A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[Bellhorn04]

One thing I don't get is the big difference between JBJ's bWAR and his fWAR.

[notin]

One thing I don't get is the big difference between JBJ's bWAR and his fWAR.

 

Not sure.

 

But I do know this. All year long I defended Bradley’s weak offense by saying People shouldn’t be so critical of the offense from the ninth spot hitter.

 

But the flip side is, in a time of a potential budget crunch with multiple needs on the roster, you really can’t expect to pay that same ninth spot hitter with questionable offense $10-12 mill...

[oldtimer]

I believe the team needs to clarify it's thinkiing going forward by starting with a mission statement. These tend to be Captain Obvious, but actions flow from them. My view of a simple mission staqtemnt is:

 

"Field a team that is competitive in 2020 and every year going forward and that has the ability to compete for championships"

 

From that statement of goals, actions can be determined by first looking at where we will be at the 2019 seasons conclusion.

 

From that dose of reality, the decision of to reset or not to reset flows. If we consider not just 2020 but the longer term that decision seems to be clarified based on where we are.

 

It also identifies what kind of leadership we need going forward. If we want to reset and rebuilld the farm, it may take a different type of leadership.

 

I tend to be wordy and have written my more detailed thoughts but doubt if people would want to read them so broke it down to the bare bones, from which decisions on JBJ, Betts, Holt, Leon, DD and others could be made rationally. If others think the mission statement should be changed, then it might flow into a different set of decisions.

[Bellhorn04]

Not sure.

 

But I do know this. All year long I defended Bradley’s weak offense by saying People shouldn’t be so critical of the offense from the ninth spot hitter.

 

But the flip side is, in a time of a potential budget crunch with multiple needs on the roster, you really can’t expect to pay that same ninth spot hitter with questionable offense $10-12 mill...

 

I think a lot depends on what we hear about Sale, and how optimistic the pale fellow feels about 2020.

 

It should be a more interesting offseason than last one.

[Bellhorn04]

I believe the team needs to clarify it's thinkiing going forward by starting with a mission statement. These tend to be Captain Obvious, but actions flow from them. My view of a simple mission staqtemnt is:

 

"Field a team that is competitive in 2020 and every year going forward and that has the ability to compete for championships"

 

Isn't that a little unrealistically rosy?

[notin]

I think a lot depends on what we hear about Sale, and how optimistic the pale fellow feels about 2020.

 

It should be a more interesting offseason than last one.

 

Not sure.

 

If they do stay under limits, reportedly they have about $56mill to spend.

 

Out of that they have to pay Betts, Benintendi, ERod, Workman, Bradley, and all the other arb cases. And then fill out the roster.

 

Now if they blow past limits in 2019, maybe. But then Mookie is definitely gone forever. Resetting this season keeps them in the very limited Mookie market...

[Bellhorn04]

Not sure.

 

If they do stay under limits, reportedly they have about $56mill to spend.

 

Out of that they have to pay Betts, Benintendi, ERod, Workman, Bradley, and all the other arb cases. And then fill out the roster.

 

Now if they blow past limits in 2019, maybe. But then Mookie is definitely gone forever. Resetting this season keeps them in the very limited Mookie market...

 

John Henry is not an easy guy to predict. I don't think anyone could have foreseen him paying as much tax as he has for 2018 and 2019.

 

And this past offseason, where it seemed like the team didn't do much, he nonetheless authorized 145 mill for Sale, 120 mill for Xander, and 68 mill for Eovaldi. That's 333 million in new contracts.

 

But then after Eovaldi and Pearce he closed the wallet.

[notin]

I think a lot depends on what we hear about Sale, and how optimistic the pale fellow feels about 2020.

 

It should be a more interesting offseason than last one.

 

If it’s as uninteresting as last off-season, I plan on complaining even more....

[notin]

John Henry is not an easy guy to predict. I don't think anyone could have foreseen him paying as much tax as he has for 2018 and 2019.

 

And this past offseason, where it seemed like the team didn't do much, he nonetheless authorized 145 mill for Sale, 120 mill for Xander, and 68 mill for Eovaldi. That's 333 million in new contracts.

 

But then after Eovaldi and Pearce he closed the wallet.

 

The safe assumption is the reset.

 

That way an additional spending is a pleasant surprise...

[S5Dewey]

One thing I don't get is the big difference between JBJ's bWAR and his fWAR.

 

Then doesn't that raise a flag with you that there may be something inherently wrong with either (or both!) methods of calculation and we only noticed it because JBJ is a bit closer to our hearts than Kevin Pillar?

 

Further, is the flaw restricted to centerfielders, or does it pertain to all outfielders, or even to all position players? I'm not saying it does... but it's a question worth asking when one sees such a dramatic difference between one player's WAR when calculated by two different entities. Or is the real problem in how the "Replacement Player's" WAR is determined, because if that's the baseline and it's skewed than every comparison to it is also skewed.

 

That's why... forgive me... but IMO WAR creates as many questions as it answers. Ya. It's a nice number to have but it's not anything one should be hanging their hats on any more than the eye test is. One is as fallible as the other, and yet some posters want to continually denigrate the eye test while championing WAR.

[Bellhorn04]

That's why... forgive me... but IMO WAR creates as many questions as it answers. Ya. It's a nice number to have but it's not anything one should be hanging their hats on any more than the eye test is. One is as fallible as the other, and yet some posters want to continually denigrate the eye test while championing WAR.

 

I don't denigrate the eye test as much as some do. I just don't watch many games start to finish any more, so I need the numbers.

 

With JBJ I like that WAR tries to answer the question of whether his defense more than makes up for his subpar bat. And the fact is that WAR has been very good to JBJ.

 

I don't disagree that the variances can be confusing. But someone who has the know-how and patience can dig deep into the details and figure out what's going on.

[notin]

Then doesn't that raise a flag with you that there may be something inherently wrong with either (or both!) methods of calculation and we only noticed it because JBJ is a bit closer to our hearts than Kevin Pillar?

 

Further, is the flaw restricted to centerfielders, or does it pertain to all outfielders, or even to all position players? I'm not saying it does... but it's a question worth asking when one sees such a dramatic difference between one player's WAR when calculated by two different entities. Or is the real problem in how the "Replacement Player's" WAR is determined, because if that's the baseline and it's skewed than every comparison to it is also skewed.

 

That's why... forgive me... but IMO WAR creates as many questions as it answers. Ya. It's a nice number to have but it's not anything one should be hanging their hats on any more than the eye test is. One is as fallible as the other, and yet some posters want to continually denigrate the eye test while championing WAR.

 

Most people don’t know how to use the eye test.

 

1) It’s not even for the same criteria as WAR.

2) It doesn’t work for televised baseball.

3) It primarily involves massive imbalances in sample size. So saying “Bradley is a good CF” with the eye test is one thing. But saying “Bradley is a the best defensive CF” or “Bradley is a better defensive CF than Pillar and Kiermeier” with eye test criteria is another.

4) And to be honest, for most people the eye test boils down to “ I saw that guy make an error once.” You can’t denigrate WAR because people might not understand it, but still champion the eye test with that flaw...

Edited August 25, 2019 by notin

[S5Dewey]

4) And to be honest, for most people the eye test boils down to “ I saw that guy make an error once.” You can’t denigrate WAR because people might not understand it, but still champion the eye test with that flaw...

 

Straw man alert!

 

I don't denigrate WAR because some people don't understand it. I denigrate WAR because there are obvious flaws in it that show up both in real time play and in comparing one entities WAR with another entities WAR.

 

You can't denigrate the eye test because you believe there are flaws in it but champion WAR in spite of the flaws.

[notin]

Straw man alert!

 

I don't denigrate WAR because some people don't understand it. I denigrate WAR because there are obvious flaws in it that show up both in real time play and in comparing one entities WAR with another entities WAR.

 

You can't denigrate the eye test because you believe there are flaws in it but champion WAR in spite of the flaws.

 

You did it twice on this thread. In the Jensen/Piersall post, and a later post about some baseball experts who don’t know about baseball-reference.com. (The app doesn’t show post numbers. Apologies.)

 

And the big difference between WAR and the eye test is that WAR has a baseline. The eye test is 100% subjectivity...

[OH FOY]

1 thing only the eye test, shows you outs in a game, that are productive, to win it.

[S5Dewey]

You did it twice on this thread. In the Jensen/Piersall post, and a later post about some baseball experts who don’t know about baseball-reference.com. (The app doesn’t show post numbers. Apologies.)

 

And the big difference between WAR and the eye test is that WAR has a baseline. The eye test is 100% subjectivity...

 

The implication there is that WAR is perfect and that the only people who don't believe in it wholeheartedly are those who don't understand it. Condescending much?

 

The "eye test" and its subjectivity has served baseball well for generations. Through the subjective eye test scouts have recognized different levels of talent and abilities, even without all the advanced metrics. Amazing, huh?

 

And BTW, having a baseline for WAR is meaningless if the data being compared to it is flawed.

[Slasher9]

Check post #182 in this thread:

 

https://www.talksox.com/forum/threads/19439-Countdown-to-Playoffs-2019-edition?p=1278065#post1278065

 

Actually Harmony when I made my post I was going to add that harmony is the only one to usually add that. But most don’t. Would you agree with that?

[Slasher9]

And yet your argument hinges on these people looking up WAR values?

 

They don’t need to. At the Mets v braves game Friday night the big screen showed bWar for every batter that came up. I had to explain what it meant to every person around me including my 87 year old father who has watched a billion baseball games in his life. I would bet there were 30k people in that stadium that had zero clue what bWar meant. But when they saw a player with a higher number they instantly assumed he was the better player. Try some real life examples instead of pontificating on what you think is reality. Because you are wrong.

[notin]

The implication there is that WAR is perfect and that the only people who don't believe in it wholeheartedly are those who don't understand it. Condescending much?

 

The "eye test" and its subjectivity has served baseball well for generations. Through the subjective eye test scouts have recognized different levels of talent and abilities, even without all the advanced metrics. Amazing, huh?

 

And BTW, having a baseline for WAR is meaningless if the data being compared to it is flawed.

 

No one has EVER said WAR is perfect. No one has even implied it. That you infer WAR being perfect is not the fault of the stat.

 

 

And we’re not talking about scouts doing eye test. We’re talking about fans. Potentially rabid fans, but fans nonetheless.

 

However, the argument “it worked for years” doesn’t fly. Horses served the transportation market for centuries. But I bet you still own a car...

[notin]

They don’t need to. At the Mets v braves game Friday night the big screen showed bWar for every batter that came up. I had to explain what it meant to every person around me including my 87 year old father who has watched a billion baseball games in his life. I would bet there were 30k people in that stadium that had zero clue what bWar meant. But when they saw a player with a higher number they instantly assumed he was the better player. Try some real life examples instead of pontificating on what you think is reality. Because you are wrong.

 

So... you’re worried about the perception of a stat that you had to explain to people?

 

Let’s just say casual fans assume “higher equals better” and take it as gospel. What’s the big deal? People make massive assumptions about ERA and BA and have for over a century.

[notin]

Actually Harmony when I made my post I was going to add that harmony is the only one to usually add that. But most don’t. Would you agree with that?

 

The app doesn’t show post numbers. C&P please?

[notin]

Most of your criticisms of WAR can be applied to any stat. Not perfect. Easily misinterpreted.

 

Stats are a historical record. All of them,including WAR, RBIs, K/BB. They’re all stuff that happened, whether they’re easy to understand or not. Or interpreted different ways. But no stat judges talent. Not one.

 

Citing the equality in WAR between Jensen and Piersall as a flaw ignores different ways of looking at it. Anyone who values longevity for example.

 

All stats have that issue. I know people who think a hitter is measured by home runs. So do you. There are a lot of them. If you use home runs as a yardstick, Jim Thome was better than Ted Williams. Does that mean home runs are flawed?

 

Hell if you want to see an overvaluedflawed stat, go see who is second on the Sox in Wins this year. And you absolutely know people who think wins are a measure of pitching ability. Only recently did the BBWAA come to the realization they may not be.

 

Or maybe Porcello is the second most talented pitcher on the Sox.

 

The counter argument is a lot of stats have issues. Focusing on WAR like it’s the only one is ignorant of this...

[notin]

Putting aside WAR arguments (stop bringing them up, Bellhorn!! ), this is a thread about 2020. Obviously s lot hinges on Sale.

 

OH FOY (I believe) cited the sportrac.com number that the Sox available budget for 2020 is $56mill. If the arbitration cases for Betts (say, $25mill), ERod ($8mill-ish) and Benintendi ($6mill) come out with these wild guesses which could be collectively close, that leaves about $17mill for remaining arbitration cases (Barnes, Workman, Hembree, and a couple others) finishing the 25 man roster, and leaving a little headway to improve or replace an injured player mid season. Tight budget.

 

This is if a reset is in order. If the Sox go all in for 2020, it does mean 2021 and beyond are very likely going to be struggles...

[notin]

One thing I don't get is the big difference between JBJ's bWAR and his fWAR.

 

I think it comes down to each source measuring differently what it takes to contribute to a win. Doesn’t mean either one is wrong, but they are measuring different aspects of the same thing

 

It’s like if you asked two fisherman which one caught the bigger fish. If the first one said “mine was 30 inches” and the second one said “mine was 12 pounds”, who caught the bigger fish, using that data only? And is either one “wrong”?

[moonslav59]

That's sarcasm, right?

 

Wouldn't you find it "odd" if two entities, say, BR & fangraphs, were calculating the same player's OPS and one of them calculated it to be .600 and the other as .900, both defended their calculations, and everyone assumed that they were both right and used them interchangeably?

 

Nope, nothing odd about that!

 

It was not sarcasm. I find absolutely nothing odd.

 

What I find odd is the statement that "everyone assumed they are both right." I'm not sure where you get that from.

 

Everyone, I know, that sees the (limited) value of WAR says it is imperfect and knows both sights uses different methodologies to come up with their final numbers.

[moonslav59]

I believe the team needs to clarify it's thinkiing going forward by starting with a mission statement. These tend to be Captain Obvious, but actions flow from them. My view of a simple mission staqtemnt is:

 

"Field a team that is competitive in 2020 and every year going forward and that has the ability to compete for championships"

 

From that statement of goals, actions can be determined by first looking at where we will be at the 2019 seasons conclusion.

 

From that dose of reality, the decision of to reset or not to reset flows. If we consider not just 2020 but the longer term that decision seems to be clarified based on where we are.

 

It also identifies what kind of leadership we need going forward. If we want to reset and rebuilld the farm, it may take a different type of leadership.

 

I tend to be wordy and have written my more detailed thoughts but doubt if people would want to read them so broke it down to the bare bones, from which decisions on JBJ, Betts, Holt, Leon, DD and others could be made rationally. If others think the mission statement should be changed, then it might flow into a different set of decisions.

 

Does competitive mean finishing 88-74 or 86-76?

 

IMO, expecting us to be competitive for a playoff spot every year with our farm the way it is, means we'll have to keep spending large year after year with no reset in sight.

[moonslav59]

Not sure.

 

If they do stay under limits, reportedly they have about $56mill to spend.

 

Out of that they have to pay Betts, Benintendi, ERod, Workman, Bradley, and all the other arb cases. And then fill out the roster.

 

Now if they blow past limits in 2019, maybe. But then Mookie is definitely gone forever. Resetting this season keeps them in the very limited Mookie market...

 

That's what I've been saying for months.

 

With Sale's health being in question, and a reset possible by just trading JBJ, we can keep Betts next year and maybe trade him at the deadline, if re-signing him looks like a long shot.Trading him actually does him a favor, as it would lift the QO penalty on a team signing him next year.

 

I think we could at least attempt to keep the rebuild to 1 year: 2020.

 

We'll also be getting a better draft pick this year and maybe an even better one for 2021. This might help us to slightly improve the farm for the longer term outlook, while spending larger for 2021 might get us back into the race quicker than I thought we could. Of course, it will take flawless FA signings for 2021, savvy draft picks these next 2 year and some tough choices on who we need to let go and keep.

 

I do not think DD is the man for that job, but that's just me.

[notin]

Does competitive mean finishing 88-74 or 86-76?

 

IMO, expecting us to be competitive for a playoff spot every year with our farm the way it is, means we'll have to keep spending large year after year with no reset in sight.

 

The fact that we still have optimistic fans and an outside chance does mean the team is competitive. Ask harmony if he thinks the Mariners are this year...

[moonslav59]

Then doesn't that raise a flag with you that there may be something inherently wrong with either (or both!) methods of calculation and we only noticed it because JBJ is a bit closer to our hearts than Kevin Pillar?

 

Further, is the flaw restricted to centerfielders, or does it pertain to all outfielders, or even to all position players? I'm not saying it does... but it's a question worth asking when one sees such a dramatic difference between one player's WAR when calculated by two different entities. Or is the real problem in how the "Replacement Player's" WAR is determined, because if that's the baseline and it's skewed than every comparison to it is also skewed.

 

That's why... forgive me... but IMO WAR creates as many questions as it answers. Ya. It's a nice number to have but it's not anything one should be hanging their hats on any more than the eye test is. One is as fallible as the other, and yet some posters want to continually denigrate the eye test while championing WAR.

 

The only reason I value WAR more highly than the eye test, and I do not think WAR is perfect or even close, is that I never watch any games other than the Sox.

 

My assigned value for Pillar would be a stab in the dark and woefully inadequate.

 

I trust WAR more than eyes that only see a player play 0-17 games a year. That's all it it is to me.

 

I am in no way 100% or even 80% sure that WAR is telling me player A had more value this year than player B. I know WAR is not meant to show who is better when they play. It is a cumulative metric, so I see some misusing it to claim player A is better than B based on a WAR number.

 

I'm probably only 50% sure that player A is better than player B by looking at just BA, Fld%, HRs, SBs and RBIs and trying to juggle the weighted values of each in my head. Then, I need to look at PAs and sample size length. Is 2 months enough? Just the this season? Last 2-3 seasons? Career?

 

Nothing- not one stat of metric will ever definitively end the debate. They all are flawed and nobody I know ever has said anything is even close to perfect.

 

"Championing WAR" over the eye test is not the same as saying it is perfect. Both have serious flaws, but IMO, WAR's flaws have to be less than the ye test, unless I'm talking to someone who watched 50-60% or more of every player's games with an unbiased eye. That's my opinion.

[moonslav59]

The fact that we still have optimistic fans and an outside chance does mean the team is competitive. Ask harmony if he thinks the Mariners are this year...

 

That's what I was getting at. I think 88-74 is close to being competitive but is not.

 

I think we have to think about not being even 86-76 for a year or two before we can get truly competitive again.

 

I'd rather win a ring every 5-6 years than be 88-74 all 5 years and never get close to a ring, but that's juts me.

 

I'm not saying we have to suck the other 4 years. The Ben example was 3 last place finishes to one ring, and that sucked, but what made those years fine with me was the bright hopes I had for the future, because our farm was one of the best. Winning once out of 4 years with 3 first place finishes was great, but with a bottom 3 farm, I'm not sure I'd like that plan more than Ben's. They both won a ring, but Ben left a future- a future, I might add, that DD used and exploited to win his ring.

 

I'm glad DD got us a ring. His plan worked. But I felt better going into the winter after Ben than going into this winter.