S5Dewey

I can certainly support WAR being changed to WAG.

But the fact remains that we had this very conversation about Lester. "Let's let him walk, and resign him next year". And it worked out about like I thought it would. Do we really think it's going to work out better with Mookie? I very much believe that if he leaves he's gone for good. Also, the argument can be made that it could have been 2-0 Sox if we'd been able to resign Lester.

Ah! But the rub here is that we've been conditioned to believe NUMBERS when we see them. We've been told that 2>1 so when we see a 2 we automatically assume that its value is greater than something (or someone) with a value of 1. Notin has talked a lot about bias and there is a strong numbers bias to assume that a player with a WAR of 6 is more valuable than another player with a value of 5. (And I use 6 & 5 because Fangraphs has said that a player with a WAR of 6 may be no better or worse than a player of 5). And that doesn't begin to get into one of my pet peeves that there is more than one entity calculating WAR - and they come up with a different result! [i know. They use different formulas. So how do different entities use different formulas and then each of the pass their results off as being "right" by using the same term??? There's only one way to calculate BA, OPS, SLG, WHIP, ERA, etc., etc. and it's accepted. But for some reason WAR is different. They can calculate it any way they want to and say it's a player's WAR. Which one are we supposed to have faith in???

I can appreciate wanting some all-encompassing number that quantifies every player. I just think it's too ambitious and there are too many variables to do it accurately. I found in my playing/coaching that different players bring different strengths to the team. I don't think it's fair to say that Player A is "better" (a/k/a has a higher WAR) than Player B just because Player A hit for a higher average even though Player B hit more HR's.

Where did I say that? I don't think WAR is the only stat that has flaws. In fact, I think one can find flaws in nearly every stat if they want to dig deeply enough and be picky enough. I just happen to think that 1) They're more egregious in WAR, and 2) Fans put too much stock in WAR, possibly because they think anything that all-encompassing MUST be right.

Isn't this the same conversation we had about Jon Lester? And that worked out about as well as I thought it would.

My post was made after JDM declined his option and with the intention of keeping as much of the OF together as possible, i.e. keeping Mookie OR JBJ and staying under the tax threshold. And the fact that I'd consider it unethical to trade JDM after he just indicated that he just declined his option to leave. As I said in another post a few days go, we can keep JDM and JBJ for about the same thing it will cost us to keep just Mookie. IMO JDM + JBJ > Mookie Betts.

^^ In the running for Understatement of the Week^^

I know they have the right to sign & then trade (or in this case say or imply that they weren't going to trade JDM) but it seems unethical to me. I would think that a team's doing this would make players look askance at any deal with that team in the future. I'm still smarting from what the FO did to Bronson Arroyo - he took a hometown discount to stay with the Sox and they immediately traded him.

Ya. I invested a significant amount of money in two Betts jerseys for my (growing) granddaughter. What was I thinking?? LOL

I wasn't thinking about any player or players when I posted that. I was thinking more about trying to make JDM happy by making him more a part of the defense and at the same time inserting another bat into the order. Which IMO should have happened last year. As a 'kicker' it would also keep him in the order against NL teams without weakening our defensive outfield.

Since I asked first you should answer first.... Is there a point where all the 'flaws' in WAR significantly diminish its value?

I'd like to think that option was discussed with JDM before he opted in.

This only works if they do what they should have done a year ago: Give JDM a 1st baseman's glove and tell him to learn to use it in the off season. This is a win-win situation. JDM wants to be more involved in the defense, the Sox don't have a real 1B-man going into 2020 and the Sox want to keep his bat in the order. Pick up a good cheap DH to replace Mookie's offense and we're good to go. Except for that pitching 'thing'. Ugh.

I see this as being the least likely scenario now. If the Sox are looking to cut payroll and look to the future at the same time now is the time to part with Mookie. While keeping "a pretty good offense" is undoubtedly important at the same time so is keeping a pretty good defense. Now that JDM has opted in the Sox have a choice to make. - Divesting themselves of both JBJ & & Mookie will decimate the outfield. Given the propensity for launch angle & the Manfred Missile this may not be a wise choice for a team that has any ideas of being a contender. - Keeping Mookie and letting JBJ go may be the best option but it's also the most expensive one. - Keeping JBJ and letting Mookie go is less expensive but we lose Mookie's offense. Defensively, it's already been established that we can replace Mookie's defense because MLB is loaded with great glove - no hit outfielders who can be signed for chicken feed. So the net loss is his offense. Is Mookie's offense worth his salary? - JBJ's arb salary + JDM's salary will about equal what it will cost to keep Mookie. The choice is pretty clear if the team wants to be somewhat competitive in 2020 and yet cut salary: Mookie has to go.

A team killer? Is he now getting the blame for the 2019 season? If you're going to do that are you also prepared to give him the same amount of "blame" for 2018? There are two ways for a team to outscore another team. They can do it by scoring a lot of runs or they can do it by preventing the other team from scoring a lot of runs. JBJ was very adept at keeping the opponent from scoring a lot of runs but some people want to forget that aspect of winning because he's streaky with his bat.

That's what I'm thinking too. And from a selfish viewpoint trading Mookie makes it more palatable (and smarter) to keep JBJ.

Looks like Notin nailed it!

Don't answer a question with a question.

Then... with Benintendi's playing LF and the short (but tall) wall there impacting his DWAR, JBJ's playing CF and his DWAR being impacted by his playing beside Mookie, and Mookie's playing RF and his DWAR being impacted bythe fact that he's playing beside JBJ + the size and odd angles in RF in Fenway park..... at what point to these player's DWAR's become essentially meaningless?

Yep! Surprised? The more I hear about it the less faith I have in it... and I didn't have a hell of a lot to start! LOL

True enough, but UZR and Range Factor both measure the same thing. AFAIK Range Factor is part of the WAR calculation but UZR isn't, but a rose by any other name....

So is Benintendi with his 1.7 WAR a better or worse player than JBJ with his 2.0 WAR ? Or can't we say because they play different positions?

You forgot something. He also left behind a flag for the next guy - and the fans - to look at every day when they go to the park.