OnlyBucs

Was just scanning some stats and noticed how close the 2019 production for Moran and Frazier has been:

                

                      AB.    H.     Avg.   Hr.   Ops.

MORAN.      458. 128.  .279.  13.  .760

FRAZIER.     523. 146. .279.   10.  .759



Pretty much identical.  I wouldn't have thought much more about it except in 2019 Frazier has a 2.8 WAR while Moran has a -.4.  ???



I don't know much about WAR but it tells me one of three possible things: measurement is weighted significantly differently by position; defense factors significantly in the rating; WAR sucks. 



I am sure WAR has more value than I understand, but based on the stats above, I was pretty surprised at the variance between Moran and Frazier this season.

Absolutely nothing!

They are considered pretty close as hitters: Frasier two runs above average, Moran two runs below. The big difference is that Frasier is considered a pretty good fielder at plus 7 runs, while Moran is seen as poor at minus 14. Some other little advantages, and Frasier is considered 33 runs better overall, which translates to the difference in WAR they're assigned.

Always think WAR is so subjective to me.

22110D0C0F07310C170B1017060A0D630 wrote: They are considered pretty close as hitters: Frasier two runs above average, Moran two runs below.  The big difference is that Frasier is considered a pretty good fielder at plus 7 runs, while Moran is seen as poor at minus 14. Some other little advantages, and Frasier is considered 33 runs better overall, which translates to the difference in WAR they're assigned.


I am surprised Frazier is a plus on runs. Moran's hitting stats have gone in the dumpster, he had his ops near 800 in August and it has been less than 600 in September.

I was sitting here thinking about the absence of Bell's bat for the past week. He could have added to his .277 Avg, 37 HR, and 116 RBI .....and his 3.1 WAR. :-/

I've never cared for WAR. It's too complicated a formula for fans to compute. And different reference sites use different formulas so results vary. WAR is just an attempt to quantify what baseball fans historically accepted as unmeasurable. So WAR supposedly rates players with a numeric value rather than having fans give their opinions on who is better than who. But all it boils down to the good players having better WAR numbers than the less productive players. Which we can all see with our eyes without some mathematician having to tell us.



I also dislike how WAR results are explained. It's an estimate as to how many more wins a player produces than a fictional AAA or AAAA replacement. Sorry but that's too vague for me. I can understand how many runs a pitcher gives on average or how many hits a batter gets on average. But it's a team sport with many factors going into what makes a team win. Trying to simplify it with the actual number of wins a player is good for based on an estimate of a comparison to a fictional replacement seems pretty silly to me. The bottom line is that we can see who the better players are without a mathematical formula. 

Moran's WAR has no connection to Frazier's WAR. They play different positions.



Moran's WAR is relative to other 3bman, and Frazier's other 2bman.

575E564749330 wrote: Moran's WAR has no connection to Frazier's WAR.   They play different positions.   



Moran's WAR is relative to other 3bman, and Frazier's other 2bman. 


But WAR is now commonly utilized to compare all players regardless of position.