notin

Other than the fact that he wants out so he can sit on someone else's bench...

Interstingly, he seems to be striking people out at a greater rate than ever before. But he is also giving up more hits, walks and home runs. And doing so against NL lineups in a pretty big ballpark. I wouldn't want him, especially given the Sox payroll headroom...

Please link me to any post where that has been said.

The main problem is no one has ever said most of your counterarguments. I have never said the eye yest is no good because it isn't statistically based. I have said it is no good because it is incredibly subjective and nearly impossible for casual fans to use for comparisons. I have repeatedly said you can say Bradley is a good defender based onthe eye test, but you can't really say whether or not he is the best or second best based on the unequal amounts of data. My statement and yours are not the same at all. Really, you're putting words into everyone else's mouth on this. It's been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that fielding metrics involve the eye test, so it can't be completely invalid. It's never been "all stats and nothing else." We are posting on a thread entitled "WAR is the dumbest stat", on which several people, yourself included, tried to invalidate it. I have yet to see a thread entitled "The Eye Test Is Completely Worthless and Baseball is Stats and Stats Alone." Perhaps you can link me to it...

True, but it is also a different argument. There are no stats for hustle, either. But just because WAR or any other stat doesn't cover that does not invalidate the stats...

It really comes down to how you want to interpret it. Overall, absolutely not. This season, it certainly does look that way given his negative value. However, historically he has established himself as a solid major league regular and this one quarter season sample size doesn't mean he necessarily isn't.

Its also likely his presence in the field has prevented runs and preserved games. Probably just ss many as his batting has cost. The Sox are playing .680 baseball and among the best offenses in the league. Not likely they'd be doing much better with another hitter. Especially since their defense doesn't dazzle anyone by any measure...

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...