notin

I would counter by saying it hasn't even been implied. Most of these WAR arguments start with someone saying how useless the new statistics are because they don't agree with them for one reason or another, including this very thread. Some do start with other logic, such as when people were angry omit the omission of Bradley from the Gold Glove, and UZR and dWAR were brought into it. But the arguments against Bradley for Gold Glove all had the same flaw that had NOTHING to do with sabermetrics or advanced stats - none of us had seen enough of the other candidates to refute their nominations. The problem is, the non-sabermetric crowd to me appears to be taking the stance "I don't like these new stats because they don't always agree with what I see." And they ignore the obvious reason for that - because they see more. Many of them are based on floating baselines of replacement level or league average. But rather than taking the opportunity to enhance the appreciation of the subtleties of the game that they can capture with their own eyes, or look at certain aspects of the game in a new way, or using them to decide to explore seeing other players (Andrelton Simmons became a must-see for me after I saw how he was destroying MLB with defensive metrics, and wow. The man does not disappoint.), it instead turns into a giant pissing match with a bunch of fans deciding they know more than the stats and stats guys, and already have their pants down, rulers out., with their high school baseball war stories at the ready to back them up. And heresy to anyone who dare try and bring up these new-fangled numbers. Their very existence is a personal insult to my expertise!! And oh my God, try and explain some of these advantages of new stats over traditional stats and over eye test. I think Galileo had an easier time with heliocentricity. The Backfire Effect in full force...

Really another longshot might be Devers gets demoted. As much as we have made of Bradley's (4 for his last 56) struggles, Devers' slump (8 for his last 57) is fairly comparable. Both players have options. And Devers has been less of a defenisve contributor. I doubt it happens, but it certainly is an option. Of course, if Nunez is still somewhat gimpy, placing him on the DL is certainly the frontrunner. Unless someone else gets more seriously hurt between now and Pedroia's return...

Well by using that logic, shouldn't "Pedroia gets traded" be on your list?

Yes. Because I never posted there

Possible, although I think less likely. Especially less likely than Nunez going on the DL, which allows the Sox to keep everyone for a while and not deplete any depth. (The only reason they might is because Swihart demanded a trade.) Of course, Nunez to the DL is a temporary solution. At some poiint, they are going to activate him.

Why would the Sox need a DH? Is JD Martinez going to retire? If Hanley struggles, Moreland plays more. Seems pretty simple to me...

Ranked in order of likelhood (my opinion) 2, 1, 3, 4.

I started posting on ESPN.com. When I moved to the midwest and, before I was able to get Sox broadcasts, I used to listen to the online stream from WEEI. But I noticed I was able to get game updates faster from the message boards at ESPN. So I joined and eventually stating posting. However, there was no bigger shitshow on the internet than a message board at ESPN.com, with the possible exception of Yahoo (where I have never posted). I registered for Sons of Sam Horn and SawxTalk, but never posted on either site. BDC was nice when I joined because it was largely baseball talk all year long. The only moniker I have ever used on any of these sites was "notin" (except for a brief time on BDC when notin wasn't working and I used "niton"). I don't even remember why I chose it, beyond being able to get it without using any numbers. The combination of letters means nothing to me. I do recall not being able to get the moniker on either SawxTalk or SOSH, which might be why I never posted there...

Yeah but you had to love that pop fly hit by Ortiz that he caught in shallow LF from the shift. Even though it hurt the Sox, it was a thing of beauty. But yes, he did make a key error in the 9th inning that lead to Saltalamacchia completing the comeback win...

Traditional stats for fielding are essentially useless. It's basically errors and fielding percentage. Even the early advanced stats for fielding, like Range Factor, were just extensions of these stats and turned out to be useless unless you were comparing two players on the same team. Baserunning was limited to what? Stolen bases? There is A LOT more to baserunning that than. That's like rating cars solely based on radio reception...

I'd never even heard of talksox unitl BDC decided to close their forums. This and freeforum were the two that were recommended. I tried that other forum for a while, but it was so frustrating...

Valentine was absolutely the wrong guy in 2012. His no-nonsense attitude was such a horrible fit for a team that had a complete break down and collapse, reportedly due to re-scheduling disagreements with upper management. He basically had the same roster that dominated most of 2011, but the team went absolutely nowhere right out of the gate, and, while I can't quantify Valentine's attitude in there so easily, I do recall questioning some of the horrible decisions he was making. Cherington broke up that team in August and somehow managed to rebuild a winner that took the title a mere 14 months later...

Upgrading over any player would be a good thing. But the problem is the limited ability of the Sox to do so. There are plenty of defense-oriented catchers out there who could be available for the right price, but can the Sox afford it? Our prospect depth is almost non-existent. Realmuto, for example, is the best one who is likely to be moved. But the Marlins will only do so if they are overwhelmed. (Reportedly, they asked for both Vistor Robles and Juan Soto from Washington, two of the best prospects in the game.) Sam Travis is only worth so much on the trade market.

And if they continue to win and stay with NY, there is no reason to rush him.

And Stephen Drew was brilliant defensively in that series as well.

I have said the eye test is invalid when we use it to make comparative statements, like "Bradley is the best defensive CF in the game today" or something similar. Remember when a lot of people on this board griped when he was not nominated for a Gold Glove? Well, how often did any of them see Buxton or Cain play? How can any of us know Bradley was more worthy of Buxton and Cain when we rarely saw them? I also have said televised games are not really conducive to eye test because we are limited by what the director shows us. We never see the breaks outfielders get on balls, for example. But that doesn't invalidate it completely, and not the same as taking both sides of the fence in the issue. For example, UZR is calculated by people watching every play by every CF and scoring them accordingly. That's a form of the eye test, but done so taking all players into account, taking pre-determined zones into account, and doing so without the same limitations we get when we watch a game on TV. You seem to repeatedly accuse people who disagree with you on the issue of being lesser fans and lesser educated on these matters than yourself. "Go back to doing your taxes." Really? Despite your repeated accusations that I am nothing but a stats guy, you'd probably be hard-pressed to find any post I have ever made on the subject where I refuted observational data in lieu of advanced stats In fact, I have probably made more posts about defensive players I don't like (notably Holt, but a few others around MLB like Matt Holliday) who gets positive defensive ratings. Eye test is fine for observations about players. Eye test tells me Holt is completely clueless about taking throws from the outfield when trying to prevent a double. Eye test doesn't really work when I want to decide who is the better defensively from other teams. And eye test can't tell us anything about what happens when the camera is pointing elsewhere (except for with disciplined season ticket holders). Is that clear about how that is NOT both sides of the fence? Now let's talk about your "acceptance" of advanced stats? Beyond point out WAR is flawed, what other commentary have you made about it? Have you ever embraced it in any way? I only see you disputing it, for example when you questioned by Bradley was closer to the middle of the pack defensively?

The Astros, the organization every fan wishes their team ran like, just released former top prospect Jon Singleton. The Sox have released lesser prospects than Singleton and naturally, the team is accused of mismanaging and mishandling them and it's all the team's fault, etc. I have no idea about how they handle development of these players, making it difficult for me to criticize it. But I do know no prospect may have been mishandled more than Singleton, who was signed to a 5 year $10mill contract extension that culd have been worth up to $35 mill before he ever played a single game in MLB, a first for a minor leaguer. (Philadephia has since extended Scott Kingery to a bigger deal before his MLB debut.) Sometimes even the best prospects just don't pan out...

He has had some decent hitting stretches in the past in MLB. But that doesn't mean he can catch. When he was a rising prospect, I was hoping the Sox would move him to 3B. I do think he can be a league average hitter. But does that mean he should be playing the most difficult defensive position in the game, just because the players currently playing it are not hitting?

It's actually possible that Cora starts Bradley and Vazquez/Leon as often as the does because he values their defensive contributions. The rest of the team is hitting, but the rest of the team isn't fielding...

On BDC, there were posters who used to think Francona was not a good manager because they only won two titles under him. That's ridiculous. There absolutely were plenty of talented teams. The Yankees won 101 games in 2004. Was Francona supposed to stop them from doing that?

I hope not. I think it moves Holt to the bench and Pedroia to 2B as an easy switch. The options to make room for Pedroia are Bradley (or Holt) to Pawtucket, Nunez to DL, or Swihart to another team. The latter two strike me as more likely...

Hanley was terrific in April, but he has slowed down considerably. The Sox best all around lineup right now probably has Moreland at 1B, Bradley in CF and Martinez at DH. (And Holt at 2B, which seems odd for me to say.) At least against RHP, that is the best one.

He doesn't have to be "above average". He just has to be the best option on another team. The average OPS for an OF in MLB is .733. While better than the average OPS for a catcher (.686), the bar to start for a team might not be as high as you think. And Swihart has a very good arm capable of playing in RF. He'll have an easier time learning that position than the rigorous demands of catching. Swihart might represent an upgrade in RF for teams like the Orioles (where OF defense goes to die), the White Sox, the Twins, the Marlins, and the Rays. The Orioles, White Sox, and Marlins can take a low risk chance on him right now. What's he going to do? Ruin their season? (The White Sox should have cleared the path last off-season when Avisail Garcia had his career year.) Even the Twins and Rays should consider it. Outside of the Rockies and Rangers and maybe the Nationals, what team should be taking a chance on him at catcher? He's not even getting one in Boston, where the offensive side of the game has been the worst in MLB. And if the Red Sox are not giving him a chance, doesn't that say anything about his play behind the plate?

He might get a trial someplace. But for how long? Even bad teams have other minor league options. Teams are moving towards more athletic catchers, and Swihart should qualify there. But at some point, you have to be good enough to stick. He's more likely to get a crack at a starting outfield job than catcher. There are twice as many corner OF positions on bad teams, and a lot of mediocrity currently manning them...

Bobby Valentine?