notin

No stat for the swing? True. That is why observations like that go unchallenged. Or go challenged by someone with dissimilar observations. Defense? There are a lot of stats for that.

Absolutely no way the Marlins deal Barraclaugh for Swihart. They also won't deal Streckenrider. Ziegler? Probably. Tazawa? Sure. Hes already halfway gone anyway. Really outside of a chance to dump salary, not sure why the Marlins would want Swihart. They already have a catcher much closer to being a "Future Fisk" than Swihart...

I'm 100% certain WAR is still more reliable than eye test when it comes to evaluating defense...

Moo I am fairly certain no one has ever used WAR or any other stat to dispute swing mechanics. Especially when discussing defense. I've listed several flaws with eye test defense. What are the flaws you find with WAR?

.. deleted post

Or a sac fly. Neither Betts nor Benintendi have a comparable arm...

Pass on Colon. The Sox need pitching depth, not pitching width...

That's really the bigest reason. For all the complaining that Bradley or Bradley and Vazquez are costing this team wins, you'd think the Sox had won a lot less than 68% of their games...

Not every slump can be coached out of. and plate disciline is especially tough. If a player doesn't have it by the time he reaches MLB, he isn't very likely to ever get it. Many players have tried to improve their plate discipline at this stage. Most of them simply wind up taking more pitches, which not only isn't the same, but can also be very detrimental to the hitter...

Hanley might play less of Bradley were hitting better. But Moreland can only sub for one of them at a time...

Absolutely nothing wrong with RBI. I don't consider it a skill for an individual player, but certainly leading the league can get a player consideration for MVP...

Why would we need to be offended by the catcher?

But are they more reliable than the eye test? The entire crux of your argument about WAR is that it is flawed. Are you saying the eye test isn't?

But are they more reliable than the eye test? The entire crux of your argument about WAR is that it is flawed. Are you saying the eye test isn't?

1. WAR does use the "eye test" but against a standard. Many many fans advocate the Eye Test, but not one I have ever heard of has any sort of standard. In fact, too often the eye test degenerates into "I saw that guy make a couple errors once." Sometimes, it just evolves into the Reputation Test, where you hear a guy is an excellent defender so if he does nothing wrong when you watch him, hey, it must be true. 2. Using your instincts leaves you with quantifiable opinions, right? If I asked you who is the best defensive CF, you might say Bradley or Pillar or Buxton or Cain or some other candidate. What would you say if I asked you to support that opinion? Even i I asked you to support Benentendi/Bradley/Betts OF over Martinez/Benintendi/Betts OF, how would you support the opinion - probably shared by many including me - that it was better? This isn't an attack on you or anyone. It's the nature of what we see when watching games and how we all watch them given the massive imbalances in the players we see. 3. WAR most definitely has flaws, but it still is absolutely more encompassing than we are fans are able to achieve by watching games. Especially watching games on TV, where you don't have any option on what part of the play you watch. I see plenty of people talk about the jump an outfielder gets on flyballs - good or bad. That type of evaluation - important for defense - is something you rarely if ever can see from a televised game. 4. In the past, you have often said WAR has too many moving parts, and any system that has more moving parts is more likely to break down. Maybe true, But look around your house. I bet you have a car and not a horse. I bet you have a washing machine and not a washboard. I bet you have a refrigerator and not an icehouse. I bet you have an oven and not a rotatiing spit over a flame pit. I bet you have an air conditioner and not a hand-held fan. Every device I mentioned has more moving parts than predecessor I compared it to. Every device I mentioned is more likely to break down than its predecessor. Yet they all have another thing in common - they all work better than their predecessor, too.

It does seem like to take every opportunity to undermine it...

It doesn't. Do you know a stats that does?

There was a time when it was 7IP, 3 or fewer ER, I believe...

Patience is a must. But on the other hand, Bradley is 5 for his last 56. Give me 56 at-bats against MLB pitching and I can come within 5 hits of that total. Even the struggling Vazquez has over twice as many hits in his last 56 at bats...

DEfense is like that. You have said - and while I don't disagree - that the Sox outfield defense is better with Bradley in CF. But how do you quantify that? What is the margin of error?

Plus he blocked a knuckleball in the dirt!!!

And for what it is worth, Fangraphs has Betts with 3.6 WAR and Trout with 3.3. Citing wither player as the "greatest of all time" for bWAR or fWAR or anything like that is a little silly, given the complete lack of defensive data on players like Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb..

That's a big part of it. Defensively, center field is considered more important than RF so it has a bigger input on the defensive factors in WAR, which were not accounted for in the OP. Don't forget, WAR is for Wins Above Replacement at your position. So if the Replacement Level CF is starting from a higher baseline, the numbers are not apples to apples when comparing CF to RF...

An unproven commodity? That's not what that testimonial from Natick to NC said...

Neither title is correct. Dombrowski is the President of Baseball Operations for the Red Sox Cherington is the Vice President of Baseball Operations for the Blue Jays