One for Ted: Bill James on WAR

[Ted]

All due respect to Bill James for his past contributions, but I really don't think he or most of his current thoughts are relevant.

Baseball is an individual sport masquerading as a team sport. You can't take what a player did in a certain year and subtract from it just because his team didn't win as many games as another team. This argument sounds way too much like saying a player can't be the MVP because his team didn't make the playoffs.

His point is not that the Yankees won fewer games than the Astros. He's saying that the run differential the Yankees posted should have had them winning 100 games rather than 90, implying that those WAR numbers are not reliable. So 8 WAR on a team who "should have" won 100, but only won 90 games, is less valuable than 8 WAR on a team who "should have" and actually did win 100 games. He furthers his argument by pointing out Judge performed considerably worse in high leverage situations than Altuve, which is not taken into account by WAR. WAR sees a solo homer in a 8 run blowout equally valuable to a solo homer that is the winning run in a 3-2 game. He argues that whether or not clutch or luck are measurable real things, after they happen, they DID in fact happen, so a "clutch" home run IS more valuable than the above mentioned meaningless solo shot. WAR does not take this into account. It is purely a counting stat. In essence the crux of the argument is that we have gone too far in discounting the OUTCOMES of randomness. Discounting randomness (or luck, or clutch, or whatever) for future projection may be fine, but you shouldn't be saying things players actually DID matter less because they were the result of randomness.

WAR is what it is. Like you said, a counting stat, tied to runs created. It's not tied to wins. Aaron Judge shouldn't be tied to the Yankees wins any more than Altuve should be tied to the Astros.

Now, if you want to make an argument that Judge was less valuable because he was less clutch, fine, no problem with that.

WAR is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing. It sounds like James wants a metric that is tied to actual wins, which, fine, but I don't see why he needs to rail on WAR to do so. I also don't see the point in a metric that ties players performance to actual wins. I thought that a major point of sabermetrics was to strip away randomness in order to determine true talents and make better projections of player performance.

I don't know Bill James rationale, but my argument WAS more that Judge was less clutch hand therefore less valuable, and that using WAR primarily to evaluate MVPs is horrendously flawed because it IS non contextual. My overall frustration with WAR is again, what I see as misuse, as many people ARE tying it to wins, and it does that poorly.

[Lane]

Okay, so I'll post a response in my own words as well, but here's Dave Cameron saying it better than I ever could: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/putting ... ill-james/

Here's the key:

Off Topic

James strongly believes that the metric falls apart by building up from runs, rather than working backwards from wins, since the context-neutral nature of the metric means that what WAR estimates a group of players are worth won’t add up to how many wins their team actually won.

I really like this piece. To me, it's a nice continuation of the discussion rather than a rebuttal. I'm not trying to entirely discount the usefulness of WAR. If it seems so, it is only because I am prone to hyperbole. I think THIS is the point in there that continues what I thought was the most important about the James argument

Off Topic

I think the answer is that it depends on how you’re using WAR. In the case of MVP voting, I do think there is a case to be made for looking at the circumstances under which a player performed, and I did use context-dependent metrics when I was an MVP voter. WAR is an imperfect tool, and it’s particularly imperfect for things like the MVP award, which is why even those of us who host sites that promote WAR fairly extensively suggest not relying solely on its results when filling out a ballot.

I don't see your argument as trying to discount WAR, but I think it's absolutely what James is doing. Instead of writing an article that said, "hey let's look at other things instead of just WAR for MVP" he went on a rant that says "hey dummies, WAR sucks and only actual wins matter" which, is basically the anti-stats argument that sabermetrics has been fighting forever.

James says:

Off Topic

To give the Yankee players credit for winning 102 games when in fact they won only 91 games is what we would call an "error". It is not a "choice"; it is not an "option". It is an error.

It's not an error. It's a feature. It's an individual stat designed to show what an individual player did. It makes zero sense why it should be tied to team wins.

[Ted]

I think your argument that it is a stat designed to measure individual player performance is perhaps good only in the context of uber stat nerds.

I mean, WINS are in the damn name. WINS above replacement. It's a very good evaluation of non contextual player performance, but it frankly doesn't tie in better to wins than a lot of other garbage we have. Hell, RBI might be as good. In fact, if you told me I could have one of two players, a guy who would give me 6 WAR next year, or a guy who would give me 130 RBI, I'd take the RBI every time.

[Lane]

I don't know Bill James rationale, but my argument WAS more that Judge was less clutch hand therefore less valuable, and that using WAR primarily to evaluate MVPs is horrendously flawed because it IS non contextual. My overall frustration with WAR is again, what I see as misuse, as many people ARE tying it to wins, and it does that poorly.

Agree 100% that Judge being less clutch made him less valuable.

It's usefulness to evaluate MVP candidates depends on your definition of what an MVP is. Is it the guy that did the most to create runs for his team regardless of context? Or is it the guy that contributed the most championship probability added? Or some combination of both?

[Ted]

Anyway, I think we mostly agree and are arguing semantics. I can definitely see your issue with James' negativity.

[Ted]

I'm am enjoying the heck out of this, and I like that we are posting stuff faster than we can read responses.

[Lane]

Yes, this is great.

With regards to taking the 130 RBI guy over the 6 WAR guy, sure. But the 130 RBI guy is telling you about the rest of your team as well (or at least the 1-2 guys that hit ahead of him). WAR is an individual stat. RBI is not.

[Ted]

Yes, this is great.

With regards to taking the 130 RBI guy over the 6 WAR guy, sure. But the 130 RBI guy is telling you about the rest of your team as well (or at least the 1-2 guys that hit ahead of him). WAR is an individual stat. RBI is not.

Sure, but that's my point. Maybe WAR is just poorly named and that's the whole problem. Let's start a campaign to start calling it ValueAGuyIsNotedtoAccrue.

[Lane]

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news ... -vs-noise/

Baseball Prospectus getting in on this discussion as well.

[Lane]

One more for the road. The Effectively Wild guys talk to Dave Cameron.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?powerp ... ively-wild

[cheekimonk]

Think people get hung up on the word “wins” in Wins Above Replacement. Proving that the stat absolutely ties to wins, and using that literally to breakdown player comparisons, is not just wonky but mathematically vague. My approach to WAR is that W could stand for “widgets” or “whatevers.” As long as the calculation and approach is the same then it gives a relative comparison of two, or more, players. This is in contrast to absolute stats like HRs, RBI, etc. and their derivatives (AVG, OBP, WHIP, etc.).

Now comparing a pitcher’s WAR to that of a position player is another matter altogether as the nature of the variables/stats used creates, again just to my assessment, an apples and oranges situation.

[Ted]

One more for the road. The Effectively Wild guys talk to Dave Cameron.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?powerp ... ively-wild

I enjoy that they pretty much had the discussion we already did. Also, that part about the writers association message board and the dude asking for a paper packet blows my mind. I think I've heard that story before, but it's still hilarious. Also, this was delightfully nerdy. I'm going to have to start listening more.

[Lane]

If Effectively Wild isn't already in your podcast rotation, I highly recommend it! One of the best.

[bpbrooksy]

If Effectively Wild isn't already in your podcast rotation, I highly recommend it! One of the best.

+1 for Effectively Wild. I almost always am aware of each news item in general they're talking about, but I get a lot more information off an hour of their podcast than I do just skimming through headlines and Twitter to keep in the loop.