How Much Is Fielding Weighted in WAR?
Occasionally (okay, rather frequently), I’ll see people debate the accuracies between the WAR displayed on FanGraphs and Rally’s WAR on Baseball-Reference.
Joe Posnanski speculated on the differences in a recent article about Josh Hamilton’s MVP chances:
*I could be reading this wrong, but Fangraphs seems to put more emphasis on defense. For instance, Carl Crawford’s WAR at Baseball Reference is 3.7 — his defense is worth eight runs above average. But Fangraphs credits him for 22 runs above average, which thrusts his WAR up to 5.6 and into the No. 4 spot in baseball.
I’ve seen similar sentiments echoed throughout the blogosphere and on Twitter.
In reality, on a per-player basis in 2009, UZR distributed 441 fewer runs than TZ did, excluding pitchers and catchers. And there is not a year that UZR is available where its absolute value has been higher than TZ.
In 2009, the maximum spread of UZR was +31 to -37 and TZ showed a similar spread of +31 to -34. Here’s a graph of the full spread. The blue overlap shows the points at which TZ starts showing a greater spread.

This might not be a perfect comparison in how much defense actually contributes to WAR and a better one might be how much as a whole does fielding contribute to total runs. In 2009, fielding made up about 14.2% of all positive and negative runs according to FanGraphs WAR, while Rally’s WAR made up about 15.5% of all positive and negative runs.
All in all, they are similar in how fielding is weighted as a whole. The biggest difference between the two is how each individual player’s fielding is evaluated.



It’s rare I get to write about my two favorite things in tandem. Baseball and Food.
For me the highlight was the Gazpacho “Dipping Dots” Rock Shrimp Ceviche. These really were just like Dippin’ Dots, but instead of chocolate and vanilla, it was small frozen spheres of heirloom tomatoes. Quite refreshing on a hot day and an interesting twist on something I do not usually get at the ballpark. Am I alone in failing to understand how Dippin’ Dots still exist?