I just wanted to add this: An example of what I said to TRHit about the value of using your eyes, as what I said about using whatever stats you like to come to a single-number decision about value might be incorporating crowd-sourced evaluations of defense instead of UZR for the defensive component of WAR.
I am aware of a couple of these crowd-sourced defensive evaluations (based purely on "using your eyes") and they usually do a pretty good job - but maybe to your disappoinment, by that I mean that they more or less replicate the advanced defensive metrics.
It is completely defensible in my book to not completely trust defensive metrics, and want to substitute something like the crowd-sourced evaluations. I'm sure you'd get questions and objections from some people based on evaluator's tendency to overevaluate the defense of players who are great offensively, or remember great plays more than mundane miscues. Others might object because we are now able to track precisely the path, trajectory and landing spot of every ball put in play, and compare how players field similar balls, so why not utilize that data, and you'd have to be able to answer those questions in order to defend your position, but THAT would be perfectly fine use of the WAR framework IMO.
[That's all WAR is, too: a framework for looking at all components of baseball performance, and coming up with a single number to evaluate and compare players. What statistical methods you use to measure those components is up to you. That's why there are different forms of WAR. And before you attack the framework because having different forms, remember that when you advocate for anybody as the "best" or "most valuable" player over any period of time, you are doing the same thing, just in a more haphazard and less rigorous and complete way.]