moonslav59

Maybe the A's see something hardly anyone else sees, but I can't help but think we could have bettered that offer and hardly noticed our farm weakening.

How about Danish for a cup of coffee?

We could have given them 3 guys worth what the guys they got are worth. Even 4 or 5

lmao

So, you quit bashing Pivetta, for now. Good to see.

Incurable.

BTV has these values: 14.1 Manaea 0.2 A Holiday for 2.4 E Angeles 0.5 A Martinez Did the A's get cash, too? It looks like they got hosed. BTV equivalence Sox players: 2.6 Bonaci 2.6 Arroyo 2.5 R Hernandez 2.2 Murphy and 1.6 Cannon, Chacon, Wong 1.5 Liu 1.4 Lira, Lopez

And to think subjectivity does not play a role and that BA and other traditional stats are solid, concrete facts, and then accuse others of using WAR in the same way, which nobody does, is baffling, to me.

fangraphs is better for time periods (to the day, if you wish, which B-R can do under only the game log's page) and advanced individual team stats.

Like Old Red never goes "overboard" when defending his positions- many as warped as warped can be, I might add. It's only when he disagrees with an opinion that he: 1) assumes you are stating your opinion as fact (wrong) 2) going "overboard" defending it by actually using facts, data, and worst of all sabermetrics (wrong) 3) then, when you get him corners, he says something like "that's when I change the question" or some absurd catch phrase he likes.

One more thing about BA, and you've brought this up about fielding percentage, too. Who calls an error an error? A subjective person, so if one player gets a hit on a certain play, but another gets an error on the exact same play, their BAs would be skewed. Now, it all is supposed to work out over a long period of time, but errors are judged by the home team's scorer, not some unbiased person, so some players might be helped or hurt over the long run. Of course, one could and should argue the observers used in UZR/150 are subjective and biased, too, and they'd be right, but at least they are trained and calibrated and rotated.

I think it comes down to FIP, something I think has value but can skew some good pitchers numbers, if they have low K rates but consistently get weak hit outs.

Nobody "accepts" fWAR or bWAR as true value, and I can understand that seeing some wide differences in a few selective players can make one feel like these guys are just stabbing at it in the dark, but they are actually using some pretty sophisticated and scientific methods based on what value certain acts done in baseball lead to runs or allowed runs. To me, I'm thinking they do a better job at determining the whole value player A vs player B than I can do in my head, based on just my own limited observation and a few crude stats that often miss the mark, too. I remember when RF/9 first came into popularity. It was certainly eye-opening to see one SS could make 100-150 more plays than another in the same amount of innings, but then people started saying, but player B plays on a team with a lot of strike out or fly out pitchers, so it's skewed. (They were right to a certain degree.) Now, fielders are observed by trained and calibrated professionals. Does that make it perfect or fool-proofed? Hell, no, but at least someone is watching every play of every games- something I don't even reach 1/29th of over a season. They measure how many playable balls are hit to a player and how many times an out is recorded. They measure difficulty factors and error rates. It has to be better than what I or any one person can do in their head by just watching 162-maybe 300 games a year. It's far from perfect but, to me, it beats the hell out of my own observations. I try to watch every single play of every single Sox game, every season. I rarely watch any other games, so I just see the opposing players vs our own players. One observation I have made is about fielding- something I loved and was good at when I played the game for a couple decades. I notice when the opponents make spectacular play after spectacular play at SS mush more than ours does. I'm thinking, to myself, man-o-man, I wish we had a SS who could have the range and athletic ability these other teams have. Then, I look at UZR/150 and DRS, and my observations are confirmed. It doesn't mean I think my opinion is 100% fact, but I do convince myself that I was right all along. I try hard to not sound like I am stating something that is not up for debate, but that does not mean I don't hold some opinions I think can not be changed. I assume everyone feels the same way about some of their beliefs, and some of those beliefs might be polar opposites to mine, I'm fine with that and actually welcome that. I love a healthy debate based on logic, reason and evidence. I have changed my opinion on a few things. At first, I thought Ellsbury and Nomar were obvious plus defenders, but over time and deeper observations, I came to realize they were not. Actually, Nomar was okay early in his career and Ellsbury turned into a plus defenders after a few years, but I do realize I can and have been wrong many times over and will be again.

That's one reason I have both on ignore.

WAR was never meant to end all debates.

This is the crux of the whole thing, to me. People had no beef with people who claimed so-and-so was better because he hit more HRs or had a higher BA, because the guy was just stating some facts that supported his opinion, but when people use WAR, somehow people think they are saying "s0-and-so is better because he has a better WAR- END OF DEBATE." Not a single poster has ever said WAR is the be-all-end-all numbers that ends debate. In a way it is a fact, but in no way different than the amount of HRs a player hit is fact. It's just a fact used to support opinions- something baseball fans have been doing for decades and decades.

Do you think it's possible many people can love the game for what it is, just like everyone else, yet still really enjoy stats and metrics and complex rating systems? I don't understand how some feel sabermetrics is ruining the game. I don't see how or why. Just watch the game and ignore all the numbers. Hell, they just outlawed the shift, so now one big saber manifestation is no longer visible.

Just becaue Upton is not worth $28M, does not mean not teams want him at the minimum. He still hits lefties pretty well, which Verdugo and JBJ do not. .852 career v L .838 in 2021 .796 in '20- short season BTW, I was all for going after Suzuki, and that was before I knew he could pitch like Ohtani!

WAR doesn't settle any arguments. Hell, we have two different WARs that disagree enough to even cause some new watercooler debates. I guess to some fans enjoy the new toy. Others could care less, and others see it as some sort of infringement on their traditions. BTW, I have never heard a single person or poster say this guy is better that that guy only because WAR says so. They use it to support theirposition the same way someone uses OPS or some old-schooler uses BA and Fldg%.

That's another fault of just using the eye test. I think many baseball fans like to and do talk about who is the best or which player is better than the other. They compare stats, and invariably, someone says, "but player X is a better fielder," and nobody can really quantify if the disparity outweighs the offensive disparity. WAR attempts to do all that by using some pretty sound methods. It sure beats using Fldg% and RF/9 and a host of offensive stats.

True, but if they were allML ready, we'd probably have signed just one from Wacha & Hill. BTW, speaking of Perez, he was in last place on the ERA list from 2017-2021 (500+ IP).

One problem is that some of us don't get so see other comparable players play but 2-3 games a year, and some maybe zero. Others, in our division we might see 10-18 times a year. When speaking about who is the best, it's hard to use the eye test, when wild disparities in sample sizes exist. One advantage of UZR/150 is that it is based on observations of every play in every game.

Playing at half speed might be more dangerous.

If we had some young studs waiting in the wings, I could see a point being made, and I guess nobody saw Houck as a "stud," but I like the Hill signing more than the last 2 Perez signings.

I feel more confident with Hill on the mound than Wacha, The issue might be, can he stay on the mound for over 100 or 140 innings, this year?