Why do people value WAR/Arbitrary formulas.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I have problems w the way the number is calculated.

I have problems w the way it is used.

Both.

Also, it's very nice that people here are willing to concede that some go to far in using the number, but why don't we go revisit the Adam Jones extension threads to see people wildly misusing WAR numbers, and virtually no one calling them out on it.

Have you not seen the debates on Arrieta, Jim Johnson, Mark Reynolds and Markakais among others. Or what about Chase Headley. I can provide the specifics for an against each of the preceeeding players based on WAR discussion/evaluation.

What are you SPECIFICALLY talking about with Adam Jones. Seriously, there was no debate about Jone's defensive metrics or his WAR value?

[Flash- bd]

It is subjective!

And yes, so is batting average.

However, there are degrees of subjectivity.

Haha, lord.

There are degrees of precision.

But no, you're right: WAR is subjective! It's a biased bastard assigning ever-changing values to players--and man, if you think it's bad sober, you should see it drunk, or after making love.

I know better than to argue with you at this point, Pickles, so enjoy, you're correct. WAR is a subjective, blinded jerk.

[Pickles]

Have you not seen the debates on Arrieta, Jim Johnson, Mark Reynolds and Markakais among others. I can provide the specifics for an against each of the preceeeding players based on WAR discussion/evaluation.

What are you SPECIFICALLY talking about with Adam Jones. Seriously, there was no debate about Jone's defensive metrics or his WAR value?

I can't use the search function. But we have 20 page threads, where many people, including some in this very thread who assure us that they use WAR properly, saying that Adam Jones had never been more than a 2.5 win player (or whatever it was); despite the fact that one WAR system has him as having topped 4 twice in the last 3 years, and averaged 3.7. And very few pointing out that his WAR number is seriously hurt by his questionable UZR.

[Pickles]

Haha, lord.

There are degrees of precision.

But no, you're right: WAR is subjective! It's a biased bastard assigning ever-changing values to players--and man, if you think it's bad sober, you should see it drunk, or after making love.

I know better than to argue with you at this point, Pickles, so enjoy, you're correct. WAR is a subjective, blinded jerk.

I'm not trolling because you all don't understand the meanings of words. Sorry.

[Flosman]

I can't use the search function. But we have 20 page threads, where many people, including some in this very thread who assure us that they use WAR properly, saying that Adam Jones had never been more than a 2.5 win player (or whatever it was); despite the fact that one WAR system has him as having topped 4 twice in the last 3 years, and averaged 3.7. And very few pointing out that his WAR number is seriously hurt by his questionable UZR.

This is just not true. Both AJ's and Nick's UZR has been beaten to death over and over around here. To the point that the creators of UZR have discussed each players home and away defensive splits in their writing (hurting there own cred IMO by not doing a good job figuring out what is actually going on). I think the people in this thread blasting WAR have shown themselves to be lazy in not figuring out what WAR does and does not tell you about a player.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I can't use the search function. But we have 20 page threads, where many people, including some in this very thread who assure us that they use WAR properly, saying that Adam Jones had never been more than a 2.5 win player (or whatever it was); despite the fact that one WAR system has him as having topped 4 twice in the last 3 years, and averaged 3.7. And very few pointing out that his WAR number is seriously hurt by his questionable UZR.

rWAR uses Total Zone (TZ) which is nothing more than a watered down UZR. I will easily take UZR over TZ as a defensive metric. DRS, also an advanced defensive metric (and superior to TZ) does not show Jones favorably in CF. This has been discussed before. Please don't tell me that many people on here did not question Jone's UZR valuation and just took his fWAR at face value. That's simply false.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think the people in this thread blasting WAR have shown themselves to be lazy in not figuring out what WAR does and does not tell you about a player.

I was thinking this, but now that you've said it....yeah.

[alaniee]

WAR is just a opinion based on numbers. Nothing to do with being factual. If you add up the rosters WAR, it will not come out to the same number of wins the team had that year. That's all you need to look at. Shot down.

[Nigel Tufnel]

See, this is the kind of stuff that bothers me.

This guy makes a legit point about the limitations of WAR, and in doing so, somehow reveals himself the equivalent of a baseball neanderthal?

Wasn't his point that Matt Kemp is great but his 2012 WAR is only OK, so therefore WAR must be flawed? But WAR is a counting stat, so a guy who misses half the season is obviously going to have a lower WAR. So that wasn't such a great point if you ask me.

[Flosman]

Wasn't his point that Matt Kemp is great but his 2012 WAR is only OK, so therefore WAR must be flawed? But WAR is a counting stat, so a guy who misses half the season is obviously going to have a lower WAR. So that wasn't such a great point if you ask me.

Thanks for pointing out in detail one of the ways the OP was a lazy point of view.

[Pickles]

Wasn't his point that Matt Kemp is great but his 2012 WAR is only OK, so therefore WAR must be flawed? But WAR is a counting stat, so a guy who misses half the season is obviously going to have a lower WAR. So that wasn't such a great point if you ask me.

The OP's position is not one I hold. However, in as far as his reservations of WAR are legitimate imo, I back them.

It's very easy to say that people that question it are "lazy" or don't "understand" it. It's much more difficult to explain away the issues people take w it, which have been well enumerated here and elsewhere.

[Pickles]

rWAR uses Total Zone (TZ) which is nothing more than a watered down UZR. I will easily take UZR over TZ as a defensive metric. DRS, also an advanced defensive metric (and superior to TZ) does not show Jones favorably in CF. This has been discussed before. Please don't tell me that many people on here did not question Jone's UZR valuation and just took his fWAR at face value. That's simply false.

I would say the vast majority are all too willing to take WAR at face value. If you feel that those doubts were adequately expressed in those discussions concerning Jones' extensions, then that's your opinion. I happen to think they weren't given enough legitimacy.

Like I said, though, I can't search and I haven't read them in several months, so perhaps my impression was incorrect and one I would not hold in hindsight.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The OP's position is not one I hold. However, in as far as his reservations of WAR are legitimate imo, I back them.

It's very easy to say that people that question it are "lazy" or don't "understand" it. It's much more difficult to explain away the issues people take w it, which have been well enumerated here and elsewhere.

Nonsense. Nobody has "explained away" issues with it. Explain to me why you would you value rWAR's defensive component in evaluating Jone's defense over fWARs UZR?

[Pickles]

Nonsense. Nobody has "explained away" issues with it. Explain to me why you would you value rWAR's defensive component in evaluating Jone's defense over fWARs UZR?

I don't place much value in either so that's a Sophie's choice. The unreliability of defensive statistics is the primary reason I'm skeptical of WAR.

[Flosman]

The OP's position is not one I hold. However, in as far as his reservations of WAR are legitimate imo, I back them.

It's very easy to say that people that question it are "lazy" or don't "understand" it. It's much more difficult to explain away the issues people take w it, which have been well enumerated here and elsewhere.

This is like saying that cars are stupid because you can't drive from New York to London. Of course the logical conclusion is we should get rid of cars all together. I think the thread did a good job of explaining how driving a car would not be the best choice in getting to London. You taking up the mantle of the guy who ultimately came to the conclusion the discussing WAR's flaws was "over his head" is interesting.