1. I agree that WAR is and always will be a soft science, as much witch-doctory as it is mathematical reality. dWAR is especially iffy, but even oWAR assumes that every team replaces a player with the exact same player (or value) and that just isn't the case. To use a football analogy, when Drew Bledsoe went down in 2001, the New England Patriots didn't replace him with a replacement QB, they rolled out Tom Brady. Bledsoe actually would have rated a negative WAR, despite being a pretty good QB. If I think for a bit, I'm pretty sure that i can come up with such a MLB account, as well.
2. All the way back in 1979, there was the discussion about whether the MVP Award winner should really be the most VALUABLE player or the BEST player that year. Wilver Dornel Stargell (.281-.352-.552/2.5 WAR) tied Keith Hernandez (.344-.417-.513/7.6 WAR) for the MVP that year. Of course, the We are Family Pirates won the World Series and Pops was the spiritual soul and guru of that team. But he wasn't the player that Hernandez was, or that Dave Winfield was (8.3 WAR) or even that teammate Dave Parker (6.7 WAR) was. But undoubtedly, he was the ringmaster of the WS champs.
BTW, give Parker the MVP that season, he was .310-.380-.526 with a RF GG for the WS winners, and he's likely in the Hall. He won the MVP in '78, has 2 WS rings, 3 GG's, 2 batting titles, etc. I'm sure he would have told you in October of '79 that Stargell was the MVP on the team, being gracious, but you wonder where he would be if the voters went with the best player on the WS champions. BTW, he's on the ballot for the Dec. vote.
Anyway, I try not to get to worried about WAR, for whatever that is worth.