna produce the same year in and year out let alone everyone else on the team producing the same...There are just way to many variables to give a total win number.

In comparing what players we should get or comparing a set of players value to us versus a previous set of players value it makes sense to use, but in trying to project how a total team will perform based on the WAR of any player obtained is clearly futile. I guess that can be said using any stat but since WAR is commonly used I can see why you would harp on it.

Your posts are getting better Mike. You don't really need the fluff to get by.

[solarkkg]

I have a question. Let's say we fielded a 25 man roster of ALL ZERO WAR players. What would our record be? 0-162?

I've never been on board with the WAR stat.

[mikegallo]

I have a question. Let's say we fielded a 25 man roster of ALL ZERO WAR players. What would our record be? 0-162?

I've never been on board with the WAR stat.

Not at all its wins above replacement player...A replacement player is any player that SG says is freely obtainable....lol

A 0 WAR team would normally have 40 something wins.

[JTrea81]

I have a question. Let's say we fielded a 25 man roster of ALL ZERO WAR players. What would our record be? 0-162?

I've never been on board with the WAR stat.

44-46 wins as that is thought to be replacement level.