Farmer1906 said:
JJxvi said:
0 is replacement level, so with WAR every team should theoretically be able to get to zero by cobbling something together. Realistically some teams and players will end up negative in actual fact, but with projections, IMO every team should be expected to get to zero. Even if they currently have the worst players ever at a position they could cut them and expect to get 0 out of whoever they grab off the scrap heap.
If you know some will be negative why would you want a prediction that ignores that?
I know some will be negative, but I dont know which ones, nor which teams will chase the dragon with negative WAR players instead of just finding a 0 WAR replacements or platoons to plug the gap.
I think its likely the intention of his post is only for current roster analysis, not really prediction, which I guess is why they have the negatives. I'm assuming for example, Colorado is -2 at 1b because Colorado essentially doesnt have a 1B right now?
But if you try to use this for projection purposes or compare how Colorado is likely to perform compared to another team, you have to realize that Colorado can be expected to field a combined WAR of 0 at 1B next year, with any replacement level players they eventually plug in at the position.