Stumbled across this on B-R and found it odd.......Now, I don't know everything that computes WAR, but how does 1986 Teddy Higuera (9.4) higher WAR than 1986 Roger Clemens (8.9)........was his fielding THAT much better, or am I missing something obvious?

Rank	Name	Tm	Vote Pts	1st Place	Share	WAR	W	L		ERA	G	GS	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO	HBP	BK	WP	BF	WHIP	ERA+
1	Roger Clemens	BOS	140.0	28.0	100%	8.9	24	4	.857	2.48	33	33	0	10	1	0	254.0	179	77	70	21	67	0	238	4	3	11	997	0.969	169
2	Teddy Higuera	MIL	42.0	0.0	30%	9.4	20	11	.645	2.79	34	34	0	15	4	0	248.1	226	84	77	26	74	5	207	3	0	3	1031	1.208	156

lee here is a link to how pitcher WAR is calculated...there appears to be 6 components.

Just looking at the stat line, one would think that Clemens would have the better WAR. But Higuera must have a better FIP or something along those lines.

I don't think BR uses FIP in its WAR calculation.

9.4 and 8.9 are essentially the same 9 WAR. The difference is small and probably due to park effects. Their seasons were pretty similar overall.

Baseball reference doesn't use the same formula fangraphs uses.

I suppose it's possible that baseball reference hates Milwaukee's defense, or loves Boston's. I can't think of another explanation.

It's another example of how it's foolish to look at one stat and take huge conclusions from it.

WAR, ************!!!!!

WAR, huh, what is good for?  
Absolutely nothing,
Say it again.

In the same way any stat, on it's own, is worth absolutely nothing, yes.

Well, that's a song.

This is just an example where it seem absolutely useless.    There is no measurable stat that would indicate Higuera was the better pitcher unless wild pitches, hit batters and balks are punishable by death. 

It almost begs you to investigate further and see why this is the case. Balls in play against Clemens that year - only 24% were hits. That's very low, the lowest of his career. Was his defense so good, that the gap between Higuera and Clemens should narrow? It's more interesting than anything. 

You could look at the league leader in many stats and say "This stat is useless, he's obviously worse than <pitcher who is better in every other stat>"

And keep in mind that the difference between 9.4 and 8.9 is tiny.

It's like 5 runs saved over the entire season.

If the WAR was closer, it might be interesting.    That's more than 5% difference when it looks reasonably obvious that Clemens was better.   I know BL said 3.4 and 2.6 were "essentially the same" a couple of years ago but, as I said then, if that much of a difference, percentage-wise, is "essentially the same", how useful can said stat be when 10 is a huge number?

Sure, but even if they were considered equals, I'd disagree with that finding. There's no way Boston's defense was that good. Evans/Armas/Rice, if anything, screams "bad defense" in the outfield.  Boggs was good defensively. Aside from that, it doesn't make a ton of sense.

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2015 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Sure, but even if they were considered equals, I'd disagree with that finding. There's no way Boston's defense was that good. Evans/Armas/Rice, if anything, screams "bad defense" in the outfield.  Boggs was good defensively. Aside from that, it doesn't make a ton of sense.

I don't think it's defense. I think it's park effects.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2015 10:28:00 AM (view original):
If the WAR was closer, it might be interesting.    That's more than 5% difference when it looks reasonably obvious that Clemens was better.   I know BL said 3.4 and 2.6 were "essentially the same" a couple of years ago but, as I said then, if that much of a difference, percentage-wise, is "essentially the same", how useful can said stat be when 10 is a huge number?

The WAR is pretty close.

I don't fully understand what you're trying to say.