Is W.A.R slowly taking subjectivity out of the MVP discussion?
lightningboy
Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭
I don't know exactly when W.A.R. began to be used to rank how good players really are, but it seems as though it has picked up a lot of steam and credibility over the past 5 years or so. This period also correlates with the career of the current W.A.R. superhero, Mike Trout. Is it just coincidence that he is not only on pace to possibly challenge Ruth as the all time W.A.R. leader, but he has ranked in the top 2 in MVP voting during each of his 5 full seasons? Not to take anything away from Trout, because he is arguably the best all around player now and possibly for many years previously, but at one time the "Valuable" seemed to hinge greatly on how well that player's team had done. For each Andre Dawson (1987 last place Cubs) there is a Joe DiMaggio beating out Ted Williams. Ted Williams once said that he would rather win a batting title or HR crown because it was fact and not a popularity contest.
Any thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Tom
Comments
Don't understand WAR, never will, and don't want to. Of course that doesn't mean it doesn't have value to a Sabermetric geek.
"Molon Labe"
WAR is an overrated stat. In 2012 Miguel Cabrera wins the triple crown and because Mike Trout had a higher WAR he nearly beats out Miguel for the MVP. Crazy.
WAR is definitely really wonky. Just had this discussion on the Baseball Reference Facebook page, actually. In 1977, Phil Niekro was 16-20 with a 4.03 ERA and led the league in walks, runs allowed, and wild pitches, among other things. He also had a WAR of 8.9, which is MVP-level. That's nonsense. He got an 8.9 because he threw 330 innings. Whoopdeedoo. 330 innings of not-great. As if it would be hard to find "replacement" guys who could basically match performance.
Not interested too much in bringing in "replacement" players into a discussion involving the top 5% of players.
WAR has some value but is not the definitive stat that people claim it to be.
OPS+ is a much better stat to evaluate a hitter, imo.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Agreed. Recently discussed this topic with a few pro players and they said the same thing— they feel the intangibles, especially character and clubhouse presence, are often left out of the discussion these days.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
Same here.
I agree that OPS+ gives a more concrete picture of how to rate hitters. But unless you are a DH, other aspects (defense, base running) of your game can have a great impact on how truly valuable you are to a team.
dWAR is also used an advanced metric to measure defensive ability though its significance is greatly overshadowed by offensive production.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I think all of the metrics are. War and OPS have merit but you can't forget about leadership ability, in game decisions, etc...
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.