Originally written on Fangraphs  |  Last updated 9/15/14
This morning, Jon Heyman noted an odd thing on Twitter: i am not a hater of WAR stat, but if someone can explain to me how starling marte & bryce harper are both 1.7, please do — Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) April 29, 2013 He was quoting Baseball-Reference’s WAR calculation, and the two are indeed tied at +1.7 WAR on B-R. Here, we have Bryce Harper (+1.5 WAR) ahead of Starling Marte (+1.2 WAR), but the point still basically stands; WAR thinks Harper (1.200 OPS) and Marte (.835 OPS) have both been pretty great this year, with just a small (or no) difference between them. What Harper has done with the bat, WAR believes that Marte has mostly made up with his legs in baserunning (+3 run advantage) and defense (+3 run advantage), as well a slight bump from getting 12 extra plate appearances. There’s no question that Harper has been a better offensive player, but there are questions about the defensive valuations, because defensive metrics aren’t as refined at this point as offensive metrics are. It is much easier to prove that Harper has been +10 runs better with the bat this year than it is to prove that Marte has been +3 runs better defensively by UZR, or +7 runs better defensively by DRS. There are more sources for error in the defensive metrics, and Heyman’s tweet led to a discussion on Twitter about the usefulness of including small sample defensive metrics in WAR. I’ve written before about the strong correlation between team WAR and team winning percentage before, and others have followed up with similar analysis more recently. However, all those articles have focused on full season or multi-season data samples, and since the question was raised and I hadn’t yet seen it answered, I became curious about whether WAR would actually correlate better at this point in the year if we just assumed every player in baseball was an average defender. Essentially, if we just removed defensive metrics from the equation, and evaluated teams solely on their hitting and pitching, how would our WAR calculation compare to team winning percentage? And how does WAR correlate to team winning percentage based on just April 2013 data, when we’re dealing with much smaller sample sizes? To answer that question, I turned to the data. To turn team WAR into an expected winning percentage, I just added position player and pitcher WAR to get total team WAR, divided by games played, multiplied WAR per game by 162 to get a full season total, and then added +47.7 wins — the replacement level assumption — to extrapolated team WAR. I then divided that total by 162 games to get a team’s expected winning percentage based solely on their WAR total, and compared that winning percentage to their actual current winning percentage. Here’s the table showing that comparison. Team Winning% WARWin% Correlation R squared Red Sox 0.720 0.706 0.880 0.775 Rangers 0.640 0.630     Braves 0.625 0.578     Yankees 0.625 0.561     Diamondbacks 0.600 0.574     Orioles 0.600 0.550     Pirates 0.600 0.490     Rockies 0.600 0.610     Royals 0.591 0.608     Cardinals 0.583 0.494     Tigers 0.565 0.660     Athletics 0.538 0.552     Reds 0.538 0.591     Twins 0.524 0.461     Brewers 0.522 0.438     Giants 0.520 0.570     Nationals 0.520 0.486     Dodgers 0.500 0.515     Rays 0.480 0.530     Phillies 0.462 0.437     Mets 0.435 0.477     White Sox 0.417 0.428     Indians 0.409 0.517     Mariners 0.407 0.413     Angels 0.375 0.386     Cubs 0.375 0.432     Padres 0.375 0.328     Blue Jays 0.346 0.391     Astros 0.280 0.350     Marlins 0.240 0.242     The correlation between actual team winning percentage and expected team winning percentage based on WAR is .88, which is almost exactly what Glenn DuPaul found when testing the correlation between full season WAR and team winning percentage last summer. It’s higher than what I got when I compared WAR to team winning percentage back in 2009, before we added things like baserunning to improve the formula. With about 15% of the season completed, current team WAR explains 78% of current team winning percentage. Considering that WAR doesn’t include any kind of situational context, and we know the sequencing of hits and runs can have a major factor on a team’s win-loss record, that’s still a very robust correlation. That correlation suggests that WAR is doing a lot of things right in terms of measuring the results that lead to wins and losses. It is almost certainly doing some things wrong as well, and it is theoretically possible that what WAR is getting right is hitting and pitching, and the defensive component is weakening what would be an even stronger correlation if the fielding metrics weren’t included. So, let’s check that out. Here’s a table of team winning percentage compared to a WAR-based winning percentage that assumes every player in baseball has played average defense this season. This is WAR with UZR removed, essentially. Team Winning% NoFldWARWin% Correlation R squared Red Sox 0.720 0.666 0.824 0.679 Rangers 0.640 0.608     Braves 0.625 0.545     Yankees 0.625 0.559     Diamondbacks 0.600 0.524     Orioles 0.600 0.510     Pirates 0.600 0.476     Rockies 0.600 0.605     Royals 0.591 0.557     Cardinals 0.583 0.515     Tigers 0.565 0.709     Athletics 0.538 0.608     Reds 0.538 0.562     Twins 0.524 0.570     Brewers 0.522 0.431     Giants 0.520 0.512     Nationals 0.520 0.475     Dodgers 0.500 0.508     Rays 0.480 0.485     Phillies 0.462 0.463     Mets 0.435 0.510     White Sox 0.417 0.445     Indians 0.409 0.482     Mariners 0.407 0.419     Angels 0.375 0.398     Cubs 0.375 0.440     Padres 0.375 0.363     Blue Jays 0.346 0.428     Astros 0.280 0.366     Marlins 0.240 0.297     Get rid of those crappy small sample useless defensive metrics that are full of errors and bias and you end up with a lower correlation to team wins and losses. The r squared now explains just 68% of a team’s winning percentage. A month into the 2013 season, WAR explains less about team performance without UZR than it does with it. The original source of Heyman’s tweet, though, wasn’t UZR. He was quoting B-R’s WAR calculation, which uses Defensive Runs Saved as its fielding metric. UZR isn’t nearly as bullish on Starling Marte‘s defensive performance as DRS, so maybe it’s BIS’ fielding metric that’s the problem here? To check, I swapped out UZR for DRS in our WAR calculation and re-ran the numbers again. One more table. Team Winning% DRSWARWin% Correlation R squared Red Sox 0.720 0.687 0.898 0.806 Rangers 0.640 0.663     Braves 0.625 0.567     Yankees 0.625 0.572     Diamondbacks 0.600 0.588     Orioles 0.600 0.544     Pirates 0.600 0.562     Rockies 0.600 0.631     Royals 0.591 0.553     Cardinals 0.583 0.489     Tigers 0.565 0.653     Athletics 0.538 0.496     Reds 0.538 0.607     Twins 0.524 0.488     Brewers 0.522 0.500     Giants 0.520 0.495     Nationals 0.520 0.488     Dodgers 0.500 0.556     Rays 0.480 0.519     Phillies 0.462 0.459     Mets 0.435 0.491     White Sox 0.417 0.410     Indians 0.409 0.482     Mariners 0.407 0.395     Angels 0.375 0.328     Cubs 0.375 0.418     Padres 0.375 0.309     Blue Jays 0.346 0.393     Astros 0.280 0.375     Marlins 0.240 0.224     Well, that’s not it. WAR with DRS comes up with basically the same correlation to team winning percentage as WAR with UZR, and both do better than WAR without any defensive component. Now, maximizing correlation to team winning percentage should not be the goal of WAR. If it was, we’d just make the inputs RBIs and RBIs allowed, and the correlation would be something like .99. It wouldn’t be a better metric simply because it was more highly correlated with winning percentage. This test is essentially a sanity check to make sure that WAR is actually measuring things that impact team wins and losses. The inputs of WAR were chosen to try and identify context-neutral individual player performance, and it’s a good sign that things chosen for those reasons end up correlating well to team wins and losses. It tells us that WAR is working pretty well, even in small samples. Even with imperfect inputs. Even with defensive inputs that are best used in the largest sample you can possibly get. WAR is not imperfect, nor is it precise. It is best used in whole numbers, with any fractional difference being seen as marginal gaps at best, especially if that difference is based mostly on the defensive components. I wouldn’t say that Starling Marte has been Bryce Harper‘s equal so far, because I doubt that’s true. You shouldn’t take two dozen games worth of WAR at face value. But you shouldn’t take two dozen games worth of anything at face value. The major league leader in ERA is currently Jake Westbrook, at 0.98. If you took ERA at face value, you’d have to argue that Jake Westbrook has been the best pitcher in baseball, and is on pace to have the best pitcher season in the history of the game. No one actually believes that, and no one is arguing that, because everyone knows that in a month’s worth of games, you’re going to see some funky results. Funky results in 24 games do not invalide a metric. Just like every statistic under the sun, WAR is better when used in large samples. But, despite the beatings it takes on a regular basis, WAR actually does its job pretty well — not perfectly, because it is not a perfect model — even just based on April data alone. And, getting back to the original point, I’ll note that WAR is very good at spotlighting players like Starling Marte, who deserve recognition but probably aren’t getting it due to the continuing focus on the triple crown statistics in the mainstream media. Today, because of WAR, a lot of people learned that Starling Marte is having a pretty great April. I’ll call that a win, even if the calculation might off by a few runs here or there.
Ios_download En_app_rgb_wo_45

Six teams have done background work on Adrian Peterson

NBA set to earn $700M through streaming deal in China

Wade Phillips is the best coordinator hire this offseason

Bill Belichick gives understated scouting report of Tom Brady

Five teams that failed to improve this offseason


Steelers fans were more profane on social media

Seahawks praise Tom Brady's trash-talking ability

Richard Sherman's girlfriend talks possible Super Bowl baby

DeMarco Murray: I don't pay attention to being replaced

Bucs believed to be going for Marcus Mariota with No. 1 pick

Report: Wrigley Field renovation causing massive rat problem

The Super Bowl and the things that can't be controlled

DeMarcus Cousins calls out writer for five-year-old tweet

What if Drew Bledsoe didn't get injured in 2001?

Who should make up the 2015 Hall of Fame class

WATCH: Porn sounds played during Predators broadcast

Five worst teams to win a Super Bowl

Matt Damon, Ben Affleck defend Patriots on Kimmel

Watch: John Oliver tackles the Super Bowl

The Washington Redskins and their forgotten dynasty

WATCH: Katy Perry cracks Deflategate, Marshawn jokes

Devon and Leah Still write a book for kids fighting cancer

Five potential heroes of Super Bowl XLIX

MLB News
Delivered to your inbox
You'll also receive Yardbarker's daily Top 10, featuring the best sports stories from around the web. Customize your newsletter to get articles on your favorite sports and teams. And the best part? It's free!

By clicking "Sign Me Up", you have read and agreed to the Fox Sports Digital Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You can opt out at any time. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.
Get it now!
Ios_download En_app_rgb_wo_45

Super Bowl: Things you can't control

LeBron and the Cavs are ready to make a run

Cousins calls out writer's old tweet

Seahawks praise Brady's trash-talk

Who should be in 2015 HOF class

Five potential Super Bowl XLIX heroes

Rex Ryan downplays Deflategate

Brady hopes Manning comes back

The worst Super Bowl commercials of all-time

SB anthem, halftime performers through the years

Super Bowl should smash TV records

Super Bowl records unlikely to fall

Today's Best Stuff
For Bloggers

Join the Yardbarker Network for more promotion, traffic, and money.

Company Info
What is Yardbarker?

Yardbarker is the largest network of sports blogs and pro athlete blogs on the web. This site is the hub of the Yardbarker Network, where our editors and algorithms curate the best sports content from our network and beyond.