THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Interesting ... I wonder what the rest of us overvalue?  More important, what SHOULD we value in addition to WAR?  Or should we use WAR only, regardless?

Suppose two guys have the same WAR, but one of them is also the best base stealer in history (the value of which is included in WAR).  Should we give that player extra consideration because he’s the best ever?

I think I would.  I’m willing to be convinced I shouldn’t.

I am 99% a sat guy, but I have no problem putting borderline WAR guys in the HOF for being really famous, outstanding in the postseason, or for breaking some significant record.  So would Brock be in my HOF since he is well short of WAR greatness, but had all three of the criteria I listed above?  I don’t know.  Probably not, but I’d consider putting a 45 WAR guy in if he met those criteria. If a guy is too far below that, there is nothing that would get him in my HOF short of an incredible peak. It is a spectator museum for fans, and there seems to be some element of truth to the idea of the fans getting to see the players enshrined that they want to see, right?  Dizzy Dean is a guy I would elect to a HOF, but not a HOM type club.

"More important, what SHOULD we value in addition to WAR?  Or should we use WAR only, regardless?”

What’s missing from WAR?  To begin with, post-season performance.  Also things like clutch ability, sportsmanship, and team leadership (to the extent they exist and matter).  While WAR makes a number of adjustments for context (park factors, league quality, etc.) it doesn’t adjust for everything—for example, it doesn’t adjust for strikes or bad management decisions (e.g., leaving a player too long in the minors). 

These are factors that can and probably should be considered in evaluating borderline players, but can also be given undue weight.