Quote:
Originally Posted by dgo71
How can WAR be considered an accurate stat when it's not even calculated the same way by those who provide it? I like WAR as a quick, at a glance look at a player's worth but if that was the only stat I could muster to argue for enshrinement I don't think it's a compelling enough arguement. My biggest problem is that because it's a cumulative statistic, it gives longevity the appearance of dominance, like the Rick Reuschel for the Hall statement a few posts back. Reuschel was never what I'd consider the dominant pitcher in baseball, or even his league, or heck even his own team in many instances. But he was good over a very long time so his WAR ranks very high.
|
every different variation of WAR does exactly what the creators of them desired. Fangraphs chooses to use FIP and UZR/DRS in their WAR, baseball reference choose era+ and DRS ...etc as long as you know what the underlying stats are used you can choose which one you want to use and why. (tho i think most people should pick one and stick with it so as not to get caught up trying to cherry pick)
is WAR perfect? no, not at all, (mostly because of defense being so hard to determine accurately) but it's pretty good. If you take cumulative fWAR for at team and compare it to their true record and pythagorean record it tends to match up fairly well. But, it really IS the best stat for comparing players across positions. It's a thumbnail, but a good thumbnail.
as far as the HOF and WAR goes, well of course you need to dig deeper than just their WAR number. But if a guy has a career WAR north of 60 generally they are going to be ,at worst, on the cusp. Once you cross over the 80 threshold you are talking guys that should be shoe ins. Even if it was over 20 years, a player who built up 80 WAR over 20 years was so good for so long as to be enshrined i think. If Koufax can be in for a few hyper-dominant years, other players should be in for a long body of consistently great work. Even if they were never a dominant player.