moonslav59

It matters not. We pay HRam anyways, so who cares if Travis ends up better.

No, because we can easily trade scraps for someone like Moreland, if HRam fails or gets hurt.

Subtract a $6.5M RP'er or SP'er we could have signed, instead of Moreland.

Travis is replacement level at best. Moreland is not $6.5M better than HRam.

That seems strange, but I guess the team taking him is the one that gives him 495 PAs and the vest, so it makes some sense. All the more reason to trade him. All the more reason for another team not to want him and face a grievance, if they deny him 495.

So, it's worth paying Moreland $35M/2 vs HRam $22M/1? or Moreland $57M/2 vs HRam $44M/2?

Thing is, we're paying HRam already- Moreland was a choice. We didn't need both, unless we are not signing JD.

Yes. it's obvious HRam is better.

Not, if he vests with his next team.

Please, no Hosmer comps. I hated Hoze. Yes, I'd take 2 Morelands over 1 Hoze, but that was not our only choices. I'd much prefer this: 1B- HRam (If he gets hurt, we save the vest and signa 1Bman mid season. DH- JD (saving $13M by not signing Moreland) OF- as is

The league CF OPS was .760 this year after being at .732 and .734 in the previous two seasons. While JBJ fell short this year (.732), he was about a hundred points better in 2015 (.832) and 2016 (.835). Again, at worst he is an average hitting CF'er, but he's a top defender and a plus base runner.

I agree 100%. That's why signing Moreland looks very puzzling, to me.

And yet we use it like it has value. If someone wants to just use one number to shorten an argument or post, then WAR is probably the best available-- flaws and all.

Since JBJ and Bogey play two different positions, I'm not overly concerned about wide dependencies. Yes, these two examples highlight the flaws. There certainly are some, but to me, the attempt is noble, and the results are strikingly accurate for ranking players by position. To me, the WAR rankings are a better reflection of who is actually better than others at a specific position than any traditional stat or group of stats can convey. Plus, it's time-consuming and difficult to compile 5 different traditional lists (say maybe OBP, SLG, Fldg%, SBs and HRs, then give some lists more weight than others and try to sort out who is the best "OVERALL" player at any given position. With certain flaws and seemingly obvious mistakes, WAR does a damn good job at working everything out, IMO.

The real question is, "Is Moreland better than HRam?"

We have a $22M DH who could have played 1B. If we really are serious about getting JD, we're "boxed" into having to trade JBJ or dumping HRam... all so we could bring back Moreland. YUCK!

I can see him getting 5, because most teams will offer just a little more for the 6th year. Maybe the Sox offer $28M x 4 and he takes it over $25M x 5 offered by someone else- not yet named.

Of course everyone digs for numbers to support their position, but to me some vary their criteria much more than others. Guys like harmony catch a lot of grief, but he sticks to one criteria (WAR/projected WAR) for everybody. Yes, he may cherry pick the sample size, but he's much more consistent than others. I think people that know me, knows I rarely use small sample sizes, and when I do I actually state "small sample size alert". I have been pretty consistent with this criteria: I use OPS for offense and UZR/150 for defense more than I use WAR. I use 3 year sample sizes much more than 1 or 2 year sample sizes, although I do go to 4 years, if the player in question had a low PA season within the last 3 years. I try to use a significant sample size of PAs or IP to create a group of players that makes sense-- like the top 30 everyday player at a given position or the top 150 starting pitchers (5 starters x 30 teams). Occasionally, I will use a 2 year sample size, if I feel the 3rd year should not be counted due to an injury or a rookie season of futility. I guess, when I do this, one could argue "cherry-picking", but I do try to stay consistent with my criteria of judgement. For pitchers, I use ERA- not ERA, WHIP, especially for RP'ers and OPS against. I do not count K% as much as others, and so I discount xFIP and related metrics to some extent. I avoid Fldg%, BA, RBIs and W-Ls. i always have.

I don't think anyone claims WAR or UZR/150 are flawless. The same can be said about using just traditional numbers to compare the best players or attempt to rank them. WAR and UZR/150 are just two of many tools to aid fans who do not have the time to watch and evaluate every play of every MLB game.

He falls to the last guy standing for peanuts (compared to early winter projections).

DD boxed himself into this corner by signing Moreland. HRAM could have played 1B with JD at DH. IF HRam got hurt or sucked, we could have traded for a 1Bman easily. It's the simplest trade in MLB.

He's the best defensive CF'er I've ever seen in a Sox uniform. Fred Lynn is a close second before he crashed into the wall.

JBJ is also one of the best baserunners on the team.

9th 794 times 6th 368 8th 302 7th 289 5th 165 7-9th 71% of his career. He has not been our 6th hitter very much (19%). He hit 7-9th 83% of the time in 2017.

BTW... I am very consistent with my criteria for judgement. I may cherry pick at times, but my history shows I do not value recent season as much as others and I like to use the previous 3 year sample size and then lower the PAs to the point where the sample size is 30 players, since there are 30 teams. (At times, I will go back 4 years, if one season was greatly affected by an injury.) Saying someone is 8th best out of 14 says very little, when there are 30 CF'ers in MLB. Is the 14th out of 14 CF'er the worst in MLB? I seriously doubt it. He was good enough to play more than at least 16 other CF'ers. A sample size of 1000 PAs is large enough to flesh things out and rank players by the true factor: 30. Yes, JBJ is streaky. If someone wants to say he's only as good as 2017 or 2014, fine, but one could say that is cherry-picking, too. I guarantee no GM looks at just a player's recent 1 season sample size. Every GM would love to have JBJ on his roster, especially at his low cost. I never said he was "great". I claimed he was close to top 3rd and had value. There's a huge difference. Change the sample size to 2014-2017 and all that "qualify. JBJ ranks... 20th out of 42 in CF OPS (.732) 4th out of 13 in UZR/150 (+9.8) and 39 DRS (9th out 38, if you go by 1500+ innings) So, basically, he's an average hitting CF'er and a top 3rd defender at a very key position in baseball. To say that has little or no value is illogical.