Tuesday, September 05, 2023
When do we need WAR?
If we set the replacement level at .300, here's how the top 3 batters look:
- 7.7 Mookie B
- 6.8 Freddie
- 6.8 Ronald A
That .300 win% level is somewhat arbitrary, but there's a good reason for it. But, let's say someone thinks it should be .200 win% as the zero-level. How does the race look?
- 8.6 Mookie B
- 7.7 Freddie
- 7.7 Ronald A
All the numbers go up by 0.9 wins, but otherwise, the disparity is the same.
How about a .400 win% level as the zero-point, the point above where value comes? If you believe that, then this is your list:
- 6.8 Mookie B
- 5.9 Freddie
- 5.8 Ronald A
Looks pretty similar still. How about .500, league average. Let's only count the wins above average. How does that look?
- 5.9 Mookie B
- 4.9 Freddie
- 4.9 Ronald A
Uhmmm... what's going on here? Why are we seeing virtually no difference regardless of what we choose as the zero-point?
At its core, WAR, or more specifically, Wins Over Readily Available Zero-Point (WORAZ), is this:
Wins = (wOBA minus Zero-Point) times PlayingTime times someConstant
Since Betts, Freeman, and Acuna all are full-time players, their Playing Time is very similar. That variable cancels out. The constant cancels out. The Zero-Point also cancels out. And so, what we end up caring about is the individual rate stats of a player. Here I am using wOBA, but it would be some all-encompassing rate stat.
So, no matter what zero-point you choose for your WAR stat, it doesn't matter. Well, at least in this particular case.
When does it matter? It matters when you want to compare players of different playing time. A .400 wOBA player with 400 PA compared to a .350 wOBA player with 500 PA compared to a .300 wOBA player with 700 PA. It's that combination of differing quality v quantity where WAR shines.
Is there a player in 2023 where it matters, some player that played well when they did, but didn't play all the time? Yes, in 2023, that player is Jose Altuve. If we set the zero-point at a .500 win%, meaning value only accrues for above-average performance, then Altuve has 2.7 wins, and puts him at #16 in MLB, just ahead of full-time players Matt Olson and Marcus Semien.
Of course, some of you out there think that's silly, there's no way Altuve in 2023 is equal to those two players. Ok, so let's say your zero-point is a .300 win%. Altuve is now 37th, just behind Christian Yelich. Some of you may think that's around correct. But others are not convinced, thinking that is STILL too high to put Altuve.
Ok, let's set the zero-point at a .100 win% level. What happens now? Altuve is now 57th, between Pete Alonso and Gleyber Torres. Is that more reasonable? I don't know, you tell me. You decide what the zero-point is. WAR doesn't insist of a .300 win% level. It's just the most appropriate for most situations. But if you think that's wrong, then you choose.
This is how it looks it chart form (click to embiggen), when we assign TWO dimensions to each player, an Individualized Won-Loss Record. Altuve has a 5-0 record. Semien is around 7.5-2 record, Yelich is 6.5-2.5, and Alonso is 5.5-3.
What is the 5-0 record from Altuve equivalent to? If you think that's equivalent to 7.5-2, then you favor a zero-point close to .500. If you think that's equivalent to 6.5-2.5, then you favor a zero-point of .300. If you think that's equivalent to 5.5-3, then you favor a zero-point closer to .100.
You choose.