By In Stuff

dWAR to end all WARs

Baseball Reference never stops improving, which is one of the reasons I love the place. The searches keep getting better. It gets easier and easier all the time to find cool stuff. Love it.

But I have to admit: dWAR baffles me.

dWAR is Baseball Reference’s “Defensive Wins Above Replacement.” It is such a convenient concept — a one-stop number that estimates how much value above replacement level a player brings with his defense — that I look at it all the time. But, like Inigo says in the movie, I don’t think it means what we think it means.

Take Keith Hernandez. Please.

Keith Hernandez was a great defensive first baseman over a long career. This is something everyone who saw him play agrees upon. We watched Hernandez all through the 1970s and 1980s as reinvented how first baseman play the bunt. He was fantastic at every aspect of first base defense — great range, great arm, brilliant at scooping out bad throws — or anyway it certainly LOOKED that way.

Keith Hernandez’s CAREER dWAR is 0.6.

That seems to suggest that Keith Hernandez was just .6 wins better than a replacement first baseman over his entire 17 year career. That’s doesn’t sound particularly good. In fact, that doesn’t sound good at all. Is Baserball Reference really saying that Hernandez basically offered no defensive value above a replacement first baseman? Was all that we saw an illusion? Are we given the ugly choice of throwing out our memories of Hernandez or throwing out the dWAR statistic?

The answer is: No. That’s not really the choice we are given.

We have to understand what dWAR is.

First of all, the name is a bit of an illusion. Yes, WAR is Wins Above Replacement, and we’ve come to understand that “replacement” represents a rough estimate of a player you could find to replace a starter in case of injury or some such thing. Eliezer Alfonzo, Russ Adams, Wendell Magee, Mario Guerrero, these are replacement level players, and so it is useful to know just how much better any player is than replacement.

But that’s not how dWAR works. It is actually measuring a player against the AVERAGE Major League fielder. There are reasons for this — and it is logical to think that it is easier to find a replacement player who would be an average fielder — but it’s an important distinction.

What dWAR is saying is that Keith Hernandez was 0.6 wins better than AVERAGE not REPLACEMENT. That still doesn’t compute … until we get to the second point.

And the second point is this: dWAR includes what is called a “positional adjustment.” Apologies for telling you something you probably already know, but it’s easier to just lay it out there. To make WAR work well, you need to include a positional adjustment because a shortstop is naturally and universally more valuable defensively than a first baseman. A catcher is more valuable defensively than a left fielder. That’s obvious.

These players are more valuable simply by virtue of the POSITION THAT THEY PLAY. The circle of people who can play shortstop in the big leagues is a great deal smaller than the number of people who can play first base in the big leagues. WAR has to account for this. And so it does by this positional adjustment.


But what you might not know — I didn’t know — is that when Baseball Reference splits up WAR into defensive WAR and offensive WAR, they include the positional adjustment in BOTH. In other words, dWAR is not saying that Keith Hernandez is 0.6 wins better than the average FIRST BASEMAN. It is saying that Keith Hernandez is 0.6 wins better than the average FIELDER.

Baseball Reference founder Sean Forman makes his case logically.

“Originally I didn’t include it,” he says of the positional adjustment, “but it was really confusing to people when we did it that way. I wanted dWAR to show who the best fielders were and if you don’t include the positional adjustment, guys like Keith Hernandez and Barry Bonds show up as the best fielders of all time which isn’t really what that should be imo. I think you can also make the case that the worst shortstop is likely a better fielder than even the best first basemen, and the numbers now jibe with that.”

Sean brought up Keith Hernandez independently, by the way — I didn’t mention Hernandez in my question. But this is exactly his point: When you just look at WAR Runs Fielding, without taking into account position, Keith Hernandez ranks as the second-best fielding first baseman of all time (behind only Albert Pujols) and the 53rd greatest fielder of all time regardless of position.

So now the question: Which way do you prefer it? If you make the positional adjustment, Hernandez’s 0.6 dWAR looks puny and unimpressive for such a marvelouis fielder.

If you DON’T make the positional adjustment, Hernandez’s dWAR would be about 11.7, and he would be ranked as a better all-around fielder than Yadier Molina, Garry Maddox, Phil Rizzuto and Tris Speaker, which he certainly was not.

Now, I’ll give you my opinion: I personally would NOT include the positional adjustment in dWAR and I’ll tell you why: I don’t think people naturally compare defenders at different positions. I don’t think people often ask, “Who was a better fielder, Dave Concepcion or Barry Bonds? Joe Morgan or George Scott? Luis Aparicio or Andre Thornton?” For me, that isn’t how I think most people’s mind works.

I think when people look at dWAR w we would like to see a number that reflects how good they are AT THE POSITION THEY PLAY.

This plays into something I wrote recently: The defense of free agent Eric Hosmer. He has won three of the last four Gold Gloves even though defensive metrics across the board suggest he’s just an average-to-below-average defender, somewhere in the C- range. His agent Scott Boras recently took a shot at the defensive statistics, saying that managers and coaches (who vote for the Gold Gloves) obviously see something more in him.*

*I certainly would not tell Scott Boras how to do his business, but if the long history of Gold Glove voting tells us anything it is that managers and coaches are pretty shaky on the subject of other players defense.

Thing is, dWAR has Hosmer a minus-1.6 WAR, which sounds really terrible. And I don’t think that’s fair to Hos. More than half of that negative value comes from the simple fact that he plays first base. He was minus-7 runs defensively, which isn’t good isn’t that far from average. But then subtract NINE  runs for the positional adjustment, and that makes it look really bad, worse than he deserves.

Anyway, that’s just my view. I also tend to agree with others that Baseball Reference certainly should not include positional adjustment in BOTH dWAR and oWAR, which douible-counts the stat and makes it so you cannot just add the two together to get WAR. Once again, Sean explains why:

“I suppose the argument could be made that oWAR should not include the positional adjustment,” he says. “But for that stat I thought it made sense to include it as you then have a fielding independent WAR stat.  So you can assign your own fielding value to the player and rank them that way.”

If you’d like to chime in below in the comments, that would be great … Sean has always been open to suggestions and thoughts.

In the meantime, for fun, here are the five highest rated players at each position by fielding runs since the end of Deadball and, in paretheses, their dWAR.

First base

  1. Albert Pujols, 139 runs (-2.2 dWAR)
  2. Keith Hernandez, 117 runs (0.6)
  3. John Olerud, 103 runs (-2.0)
  4. Mark Teixeira, 99 runs (-0.4)
  5. Geoge Scott, 85.1 runs (-1.8)

Second base

  1. Joe Gordon, 150 runs (22.4 dWAR)
  2. Bill Mazeroski, 147 runs (23.9)
  3. Chase Utley, 142 runs (17.8)
  4. Frankie Frisch, 138 runs (21.3)
  5. Mark Ellis, 136 (17.6)

Third base

  1. Brooks Robinson, 293 runs (38.8 dWAR)
  2. Adrian Beltre, 230 runs (27.8)
  3. Scott Rolen, 175 runs (20.6)
  4. Buddy Bell, 174 runs (23.0)
  5. Clete Boyer, 159 runs (21.5)


  1. Mark Belanger, 241 runs (39.4)
  2. Ozzie Smith, 239 runs (43.4)
  3. Cal Ripken, 181 runs (34.6)
  4. Andrelton Simmons, 163 runs (21.9)
  5. Luis Aparicio, 149 runs (31.6)

Left Field

  1. Carl Yastrzemski, 184 runs (0.5 dWAR)
  2. Barry Bonds, 175 runs (6.7)
  3. Brett Gardner, 122 runs (10.8)
  4. Alex Gordon, 102 runs (7.6)
  5. Luis Gonzalez, 91 runs (-1.4)


  1. Andruw Jones, 236 runs (24.1 dWAR)
  2. Willie Mays, 185 runs (18.1)
  3. Paul Blair, 174 runs (18.6)
  4. Jim Piersall, 174 runs (15.3)
  5. Devon White, 133 runs (16.2)

Right Field

  1. Roberto Clemente, 205 runs (12.1 dWAR)
  2. Jesse Barfield, 161 runs (11.8)
  3. Jason Heyward, 158 runs (12.5)
  4. Brian Jordan, 153 runs (9.7)
  5. Al Kaline, 152 runs (2.5)
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

38 Responses to dWAR to end all WARs

  1. dtslcd says:

    Very interesting, thanks as always Joe. The one question I have is Right Field – I wonder how many of the RFs with cannon arms (Ichiro comes to mind first) are not on that list because baserunners just don’t try to stretch that extra base against those guys? The analogy here would be the best cornerbacks only getting 2 interceptions a year because they just don’t throw to that side of the field.
    I could be way off – I don’t think Clemente’s talent was much of a secret when he played – just a thought

  2. Paul P says:

    I love that this is being brought up because it’s just about the only confusing and unclear aspect of B-Ref. To me, what would be great would be showing the positional adjustment in its own column so that you could reconcile offWar + defWar +/- positional adjustment (expressed in War) = WAR. It’s much simpler to understand this way. I had seen it done this way on The Baseball Gauge (fabulous website by the way) and it was like a light had been shone. It’s always been so strange to see Joey Votto or Joe Mauer with such poor defWar listed when they actually save runs when you dig deeper. I think this would be a huge improvement to add clarity to an otherwise incredibly effective work of art.

  3. Catcher and pitcher are not among the positions listed above. Seven out of 9 are listed.

    • Karyn says:

      I suspect that we don’t know enough about catcher defense to give definitive rankings. We are learning that things such as pitch framing matter more than we thought, but we’re still trying to quantify how much.
      I say ‘we’ even though I actually have no part in any of these calculations and estimations.

    • Jack says:

      What’s your guess on C ranking? Ivan Rodriguez, Yadi, Yogi, Bench?, Fisk?

      • Karyn says:

        If that’s to me, I don’t have the slightest idea. I’m not up on the latest research and interpretations. I mean, I think I-Rod, Yadi, and Bench are gimmes, but beyond that, I could not say.

  4. Scott says:

    One other problem that using both fielding runs and dWAR for a player is it is based upon a player’s primary position. For example Carl Yastremski is at the top of the list for defensive wins. While he played in ~300 more games than Bonds, he played in 800 fewer as a left fielder, spending 765 at first and 214 at DH, which led to negative dWAR over that period, although he was mostly above average at first.

  5. German Andrade says:

    If you leave out the positional adjustment, then a dWAR number besides the name of a player who played different positions throughout his career is meaningless (for examples, Craig Biggio, Pete Rose)

  6. Jalabar says:

    Two points – How ridiculous was Brooks Robinson, and how did anyone ever get a hit to the left side of the Orioles infield with Robinson and Belanger at third and short?

    • Jalabar says:

      Oh and Paul Blair, third rated CF of all-time, was also on that team. They had three guys that are rated top 3 all time at their position on those Orioles’ teams.

    • Rob Smith says:

      Weaver believed in being strong defensively, especially up the middle. Those teams were unbelievable defensively. So it was more than pitching and three run homeruns that made his teams successful. You also have to give Weaver credit for playing Belanger, because he couldn’t hit at all. He always raved about the guy. But at the time I don’t think that many people understood how awesome he was defensively. If he hit at all, even sort of average like Ozzie, he would have been a HOFer.

    • KHAZAD says:

      Weaver has the rep of waiting for the 3 run homer as a managerial philosophy. The thing that always stood out to me is that he (seemed to) look at defense first decades before anyone really gave value to that.

      I also wonder how much the Oriole’s pitching staff’s fame at the time was really a result of the stellar defense behind them – particularly in an era where there was a much higher percentage of balls in play (less Ks for example) than today.

      • mrh says:

        This goes pre and post-Weaver, but from 1963 to 2001 the SS for the Orioles were basically Aparicio, Belanger, Ripken. Too lazy to look but has any team had such a run of great defenders at one position for so long a period1/

      • Jalabar says:

        So you are saying it is no coincidence that they are the last team to post four 20 game winners in the same season (McNally, Dobson, Cuellar, Palmer), to which I concur. I usually see Dobson written last but based on win % that season, my order is correct. Cuellar and Palmer were both 20-9, Dobson was 20-8.

  7. Nick says:

    Statistics ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  8. Bryan says:

    Rfield Age 23-32, min 70% of their games at that position, to mimic your since deadball criteria only including players born since 1895. Frisch is born in 1897 and you included him. Quality of hitter makes a massive difference to career length, Age 23-32 an elite defender is likely to get playing time simply for his glove so creates reasonable playing time parity.
    A more in depth analysis would look more closely at Ichiro and Jackie and how well Andruw played 1997-1999 but 23-32 is generally a more useful starting point than entire career. Age 23-32 Al Kaline 90.3 Rfield (66% of games in RF) and Cal Ripken 122.1 Rfield have much longer careers than Jesse Barfield and Jack Wilson.
    1. Ivan Rodriguez 110 Rfield, 17.8 dWar, 1311 games
    2. Gary Carter 108.9 Rfield, 21.6 dWar, 1445 games
    3. Yadier Molina 100 Rfield, 18.1 dWar, 1299 games
    4. Jim Sundberg 94.1 Rfield, 19.7 dWar, 1398 games
    5. Johnny Bench 73.5 Rfield, 16.3 dWar, 1391 games
    First Base
    1. Albert Pujols 130 Rfield, 3.7 dWar, 1541 games
    2. Keith Hernandez 101 Rfield, 1.9 dWar, 1514 games
    3. Mark Teixeira 90 Rfield, 0.5 dWar, 1497 games
    4. John Olerud 74 Rfield, -0.7 dWar, 1458 games
    5. Pete O’Brien 70.8 Rfield, 0.8 dWar, 1209 games
    Second Base
    1. Chase Utley 137 Rfield, 16.2 dWar, 1109 games
    2. Frankie Frisch 131 Rfield, 17.8 dWar, 1401 games
    3. Joe Gordon 118 Rfield, 17.4 dWar, 1155 games
    4. Bill Mazeroski 109 Rfield, 17.7 dWar, 1431 games
    5. Hughie Critz 106 Rfield, 14.9 dWar, 1276 games
    Third Base
    1. Brooks Robinson 179.8 Rfield, 23 dWar, 1578 games
    2. Adrian Beltre 157 Rfield, 18.6 dWar, 1466 games
    3. Buddy Bell 148.9 Rfield, 19.4 dWar, 1423 games
    4. Graig Nettles 145.5 Rfield, 19.4 dWar, 1371 games
    5. Clete Boyer 140.3 Rfield, 18.7 dWar, 1390 games
    1. Mark Belanger 173.6 Rfield, 28.8 dWar, 1386 games
    2. Andrelton Simmons 144 Rfield, 19.6 dWar, 732 games
    3. Ozzie Smith 139.8 Rfield, 25.5 dWar, 1475 games
    4. Jack Wilson 137.2 Rfield, 19.9 dWar, 1251 games
    5. Luis Aparicio 130 Rfield, 22.6 dWar, 1489 games
    Left Field
    1. Barry Bonds 147.1 Rfield, 9.7 dWar, 1479 games
    2. Carl Yastrzemski 125.9 Rfield, 5.4 dWar, 1509 games
    3. Luis Gonzalez 113.5 Rfield, 5.9 dWar, 1425 games
    4. Alex Gordon 90 Rfield, 6.8 dWar, 1264 games
    5. Rickey Henderson 87 Rfield, 5 dWar, 1387 games
    Center Field
    1. Jim Piersall 167.5 Rfield, 15.5 dWar, 1363 games
    2. Paul Blair 162.3 Rfield, 18 dWar, 1440 games
    3. Devon White 134 Rfield, 15.5 dWar, 1247 games
    4. Andruw Jones 131.8 Rfield, 14.8 dWar, 1413 games
    5. Willie Mays 124.2 Rfield, 11.9 dWar, 1536 games
    Right Field
    1. Jesse Barfield 150.5 Rfield, 11.2 dWar, 1264 games
    2. Jason Heyward 108 Rfield, 8.8 dWar, 675 games
    3. Roberto Clemente 105.8 Rfield, 5.2 dWar, 1439 games
    4. Brian Jordan 100.8 Rfield, 7.4 dWar, 796 games
    5. Sammy Sosa 98.6 Rfield, 4.7 dWar, 1398 games
    If you prefer Rfield to rate defense, feel free to contact Mr. Bench and let him know he was a pretty good defender from Age 23-32 but not quite as good as Sammy Sosa. The best part is that you don’t have to decide since both of those things are searchable and if you want to know who played their position really well you have Rfield and if you want to know who was the more valuable defender you have dWar.
    oWar without a positional adjustment is not all that useful, there are other stats if you just want to know who was the best batter or offensive player while ignoring what happens in the other half of the inning. Only games for Boston: David Ortiz 53 oWar, 400.9 Roff, 1953 games and Bobby Doerr 46.1 oWar, 131.4 Roff, 1865 games.
    Roff is Rbat + Rbaser + Rdp. oWar is doing it’s best to figure out if the DH with 148 OPS+ who runs slow and a replacement level 2B or the 2B with 115 OPS+ and a replacement level DH is providing more offensive value and it answers that it’s similar. If you just want to know that Ortiz is better than Doerr offensively don’t use oWar, many other stats will point out that gap.
    The issue isn’t in the stats themselves, it’s in understanding what the stats represent and knowing which one will answer the question that you have. dWar, oWar and WAR are doing their best to have one number provide a way to compare the value of two players and young Sosa provides similar value to young Tim McCarver or Joe Girardi not to young Bench or Yadier according to dWar.
    Information provided by Play Index.

  9. Lee Carney says:

    I’m an Aussie who knows next to nothing about baseball but it seems to me there are 2 relatively simple potential fixes.

    1. Make it dWARp so Defensive Wins Above Replacement at Position


    2. Instead of having a minus for the less valuable positions, make the least valuable which I’m guessing is RF or 1B (again I know nothing) the baseline, so all other positions get a + or multiple however it works and there is no minus for any position.

    Like I said this is probably stupid but worth sharing I figured just in case it makes sense

  10. Carl says:

    Couple of questions, comments about the figures being shown. Using RF as an example:

    1) How can Heyward have fewer runs saved than Clemente and Barfield (158 v 205 and 161) yet have more dWAR (12.5 v 12.1 and 11.8)?

    2) How can Jordan have only 1 more run (153 v 152) saved than Kaline but almost 4X (9.7 v 2.5)

    3) I saw Pujols play and I saw Keith Hernandez play. Any stat that shows Pujols a better and more valuable defender than Keith Hernandez is broken.

    • Bryan says:

      An average RF is a below average defender, Heyward playing fewer games has -40 Rpos(ition) which is basically -40 Rfield but separated out at that point if you’re only going to compare him to other RF. Jordan -51 Rpos, Barfield -52, Kaline -115.
      An average SS is an above average defender, Cal playing more games has 181 Rfield, 150 Rpos and 34.6 dWar while Jack Wilson has 141 Rfield, 64 Rpos and 20.7 dWar. (Rfield + Rpos) / 10 will be similar to dWar, there is an additional calculation to zero out the entire league.
      It doesn’t show Pujols was better than Keith, Keith Hernandez makes 10.2 plays per 9 innings and Pujols makes 10.09 at 1B. During Keith’s career the average 1B makes 9.98 plays, during Pujols’ career the average player 1B makes 9.31 plays. It shows that Pujols played at a time Ryan Howard 9.23 per 9 innings is making an average number of plays while Keith played at a time Steve Garvey 9.95 per 9 innings is making an average number of plays.
      The stat is showing that the gap between Pujols and Howard is larger than the gap between Keith and Garvey. This is likely consistent with your “eye test”, finding the largest range factor (RF/9) at a position is probably the stat that most reflects who was best at playing the position in the last 100 or so years. Deadball has a massively different distribution of batted balls.
      Strike Out rates have the largest impact on the number of plays a 1B makes per game but unless a defensive metric is based on watching all available plays by Keith Hernandez it can only be based on his overall fielding stats and it’s done relative to his peers to establish a replacement level for 1980 the year Pujols was born not relative to how well Pujols or Gehrig played the position. 1B after Pujols can be compared to Pujols based on evaluating the actual plays, 1B after Hosmer can be compared to Hosmer with statcast as an additional tool.

  11. Gene says:

    When judging defense I bow to the wisdom of analysts who know far more than me, but I’ve never understood the dismissive attitudes about first base defense. Shouldn’t these guys get some credit for the volume of defensive activity they get? Yes, fewer guys can play SS, but 1B handles the ball a lot more in a typical game. Scooping bad throws sure seems like an underrated ability and there are many fast decisions that must be made (field it vs. let 2B get it, run to first vs. toss to pitcher, handle bunt plays, handle pickoff throws, etc.)

    As a Cardinal fan it’s gratifying to see Pujols and Hernandez as the top two 1B defenders, but a little surprising. I always thought Pujols was awfully good over there but if asked, would have always defaulted to Hernandez as the better defender.

    • Rob Smith says:

      Occasionally I hear someone say how difficult firstbase is to play. There are a couple of things that you need to do well…. scoop balls and play the bunt. Most MLB firstbaseman are good at scooping, but a lot of them are not good at playing the bunt because they are not quick and aren’t good at throwing the ball. Since they can play behind the bag, they have more time to read the ball of the bat. When they hold a runner, expectations are low that they’ll get to much of anything. I played first base in high school. I loved playing firstbase because it was an easy position to play. I learned to scoop the ball, which is really just concentration, practice and repetition. And I didn’t have difficulty throwing the ball. And when the ball was hit hard at me, I’d basically just block it like a goalie. Since I was so close to first base, I would always have plenty of time to still make the play. So I was good to go. Despite protestations by some in the baseball community, first base is easy. I played all the other positions too. 3rd base is incredibly hard. The balls you see there seem to be shot out of a gun. Shortstop is very hard. Lots of responsibilities and you HAVE to come up with the ball every time. Outfield was my second favorite, but judging balls that are hooking and/or sinking (or knuckling) are no picnic. It’s pretty easy to look bad out there if your first step isn’t headed to the right location. I had my share of that. I never looked bad at first, though.

      • Gene says:

        If “a lot of them are not good at playing the bunt because they are not quick and aren’t good at throwing the ball,” then doesn’t that mean 1B is not that easy to play?

        • Rob Smith says:

          What I’m saying is that teams hide lumbering players who can’t throw at first base. They can still play the position & teams hide them by asking pitchers to cover bunts on the first base side & live with the fact that they can’t throw…. because first basemen have to throw a lot less than any other position. Conversely, if someone is more athletic and has better throwing ability, they can absolutely be plus defenders like Keith Hernandez (so I agree with Joe that the positional adjustment is unfair to guys like Hernandez). I’m just saying that you can put almost anyone over there and they can do the basics & be adequate. That’s not true for most other positions. Teams try to hide people in leftfield too… but I think that gets dicey unless they have an Andruw Jones to cover most of the territory for them. (I’m actually thinking Gary Maddox covering for Greg Luzinski as a great example). Most teams don’t have Andruw Jones or Gary Maddox, though.

  12. Rob Smith says:

    I think Andruw Jones should get more HOF cred. He was an all-time great centerfielder… the best I ever saw… and hit over 430 HRs. The crazy thing about Andruw was that they’d show replays from behind the catcher and Andruw would be moving before the ball hit the bat. He had good speed, but not great speed and yet he got to balls consistently that nobody else would get to. The difference was that he got incredible starts on the ball and took perfect angles to get there. You see some guys get slow starts and take crazy routes and get to balls out of sheer speed that look spectacular. Andruw would be there waiting for those balls. His great catches were just ridiculous when you looked at how far he went to get to the ball. The other funny thing about Andruw was that he literally would not let the other outfielder catch balls. If he could get there, even if the other fielder was camped under it, he’d call them off…. and they’d get out of the way…. and if they didn’t he’d bump into them, catch the ball & give them the side eye. He was the sheriff out there. You did what he said. Essentially he declared every ball hit into the outfield, that wasn’t down the line, to be his. The attitude was “This is my outfield. I own it.” I loved the attitude. And he more than covered for many, many weak outfielders during his career. He was a big reason why Braves pitchers threw strikes & worried less about someone barreling a ball. If they left one over the plate & it didn’t get hit out of the park, they knew Andruw would go get it.

    • Marc Schneider says:

      Yes, he was an amazing CF and he made it look pretty easy (unlike, say, Jim Edmonds who often made plays look harder than they were). But I have to admit, as a Braves fan at the time, that Andruw was frustrating at the plate because he swung at so many pitches out of the strike zone. It really wasn’t until he left the Braves that I began to realize that this guy had a really good career. I’m not convinced he should be in the Hall, but I think his case is better than I once thought. I think his last few years, where he declined very rapidly, has hurt his HOF chances and the fact that a lot of people (including me and most Braves fans) thought Andruw had been a bit of a disappointment because his hitting was inconsistent. But he was an unbelievable outfielder and a productive hitter.

  13. Mark Daniel says:

    So..what is Fielding Runs?

  14. Marco says:

    I’m on team #nopositionaladjustment

    I’m much more interested in how people compared to their peers, not people who did a totally different job.

  15. The positional adjustment is just garbage in its current form; fails to measure the scarcity of each position at any given moment; a good DH for instance is an extremely rare commodity at present. Needs to be adjusted on a season to season basis a la OPS+ or wRC+

    Simple enough to look at 2012-2013 3B Miguel Cabrera value as a terrible fielder vs 1B Miguel Cabrera Value.

  16. Paul says:

    I don’t know, the whole thing seems insane to me.

  17. John Autin says:

    Quibbling over the “right” place to show the positional adjustment — oWAR, dWAR, or both — is just a waste of time. No answer can serve all legitimate interests. And worse, such a pointless debate gives more fuel to those who want to discredit WAR altogether.

  18. Vidor says:

    I remain boggled by the notion that we can assign stats like dWAR to people who played decades ago, a century ago, people that we don’t even have newsreel clips of. A dWAR number for Frankie Frisch? Right down to the decimal point? Who are they kidding?

  19. AK says:

    These are really 2 different stats measuring two different aspects of a player’s performance relative to other players. Both are interesting and have value. Can we not just use both and create a different ticker symbol? dWAR and, say, . . . dpWAR for defensive positional WAR?

    Also, where is Mike Schmidt on that 3d base list?!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *