S5Dewey

LOL Good stuff, Mal. Keep up the good work.

Ya. I know.. he's frustrating.. but how long ago was that the situation with ERod? "What's he doing here? Can't throw strikes, trade the bum, release him, whatever". Sometimes patience is a virtue.

I guess I missed that since I don't waste my time on troll's posts.

The implication there is that WAR is perfect and that the only people who don't believe in it wholeheartedly are those who don't understand it. Condescending much? The "eye test" and its subjectivity has served baseball well for generations. Through the subjective eye test scouts have recognized different levels of talent and abilities, even without all the advanced metrics. Amazing, huh? And BTW, having a baseline for WAR is meaningless if the data being compared to it is flawed.

Straw man alert! I don't denigrate WAR because some people don't understand it. I denigrate WAR because there are obvious flaws in it that show up both in real time play and in comparing one entities WAR with another entities WAR. You can't denigrate the eye test because you believe there are flaws in it but champion WAR in spite of the flaws.

Then doesn't that raise a flag with you that there may be something inherently wrong with either (or both!) methods of calculation and we only noticed it because JBJ is a bit closer to our hearts than Kevin Pillar? Further, is the flaw restricted to centerfielders, or does it pertain to all outfielders, or even to all position players? I'm not saying it does... but it's a question worth asking when one sees such a dramatic difference between one player's WAR when calculated by two different entities. Or is the real problem in how the "Replacement Player's" WAR is determined, because if that's the baseline and it's skewed than every comparison to it is also skewed. That's why... forgive me... but IMO WAR creates as many questions as it answers. Ya. It's a nice number to have but it's not anything one should be hanging their hats on any more than the eye test is. One is as fallible as the other, and yet some posters want to continually denigrate the eye test while championing WAR.

Did I say that?

...

You greatly overestimate the casual fan. I know people who consider themselves to be more than casual fans who barely know BR exists.

It's completely a matter of respect. This is a Red Sox board, 'Our House" if you will, and we have a right to be offended when someone comes into 'our house' and continually makes comparisons showing that his team is better than ours. Let me ask everyone this. How would any of you feel if you had a neighbor who continually came to visit and nearly every day told you that his pool is bigger, his lot is bigger, he just had his kitchen redone and it looks A LOT better than yours, his garage is cleaner, his kids are smarter, his wife is prettier and he makes more money than you do. Day after day after day. How long would he be welcome there before you started firing back?? Even if it's true you wouldn't want to hear it and he'd be being disrespectful by saying it. Same thing.

That's sarcasm, right? Wouldn't you find it "odd" if two entities, say, BR & fangraphs, were calculating the same player's OPS and one of them calculated it to be .600 and the other as .900, both defended their calculations, and everyone assumed that they were both right and used them interchangeably? Nope, nothing odd about that!

When talking about WAR? Posters essentially NEVER mention games played when discussing WAR.

Let's compare two players who used to play in the outfield for the Red Sox, Jackie Jensen and Jimmy Piersall. Jensen has a career WAR of 27.9. Piersall had a career WAR of 29.4. Pretty much the same player, right? Piersall was maybe a little bit better. Then when one looks it up they find that they weren't the same player at all. Piersall got his 29.4 WAR over 16 seasons and Jensen got his 27.9 over just 11 seasons. Jensen was by far the better player but WAR would lead the casual fans to believe that Piersall was better because his career WAR was higher.

Baseball is comprised of two elements for position players, offense and defense and WAR evaluates players on those two criteria. Regardless of how they're calculated and how they're named at the end of the day they're either offensive stats or defensive stats. It's not unrealistic to believe that offensive stats + defensive stats = total stats.

I can plainly see that WAR is not Rocket Science. It's more complicated than that.

Of course the difference is that WAR is cumulative whereas BA & ERA are averages (hence the "A" )

That's all fine and good but when a fan who's NOT a geek looks at the WAR of two players does that fan then think, "Yes' but Player A has played in 35 more games than Player B. Therefore it's not a fair comparison. In fact, does anyone here do that, or do we just accept that a player with a better WAR is the better player? Think about it.

Here's exactly why WAR is not a useful tool, at least in this situation: 1) IIRC we've already discussed and agreed (?) that JBJ's WAR is reduced because he has Mookie beside him and Mookie keeps JBJ from getting to balls he would otherwise get to thereby deflating JBJ's WAR. 2) BR: JBJ's WAR = 1.6, Hamilton's WAR = 0.0 Fangraphs: JBJ: oWAR = -2.6, dWAR = 0.1, WAR = 0.9 BH: oWAR = -17.2, dWAR = 9.7, WAR = 0.3 Two comments: Doesn't the disparity in these two methods strike anyone else as being odd? I mean, -17.2 vs. -2.6? 9.7 vs. 0.1? Further, assuming that a player's WAR should be a total of his offense and defense... In what world does -2.6 + 0.1 = 0.9? In what world does -17.2 + 9.7 = 0.3? Is that this "new math" we've been hearing about? Or is it just something that's beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals? And you wonder why i question WAR.

How much do I think he SHOULD be paid? I think they're all overpaid. As I've said before, if some researcher found a way to cure cancer he would only make a small fraction of money in his life as Mike Trout will make for playing a kid's game. That's ridiculous. But.. that avoids the intent of your question: IMO JBJ is slightly overpaid at $8.55M. I also believe that this business of a guaranteed raise each year for players in their arbitration years is plain wrong. Since the system is what it is I see no reason to grant JBJ a raise for 2020 since his contribution wasn't greater in 2019 than it was in 2018. The two comps who come to mind immediately are Kevin Pillar (.259/.758, $5.8M) and Kevin Keirmaier (.253/.730, $8.2M). It's worth mentioning that Pillar is in the last year of his contract and will probably get a nice raise in his next contract, probably to ~$8M. It's also worth mentioning that Keirmaier will make $10.2M in 2020 and it ramps up to $13M in 2023. Those compare to JBJ's .224/.728, $8.55. For JBJ I'd continue at $8.55M but as I've been told as a member of my town's Budged Committee, I'm a cheap bastard.

...and C'mon. You can't use someone as a comp and then say it's irrelevant! If you didn't think it was relevant you wouldn't have used him as a comp!

OK, maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe those players who are ALMOST as good as a GG'r and can outhit JBJ are everywhere, and they'll sign for $3-4M/year. So lets look at the ones mentioned earlier in the thread. All stats are for 2019. JBJ - .224/.728, $8.5M Billy Hamilton - .250/.500, $7.5M Juan Legares - .215/581, $9.0M Jarren Duran - .312/.795 (in AA) (haha), but he'll play for the ML Minimum! Jarrod Dyson - .254/.686, 3.75M, but he's 34 years old! The only one worth considering is Cameron Maybin .289/.879, and he's playing for the ML Minimum after playing for 10 teams in 12 years and being released by Cleveland. Can you spell "Crapshoot"? It looks like we could sign any of these guys and save

Are you really comparing JBJ to Sandy Leon?? Wasn't Leon put on waivers last year and nobody wanted him?? Throw JBJ on the waiver wire and see how many teams want him.

One year for JBJ. Let him go to arb if necessary but keep him around until the Mookie issue gets settled one way or the other. My "insurance" argument is that we should make every effort to keep at least one of those guys in the outfield into 2021. During 2020 one of two things will happen. Either 1) JBJ will become the hitter we want him to be, or 2) He'll be the hitter we've always seen. At that point we'll have a good idea of his value to the team. That value will be higher to the team if Mookie is no longer with us, because of JBJ's defensive ability and it'll be lower if Mookie is still with the team. If he becomes the hitter we want him to be his value will be higher and we can either keep him or move him with a lot higher trade value. If it's lower he can then be non-tendered if necessary. I say bite the bullet for 2020 and make another run at it, then reorganize for 2021. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the ONLY reason this team isn't looking at 100+ wins this year is because of the pitching staff. Changing the defense of the team solves a problem that doesn't exist.

Absolutely true. The only way one should hope that JDM opts out is if you're willing to reset in 2020, do a complete reset below the first LT limit and have the Red Sox become Baltimore. That qualifies as knucklehead.

Of course that's all precipitated on the idea that we can resign Mookie, which is far from being a done deal. So are you talking about releasing only JBJ, or are you also talking about parting with other players too? Which LT limit are you thinking about getting under? Because when I hear "reset" I'm hearing a total reset, to down below the first limit, and IMO that's going to involve losing more than just JBJ. But again, I wouldn't reset this year. I'd wait another year. By then the outfield picture will be clearer. There is a core group of players who bring excellence to their positions. Devers, Bogaerts, Vazquez & JBJ. Those are the folks I'd build around. And of course Mookie if he gets resigned. If Mookie gets into the fold then and only then would I even consider parting with JBJ. I'd be making one more run at it with those five + a few additions in the off season.