Just A Bit Outside: Neyer (Quoting James) on WAR

[weams]

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/baseball-joe/blog/bill-james-on-fielding-part-14-war-special-021815

Look, I'm not knocking WAR ... WAR is a useful concept; it is not a perfect concept. One of many reasons it is not a perfect concept is that it compresses Wins and Losses into one unit, and when you compress Wins and Losses into one unit, that results in distorted comparisons. Suggesting that Eddie Bressoud in 1966 has value equal to Ted Williams in 1953 is one result of that compression distortion. It's not true; it's not accurate. It's not reasonable. It'™s ridiculous. That's not value.

[weams]

When we produced data, in the 1970s, showing that run support for different starting pitchers does not even out over the course of a season, and therefore won-lost records for starting pitchers often had nothing to do with how well the pitcher pitched, there were lots and lots and lots of people who had lots of reasons why it couldn't be true. We tried to talk to those people, for a month or so, and then we said, "OK, we're moving on now; if you get it, you get it, and if you don't you don't." And that'?s where we are now: This is not a debatable point; this is obvious. WAR is not value. If you get it, you get it, and if you don't, you don't, but I'm moving on now.

Bill James

[ArtVanDelay]

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/baseball-joe/blog/bill-james-on-fielding-part-14-war-special-021815

I don't get what he's trying to say. Ted Williams played 37 games in 1953.

[SteveA]

I don't get what he's trying to say. Ted Williams played 37 games in 1953.

He was extremely valuable to the US war effort in Korea, however.

[weams]

I don't get what he's trying to say. Ted Williams played 37 games in 1953.

You should definitely ask him.

[BohKnowsBmore]

I don't get what he's trying to say. Ted Williams played 37 games in 1953.

I guess I don't get it, then. Seems to me that if merely apply Bill's criteria, nothing is value. Granted, I've skipped to the very end of his essay, which includes all sorts of interesting notions about one-dimensional and two-dimensional metrics, and I'm guessing we could find something three-dimensional if we looked hard enough. And yes, I do understand that there's a sort of false equivalency when we look at Ted Williams' 2 Wins Above Replacement in 1953 (110 plate appearances) and Eddie Bressoud's 2 WAR in 1966 (464 PA). But if there's anything I've learned from Bill, it's that even the best metrics can seem absurd at the extremes. And Ted Williams hitting .400 in a month is pretty extreme.

Just getting into it, but maybe that is part of the point?

[Number5]

He was extremely valuable to the US war effort in Korea, however.

John Glenn's wing man.

[Frobby]

I have to admit, like Neyer I'm not sure exactly what James is saying here. That WAR attempts to measure value, but doesn't do a good enough job? That WAR doesn't attempt to measure value? Maybe someone who subscribes to BillJamesOnline (El Gordo?) can read the whole piece that Neyer quotes and elaborate.

[byrdz]

You should definitely ask him.

He moved on.

[BohKnowsBmore]

I have to admit, like Neyer I'm not sure exactly what James is saying here. That WAR attempts to measure value, but doesn't do a good enough job? That WAR doesn't attempt to measure value? Maybe someone who subscribes to BillJamesOnline (El Gordo?) can read the whole piece that Neyer quotes and elaborate.

Perhaps it is something that looking at the raw number with no context doesn't tell you who was more important to the team? Like, the fact that the same WAR was obtained in 1/4 the PA, would indicate that Williams was much more valuable, and his loss hurt the team, despite an equivalent level of "contribution." WAR can only measure what happened, not the absence of play and its impact. No clue if that's necessarily what was meant-as you mention, it would help to read the whole article (this almost seems like a tease for the article)-just spitballing here.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Sometimes I think James has become more of a philosopher than a statistician.

[Frobby]

Sometimes I think James has become more of a philosopher than a statistician.

In reality, he always was.

[hoosiers]

I don't understand Law's point about compression - I think everyone understands the compression and IMO there is nothing wrong with it.

Both James and Law use the word "value" and frankly that word has lots and different meanings to different folks.

IMO, WAR measures total production. Value is/can be quire different.

[CA-ORIOLE]

In reality, he always was.

That is true. Just seems more obvious now as compared to his contemporaries I guess.

[DrungoHazewood]

In reality, he always was.

I think it's common in any field that, in the beginning, you don't have to be the guy with the PhD or the Harvard degree to be a pioneer or someone who breaks new ground. All it often takes is a different mindset. In 1978 or even 1990 there were almost no high-level degreed statisticians or mathematicians or engineers making their life's work baseball research. So someone like James, with little formal training, could really move the needle. But in the last 20 years folks with real dedicated training and knowledge have busted in and advanced the rigor in sabermetrics. James has always been a great thinker, a ponderer of interesting thoughts on baseball. But he's clearly behind the Tangos and the succeeding generation in detailed analytical skills. As much as I love reading his stuff he sometimes seems like he's reinventing the wheel with 20-year-old tools.