November 20, 201411 yr In an effort to nudge this conversation in a slightly different direction, I'm going to ask a question to the WAR-skeptics out there: What evidence do you require to confirm that any current (or future) WAR methodology is accurate and correct, insofar that it correctly calculates each player's contribution to a team's success, and that these contributions are context-neutral, which allows players to be directly compared across positions, teams and leagues? Similarly, is there a threshold where a methodology becomes accurate enough to be useful for day-to-day player comparison, even if there is still noise/error in the system?
November 20, 201411 yr In an effort to nudge this conversation in a slightly different direction, I'm going to ask a question to the WAR-skeptics out there: What evidence do you require to confirm that any current (or future) WAR methodology is accurate and correct, insofar that it correctly calculates each player's contribution to a team's success, and that these contributions are context-neutral, which allows players to be directly compared across positions, teams and leagues? Similarly, is there a threshold where a methodology becomes accurate enough to be useful for day-to-day player comparison, even if there is still noise/error in the system? A good first step would be a dramatic reduction in the amount of subjective, arbitrary components of its calculation.
Create an account or sign in to comment