S5Dewey

Moon, I respect your thoughts and opinions probably more than anyone else's here but at times you tend to throw a little BS around in the way of obfuscating facts. You're right. UZR/150 is not WAR. However, UZR/150 or "Range Factor" or whatever else those trained observers or computer models want to call it is a prime factor in determining DWAR when then gets extended into WAR. In the case of JBJ, whose primary strength is his defense, his deflated UZR/150 makes a significant difference in his WAR and whether we want to admit it or not, nobody puts together a cognizant argument against WAR and therefore WAR is God. (I will never understand why, when baseball is comprised of offense and defense, OWAR + DWAR doesn't = WAR but that's a whole 'nother issue. Maybe that's too logical, but then again I thought math was logical.) Anyway, Of those five players you mentioned whose UZR/150 are better than JBJ's only two of them - Dyson @ 1.3 & Martin @ 0.1 have DWAR in the positive numbers while JBJ's deflated DWAR is 0.4 and his WAR is 2.0. Only one of them -Dyson - has a positive WAR, and he's behind Bradley! Dyson being the pick of the litter of those five earned $3.75M last year. Assuming he gets a raise to $5M from the Sox we've given up even more offense to save $5M. Is that enough to justify weakening ourselves up the middle? And that's IF we land Dyson. We can probably save even more money if we sign one of the others but you do tend to get what you pay for. Ugh. BTW, all WAR values are for 2019 I wholly admit to being (maybe too) optimistic at times but I'm still hanging my hat on the fact that while he's playing for someone else there are going to be some posters here saying, "How did we ever let that guy go ?"

Now, c'mon. We've been down that road and many of us have agreed that JBJ's DWAR is deflated because he plays next to Mookie which prevents JBJ from exercising his entire range. Something WAR doesn't seem to want to factor in, BTW.

Hey... that's ME you're talking about!

yes, but using that same rationale, so are you and I.

I have a question that someone probably knows the answer to right off the top of their head. Since this is an arb year for Bradley, is his salary subject to arbitration regardless of where he goes? Or does arbitration only apply to the team he's been with? IOW, if the Sox were to non-tender him OR trade him would the team that then signs him be subject to arbitrating his 2020 salary with him regardless of which team it is?

Total agreement. I just wanted to nip a bad idea in the bud.

I don't know where people get the idea that Benintendi is an option for CF. He's not. He can run around out there and catch a few balls but that doesn't make him a ML CF'er. The world is full of people who can run around out there and catch a few balls. What we need in center in Fenway is someone who can cover a lot of ground and catch a lot of fly balls - the same thing we need in Right Field. And Beni can't play either well.

While I'll plead guilty to thinking that you're a tad 'off the rails' at times you're spot on with this post. I would much rather have the banner flying forever than know that we had the best AAA team in baseball. Furthermore, even if the Sox finish 3rd or 4th in the next two years I'll never say that I wish we'd held onto some of the players we traded away because those trades are what created the WSC. Now, you can say... and some might.. that we overpaid in terms of prospects for some of those players but at the same time not offering as much as we did might also have kept us from acquiring them. I'll take that banner, thanks, rather than keep our AAA prospects and hope that we can win with them sometime in the future.

And why should he do that? If I'm in his shoes I say, "Why should I take less than I can get someplace else when the Red Sox don't think enough of me to even give me what an arbitrator says is fair?" When I was a boy my 'old man' and I would get into squabbles about rules that I thought at the time were unfair and he'd give me a wry smile and say, "You'll miss me when I'm gone." It's the same with JBJ. We'll miss his 140 games/year, his highlight reel catches and his OPS>.725 combined with his overall GG defense. But, as Tony Soprano said before he would shoot someone in the head, "Nothing personal. It's all about the business".

Then since we've done away with all these biases through computer modeling to determine DWAR, UZR, etc. it would also make sense to do away with the last bastion of biases by replacing umpires with robo-umps. All I'm asking for here is for people to be consistent. Either we want to do away with those biases or we don't, but it's a bit hypocritical to say that we want to use the technology for determining DWAR but not use it for balls/strikes, especially since we're already using it for umpiring in many situations. If we're going to use technology then let's use it. Let's not say, "Well, we'll ignore the biases for this but not for that."

To me it's all about basic beliefs. If you believe you don't want the human element involved in baseball then you've got to believe in robo-umps and UZR. If you want the human element involved then you believe in the 'eye test' - which is what every umpire uses in determining balls/strikes. And, in fact, the umpire's eye test has more influence on the outcome of the game than does UZR, WAR, or any other statistically derived number. Therefore if one believes in technology and statistics how can they believe that the umpire's "eye test" is more reliable than the technology? Basic beliefs.

Hahahahahaha I see what you did there!!

Oh no... I'm not going to get suckered into naming names. We all know who they are.

IMHO the whole dust-up regarding umpirings started about the time TV started using the pitch-zone technology. IMO MLB should go one of two ways with this. They should either: 1) Start using robo-umps for balls and strikes, recognizing that the technology is there to make accurate determinations. or 2) Prohibit TV from using the pitch-zone technology. The thing this technology has done is to rub the fan's noses in the fact that the umpires are too often wrong and too often have an impact on the game. This option will let us go back to arguing whether a certain pitch was a ball or a strike with out "proof". What's going on now is undermining the fan's confidence in the umpires and IMO that's not good for the game.

There's something going on here that I don't quite understand. Many of the same posters who want to preserve 'the human element' of umpiring and not use robo-umps are continually telling us how they want to get rid of the human element in determining defensive abilities by using trained observers and technology. Does that make any sense?

It looks like SOMEONE is planning the the Sox pitching staff coming around again!

It looks like we have three players who are 'on the bubble' for 2020. Mookie @ ~$30M JDM @ $22M JBJ @ $ ~10M JDM + JBJ ~ = Mookie in cost. Mookie is an asset both offensively and defensively. JDM is an asset offensively and a liability defensively JBJ is a liability offensively (I guess, although his numbers don't indicate it) and an asset defensively. So much for "You are what your numbers say you are", I guess. This whole thing should center on what JDM does in regards to opting out. If he opts out we should hold onto Mookie for another season because we're going to want both his offense and his defense, and let JBJ go. We don't want to replace both our CF'er and out RF'er.. .do we? Has anyone thought about what this would do to our great outfield??? Ask the pitching staff what they think of losing both Mookie and JBJ. If JDM wants to stay we keep JBJ and trade Mookie. We keep JDM's offense and JBJ's defense and continue to bury JBJ up near the bottom of the order. Both of those options cost about the same by reducing the payroll by ~$30M and they keep the team relatively competitive.

Oops. My bad. I'll correct mine then. It makes me think DD didn't really want to trade Mookie.

It makes me think DD didn't really want to trade JBJ.

Hmmm... this business of being a GM is getting easier all the time. All one has to do is look at the WAR of players (by position) and go after them in order of WAR. Then sign the highest WAR you can get at each position. The biggest responsibility of the GM will be organizing the parade!

IIRC we've had this discussion before (Pedey?) and while nobody seems to know for certain the consensus is that the Sox don't insure their players because the cost is prohibitive.

This is what I was saying weeks ago - that if they're going to have an outfield that's even adequate they need to keep either JBJ or Betts.

Thank you for pointing this out. It's what I've been thinking & alluding to all along. It's certainly JH's right to deconstruct this team - after all, he's the owner. However, he's deconstructing a team that's only a couple of pitchers comebacks away from another real run at a championship and trading it for a mediocre (at best) season. I'm in hopes that this new GM will put a different spin on 2020, that the Sox can make another run at it. If they're successful JH will reap the playoff profits. If it's apparent that they're going to be unsuccessful by the trade deadline they can be sellers, fall in the standings, reap the draft pick and start the rebuild. It seems a shame to waste this talent.

Hmmm... It seems like about a week ago I asked the question here in regards to making trades, WWTBD? Maybe we'll find out!

Bill James exits as Red Sox consultant WWW.MLB.COM BOSTON -- Bill James, widely considered to be the pioneer of advanced baseball statistics, announced on Thursday that he is ending his 17-year run with the Red Sox. James, who had been in the role of baseball consultant, explained his decision to depart in an essay on his website, billjamesonline.com.