David Ross.....

[Wilson A2000]

38 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

There is no correlation between WAR and post season success. In other words a team with a higher WAR collectively is no more successful than a team with a lower WAR. Baseball is a TEAM sport. WAR is an INDIVIDUAL statistic with dubious value. 

But there is between WAR and getting into the playoffs

[Derwood]

24 minutes ago, Wilson A2000 said:

But there is between WAR and getting into the playoffs

YUP. Bottom 6 teams in overall fWAR are also the 6 teams with the worst records in the MLB. It's pretty predictive.

[Rex Buckingham]

1 hour ago, Stratos said:

How does a GM maximize wins over the short and longterm?

You get the best players. 

[Stratos]

2 hours ago, CubinNY said:

There is no correlation between WAR and post season success. In other words a team with a higher WAR collectively is no more successful than a team with a lower WAR. Baseball is a TEAM sport. WAR is an INDIVIDUAL statistic with dubious value. 

I disagree about correlation between WAR and post-season success.  Small samples like 1 month of playoffs or 5 or 7 game series do lead to a lot of randomness though and the best teams don't always win.

WAR is an individual statistic but team WAR and other team stats aren't.  There's a fairly strong correlation in the regular season between team WAR and team wins.

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, Rex Buckingham said:

You get the best players. 

Measured by what?  WAR?

[CubinNY]

11 hours ago, Stratos said:

Measured by what?  WAR?

no. That's not your argument. Or at least it wasn't at one point.

Edited July 16, 2024 by CubinNY

[squally1313]

15 hours ago, CubinNY said:

In other words a team with a higher WAR collectively is no more successful than a team with a lower WAR. Baseball is a TEAM sport. WAR is an INDIVIDUAL statistic with dubious value. 

Can you expand on this please

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, squally1313 said:

Can you expand on this please

No, because you are not quoting what I wrote. In the playoffs, there is no correlation between WAR and winning. 

[CubinNY]

Last year the Diamondbacks as a team were 15th in WAR

[squally1313]

17 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

No, because you are not quoting what I wrote. In the playoffs, there is no correlation between WAR and winning. 

So are you making the argument that there's no point in building an elite team, just need to get into the playoffs and then it becomes more or less a crapshoot?

[CubinNY]

8 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

So are you making the argument that there's no point in building an elite team, just need to get into the playoffs and then it becomes more or less a crapshoot?

No, my point is that WAR should not be a primary consideration in building a team. Find the best players and don't get hung up how much a mythical number is worth in mythical dollars. Efficiency is not a goal, winning is the goal. 

[Derwood]

Just now, CubinNY said:

No, my point is that WAR should not be a primary consideration in building a team. Find the best players and don't get hung up how much a mythical number is worth in mythical dollars. Efficiency is not a goal, winning is the goal. 

But players with good WAR ARE good players

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, Derwood said:

But players with good WAR ARE good players

That's not the argument. 

[squally1313]

3 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

No, my point is that WAR should not be a primary consideration in building a team. Find the best players and don't get hung up how much a mythical number is worth in mythical dollars. Efficiency is not a goal, winning is the goal. 

But how do you judge good players? By height?

[Derwood]

3 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

That's not the argument. 

Then I don't know what your argument is.

[Derwood]

You literally said "WAR should not be the primary consideration in building a team" and "Find the best players" in the same paragraph as if they were opposing ideas

[sneakypower]

9 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

No, my point is that WAR should not be a primary consideration in building a team. Find the best players and don't get hung up how much a mythical number is worth in mythical dollars. Efficiency is not a goal, winning is the goal. 

ownership presumably gives GM/PBO a limited budget of finite money and of course the goal for FO is going to be to maximize the dollars their allowed to spend

i mostly dislike Jed but this line of argument doesn't really make any sense

[CubinNY]

5 minutes ago, sneakypower said:

ownership presumably gives GM/PBO a limited budget of finite money and of course the goal for FO is going to be to maximize the dollars their allowed to spend

i mostly dislike Jed but this line of argument doesn't really make any sense

Not all WAR is created equal.  He had a team that was 12 in WAR last year and didn't make the playoffs. 

[Derwood]

It's not a "top 12 teams in WAR make the playoffs", no, but you're using an outlier as proof of...something

[Derwood]

WS Champs (team fWAR rank)

2023 - Texas (2nd)
2022 - Houston (6th)
2021 - Atlanta (8th)
2020 - Los Angeles (1st)
2019 - Washington (5th)
2018 - Boston (3rd)
2017 - Houston (1st)
2016 - Chicago (1st)
2015 - Kansas City (9th)
2014 - San Francisco (6th)
2013 - Boston (1st)
2012 - San Francisco (3rd)
2011 - St. Louis (7th)
2010 - San Francisco (6th)

And so on. 50% of the teams I listed were Top 3 in team fWAR. All were top 10.

[SABR Gamer]

10 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Not all WAR is created equal.  He had a team that was 12 in WAR last year and didn't make the playoffs. 

I don't think you know what you're actually arguing. 

[Jason Ross]

11 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Not all WAR is created equal.  He had a team that was 12 in WAR last year and didn't make the playoffs. 

This feels like a pretty foundational misunderstanding of what WAR is doing. You've called it a "mythical" number as if there isn't a formula or that the data being input into the WAR formula isn't real. Actual performance on the field = WAR, regardless of whether it's baseball-reference WAR or fangraphs WAR. WAR is simply giving us an easily digestible fully encompassing statistic to compare player value. We should always go deeper to get the best picture available, but WAR is the best snapshot number out there.

Next, while team WAR is a useful point of data, no one should believe WAR is some silver-bullet and people who understand WAR don't use it that way. You can be, for example, the 12th best team in terms of WAR and still not make the playoffs; variance exists. Variance is a real thing. Teams get hurt and teams have bad luck. You know who that luck affects far more so than others? Teams in that 10-20 range. Teams at the top end of the WAR track make the playoffs because they're really good teams and variance isn't enough to knock them off. The inverse for the bottom. Where variance gets ya is being in the middle; it's why a team like Arizona Diamondback (15th in bWAR in 2023) made the playoffs and the Cubs (12th in bWAR in 2023) didn't. Variance. Is. Real. 

The best players in a season accumulate the most WAR. Teams should prioritize adding the best players. If your broader point is that the Cubs are a big market team and at times, full-on-efficiency is not-always priority number 1? I'd agree! Big market teams should use their ability to overspend others to, at times, pay market rate or slightly above market rate to improve their roster for peak win totals. I don't know if the Cubs have it in themselves to do that. Perfectly acceptable argument. But the argument that WAR doesn't matter doesn't hold water.

[CubinNY]

3 minutes ago, Derwood said:

WS Champs (team fWAR rank)

2023 - Texas (2nd)
2022 - Houston (6th)
2021 - Atlanta (8th)
2020 - Los Angeles (1st)
2019 - Washington (5th)
2018 - Boston (3rd)
2017 - Houston (1st)
2016 - Chicago (1st)
2015 - Kansas City (9th)
2014 - San Francisco (6th)
2013 - Boston (1st)
2012 - San Francisco (3rd)
2011 - St. Louis (7th)
2010 - San Francisco (6th)

And so on. 50% of the teams I listed were Top 3 in team fWAR. All were top 10.

You do know that 50% is chance level. Thanks for making the argument but the study was already done by SBR.

[CubinNY]

2 minutes ago, SABR Gamer said:

I don't think you know what you're actually arguing. 

I know. A guy who derives his WAR with his glove can have a high war. Put him on a team that is offensively challenged. He's not as valuable to his team as a guy with lower war who derives his WAR from offense. 

[squally1313]

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

I know. A guy who derives his WAR with his glove can have a high war. Put him on a team that is offensively challenged. He's not as valuable to his team as a guy with lower war who derives his WAR from offense. 

Why