Fun Moments With Twins WAR (Wins Above Replacement)

[Flyover Steve]

 

[ashbury]

First, Oliva wasn't in the HoF at the age where Knoblauch is now.  So the latter can wait quite a while longer before the former should be a benchmark.

Character counts, when considering HoF qualifications - it's officially stated so in the ballot that goes out each year.  Allegations about domestic violence, and admitted use of HGH, are black marks against Knoblauch that have no parallel to Oliva that I know of.

Finally, in that light, a comparison of Knoblauch to Puckett would be a more fruitful topic, though it's all been hashed out to death by now.  Things came out about Kirby after his HoF induction that quite possibly could have kept him on the outside looking in.  Sentiment goes for a lot in HoF candidacies, and when you lose that, you may not get in.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

@Flyover Steve are you trying to poke holes in WAR as a stat to judge players? If so, why? What’s wrong with the stat? Which WAR? Is it being used incorrectly, or are you applying value to it, not commonly used?

as I know it, WAR isn’t a criteria to win a batting title, batting average is. WAR might be used by the BWAA voters, but it’s in context of full career or season-long achievements (depending on which accolade we’re talking about)

us rubes throw WAR around a lot. It’s one of the most comprehensive and accessible stats. Accessibility is key, because we don’t have the resources that websites, publications and MLB FOs have to crunch the numbers and educate other rubes why our stat is better than the ones they have access to.

[Flyover Steve]

48 minutes ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

@Flyover Steve are you trying to poke holes in WAR as a stat to judge players? If so, why? What’s wrong with the stat? Which WAR? Is it being used incorrectly, or are you applying value to it, not commonly used?

as I know it, WAR isn’t a criteria to win a batting title, batting average is. WAR might be used by the BWAA voters, but it’s in context of full career or season-long achievements (depending on which accolade we’re talking about)

us rubes throw WAR around a lot. It’s one of the most comprehensive and accessible stats. Accessibility is key, because we don’t have the resources that websites, publications and MLB FOs have to crunch the numbers and educate other rubes why our stat is better than the ones they have access to.

I can completely understand why it seems like I’m trying to mock it but sincerely I just find certain WAR stats amusing, I am trying to resist passing judgement on them cause I don’t think I know enough to do so.

I guess the WAR stats I’m showing here *do* make me suspect that WAR’s formulation has some flaws, but I definitely don’t think it’s a worthless stat to be completely dismissed. The YouTuber Baseball’s Not Dead has a really good video about some of WAR’s flaws but he doesn’t at all dismiss it as a valuable stat. 

If anything, these and other WAR stats fascinate me and make me curious to understand better. Like- SHOULD we be taking Chuck Knoblauch’s baseball accomplishments more seriously? Or, conversely, does this undermine Tony O’s HOF credentials a little bit (lemme be clear- I am VERY pro Tony O being in the HOF and anti-CK being in it). And I’m talking strictly baseball accomplishments here, by all accounts the differences between CK and Tony O as respectable people are night and day. 

From my very limited understanding- one thing Baseball’s Not Dead’s video points out is that there is an argument that WAR’s formula overvalues certain positions and I gotta say it’s hard for me to not to believe the 2007 Bartlett WAR reflects that. I’m open to the possibility that he was an astounding defender or whatever but it seems absurd that he was so incredible that he was as valuable or more of a player as 2006 Morneau or 2022 Arraez. 

[tony&rodney]

Your point about WAR being incomplete is a solid position. WAR is interesting as one number. I'm not sold nor dismissive. I trust my eyes much more, which is useless unless I have seen the player multiple times. Thus, statistics hold relevance. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

2 hours ago, Flyover Steve said:

I can completely understand why it seems like I’m trying to mock it but sincerely I just find certain WAR stats amusing, I am trying to resist passing judgement on them cause I don’t think I know enough to do so.

I guess the WAR stats I’m showing here *do* make me suspect that WAR’s formulation has some flaws, but I definitely don’t think it’s a worthless stat to be completely dismissed. The YouTuber Baseball’s Not Dead has a really good video about some of WAR’s flaws but he doesn’t at all dismiss it as a valuable stat. 

If anything, these and other WAR stats fascinate me and make me curious to understand better. Like- SHOULD we be taking Chuck Knoblauch’s baseball accomplishments more seriously? Or, conversely, does this undermine Tony O’s HOF credentials a little bit (lemme be clear- I am VERY pro Tony O being in the HOF and anti-CK being in it). And I’m talking strictly baseball accomplishments here, by all accounts the differences between CK and Tony O as respectable people are night and day. 

From my very limited understanding- one thing Baseball’s Not Dead’s video points out is that there is an argument that WAR’s formula overvalues certain positions and I gotta say it’s hard for me to not to believe the 2007 Bartlett WAR reflects that. I’m open to the possibility that he was an astounding defender or whatever but it seems absurd that he was so incredible that he was as valuable or more of a player as 2006 Morneau or 2022 Arraez. 

I appreciate your thoughtful response.
I believe the HOF discussion should be reflected against peers/era. Chuck Knoblauch v. Tony Oliva isn’t an apples to apples comp. That being said, your question has merit if Knobby might be under rated a bit.
 

good discussion topic. I always enjoy the stat debates. It’s fun to learn about the context of the calculations

[Nine of twelve]

I think WAR is too subjective. The fact that a formula has to be concocted and the fact that there are several different formulas make the statistic imperfect.

I'm not informed on every stat out there, but for batting I think WPA comes closest to being the best but it's not perfect either. The problem with WPA is that by accounting for close-and-late situations it is not equally applied from one player to another. If a player is on a team that is either very good or very bad there will be fewer close-and-late plate appearances compared to a player on a team that is near .500. That in turn will affect WPA. I don't know if anyone has done this, but what would be more revealing is to calculate a player's WPA for each plate appearance relative to the maximum and minimum possible WPA for each plate appearance.