moonslav59

When people cite BA, OPS, HRs, etc... do they always include games played or PAs? It's kind of understood that when there are great variances in games played of PAs when comparing two players, we factor in the sample sizes. We may think player A is better than B based on better numbers per game (or 162 game prorations), but player B is more valuable because he plays way more games. Why we wouldn't expect people to think the same way with WAR highlights the fact that many don't understand what WAR measures. Here's a great comp that Sox fans can be in tune with. Let's compare Porcello and Price with the Sox since 2016. We'd all say Price is the better pitcher and has been the better pitcher over those years, when he pitches. I would not disagree. We all know Price has been fragile, pitches less IP per start and has less starts than Porcello. We all probably agree that IP and GS'd are valuable, too. So, when we think of total value, we have to do sort of mental evaluation on how to weigh effectiveness vs longevity and durability. It's not easy to do in our heads. We each probably value one more than the other in differing degrees. ERA: 3.85 Price (85 ERA-) 4.28 Porcello (94 ERA-) xFIP 3.76 Price 4.32 Porcello WHIP 1.20 Price 1.23 Porcello K/BB 3.95 Porcello 3.92 Price W-L 46-24 Price 61-38 Porcello WAR (a cumulative metric) 10.7 Porcello 10.5 Price Why? Because of this.... GS 125 Porcello 97 Price IP 762 Porcello 586 Price The difference here is 28 starts and 176 IP. That's 28 more starts of 6.1 IP each over 4 years. That's about a full season more of pitching over 4 years. Surely that has major value. How much value is up for debate, and WAR has their formula for counting that. Maybe it is flawed. Maybe our own mental gymnastics are, too.

I agree, but once it wasn't and it became clear that we were not being allowed to go over the max line, waiting until a time when pro-rated contracts would allow us to obtain better pitchers than we could have gotten for $3-4M last winter or in an early season trade.

We gave up scraps for Cashner. We gave up scraps, in the past, for guys like Reed, and Eovaldi and Pearce. I wasn't for trading top prospects for a top rental RP'er, but showing no effort at all, even a symbolic one, sowed, to me, the towel was being thrown in.

I'd put the odds at less than 2% he opts out, despite his late season surge. I hope he hits 1.000 again this year.

I wouldn't say "fair." We are 8 games down in the loss column to the A's, and they have a damn good team that is not likely to collapse. A collapse is needed from 2 teams at the same time, plus we have to play better than we have in any 31 game stretch we have had all year, starting now. I'd say the chance are much close to nil than "fair." I'm not trying to burst anyone's bubble. I've been the last one on the bandwagon a few years in my past, but I just don't see it this year. We had a shot and got double swept when the season was on the line. Not winning just one game when everyone knew "this is it" told me all I needed to know. I still love this team, and I will watch every game to the end, but I have lost all faith. I'm liking what I'm seeing from a few kids and several vets. I'm looking forward to the September call-ups and learning what our winter plan will be. I'm not looking forward to the Sox-less playoffs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Saw the B-52's tonight (with Berlin and OMD). Great show, but I had to watch tonight's game by fast forwarding some of it. I rarely do that. I was surprised Eovaldi came out for the 4th inning. Nice belt by Holt. Workman is showing us he is for real. Too bad he had no help in the pen. Fun night- all around.

True, but the guy is a career .236 hitter, so it's not like he's much different with bases loaded. Did you know this? JBJ's career OPS is.725, but he is. (career)... .812 w RISP .806 w 2 out & RISP .782 with men on base .692 bases loaded

8 in the loss column to the A's. The towel has been thrown in. No moves at the deadline with $3-4M to spare was the signal.

The casual fan should not be using WAR, if they don't know what it means. Both Piersall and Jensen gave the same total value to their team, but over way different lengths of time. I'll ask you if you think this was fair: When Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's HT record, did the casual fan know or care about the fact that he had over 3,300 more PAs than the Babe? What a rip off that HR stat is! Only brainiacs can figure it all out! Red Sox fans know how great Ted Williams was, and some of us have gone back and looked over his numbers and wondered where he'd be on the all time charts had he not enetered the service twice in his glorious career. We can figure he was a lot better than his cumulative numbers placed him. We do it all the time. Maybe the casual fan does not, and there's nothing wrong with that, but maybe it's easier to look at HRs and OPS and PAs and try to figure it all out. We can look at career HR/PA, and stats like OPS are in some ways PA independent when sample sizes are large enough or somewhat similar when comparing a players full career vs another, but when there is a significant difference, one should weigh that value accordingly and depending on what sort of value yo want to determine. A casual fan might look at Moreland's OPS this year and say he's having a great year. Most Sox fans know he killed us by being out so long, and that he mostly just a platoon player. His numbers vs LHPs and his proneness to injury was a major reason we signed Pearce instead of a RP'er, but I digress. All stats and metrics are flawed.Nobody has said otherwise. WAR is for measuring something different from OPS or HRs or wRC+ of UZR/150. It tries to add a bunch of stuff together and say how mush value a player gave his team. Some of that value is from playing more than others or most players. Some is from doing great, sometimes in much fewer PAs or IP'd. It's not perfect, but neither is any other single stat or metric or something like OPS.

WAR is not necessarily intended to mean who is the better player. Take Porcello, for an example, I know he is not as good as other pitchers, but his WAR is higher because he gives innings- way more than some. Giving innings has value, especially when you give them year after year. WAR does not say Porcello is better per inning or game. Not understanding what WAR is or what its uses are is what the problem is. If I told you Marco was a better offensive player than Beni this year, because he has a higher OPS, you'd immediately bring up the PA disparity, and rightly so. Beni is worth more, because he plays more. .817 over 528 PAs is worth way more than .820 over 85 PAs. WAR works in a similar way. More games and innings have value as long as you are plus. That doesn't necessarily mean you are better. Maybe had Marco his .820 over 520 PAs, we could say he was better. What about 500? 450? We always have to look at more than one stat of metric to get the true value. WAR tries to measure the total value a player produced over a set time. Yes, it's affected by who plays next to him on defense. It's not perfect. Yes, it's affected by innings pitched or PAs disparities, but it is measuring total value not who is better per AB or PA or IP or batter faced. It's not meant for measuring that, but it seems like some think that is what it is trying to determine.

Nothing odd here to me.

While you are right about .950 not being what it used to be, it's still worth a lot, and he may end up over 1.000 again. I don't disagree with your point, though.

I rarely use WAR, but it has value in a way OPS does not. I don't always list ABs when I give Marco's OPS, but maybe I should. His lack of ABs makes his OPS mean much less, and people know it without me pointing out the low ABS. Why not expect people to think the same way with WAR?

Playing more has value and if you know one player has played way more you can figure out that a player might be better when he plays vs someone with a higher WAR. Not knowing what WAR is measuring is a problem for those who dislike it.

True, but WAR is also a product or playing a lot. Here are some 2019 WAR numbers with their PAs listed: 2.6 Buxton 295 1.7 Margot 343 1.3 Dyson 370 0.9 JBJ 461 0.3 Hamilton 309 -0.6 Martin 264 (fangraphs had his value at $19.6M in 2018.) -0.6 Broxton 216 (fangraphs: $27.9M previous 3 yrs)

Reset or not, I think Sox management will decide not to pay $10+M for JBJ's services, next year. I'm not sure if we will be trade him or non tender him, but I doubt we keep him, unless it's by non tendering him and then signing him for less than the arb would have been.

For argument's sake, let's say all the Sox scouts agree that Billy Hamilton is a better defender than JBJ. Let's also say he will sign for $2.5M next year with us and JBJ would win a $10.5M arb this winter, if given the chance. Would you pay JBJ $8M more for the probable .100 better OPS? Does a .100 better OPS cancel out the better D by Hamilton,let alone the $8M that could help us obtain a decent pitcher or two? (Note: Ottavino went for $9M x 3 years.) OPS Comp: JBJ: .728 in 2019 and .723 the last 3 years. Hamilton: .543 in 2019 and .613 the last 3 years. Jarrod Dyson .686 in 2019 and .647 the last 3 years. Leonys Martin .619 in 2019 and .659 the last 3 years. Juan Lagares .581 in 2019 and .641 the last 3 years. My guess is there are more- maybe some unknown defensive whiz in AAA that is currently blocked.

Okay, cross those two off the list, although Inciarte's $6.1M tax hit is still $4M less than JBJ's. I'm not an expert on other team's players, but I'm pretty sure all glove CF'ers are out there for the taking.

He'll probably go 2-3 innings depending on the pitch count and results. Just my guess.