Originally Posted by
Patrick Bateman
Simply put, because no, I am not making the argument for you, and I disagree with the bulk of this....
But, there would be no need for a positional adjustment if WAR's basis was to compare players at their own position. Yes, it does do that as well, however, as every catcher gets the same positional adjustment as every other catcher (and so on for other position), there would be no rhyme or reason for it to exist if the purpose was to compare players at their own position. They all start on the same basis.
However, a catcher, and a first basemen do not, because the positional adjustment works to give credit, essentially to the positional scarcity that players that play more difficult positions deserve in making an even playing field. It allows for a more even baseline so that we can judge players relative to others at their own position for the purpose of comparing the same player to all other positions.
So yes, you are correct in saying one component of what it does, however, it does so for the purpose of being able to directly compare overall value to other positions, which is the end purpose of the metric. Again, we are already able to compare a catcher to another catcher without a positional adjustment. The remainder of the value components of WAR complete that purpose. It's the positional adjustment that takes it the next step. If WAR was not being used for the purpose we are suggesting, the positional adjustment would not be included, as it is null and void in completing the objective you are discussing.