moonslav59

The problem with the "eye test" is not because it is not stat based. To me, the problem is that no one person observes every play of every player being compared. Sample sizes of non Sox player observations are too small for any definitive comparative evaluation. Although I try like hell to not be biased when I observe our own players and compare them to our opponents' players in any given game or in the totality of all games I watch, I know that bias has to creep into my final judgement based on observations alone. I know many people think I look at the numbers more than the game, or that I let the numbers form my opinions, that's not actually true most of the time. Usually, I observe something, formulate my opinion, and then check if the data supports my opinion. When it does not, I try to observe more closely and see if the data appears wrong to me or if perhaps my initial observations were faulty. For example, when Ellsbury first came up, I thought he was a great fielder. I was shocked to see his numbers did not support my opinion. I started watching more closely and realized he often got late breaks, took wrong angles and as I always knew, had a noddle for an arm. I then started arguing against posters who I used to be on their side with. Then, as time went by, Ellsbury actually started improving, and I had to change my opinion again based on my observations and the data. (In my opinion, he never became a significant plus on defense, although some data said he was.) Now, back to observations. We both love defense, and I respect you for that and also your opinions that I do not always agree with. I have no issues with anyone saying, "JBJ is a great OF'er" based on what you see and no data what so ever. To me, the problem arises when someone wants to say JBJ is top 5 or 10 or 15 based on just personal observations. I just don't think that opinion is valid, even if that person might watch a lot of games without the Sox playing in them. I don't think that someone using data to say that JBJ is just the 10th or 14th best CF'er in MLB necessarily negates personal observations that indicate he is great. There very well might be 15 great defensive OF'ers in MLB today, and there is a chance JBJ is somewhere between the 10th and 15th best. In my heart, I don't think that's true, but I have seen a lot of great defensive OF'ers in games vs the Sox, and the assorted numbers seem to show JBJ is somewhere between 8th best and 14th best over a large enough sample size of 2-4 years. I'm okay with that. It doesn't bother me that the data looks a little off. It just makes me look more closely, or maybe think the data might be a little skewed, although not enough to render them useless. To me, UZR/150, DRS and the Fielding Bible are all vastly superior to Flg%, RF/9, CS% and all the other old data we used to use to supplement our opinions. They are all not perfect, but they are based on something one person cannot do: they are based on human observations of every play in every MLB game. Yes, bias can play a factor in this data. Yes, how the data is weighted and formulated might be somewhat flawed. Yes, it should never be used to definitively value a player with no arguments allowed. I apologize, if I have ever used data in a way that makes someone knowledgeable of the game feel like their opinion is not valued or respected. I know I throw numbers around in ways that may be taken as obliterating someone else's point of view, but I do not intend to come across like that. We all know a good player when we see one. The eye test is not without value. The tough part comes when we try to compare a player to others we barely watch.

Even assuming Pedey never gets back to 100%, he should be a vastly superior fielder than the hobbled Nunez and a healthy Nunez by a lesser degree. Replacing Nunez with Pedey should improve the offense AND the defense- something the JBJ situation does not do. The other plus is that now Nunez replaces Swihart on the bench. That could be a huge upgrade, if Nunez gets his s*** together, or gets a chance to rest and build up his health.

Or, if HRam keeps getting on base at a .225 clip, we play JBJ anyways, and HRam does not vest.

Yes, but mostly we are hearing about JBJ & Vaz. People have quieted down on Leon thanks to a tiny sample size of recent success.

I'm thinking we should start sitting HRam more often, and if that means JBJ gets more playing time than recently, so be it.

Well, thanks to some HBPs and BBs, JBJ has gotten on base more than HRam over the last 14 days: . OBP .280 JBJ .267 Nunez .224 HRam .224 Devers .194 Vaz

Single A player with a long shot hope of amounting to something. I'd rather keep him, but if he'snever going to get a shot at playing, we should just rip the band aid off and get the best we can for him. When Pedey comes back, if Nunez isn't going to the DL, and JBJ's not going to AAA, then say bye-bye to Swihart.

We're not getting squat for Swihart for the same reason he's not even playing for a coach known for using his bench to the max.

Welcome, Charlie.

Can you give another example of someone bashing one of your observations. The one you gave seems spot on and probably can be backed up with data.

Lat 14 days OBP (25+ PAs) .444 Betts .443 Beni .400 JD .400 Leon .364 Moreland .294 Bogey .280 JBJ .267 Nunez .224 HRam .224 Devers .194 Vaz

True, and not that we are near the lead in runs scored, suddenly, it's a problem.

I guess that's better than may 1st or earlier. Here's a look at 1st half-second half splits, which is waiting until after Memorial Day: 1st half/ second half 841>754 Betts 803>745 Beni 806>671 Bogey 793>736 Moreland 794>694 HRam 853>579 JBJ 660>812 Vaz Maybe JBJ flips the splits this year: maybe not. It looks to me, like not many players are consistent from 1st to 2nd half. If we traded or DFA'd everyone for having a bad 2-3 months, we might not have anyone left on the roster.

Agreed. BTW, I'm not all that worried about JBJ, Vaz or Nunez right now. Ask me again at the end of June.

JBJ looks bad right now, but he looked bad all the other years during his cold streaks. What makes this year feel different?

Swihart & Johnson for Bartolo Colon.

No it doesn't. "This" says what he has done in his recent past, and short sample sizes of past performances does not work as a good projection model.

First of all, 4.0 is not worth "almost" 4.6. 4.6 is 15% higher than 4.0. Second of all, defense and base running factors into WAR. Machado and JD are both negative on defense. Helpful hint, if you can't fathom WAR, then don't use it or pay any attention to it.

When two (or three) different sources give differing values for WAR for a player saying "It's better than anything else", that's a pretty low bar. As you said, every calculation that gets put into WAR is flawed in one way or another so I'll ask it again. When does it become "garbage in, garbage out"? I guess that's a personal decision. My opinion is this: while the numbers fed into the system may be imperfect, they are not garbage. When the sample sizes are large enough, most things have a way of evening out, such as bad scorer decisions, strength of opponent and other factors. All I'm saying is that WAR represents the best number I know of that shows a players overall value and not just hitting, power, defense, running and more... I'm sure teams have their own formulas, and my guess would be that their results would be pretty close to WAR, in terms of comparative player value. If you are the type of person that thinks this is not possible or not something you even want, even if "perfect", then WAR would be worth 'absolutely nothing!" To me, it has value, but it is not the be-all-end-all.

I'm not saying this proves WAR is right, but to me, it proves it's more "right" than any other single number used to compare player value. Can you give me another single number stat that does a better job at showing a player's total value? I get the argument that even trying to get to a single number is a futile endeavor, so if you feel that way, fine. It's flawed. I get it. So is BA, OBP and Flg%. Eye test is fine but not for comparative analysis.

I think only a very select few treat WAR as the gospel. I know I don't, and I'm widely considered a "numbers guy." When we have water cooler discussions about who is best or better, we often throw around flawed stats and data that support our positions. We might minimize defense or base running, or maximize the power tool, or go to RBI or clutch stats to try and tip the balance our way. All WAR does is try, and I don't use the word "try" lightly, to combine all areas by weighing their importance and creating a simple one number to value players. I think WAR is just the starting point to any debate on who is better or best. Others who like WAR may view it differently.

We can argue semantics all day, but I'd say no. It is more flawed than WAR, since it clearly weights SLG as being equal to OBP, and it isn't. It also duplicates the same values for somethings but not others. BTW, I have no issues with calling all these numbers stats, but I don't view WAR as one, since too much opinion goes into the weighting of the formula.

JBJ has almost always had a hot streak or tow that brings his season OPS to a respectable level. I see no reason to not expect it to happen again. Of course, it may not, but the odds favor it happening vs it not happening. Those who believe he will end up being below .600 on the season are being pessimists.

Apparently, he's seen him play a couple times and knows for a fact, he can hit way better than Vaz & Leon.