Why do people value WAR/Arbitrary formulas.

[Fired-Up]

This thread largely proves my point. Thanks, bd, for actually understanding what's going on. Longest aneurysm ever.

I admit you are losing me a bit here. I still believe WAR is just a useless statistic. You can make up what goes into the formula. You can say well hey I'm a big believer in small ball so I'm going to emphasize small ball style players. Or you could just as easily say I believe in power baseball and create a formula biased towards power hitters.

[Lucky Jim]

Yes, that's exactly what it means. You seem confused about the word subjective.

I'm not remotely confused.

[Pickles]

Statistical Modeling 101.

This thread largely proves my point. Thanks, bd, for actually understanding what's going on. Longest aneurysm ever.

Honestly, I think this is a cop out.

Again, explain to me what's the proper way to use a flawed statistic?

Very carefully?

[Pickles]

I'm not remotely confused.

The sign of deep confusion is to not even be aware of it.

Why don't you explain to me what subjective means then?

Perhaps I'm confused.

[Lucky Jim]

Or a troll.

[Lucky Jim]

Honestly, I think this is a cop out.

Again, explain to me what's the proper way to use a flawed statistic?

Very carefully?

All statistics are "flawed." You use them

properly by knowing their limitations and not exaggerating what they tell you.

[Fired-Up]

I just created this thread so I could ask a simple question. I thought there would be a few answers. I thought People would explain the value of an arbitrary statistic which is what WAR is. I didn't think I'd open such a can of worms. If you guys want to lock the thread then lock the thread. If not, then perhaps somebody can explain to me why this horrible, disasterous thing called WAR is valued by some.

[Flash- bd]

All statistics are "flawed." You use them

properly by knowing their limitations and not exaggerating what they tell you.

Or, alternatively, there's no such thing as a "flawed statistic" unless it fails to follow basic rules of math, or, you know, constantly makes calculators explode in balls of fury, or if the person calculating it is drunk and mistaking 6s for 9s.

I just created this thread so I could ask a simple question. I thought there would be a few answers. I thought People would explain the value of an arbitrary statistic which is what WAR is. I didn't think I'd open such a can of worms. If you guys want to lock the thread then lock the thread. If not, then perhaps somebody can explain to me why this horrible, disasterous thing called WAR is valued by some.

Fired-up, like I said in my initial post, I sympathize with what you're trying to get at, but to call it an arbitrary statistic or a flawed statistic is really a paradox. You can argue about how WAR is calculated...what the inputs are in it, you can argue about people's emphasis on it and how they use it, but calling WAR a "horrible, disastrous" thing is tantamount to berating a shooter's gun after he drops it in the street after a murder, and then sentencing the gun to a painful, torturous death...

[Lucky Jim]

Or, alternatively, there's no such thing as a "flawed statistic" unless it fails to follow basic rules of math, or, you know, constantly makes calculators explode in balls of fury, or if the person calculating it is drunk and mistaking 6s for 9s.

Right. If the inputs are constant, and the data entry is rigorous, then it's neither arbitrary or subjective. There's no prelapsarian statistic that didn't involve "subjective" or "arbitrary" choices of what to value.

[Pickles]

Or a troll.

Yes, understanding the word subjective and not agreeing with your perspective on WAR is the definition of troll. You seem to have a definition of many words in the language which are different than mine.

[Pickles]

Right. If the inputs are constant, and the data entry is rigorous, then it's neither arbitrary or subjective. There's no prelapsarian statistic that didn't involve "subjective" or "arbitrary" choices of what to value.

And the inputs are constant?

[Lucky Jim]

Yes, understanding the word subjective and not agreeing with your perspective on WAR is the definition of troll. You seem to have a definition of many words in the language which are different than mine.

I'll stick with mine.

[Leitch]

perhaps somebody can explain to me why this horrible, disasterous thing called WAR is valued by some.

Don't you think that's a little extreme? Agree or disagree with it, it offers a measure of total player value. That's information people want. That's why people value it.

[Pickles]

I'll stick with mine.

The unenlightened always do. (Joking.)

[SteveA]

I think the critics of the stat itself are really, deep down, more concerned with how it is used.

First of all, WAR is an attempt to take as many components possible of what a player does, and actually match that to winning games. That is an EXTREMELY ambitious thing to try to do -- if it were ever fully accomplished you could have a perfect evaluator for all trades, at least after the fact, and could in fact compare apples and oranges. And WAR, as it exists, is as close as any stat has come to achieving that.

But it is STILL a work in progress. As some have pointed out, there are multiple WARs out there. And one that tries to include defense and uses UZR, which is known to be very questionable when applied to small and even medium sample sizes. Even a full season UZR is suspect. So when you use a stat like that to determine the defensive component of WAR, the resulting value is going to be very questionable even when describing a full season of a player's performance.

OK, it's still alright to use the stat as long as you understand those limitations. But because the ambition of the stat is to equate a players' production with actual WINS, and the name of the stat even states that, people tend to use it as a conclusive argument ender. Oh, that trade will result in a net -1.5 WAR, so it's a bad trade. After all, we want to win more games.

If it is used as a rough yardstick ("he's a 1 WAR player, he's a 2 WAR player), it is fine. But to conclusively use it to evaluate a deal, or to determine how much to pay a free agent -- I don't think it's there yet. It's a valiant attempt, and better than any other stat that has yet to be created, but I don't think it has yet reached its lofty goal of correlating player performance to wins, especially the defensive component. Yet a lot of people toss it around as if it has succeeded in conclusively tying performance into actual wins. I read a lot of arguments that use WAR that, at least they seem to, imply that they are ending the particular argument and putting in the FINAL WORD because they have invoked WAR to evaluate the trade, or contract, or decision. And I don't believe that the stat is "ready for prime time" enough to be used that way.