Perhaps I haven't understood WAR correctly, I can accept that, even if I think the Runs= Goals, Runs Added= Goals Added, a formula/metric using Goals Added as the base input before controlling for all other important factors, is a rather logical and step-by-step comparison, certainly more logical than the one you've made, even if I've fully misunderstood how WAR works, in which case someone engaging in genuine argument would understand so quite easily and still understand the force behind the point the person they were arguing with was making, realising that the other person is coming from a place of relative ignorance about one part of the analogy.
But I certainly understand Wins and Saves, and I certainly understand that a comparison of goals to Wins and Saves to goals/xG is specious in the extreme, and really one of the worst, most misleading, most nonsensical comparisons I have read on here in a while, which is saying something.
That's nice that you certainly know more about baseball modeling than me, but it doesn't change how bad the analogy/comparison was.
...experts...yeah, like the ones that talk for Sky Sports. Or do you mean the ones that write columns for places like statsbomb, who don't take such a rash and dismissive stance to the idea of, shock and awe!!, applying objective data and logical statistical models to analysis of player value, while always recognising the limits (and trying to make them less) of stats in football? Those ones I don't ignore completely.