Well, Tango has an open thread on it over at The Book Blog. It's an important concept to understand as it's our, and many others, common way to boil down player value into a single number.
While there are criticisms of WAR, many of them stem from misunderstandings of the model behind the final number. So if you have any nagging doubts or are unsure of some aspect of it and want to know more, head over and ask the man himself.
If you don't feel like doing that, post your question here and somebody might be able to assist you.
0 recs | 24 comments
I've always wondered why +2 WAR is league average.
If 25 replacement level players can achieve 50 wins, then why would a team of league average players win 100 games? Of course they wouldn’t, so I had assumed it had something to do with playing time, but I’ve never been sure.
Double06 - January 26, 2009
It's +2 WAR over a full season's worth of plate appearances
The 25 guys wouldn’t play a full season each.
Graham MacAree - January 26, 2009
To further expand:
You have 9 batters receiving a full-season share of plate appearances.
A full-season share of innings pitched (for WAR purposes) is set at 180 I believe. Average number of IP per team is about 1440. 1440 / 180 = ~8 pitchers receiving a full-season share of innings pitched.
9 + 8 = 17. (full season shares)
17 * 2 = 34. (# of wins above replacement)
Replacement level is actually about 47 wins.
34 + 47 = 81
Matthew - January 26, 2009
OK, so why do you multiply by 2?
Double06 - January 26, 2009
Average to replacement.
Matthew - January 26, 2009
Oh, pff, duh.
Thanks for the detail.
Double06 - January 26, 2009
You're thinking of it like 2 is a preset constant
You derive it by taking (81-47)/17.
Graham MacAree - January 26, 2009
So I assumed right.
Double06 - January 26, 2009
You have to leverage them properly
25 guys can’t all play 100% of the time.
JI - January 26, 2009
But if they could, they'd win a lot more than 100 games.
Vatinius - January 26, 2009
"Have a Question on WAR?"
yes, what is it good for?
msb - January 26, 2009
Player evaluation, mainly
Jeff Sullivan - January 26, 2009
Say it again, y'all.
esoteric - January 26, 2009
I think you mean
“Player ’valuation, say it again”"
JI - January 26, 2009
I said what I meant
Jeff Sullivan - January 26, 2009
oh?
Is that so?
Matthew - January 26, 2009
Yes
Jeff Sullivan - January 26, 2009
You're not very good with meter are you?
JI - January 26, 2009
I don't have any question to ask because WAR seems quite a simple concept and since I am a LL/Fangraphs whore I am immersed every day in it.
I just wanted to say that I think it’s awesome that TT is so involved with the blogging community and proactive in increasing the average users understanding of these new tools, considering he is pretty much the pre-eminent sabermetrican right now. And it makes me big to think he consults for the M’s.
EnglishMariner - January 26, 2009
It makes you big?
…
Matthew - January 26, 2009
I thought EM was a woman.
JI - January 26, 2009
Late
Fin - January 26, 2009
DEAD MEME.
EnglishMariner - January 27, 2009
Hush.
Men are talking
Graham MacAree - January 27, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.