Originally Posted by pythons007
This stat is so relative on so many factors. Again, I'm not trying to take away anything Mike Trout did this year. He had a great year, but all arguments for him winning the MVP, that I've heard are coming back to that he leads all MLB players in WAR. That stat in my mind has no merit to anything factual. Just for the fact of my example of what happened with Joy Votto, a previous MVP candidate, who prior to his injury was having a MVP type season.
I also think for WAR to have any merit in the conversation of MVP, that player's team should be in the playoffs. Don't you think? Because WAR is all about winning games.
Am I understand this stat wrong? Or do I have a good argument?
WAR is not relative at all, it's completely baselined for every player, the fact that the Reds went on a run without Votto doesn't mean WAR is invalidated or anything, it simply means with Votto out of the lineup, the Reds were able to pick up his production by either A) having other players play well or B) having competent back-up for him.
WAR is also not about "winning games," even though it is expressed as "wins." The Wins Over Replacement is only used to make the stat easier to digest and contextable for most people. Before, when VORP was all the rage, it was a much more vague number, how do you define "value?" At least this way the number you are looking at has some immediate context.