Every major baseball app is built around things that get in your way.
ESPN shows you sponsored articles when you just want a score. CBS pushes Paramount+ subscriptions when you want to check the standings. The official MLB app autoplays video spoilers the moment you look up your favorite team. And on top of all that, every one of them buries what you came for under banner ads, breaking news tickers, and betting odds you never asked for.
Popular stat sites like Baseball Reference and FanGraphs have incredible data — but finding it is complicated, the UI feels outdated, and most of it doesn't mean much to the average fan. Rows of acronyms, multiple versions of WAR that contradict each other, and no clear answer to the simplest question: how good is this player, actually?
Baseball Nut exists to fill the gap. It's the simplest way to find the information you need about baseball — scores, standings, and a single number that tells you exactly how much a player is worth.
No noise, no clutter, no fluency in sabermetrics required.
We wanted to build the simplest baseball app on the internet — so we needed a stat to match.
NUT stands for Net Unbiased Total. It measures how many wins a player adds or costs their team compared to a league-average player, using only hitting and pitching. No defense. No opinion. Just the number.
Most fans reach for WAR — bWAR from Baseball Reference or fWAR from FanGraphs — to answer questions like “who's actually better?” Both versions bake defense into the number, and defensive metrics are notoriously unreliable. They swing wildly year to year, reward positioning over skill, and routinely make great hitters look like average players. Stolen bases have the same problem — they depend as much on who's pitching and catching as they do on the runner.
NUT strips all of that out and measures only what the numbers actually tell us: how much a player is genuinely worth at the plate and on the mound.
Under the hood, NUT uses publicly available MLB data and a formula built on weighted on-base average for hitters and fielding-independent pitching for pitchers — both measured against league averages for that season. The exact math is out there if you want to dig in, but you don't need to understand it to use it.
You'll find NUT throughout the app: on every player profile, on the stats leaderboard for hitters and pitchers, on team pages, and on individual game pages where top performers are highlighted.
NUT tracks every plate appearance and every pitch across all 162 games. Player profiles show NUT for every season a player appeared in, and the stats leaderboard requires a minimum of 50 plate appearances for hitters and 25 innings pitched for pitchers to qualify. The number is always live, always updating, and never requires you to do any math. Every NUT score is color coded, so you can tell at a glance whether a player is having an elite year or a rough one.
Baseball Nut was built for anyone who just wants to follow the game. No account required, no complicated settings to configure, no noise to filter through — just open it and the information is right there.
The NUT Score is the same idea applied to player evaluation. Whether you've watched baseball your whole life or just started following a team, you don't need to know what WAR stands for or why FIP matters. A positive NUT means the player is helping their team win. A negative NUT means the opposite. The bigger the number, the bigger the impact. That's it.
Fantasy players get a lot out of NUT too. The Tracker lets you add any player to a personal watchlist so you can monitor their performance all season long — no digging through box scores or stat tables. If someone on your roster is slumping or surging, NUT shows you exactly how much it's costing or earning you.
And when a player gets nutty, you'll know.
| Hitters | Pitchers | |
|---|---|---|
| Nutty | ≥ 6 | ≥ 3 |
| Premier | 5 – 5.9 | 2.5 – 2.9 |
| Elite | 4 – 4.9 | 2 – 2.4 |
| Great | 3 – 3.9 | 1.5 – 1.9 |
| Good | 2 – 2.9 | 1 – 1.4 |
| Above Avg | 1 – 1.9 | 0.5 – 0.9 |
| Average | 0 – 0.9 | 0 – 0.4 |
| Below Avg | < 0 | < 0 |
| Hitting | Pitching | Combined | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nutty | ≥ 12 | ≥ 6 | ≥ 18 |
| Premier | 10 – 11.9 | 5 – 5.9 | 15 – 17.9 |
| Elite | 8 – 9.9 | 4 – 4.9 | 12 – 14.9 |
| Great | 6 – 7.9 | 3 – 3.9 | 9 – 11.9 |
| Good | 4 – 5.9 | 2 – 2.9 | 6 – 8.9 |
| Above Avg | 2 – 3.9 | 1 – 1.9 | 3 – 5.9 |
| Average | 0 – 1.9 | 0 – 0.9 | 0 – 2.9 |
| Below Avg | < 0 | < 0 | < 0 |
| Hitters | Pitchers | |
|---|---|---|
| Nutty | ≥ 50 | ≥ 25 |
| Premier | 35 – 49.9 | 18 – 24.9 |
| Elite | 25 – 34.9 | 12 – 17.9 |
| Great | 15 – 24.9 | 8 – 11.9 |
| Good | 8 – 14.9 | 4 – 7.9 |
| Above Avg | 3 – 7.9 | 2 – 3.9 |
| Average | 0 – 2.9 | 0 – 1.9 |
| Below Avg | < 0 | < 0 |
| Player | bWAR | NUT |
|---|---|---|
| A. Judge • NYY | 9.7 | +7.8 |
| C. Raleigh • SEA | 7.4 | +4.5 |
| B. Witt Jr. • KCR | 7.1 | +2.7 |
| G. Perdomo • ARI | 7 | +3.4 |
| J. Rodríguez • SEA | 6.8 | +1.7 |
| S. Ohtani • LAD | 6.6 | +6.2 |
| N. Hoerner • CHC | 6.2 | +0.6 |
| C. Seager • TEX | 6.2 | +1.8 |
| J. Soto • NYM | 6.2 | +4.5 |
| P. Crow-Armstrong • CHC | 6 | +0.4 |
The biggest gaps belong to elite defenders and a catcher. Raleigh (+4.5 NUT vs 7.4 bWAR) has roughly 3 wins of catcher framing credited by bWAR that NUT ignores entirely. Witt Jr. (+2.7 vs 7.1), Perdomo (+3.4 vs 7.0), Hoerner (+0.6 vs 6.2), and Crow-Armstrong (+0.4 vs 6.0) are all elite defensive players — the NUT/bWAR gap tells you exactly how many wins their gloves are worth. Ohtani stays close (6.6 bWAR vs +6.2 NUT) because he DHed all year with no defensive value in either direction.
| Player | fWAR | NUT |
|---|---|---|
| A. Judge • NYY | 10.1 | +7.8 |
| C. Raleigh • SEA | 9.1 | +4.5 |
| B. Witt Jr. • KCR | 8 | +2.7 |
| S. Ohtani • LAD | 7.5 | +6.2 |
| G. Perdomo • ARI | 7.1 | +3.4 |
| T. Turner • PHI | 6.7 | +2.2 |
| C. Carroll • ARI | 6.5 | +3.3 |
| J. Ramírez • CLE | 6.3 | +2.1 |
| F. Lindor • NYM | 6.3 | +2.4 |
| F. Tatis Jr. • SDP | 6.1 | +2.3 |
Raleigh's fWAR of 9.1 includes catcher framing — NUT measures his bat only (+4.5). Witt Jr. (8.0 fWAR vs +2.7 NUT), Turner (6.7 vs +2.2), Ramírez (6.3 vs +2.1), and Lindor (6.3 vs +2.4) all play elite defense at premium positions — those 3–4 win defensive premiums are exactly what NUT filters out. Carroll (+3.3 NUT vs 6.5 fWAR) is a good example: solid bat, elite glove in center, and most of his WAR standing comes from the field.
| Player | bWAR | NUT |
|---|---|---|
| C. Sánchez • PHI | 7.3 | +3.4 |
| P. Skenes • PIT | 7 | +3.5 |
| T. Skubal • DET | 6.2 | +3.5 |
| G. Crochet • BOS | 6.1 | +2.6 |
| H. Brown • HOU | 5.9 | +1.8 |
| A. Abbott • CIN | 5.2 | +0.6 |
| F. Peralta • MIL | 5.2 | +0.7 |
| T. Rogers • BAL | 4.9 | +1.5 |
| Z. Wheeler • PHI | 4.6 | +1.7 |
| N. Pivetta • SDP | 4.5 | +1.0 |
bWAR credits pitchers for runs prevented with defense behind them, while NUT uses FIP — only strikeouts, walks, and home runs. Sánchez (7.3 bWAR vs +3.4 NUT) leads bWAR largely because Philadelphia's elite defense turned batted balls into outs that FIP doesn't reward. Skenes and Skubal both sit near +3.5 NUT — their dominant strikeout/walk/homer rates make them the best by any measure. Abbott (5.2 bWAR vs +0.6 NUT) and Peralta (5.2 vs +0.7) show the widest gaps: their defenses did a lot of heavy lifting behind them.
| Player | fWAR | NUT |
|---|---|---|
| T. Skubal • DET | 6.6 | +3.5 |
| P. Skenes • PIT | 6.5 | +3.5 |
| C. Sánchez • PHI | 6.4 | +3.4 |
| G. Crochet • BOS | 5.8 | +2.6 |
| L. Webb • SF | 5.5 | +3.3 |
| J. Luzardo • PHI | 5.3 | +2.3 |
| Y. Yamamoto • LAD | 5 | +2.1 |
| M. Fried • NYY | 4.8 | +2.1 |
| H. Brown • HOU | 4.6 | +1.8 |
| K. Gausman • TOR | 4.1 | +1.3 |
Both fWAR and NUT use FIP, so the top of the rankings align closely. The consistent ~3-win gap between fWAR and NUT reflects the baseline: fWAR measures value above a replacement-level player, NUT measures value above average. Webb (+3.3 NUT vs 5.5 fWAR) shows a tighter gap than most — his peripherals were genuinely elite. Crochet (5.8 fWAR vs +2.6 NUT) logged a ton of innings, which inflates volume-based fWAR more than rate-based NUT.