The 2021-2022 Offseason Thread

[mvp 78]

Yes, his arm only partially negated his poor defense- not fully negated his poor defense. It did not totally wipe away his overall negative defense, if just made it not be really bad.

 

His arm strength was not enough to keep him from being an overall negative.

 

fangraphs:

-3.0 ErrR

-1.4 RngR

+1.9 ARM

 

As you can see his arm only partially negated his overall bad D to a -2.5 UZR, instead of even worse.

 

Stop using partially negate. It's not the proper usage. Quite a head scratcher.

[mvp 78]

To partially negate a negative actually lessens the total negative aspect of his D, but does not fully negate it to the point where it is a zero or positive.

 

The ole double negative.

 

No.

[mvp 78]

Was it Selig who negated the Sox signings of Sammy Sosa, John Wetteland and Kevin Appier after the 1994 stoppage?

 

No, it was the NLRB.

[Bellhorn04]

Was it Selig who negated the Sox signings of Sammy Sosa, John Wetteland and Kevin Appier after the 1994 stoppage?

 

Partially.

[mvp 78]

Partially.

 

Or not.

[moonslav59]

Stop using partially negate. It's not the proper usage. Quite a head scratcher.

 

It was easy to understand.

 

You can negate and partially negate something bad to varying degrees.

[mvp 78]

It was easy to understand.

 

You can negate and partially negate something bad to varying degrees.

 

Incorrect.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It was easy to understand.

 

You can negate and partially negate something bad to varying degrees.

 

Guys, sorry I used the word negate. Its inclusion in my post was nugatory... at least in relation to the issue of my query: does anyone's WAR calculations have a way to factor in the extra pitches caused by a below-average fielder? I suppose someone could somehow count them, after a non-play extends an inning... but they couldn't account for the subsequent types of pitches -- and specific elbow or shoulder strain -- the hurler and catcher decide to throw with men on base as opposed to the bases empty.

 

I blame all the crap I just typed on Rob Manless.

[mvp 78]

Guys, sorry I used the word negate. Its inclusion in my post was nugatory... at least in relation to the issue of my query: does anyone's WAR calculations have a way to factor in the extra pitches caused by a below-average fielder? I suppose someone could somehow count them, after a non-play extends an inning... but they couldn't account for the subsequent types of pitches -- and specific elbow or shoulder strain -- the hurler and catcher decide to throw with men on base as opposed to the bases empty.

 

I blame all the crap I just typed on Rob Manless.

 

"Negate" is fine. Partially negate is not.

[moonslav59]

"Negate" is fine. Partially negate is not.

 

The way he used it was not "fine," and he admitted it.

 

Renfroe's plus arm did not "negate" his bad defense. Negate implies totally. It was not fine. That's why I corrected it.

 

I re-used his word choice and added "partially" because it did not fully turn his negative defense into a zero or plus defense. It only partially did.

 

While saying partially negated something bad may be a poor choice of a descriptor, in the context of responding to his term used, it made sense- to me obvious sense.

 

His arm plus was not positive enough to fully outweigh his errors and range negatives. It only partially did.

 

Scratch your head all you want. It doesn't partially nugatory anything.

 

[notin]

No, it was the NLRB.

 

But not NRBQ?

[mvp 78]

But not NRBQ?

 

Nope.

[notin]

Nope.

 

I didn’t think so. That just didn’t feel like something they’d do…

[Kimmi]

What the Red Sox will do with Bogey, and Raffy is the million dollar question.

 

I would really love to see both players extended. At the same time, I am probably not as willing to give as many years to either player as most fans as are willing to do.

[Kimmi]

The biggest question is when will these fat cats come to the table and figure this s*** out so we can all have a welcome distraction from the shitshow going on around us all?

 

Amen to that, brother.

[Kimmi]

I wonder if the Sox internal defensive evaluations had Renfroe as significantly worse than the ones we know or our own opinions of his defense. We might tend to be wow’s by all the OF assists, but Fenways’s RF is do large, maybe his short range really convinced them he had to go.

 

Maybe the thought of how important OF defense improvement also led them to view JBJ in a more positive light than most of us view him.

 

If Renfroe ends up with a plus 2-3 WAR, the Sox might still think his value is less than that even going forward, too, so what we might view as a good season by Renfroe, they might see as much worse.

 

I’m just saying this could be a view they have taken. It’s pure speculation on my part.

 

Personally, I thought Renfroe’s arm cancelled out a sizeable chunk of his poor D, and his offense more than made him a good plus player. Maybe they don’t see it that way or the expect Renfroe and JBJ to regress towards their norms in 2922.

 

Any of those things are a possibility. I'm sure there were a lot of factors, possibly many of which we know nothing about, that were considered before making the trade. They have access to stats that we don't have. They have access to scouting reports and medical reports that we don't have. They have a team of great baseball people providing input on the pros and cons of this trade, along with how it impacts the rest of the moves made this season. We have no idea if this was mainly done as a precursor to some other move.

 

It could turn out to be a great move, a terrible move, or anywhere in between. We just don't know. But without the benefit of hindsight or of knowing what else is coming once the lockout ends, I like the move.

[Kimmi]

To partially negate a negative actually lessens the total negative aspect of his D, but does not fully negate it to the point where it is a zero or positive.

 

The ole double negative.

 

It may not have been the best way to phrase it, but I understood and agreed with exactly what you were saying. I wouldn't have even given the phrasing a second thought if not for the subsequent posts.

[Kimmi]

It was easy to understand.

 

You can negate and partially negate something bad to varying degrees.

 

It's okay. People don't like 'positive regression' either. LOL

[illinoisredsox]

It may not have been the best way to phrase it, but I understood and agreed with exactly what you were saying. I wouldn't have even given the phrasing a second thought if not for the subsequent posts.

 

Nobody gave it a second thought until one poster decided to make an issue of it.

[moonslav59]

It may not have been the best way to phrase it, but I understood and agreed with exactly what you were saying. I wouldn't have even given the phrasing a second thought if not for the subsequent posts.

 

I would not have phrased it that way, but I was responding to the comment about Renfroe's arm "negating" his bad D, so I used the same phrasing in my response.

 

Had I said his arm did not fully negate his poor D, maybe nobody says anything, but my statement still made sense.

 

His arm only partially negated it.

 

It's only because we have nothing else to talk about that posters nit-pick semantics.

[mvp 78]

It's okay. People don't like 'positive regression' either. LOL

 

Positive regression makes sense. Moon's unique vocabulary does not.

[mvp 78]

I only "partially" had sex with your mom.

 

See, you can't just add "partially" to everything and still have it make sense.

[moonslav59]

Positive regression makes sense. Moon's unique vocabulary does not.

 

Again, I was just using the wording from another post and added partially, since it wasn't fully.

 

It was not the best choice of wording, but keep this ball rolling, if you want to.

[moonslav59]

I only "partially" had sex with your mom.

 

See, you can't just add "partially" to everything and still have it make sense.

 

Maybe you had performance issue with my mom.

 

You only got partially aroused.

[mvp 78]

Again, I was just using the wording from another post and added partially, since it wasn't fully.

 

It was not the best choice of wording, but keep this ball rolling, if you want to.

 

I'm not rolling it anymore. It passed by me a long time ago. I'm just still watching it go.

[mvp 78]

Maybe you had performance issue with my mom.

 

You only got partially aroused.

 

Arousal is sex now?

[moonslav59]

I'm not rolling it anymore. It passed by me a long time ago. I'm just still watching it go.

 

Yet, you persist.

[moonslav59]

Arousal is sex now?

 

For you, yes.

[mvp 78]

For you, yes.

 

You clearly don't know how words work. I should have left you blocked.

[moonslav59]

You clearly don't know how words work. I should have left you blocked.

 

Maybe you just partially blocked me.

Edited January 10, 2022 by moonslav59