This post is so inaccurate and absurd that you must be trolling. What makes a player valuable is subject to personal opinion which exactly why this is a discussion. For example: 5 different RFers had at least 5.0 fWAR. The #2 C had 4.7 fWAR. The rarity of Cal's production and how hard it is to replace him is one reason why Cal could be more valuable than Judge. It's unfair to say your opinion is the only right one and any other OPINION is FACTUALLY wrong.
The war leader should be the mvp every season without exception, there’s no reason at this point to even have a vote. It’s similar to balls and strikes, there’s no reason to have a human decide something subjectively when we know the correct answer.
WAR is generated by statistics which are weighted based on position. You arectalking about the most outdtanding player, not necessarily the mist valuable. There is more than just statistics that determine value. The human element is what sets baseball atop of the cretin sports like football and basketball.
It’s getting better though. We have some replay now, we’ll have some ability to fix balls and strikes calls, so things are improving. Of course it’s sad 13/30 people who should know better did what they did but hey, it means 17/30 had it right. Glass half full!
Saw that the other day. I honestly had no idea about any of it. I always thought it quite peculiar that he hit 35 hr’s and then never played again.
Me neither, I knew he was fully "all HR, all strikeout" guy. Sending a live rat in a box to a female reporter at the stadium is some next level assholery
Berkman getting bounced out of future consideration after his first round of voting is one of the weirdest things that makes absolutely no sense.
eta: switch hitters a: .287 .359 .476 .836 129 b: .298 .421 .557 .977 172 c: .293 .406 .537 .943 144 d: .303 .401 .529 .930 141 e: .279 .350 .486 .837 119 Spoiler Eddie Murray, Mickey Mantle, Lance Berkman, Chipper Jones, Carlos Beltran
WAR is a subjective measure though. It's an arbitrary formula created by people - and it's one that different organizations can't even agree on, which is why you have fWAR and bWAR and no one likes WAR for pitchers. Just as 10-15 years ago, people had different analytics to decide value, in 10-15 years, WAR will probably be seen as outdated and not a great measure of value. It's just the best way anyone has now to try to sum up a player with a single number. Beyond that, WAR is also entirely theoretical and doesn't measure *actual* value. Take two players with identical hits, slugging, walks, batting average, etc. But one gets all their hits with 2 outs in blowouts when there is no one on base. As a result, they have very few RBIs or runs scored and have virtually no influence on their team's success. The other player gets all his hits in close games and with runners on base. He has numerous game-winning hits and repeatedly actually impacted his teams wins and losses. WAR would say these two players were equally valuable to their teams. Why? Because it can't account for actual results. It only can estimate what that person would have been in an average setting if they were a robot. So it might be great for a "most theoretically valuable player in a theoretical universe" award, but not actually most valuable player. For a similar issue in football, you can see the evolution from QB Rating to Total QBR, which tries to account for game-situations and the performance of the player in each moment in time. How well it actually does that, I don't know - but it tries to discount garbage-time performance, etc.
