Ok, this is completely unreliable so don't trust it...but a couple rumors

[Eight]

Ray WARP3: 3.8

Teixiera WARP3: 5.2

That's almost two wins.

Teixeira has an advantage of 2.6 to 2.4 in WARP1. Teixeira gets a big advantage when converted to WARP2 and another advantage when going to WARP3. Not sure why WARP3 would be used to compare two players in the 2007 AL to one another. Isn't WARP1 supposed to do that?

[Sports Guy]

Teixeira has an advantage of 2.6 to 2.4 in WARP1. Teixeira gets a big advantage when converted to WARP2 and another advantage when going to WARP3. Not sure why WARP3 would be used to compare two players in the 2007 AL to one another. Isn't WARP1 supposed to do that?

WARP3 is the best and most accurate...Takes defense into account moreso i think.

[Eight]

It only adjusts for schedule length. At least according to BP.

[Baltimoron]

WARP3 is the best and most accurate...Takes defense into account moreso i think.

I poop on this.

WARP-1

Wins Above Replacement Player, level 1. The number of wins this player contributed, above what a replacement level hitter, fielder, and pitcher would have done, with adjustments only for within the season. It should be noted that a team which is at replacement level in all three of batting, pitching, and fielding will be an extraordinarily bad team, on the order of 20-25 wins in a 162-game season.

WARP is also listed on a player's PECOTA card. The PECOTA WARP listing is designed to correspond to WARP-1, not WARP-2 or WARP-3.

WARP-2

Wins Above Replacement Player, with difficulty added into the mix. One of the factors that goes into league difficulty is whether or not the league uses a DH, which is why recent AL players tend to get a larger boost than their NL counterparts.

WARP-3

WARP-2, expanded to 162 games to compensate for shortened seasons. Initially, I was just going to use (162/season length) as the multiplier, but this seemed to overexpand the very short seasons of the 19th century. I settled on using (162/scheduled games) ** (2/3). So Ross Barnes' 6.2 wins in 1873, a 55 game season, only gets extended to 12.8 WARP, instead of a straight-line adjustment of 18.3.

For most hitters, at least, it is just that simple. Pitchers are treated differently, as we not only look at season length, but the typical number of innings thrown by a top starting pitcher that year (defined by the average IP of the top five in IP). We find it hard to argue that pitchers throwing 300 or more innings a year are suffering some sort of discrimination in the standings due to having shortened seasons. This why Walter Johnson has almost no adjustment between WARP-2 and WARP-3, while his contemporaries Cobb, Speaker, and Collins all gain around 7 or 8 wins.

link

WARP (1,2,3) sucks for the stated purposes (as well as most other contemporary purposes) for many reasons, such as garbage defense and an equal replacement level for pitchers, but at least know what the stat is purporting to present.

[davearm]

WARP3 is the best and most accurate...Takes defense into account moreso i think.

Nope.

WARP2 adjusts for league difficulty.

WARP3 adjusts for season length.

[Sports Guy]

Nope.

WARP2 adjusts for league difficulty.

WARP3 adjusts for season length.

Ok...So then why do so many people on here using WARP3 in discussions about HOFers?

I must say, that is why i have always looked at it because i have seen guys like Drungo use it when discussing things like that.

[Eight]

Ok...So then why do so many people on here using WARP3 in discussions about HOFers?

Because it adjusts for strength of league and season length?

[davearm]

Ok...So then why do so many people on here using WARP3 in discussions about HOFers?

I must say, that is why i have always looked at it because i have seen guys like Drungo use it when discussing things like that.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. WARP3 is indeed the one folks focus on, because it's the metric that's gone through all of the normalization steps. WARP3 is the best and most accurate in the sense that it provides an apples-to-apples way to compare players from all eras and both leagues.

The "nope" was in response to what you said about defense.

[Sports Guy]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. WARP3 is indeed the one folks focus on, because it's the metric that's gone through all of the normalization steps. WARP3 is the best and most accurate in the sense that it provides an apples-to-apples way to compare players from all eras and both leagues.

The "nope" was in response to what you said about defense.

So, should we look at WARP2 when looking at the current year?

[olehippi]

If he wants to trade BRob maybe not, but what if Mcphail wants to sign ARod to a 8/240M contract? Don't you think PA should be consulted?

If MacPhail wants to sogn ARod for 8/240M, Angelos should fire him.....

[davearm]

So, should we look at WARP2 when looking at the current year?

You can use WARP2.

I prefer WARP3 though, because it puts the number in a full-season context, which is what we're most used to looking at.

In other words, it is easier for me to digest the notion that a player is producing at a level that would yield 6 wins over the course an entire season, than it is to say, OK, we've played 60% of the season and so far this guy's produced 3.6 wins.