Build a Better WAR Metric, Part 2
Ok, you guys have spoken, and you don’t want a bases loaded walk to count the same as a solo HR. That even though the base-out state before the event and after the event remain unchanged, and that the number of runs now in the bank are the same, the WAY it happened matters to most of you. Therefore, we are NOT trying to preserve the runs, we are not trying to make sure the runs add up. You have been clear on that.
Now, let’s talk about “preservation of wins”. It’s a 0-0 game, the bottom of the 9th, the bases are loaded with two outs. Historically, at this point in the game, the batting team would end up winning 68% of the time. It’s a high stakes situation, a Leverage Index of 6.4. And the batter walks. The batting team wins, game is over. Ooops, I meant the batter hit a single. No, wait, it was a Grand Slam. No, wait it should have been a Grand Slam, but Robin Ventura decided to abandon the bases after he reached first base. Regardless, the game is over, and the batting team won as soon as the batter touched first base.
Your question:
given the literal meaning of the term ‘wins above replacement’ and it’s broadly context dependent perspective (playing time/position/leverage/etc), how could any of these cases be of differing value? the displacement in terms of win probability added of any of these acts is the same.
i don’t mean to say that there shouldn’t be an otherwise context neutral valuation of leveraged performance, but it seems like that should be a new metric. refinement should not redefine
Current WAR is largely context independent. Even openWAR, that uses run expectancy (which is context dependent), doesn’t take into account the leverage situation of the game.