SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 23, 2017 21:20:18 GMT -5
If Kimbrel has a season where he's roughly as good as he was in 2016 and misses a month with an injury I think he's a really close comp for Davis, value-wise.
There's a big difference between a 3:1 strikeout to walk and a 5:1. There are several good players with the latter, very few who can successfully pull off the former. After his initial awesome debut, Soler has hit .253/.328/.413 - not really good for someone who doesn't offer enough defensively, but something to dream on for a guy in his age 23/24 seasons. After Middlebrooks' 2012 debut, he has a career .209/.257/.355 line and has been arguably baseball's worst player. They aren't comparable.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 24, 2017 7:04:18 GMT -5
The Red Sox traded Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Michael Kopech, Manuel Margot, Javier Guerra, Mauricio Dubon, Travis Shaw, Logan Allen, Carlos Asuaje, Josh Pennington, Victor Diaz, Luis Alexander Basabe, Luis Alejandro Basabe, and Jonathan Aro to build a stacked big-league roster that would stand an excellent chance to win in the short term. Now, having got to the point where they are at the precipice of being a World Championship team with that major league roster they have assembled through both a bevy of young home-grown talent mixed with high-quality, prominent major league players, they're going to be all... "you know, if we don't trade Xander now then we really could be up the creek without a paddle in 2022!" That's the theory here, right? You've concluded they might trade Bogaerts, Bradley, Rodriguez, or some other high end talent at the risk of their current excellence after trading all of the dudes I listed in the first paragraph. They don't get "nothing" if they fail to trade current performance for future performance. They get current performance! Which is what they've set their entire organizational strategy to build for! If you're going to trade Xander Bogaerts because he might leave due to free agency and you're worried about compete in 2021, then you aren't trading Moncada and Kopech and Espinoza for expensive and/or soon-to-be-expensive major leaguers. That's so contradictory that it is absolutely head spinning. "I'm not sure I've ever seen a contending team with money trade its prominent players for future value. I'd like a specific example of that happening." "Here is a specific example." "Hmm, okay. Well, here are the reasons that example is not apt." "You are getting hung up on my example." .... The whole point is that there aren't examples of this. It's all theoretical. When you try to put actual real-life examples of this behavior by an organization together then it totally falls apart. Don't you get the new CBA has totally changed the value of just letting good players walk? It's 100% theoretical, but with massive changes to the CBA you can expect that things will change. What happend in the past really has no bearing on what will happen in the future. Not when the new CBA changed the rules. The type of trades I'm talking about have been made like the Heyward trade or the Wade Davis trade. Just because those teams weren't just like Red Sox doesn't change the fact that those trades did happen. Both the Braves and Royals weren't going to sign those players long-term, so they traded them for players that could help them for years, not just a single season. As I've said before I don't think DD does this, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Theo do it. A lot of our current team was selected with comp picks. Those days are over. Maybe DD will surprise me. His moves so far have been about building the best team while staying under luxury tax. That's why he wanted Sale and Pomeranz, money played a big factor. Same reason he gave away Buchholz. He cared more about clearing money, than getting best possible return. Over the next 3 years he will have to decide who he is going to sign long-term and who he can't. Then he is going to have to decide if having a slightly better chance at winning in one given year is worth letting a player leave for just about nothing. DD has never had to make a choice like that before, so we really can't say what he will do. In the past if that player left he got a good prospect, that he could either develop or use in a trade. Those days are over. I have to say the only thing more far fetched than my idea, is thinking that with massive changes to CBA, nothing is going to change. I think a point well taken. What Dave has done in the past goes out the window. He has built teams in his other stops that were very competitive. He seems to have a good grasp of young talent and is not afraid to pull the trigger on a trade if he thinks he has a better chance of winning. I think he will adjust very well to the changes. I think a lot of trades thru out baseball will happen over the next 2 or 3 years that will make our heads turn. How do the non contending teams handle keeping or trading young stars like the 2 young of'ers in fla or the young of'er in Colorado. Do the angels continue to hold on to trout? Will the dodgers continue to spend money like water? My guess is not. The astros have a young club. They will have the same problem the sox do in a few years. What will Cleveland do with all their young pitching? Maybe they trade one or more to the sox for Bradley? Just making up an example. What do the Yankees do with all their young talent? In the coming drafts will teams with high choices still take fliers on questionable prospects? What happens when Donaldson, macado, and harper enter FA?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 24, 2017 13:32:10 GMT -5
That was discussed in my post above. Realistically, his replacement wouldn't be a 0.0 WAR player. Got to 88 wins by assuming 1.5 (above replacement level, below average). We currently have no OF in system that would be on track to be 1.5 WAR players when Bradley leaves. We are also going to be having limited money with all the free agents we have. Thats why you wouldn't resign Bradley. So while 1.5 WAR isn't crazy by any means, it's not close to a sure thing. Per Fangraphs only something like 55 OF had a WAR equal or above 1.5 last year. You could do a platoon, but that carries it own risks of relying on two players to perform. Young players and cheap Vets could just as easily give you a negative WAR as they could give you 1.5 WAR. Think if we get the Mitch Moreland types that play OF. Nevermind the effect on players like Betts and Benintendi if you can't get a CF and need to move them to CF. This type of scenario where our playoff hopes rest on a young player developing or a Vet out playing his contract is exactly why we should make the type of trade I suggested in the first place. It gives you a bigger margin of error.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 24, 2017 13:58:40 GMT -5
Don't you get the new CBA has totally changed the value of just letting good players walk? It's 100% theoretical, but with massive changes to the CBA you can expect that things will change. What happend in the past really has no bearing on what will happen in the future. Not when the new CBA changed the rules. The type of trades I'm talking about have been made like the Heyward trade or the Wade Davis trade. Just because those teams weren't just like Red Sox doesn't change the fact that those trades did happen. Both the Braves and Royals weren't going to sign those players long-term, so they traded them for players that could help them for years, not just a single season. As I've said before I don't think DD does this, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Theo do it. A lot of our current team was selected with comp picks. Those days are over. Maybe DD will surprise me. His moves so far have been about building the best team while staying under luxury tax. That's why he wanted Sale and Pomeranz, money played a big factor. Same reason he gave away Buchholz. He cared more about clearing money, than getting best possible return. Over the next 3 years he will have to decide who he is going to sign long-term and who he can't. Then he is going to have to decide if having a slightly better chance at winning in one given year is worth letting a player leave for just about nothing. DD has never had to make a choice like that before, so we really can't say what he will do. In the past if that player left he got a good prospect, that he could either develop or use in a trade. Those days are over. I have to say the only thing more far fetched than my idea, is thinking that with massive changes to CBA, nothing is going to change. I think a point well taken. What Dave has done in the past goes out the window. He has built teams in his other stops that were very competitive. He seems to have a good grasp of young talent and is not afraid to pull the trigger on a trade if he thinks he has a better chance of winning. I think he will adjust very well to the changes. I think a lot of trades thru out baseball will happen over the next 2 or 3 years that will make our heads turn. How do the non contending teams handle keeping or trading young stars like the 2 young of'ers in fla or the young of'er in Colorado. Do the angels continue to hold on to trout? Will the dodgers continue to spend money like water? My guess is not. The astros have a young club. They will have the same problem the sox do in a few years. What will Cleveland do with all their young pitching? Maybe they trade one or more to the sox for Bradley? Just making up an example. What do the Yankees do with all their young talent? In the coming drafts will teams with high choices still take fliers on questionable prospects? What happens when Donaldson, macado, and harper enter FA? They will get paid big time with contracts that they probably won't earn out. Welcome to MLB, where the owners just can't help themselves. Also Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Washington and a couple other big spenders will either be below the luxury tax or have reset their penalties by then, allowing them to spend, spend spend.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 24, 2017 13:59:48 GMT -5
Evan DrellichVerified account evandrellich 2m2 minutes ago Evan Drellich Retweeted CSN New England Dave Dombrowski: "We’ve focused a great deal on medical...continually look at that all the time. So I don’t think there’s anything abnormal" How about aberrant outlier years? Do they focus on that?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 24, 2017 14:47:18 GMT -5
Looking at and understanding outlier years might be the hardest thing a GM does. While some think Pomeranz 2016 was an outlier, some think it's now a new baseline. That's what DD believes and he's not alone. Same thing with Kimbrel, are the last two years outliers or a new baseline? It's far from clear. Did Porcello just turn a corner and create a new baseline or was it just a career year?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 24, 2017 19:11:49 GMT -5
Looking at and understanding outlier years might be the hardest thing a GM does. While some think Pomeranz 2016 was an outlier, some think it's now a new baseline. That's what DD believes and he's not alone. Same thing with Kimbrel, are the last two years outliers or a new baseline? It's far from clear. Did Porcello just turn a corner and create a new baseline or was it just a career year? Pomeraz was a bad trade. So was Kimbrel. Those were my assessments at the time of eachsnd I'll stand by them. Should've reversed the first and should've never done the second. High prices to pay for both, esp Pomeranz. You don't make that deal you likely still have one of Espinosa or Kopech and still have Sale. I hope I'm proved wrong on both these guys and they perform at All Star levels, btw. I am, after all, a Sox fan and rather win than be right.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 25, 2017 8:54:23 GMT -5
The bottom line is that the new CBA changes how Most all teams think going forward. Mr Dunne is still with the past. Umass is trying to be more forward thinking. We are all guessing. Teams can no longer throw money at the 2 drafts and hold on to players to get a comp pick the next year. This HAS to change how teams operate. The trends with long length of contract and 25 to 35 yearly salaries certainly change how teams manage their yearly payroll structure when dealing with high profile FA's. Do the metrics used in the past hold the same importance? Unheard of in the past, but maybe you see a team cleve trade for jbj in his last yr because they think they can sign him long term and the Indians trade away a young pitcher to the sox because they can not sign all their guys. Maybe like the nfl you trade draft picks? Maybe is the answer.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 26, 2017 15:18:42 GMT -5
That was discussed in my post above. Realistically, his replacement wouldn't be a 0.0 WAR player. Got to 88 wins by assuming 1.5 (above replacement level, below average). We currently have no OF in system that would be on track to be 1.5 WAR players when Bradley leaves. We are also going to be having limited money with all the free agents we have. Thats why you wouldn't resign Bradley. So while 1.5 WAR isn't crazy by any means, it's not close to a sure thing. Per Fangraphs only something like 55 OF had a WAR equal or above 1.5 last year. You could do a platoon, but that carries it own risks of relying on two players to perform. Young players and cheap Vets could just as easily give you a negative WAR as they could give you 1.5 WAR. Think if we get the Mitch Moreland types that play OF. Nevermind the effect on players like Betts and Benintendi if you can't get a CF and need to move them to CF. This type of scenario where our playoff hopes rest on a young player developing or a Vet out playing his contract is exactly why we should make the type of trade I suggested in the first place. It gives you a bigger margin of error. I do not understand this line of info. You put jbj at the bottom of the list because they do not have enough money to sign everyone. Then mention based on WAR you do not have a major league ready outfielder in the sox system to replace Bradley. You do not have an ss either. Why put xb ahead of jbj? It seems that WAR has nothing to do with whether they player is major league ready. Does a 0 WAR mean a player is major league ready but I strictly league average.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 26, 2017 19:04:44 GMT -5
We currently have no OF in system that would be on track to be 1.5 WAR players when Bradley leaves. We are also going to be having limited money with all the free agents we have. Thats why you wouldn't resign Bradley. So while 1.5 WAR isn't crazy by any means, it's not close to a sure thing. Per Fangraphs only something like 55 OF had a WAR equal or above 1.5 last year. You could do a platoon, but that carries it own risks of relying on two players to perform. Young players and cheap Vets could just as easily give you a negative WAR as they could give you 1.5 WAR. Think if we get the Mitch Moreland types that play OF. Nevermind the effect on players like Betts and Benintendi if you can't get a CF and need to move them to CF. This type of scenario where our playoff hopes rest on a young player developing or a Vet out playing his contract is exactly why we should make the type of trade I suggested in the first place. It gives you a bigger margin of error. I do not understand this line of info. You put jbj at the bottom of the list because they do not have enough money to sign everyone. Then mention based on WAR you do not have a major league ready outfielder in the sox system to replace Bradley. You do not have an ss either. Why put xb ahead of jbj? It seems that WAR has nothing to do with whether they player is major league ready. Does a 0 WAR mean a player is major league ready but I strictly league average. I think the point is, since they're going to have to trade somebody, JBJ may be the best option. Bogaerts is several years younger, has a higher ceiling and more time to reach it, plays a more difficult position, and has no available internal option like Betts or Benintendi who could slide over and make finding a replacement that much easier/less costly.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 26, 2017 19:05:51 GMT -5
We currently have no OF in system that would be on track to be 1.5 WAR players when Bradley leaves. We are also going to be having limited money with all the free agents we have. Thats why you wouldn't resign Bradley. So while 1.5 WAR isn't crazy by any means, it's not close to a sure thing. Per Fangraphs only something like 55 OF had a WAR equal or above 1.5 last year. You could do a platoon, but that carries it own risks of relying on two players to perform. Young players and cheap Vets could just as easily give you a negative WAR as they could give you 1.5 WAR. Think if we get the Mitch Moreland types that play OF. Nevermind the effect on players like Betts and Benintendi if you can't get a CF and need to move them to CF. This type of scenario where our playoff hopes rest on a young player developing or a Vet out playing his contract is exactly why we should make the type of trade I suggested in the first place. It gives you a bigger margin of error. I do not understand this line of info. You put jbj at the bottom of the list because they do not have enough money to sign everyone. Then mention based on WAR you do not have a major league ready outfielder in the sox system to replace Bradley. You do not have an ss either. Why put xb ahead of jbj? It seems that WAR has nothing to do with whether they player is major league ready. Does a 0 WAR mean a player is major league ready but I strictly league average. It's just an example of what's better if you can't sign Bradley long-term. Keep him or trade him with one year left on deal. It has nothing to do with Bogaerts or any other player. It was all 100% hypothetical. You could do the same thing with Kimbrel, Bogaerts, Sale, Pomeranz, Bradley, Betts or Porcello. In my example you most likely resign players like Betts and Bogaerts, which is why you can't also afford Bradley. Again not saying that's what they should do, it's just an example of what to do with players you can't sign long-term. A zero WAR means a player is replacement level. If I remember right a league average player is around 1.7 WAR or something close to that. WAR is all about a players performance, with the baseline being replacement level. It has nothing to do with being major league ready. The thing is if your not ready to play in majors like Moncada you can produce a negative WAR. Meaning his play was below replacement level.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,656
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 26, 2017 20:18:57 GMT -5
I guess I have to ask the question. Why would you want to spend all that money to extend JBJ? A lot of his value is wrapped up in his defense. I wouldn't want to spend a ton of money on a guy who's 30 and is worth a lot because he plays CF. How much longer throughout the contract would you expect him to play CF and would he hit well enough to be a good hitting corner OF worth the money? That's the question.
As far as Bogaerts goes, his value going forward would mostly be his offense. I think his bat will play enough to be a really good 3b because if he's a so-so serviceable type SS now, what does he become by 2020? And if you sign him long-term how long would you expect him to last at SS? With Bogaerts I think to want to sign him long-term you have to hope that he can transition to 3b, 2b, or an outfield corner.
Normally the answer is enjoy the bat and transition him to 3b, but if Devers or Dalbec has 3b wrapped up by then and if they're not moving off of 3b, then I'm not sure it makes a ton of sense to spend a bunch of years and dollars of Xander if he's a defensive liability by then and can't play another position. The big positive on Xander, if he can play another position of need for the Red Sox if SS isn't viable long-term, is that he will be a young free agent, much younger than JBJ.
With Betts, he's so athletic and his hit tool is so strong it's not hard to imagine him remaining a force in the outfield corner or even having the skills to play an acceptable 2b or better if needed.
Mookie Betts is the guy you place your long-term bet on. He's the guy you give the big money to.
The Sox would also have to choose among Sale and Porcello for extension. It's kind of tossup as to who you'd extend. I think Porcello is the bigger performance risk. However Sale would be the bigger health risk I would think.
The Sox will definitely have a lot of decisions to make. It would be easier if they have guys coming up to help make those decisions easier. If Bogaerts isn't much of a SS by 2019 then Devers at 3b probably makes the decision easier. If the Sox have a CF coming up by 2020 then that makes the decision easier on JBJ.
I'd say Chatham and Cedrola at this point are their best options internally, but the risk of those two are so high at this point, you're almost looking at spending a ton of money and/or years on JBJ or Xander, spending a ridiculous amount of money on somebody else's free agent, or patching the position with a short-term veteran while hoping for somebody to step forward in the farm system.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Mar 26, 2017 22:59:22 GMT -5
That was discussed in my post above. Realistically, his replacement wouldn't be a 0.0 WAR player. Got to 88 wins by assuming 1.5 (above replacement level, below average). We currently have no OF in system that would be on track to be 1.5 WAR players when Bradley leaves. We are also going to be having limited money with all the free agents we have. Thats why you wouldn't resign Bradley. So while 1.5 WAR isn't crazy by any means, it's not close to a sure thing. Per Fangraphs only something like 55 OF had a WAR equal or above 1.5 last year. You could do a platoon, but that carries it own risks of relying on two players to perform. Young players and cheap Vets could just as easily give you a negative WAR as they could give you 1.5 WAR. Think if we get the Mitch Moreland types that play OF. Nevermind the effect on players like Betts and Benintendi if you can't get a CF and need to move them to CF. This type of scenario where our playoff hopes rest on a young player developing or a Vet out playing his contract is exactly why we should make the type of trade I suggested in the first place. It gives you a bigger margin of error. Why the hell even play baseball? Just crown the team with the most projected WAR or what ever with the Trophy! This is how ridiculous you guys are! Thats not how to build teams! Why root for the Red Sox when you can just come up these advanced stats when by your way of thinking the results should be determined pre game?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 27, 2017 1:03:28 GMT -5
We currently have no OF in system that would be on track to be 1.5 WAR players when Bradley leaves. We are also going to be having limited money with all the free agents we have. Thats why you wouldn't resign Bradley. So while 1.5 WAR isn't crazy by any means, it's not close to a sure thing. Per Fangraphs only something like 55 OF had a WAR equal or above 1.5 last year. You could do a platoon, but that carries it own risks of relying on two players to perform. Young players and cheap Vets could just as easily give you a negative WAR as they could give you 1.5 WAR. Think if we get the Mitch Moreland types that play OF. Nevermind the effect on players like Betts and Benintendi if you can't get a CF and need to move them to CF. This type of scenario where our playoff hopes rest on a young player developing or a Vet out playing his contract is exactly why we should make the type of trade I suggested in the first place. It gives you a bigger margin of error. Why the hell even play baseball? Just crown the team with the most projected WAR or what ever with the Trophy! This is how ridiculous you guys are! Thats not how to build teams! Why root for the Red Sox when you can just come up these advanced stats when by your way of thinking the results should be determined pre game? They play the game to show us that we're collective idiots.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 27, 2017 5:38:12 GMT -5
I do not understand this line of info. You put jbj at the bottom of the list because they do not have enough money to sign everyone. Then mention based on WAR you do not have a major league ready outfielder in the sox system to replace Bradley. You do not have an ss either. Why put xb ahead of jbj? It seems that WAR has nothing to do with whether they player is major league ready. Does a 0 WAR mean a player is major league ready but I strictly league average. It's just an example of what's better if you can't sign Bradley long-term. Keep him or trade him with one year left on deal. It has nothing to do with Bogaerts or any other player. It was all 100% hypothetical. You could do the same thing with Kimbrel, Bogaerts, Sale, Pomeranz, Bradley, Betts or Porcello. In my example you most likely resign players like Betts and Bogaerts, which is why you can't also afford Bradley. Again not saying that's what they should do, it's just an example of what to do with players you can't sign long-term. A zero WAR means a player is replacement level. If I remember right a league average player is around 1.7 WAR or something close to that. WAR is all about a players performance, with the baseline being replacement level. It has nothing to do with being major league ready. The thing is if your not ready to play in majors like Moncada you can produce a negative WAR. Meaning his play was below replacement level. Thanks I think I understand now.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 27, 2017 6:25:08 GMT -5
We currently have no OF in system that would be on track to be 1.5 WAR players when Bradley leaves. We are also going to be having limited money with all the free agents we have. Thats why you wouldn't resign Bradley. So while 1.5 WAR isn't crazy by any means, it's not close to a sure thing. Per Fangraphs only something like 55 OF had a WAR equal or above 1.5 last year. You could do a platoon, but that carries it own risks of relying on two players to perform. Young players and cheap Vets could just as easily give you a negative WAR as they could give you 1.5 WAR. Think if we get the Mitch Moreland types that play OF. Nevermind the effect on players like Betts and Benintendi if you can't get a CF and need to move them to CF. This type of scenario where our playoff hopes rest on a young player developing or a Vet out playing his contract is exactly why we should make the type of trade I suggested in the first place. It gives you a bigger margin of error. Why the hell even play baseball? Just crown the team with the most projected WAR or what ever with the Trophy! This is how ridiculous you guys are! Thats not how to build teams! Why root for the Red Sox when you can just come up these advanced stats when by your way of thinking the results should be determined pre game? Not sure I like or understand all the metrics, but they have some interesting points. It is like forecasting the weather. They still do not exactly get it right. Think of a casino, in the long term the house always wins, but not every hand. Did the metrics forecast leon's season or porcello's? They add to a lot of basic info and help explain someone's point. If you take it with a grain of salt, it is still a fun game to watch and can add to the enjoyable discussions concerning such important disagreements as to who was better grady little or john Farrell. Nomar or jeter. Who should you keep cv or swihart? Should we have traded kopech? Relax and enjoy , a new season of discussion and disagreement is about to start next week.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Mar 27, 2017 6:38:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2017 7:03:18 GMT -5
WAR is the only tool that covers offense, defense and baserunning so it's the only tool to compare players. It's not going away. They will use Statcast to improve WAR. I imagine that every team has their own formulas for WAR.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 27, 2017 7:09:44 GMT -5
My job was finance and accounting. So naturally I am a numbers type guy. When I retired I was controller for a $250 mil business group. The Harvard MBA provided a huge amount of great info and guidance, but you still have to run things with a certain amount of feel and understanding of what and who your business is to make it successful. Theo has that feel and I do not think Ben does. Ben would never have made the chapman trade. Theo , although he had the numbers of what he gave up was very high, had the feeling that this was the time to win the series. Dave uses less numbers than theo and more feel. If everything was strictly by the numbers, WAR, then Oakland would have won a lot more than they have. Some GM's have a feel, along with the numbers, to more times than not project out and see things that are not always in the numbers. Dave , Cashman, cashen, and the gm at the cards come to mind. Theo is very good at this as well. Baseball is a fun sport. If you are a feel type of person do not take the numbers guys as serious. It is two different ways of looking at a great game.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2017 7:16:11 GMT -5
My job was finance and accounting. So naturally I am a numbers type guy. When I retired I was controller for a $250 mil business group. The Harvard MBA provided a huge amount of great info and guidance, but you still have to run things with a certain amount of feel and understanding of what and who your business is to make it successful. Theo has that feel and I do not think Ben does. Ben would never have made the chapman trade. Theo , although he had the numbers of what he gave up was very high, had the feeling that this was the time to win the series. Dave uses less numbers than theo and more feel. If everything was strictly by the numbers, WAR, then Oakland would have won a lot more than they have. Some GM's have a feel, along with the numbers, to more times than not project out and see things that are not always in the numbers. Dave , Cashman, cashen, and the gm at the cards come to mind. Theo is very good at this as well. Baseball is a fun sport. If you are a feel type of person do not take the numbers guys as serious. It is two different ways of looking at a great game. If a GM in this day and age doesn't use mostly numbers when making trades and signing contracts, he's going to have his ass handed to him by the rest of the league. This is a 20 year old argument on baseball message boards. No need to continue. It has all been said a million times.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 27, 2017 9:09:24 GMT -5
I'm going to go ahead and assume that not even Dave Stewart was basing his trades off of Fangraphs or Baseball Reference. This isn't fantasy baseball.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 27, 2017 9:12:40 GMT -5
And look how well that worked out for Mr. Stewart and the Diamondbacks
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 27, 2017 9:35:31 GMT -5
Why the hell even play baseball? Just crown the team with the most projected WAR or what ever with the Trophy! This is how ridiculous you guys are! Thats not how to build teams! Why root for the Red Sox when you can just come up these advanced stats when by your way of thinking the results should be determined pre game? They play the game to show us that we're collective idiots. They play the game because there's no revenue if you don't play. Winkee Thingee!
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 27, 2017 10:20:12 GMT -5
They play the game to show us that we're collective idiots. They play the game because there's no revenue if you don't play. Winkee Thingee! My bad, you are correct.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2017 11:24:19 GMT -5
I'm going to go ahead and assume that not even Dave Stewart was basing his trades off of Fangraphs or Baseball Reference. This isn't fantasy baseball. Right, he was looking at batting average, dingers, rbi's, wins and ERA and favoring players with the intestinal fortitude to will his team to win.
|
|
|