Is that really what happened with last years' MVP debate though?Orel Miraculous said:I don't think it was a very well-written column, but I think the larger point that too many people blindly rely on WAR has merit and needs to be discussed. Interestingly enough, Poz had a very relevant little anecdote about WAR today:
WAR is a stat, and, like all stats, it has flaws. Too many of the loudest Trout supporters last year didn't seem to understand that, and I think that's what Bob was trying to say, even if he did it a little clumsily.
Edit: Poz actually has TWO interesting WAR pieces today (there's a reason he's the best, folks), and this one also touches upon Ryan's point about the replacement player doesn't actually exist:
I was on the Trout side so maybe I'm biased, but I don't think many of Trouts' loudest supporters just said Trout has the highest WAR, therefore he wins.
I think the most used argument was, there is more to baseball value than what you do at the plate, so shouldn't defense, position value and baserunning count too? Rather than look at solely offensive stats, maybe we can use stats that try to combine all of a players value, like WAR tries to do.
WAR may surely have flaws, but at least it tries to place a value on all parts of the game. It's why I'm kinda surprised so many old school guys hate it. You'd think they'd appreciate a stat that places value on the "little things" that batting average, HRs, and RBI don't cover. It must be an issue just because it's new. Most of these guys made fun of OPS when it first starting becoming popular as well.
Edit: to the threads point, I love Bob Ryan and think he's still one of the best. But this particular column was garbage.