06-19-2012, 12:31 AM
You're not piling on at all. I welcome the discussion, especially since, as you say, you've actually pondered WAR extensively. Most anti-WAR folk haven't, and simply react to it the same way old newspaper writers reacted to people talking about Moneyball ten years ago.
But your reticence to embrace the statistic has led me to question my own positive thoughts about it. After thinking about it some, I've come to this conclusion: I have always been more of a "baseball history" aficionado than the average fan (or the average SOI-er), and I think WAR works better as a long-term stat than it does as an in-season stat. Randomness plays far too large a role during a single season for an all-inclusive stat to be a "be-all/end-all" stat.
So perhaps you're correct: for in-season analysis, either WAR needs a decade or two of tweaking until it becomes anything other than a blunt sledgehammer of information, or, indeed, the entire idea of reducing 15 different stats into a single, convenient number is plain ludicrous.
As far as baseball history goes, however, I do believe that the stat works wonderfully. The following link seems to contain info, that to me, is spot-on. Oh sure, there are a few surprises on the list, but then every intelligent new stat tends to shed some new light on certain ballplayer's careers. DiMaggio's number seems low, but then one recalls that he spent three years at the peak of his prime in the Army during WW II, and WAR only measures exactly what a player did on the field, period. (Joltin' Joe also lost mucho WAR points by retiring at age 36, a very rare, young age for a superstar). Koufax's low number reflects his own way-early retirement at age 30. In fact, of the top 100, the only player whose WAR number stands out as truly startling is that of Rick Reuschel. If a stat passes the smell-test 99 times out of 100, that's not a bad stat.
[url="http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_career.shtml"]http://www.baseball-...AR_career.shtml[/url]
But your reticence to embrace the statistic has led me to question my own positive thoughts about it. After thinking about it some, I've come to this conclusion: I have always been more of a "baseball history" aficionado than the average fan (or the average SOI-er), and I think WAR works better as a long-term stat than it does as an in-season stat. Randomness plays far too large a role during a single season for an all-inclusive stat to be a "be-all/end-all" stat.
So perhaps you're correct: for in-season analysis, either WAR needs a decade or two of tweaking until it becomes anything other than a blunt sledgehammer of information, or, indeed, the entire idea of reducing 15 different stats into a single, convenient number is plain ludicrous.
As far as baseball history goes, however, I do believe that the stat works wonderfully. The following link seems to contain info, that to me, is spot-on. Oh sure, there are a few surprises on the list, but then every intelligent new stat tends to shed some new light on certain ballplayer's careers. DiMaggio's number seems low, but then one recalls that he spent three years at the peak of his prime in the Army during WW II, and WAR only measures exactly what a player did on the field, period. (Joltin' Joe also lost mucho WAR points by retiring at age 36, a very rare, young age for a superstar). Koufax's low number reflects his own way-early retirement at age 30. In fact, of the top 100, the only player whose WAR number stands out as truly startling is that of Rick Reuschel. If a stat passes the smell-test 99 times out of 100, that's not a bad stat.
[url="http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_career.shtml"]http://www.baseball-...AR_career.shtml[/url]
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance