I do see where WAR is cited in MVP arguments by those who know that WAR is not a finished metric, but it's the best we have right now. That is always how I utilize WAR, and frequently I will cite whether I'm using WARP, bWAR, or fWAR. It's actually something my editor and I made a point of bringing up with other writers on our site. I've had some great conversations with writers who are on both sides of sabermetrics (write scouting reports and you seem to get far ends on both arguments!), and I think in all seriousness, most of those who are very into finding advanced metrics use what is there, hoping a better one is out there that will give a better, more accurate, more full evaluation of a player, while the other side assumes that just using the one that currently exists as believing that is the end-all, be-all statistic. I think it's a bad perception issue, frankly.