Vaughn and Sox avoid arbitration: $5.85 million

[WestEddy]

25 minutes ago, vilehoopster said:

Let me deal with some of the people who question that I question WAR. 

First of all I think you guys that don't understand what WAR is. So many of the factors you talk about that go into WAR are absolutely arbitrary, someone's opinion. Arbitrary - adj - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Whether I runner took 2nd base on Benintendi that an average right fielder would have prevented is totally a conjecture and opinion, completely a guess and assumption. "Well, a RF with a better arm would have held that guy to one base." But how do you know that RF with the better arm would have gotten the jump on the ball that Benintendi got from his experience playing RF? Maybe that other RF would have gotten to the ball half a second later, so his arm would not have mattered. Total conjecture and opinion. The same with base running. Of course guys run faster than Vaughn (and Abreu), but how do you know that this WAR object player might not have been thrown out at 2nd and 3rd, when Vaughn would have stayed at 1st and not run his team out of an inning: arbitrary. 

You are stating that WAR is a stat that absolutely quantifies the value of a player when a large portion of the data that goes into that stat is largely unquantifiable. Defense, running the bases, holding a guy to one less base, etc. ; those type of things are COMPLETELY based on the eye test, conjecture, and opinion, exactly what WAR says it removes. Did you guys ever understand that about WAR? I don't think I'm the one that doesn't understand WAR

 

NEXT - Of course Abreu had a low OBP when he led the AL in RBIs. He was not there to get on base; he was there to put the ball in play, to drive the ball hard, and get people home, which he did better than anyone else in the AL that year. 

It kills me when people say RBIs is "meaningless stat". The goal of the game is to score runs. Bringing in runs is, arguably, the most important stat for a runner: scoring himself and others. RBIs shows who is a clutch hitter and able to get the job. Anyone who says RBIs don't matter, again, is not seeing the forest for the trees. (You're ignoring what's important to make some other minor/ silly point.)  Are you really going to argue that depending on where you bat in the order, that is all that matters for RBIs, and that all players on a team or in the league (leading the AL) are equally good at driving in runs, so who you bat at 3rd or 4th doesn't matter. Let's just have the guy with the best OBP bat 4th, he'll lead the league in RBIs. 

 

Now - back to my main point on WAR, my example. I will admit that Yolmer Sanchez won the Gold Glove at 2nd in 2019. But still be honest with yourself and think: do you really believe that Abreu with 33 hrs and leading the league in RBIs was responsible for only 1.1 more wins for the Sox than Yolmer that year? Do you really believe that is correct and true? You have to be able to see that cannot be correct, and at least, a little bit question WAR as a stat. 

I understand being frustrated with WAR. One felt more in control of a baseball conversation when you could look at HR's, see one guy had 33, and another had 21, and come to the conclusion that the 33 HR guy is "better" than the 21 HR guy. Easy peasy. 

You can't just watch a game, look at the box score, and see who contributed what. But you're playing a little Skeptical Paradox game, here, pretending that nothing can really be known. WAR isn't computed by some guy drinking beer in front of his TeeVee. Defensive statistics are computed based on zone ratings that have nothing to do with the eye test. If a fielder is standing on spot X, which is measurable, and a ball is hit to spot Y, that is 15' from the fielder, with a hang time of 7 seconds, we know a lot about the catchability of that ball in play. We know how fast a runner can run from one base to another, how fast a player can throw a ball, all of this is quantifiable, and has nothing to do with the "eye-test".

Players on offense create runs. Players on defense prevent runs. Creating runs are pretty quantifiable. You hit the ball, and get to a base by the time the play's over. The same happens when measuring defense. Again, completely measurable and quantifiable from a fairly robust data set. When running the formula for Pythagorean wins, a win is worth (roughly) ten more runs scored than the opponent. I'm mixing models, here, but if Jose Abreu can create 5 more runs on offense than average, and can prevent 5 more runs on defense on average, that would be worth one win, or 1 WAR. Again, mixing models, but that's how players are evaluated against each other. 

 

[WestEddy]

47 minutes ago, vilehoopster said:

Let me deal with some of the people who question that I question WAR. 

First of all I think you guys that don't understand what WAR is. So many of the factors you talk about that go into WAR are absolutely arbitrary, someone's opinion. Arbitrary - adj - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Whether I runner took 2nd base on Benintendi that an average right fielder would have prevented is totally a conjecture and opinion, completely a guess and assumption. "Well, a RF with a better arm would have held that guy to one base." But how do you know that RF with the better arm would have gotten the jump on the ball that Benintendi got from his experience playing RF? Maybe that other RF would have gotten to the ball half a second later, so his arm would not have mattered. Total conjecture and opinion. The same with base running. Of course guys run faster than Vaughn (and Abreu), but how do you know that this WAR object player might not have been thrown out at 2nd and 3rd, when Vaughn would have stayed at 1st and not run his team out of an inning: arbitrary. 

You are stating that WAR is a stat that absolutely quantifies the value of a player when a large portion of the data that goes into that stat is largely unquantifiable. Defense, running the bases, holding a guy to one less base, etc. ; those type of things are COMPLETELY based on the eye test, conjecture, and opinion, exactly what WAR says it removes. Did you guys ever understand that about WAR? I don't think I'm the one that doesn't understand WAR

 

NEXT - Of course Abreu had a low OBP when he led the AL in RBIs. He was not there to get on base; he was there to put the ball in play, to drive the ball hard, and get people home, which he did better than anyone else in the AL that year. 

It kills me when people say RBIs is "meaningless stat". The goal of the game is to score runs. Bringing in runs is, arguably, the most important stat for a runner: scoring himself and others. RBIs shows who is a clutch hitter and able to get the job. Anyone who says RBIs don't matter, again, is not seeing the forest for the trees. (You're ignoring what's important to make some other minor/ silly point.)  Are you really going to argue that depending on where you bat in the order, that is all that matters for RBIs, and that all players on a team or in the league (leading the AL) are equally good at driving in runs, so who you bat at 3rd or 4th doesn't matter. Let's just have the guy with the best OBP bat 4th, he'll lead the league in RBIs. 

 

Now - back to my main point on WAR, my example. I will admit that Yolmer Sanchez won the Gold Glove at 2nd in 2019. But still be honest with yourself and think: do you really believe that Abreu with 33 hrs and leading the league in RBIs was responsible for only 1.1 more wins for the Sox than Yolmer that year? Do you really believe that is correct and true? You have to be able to see that cannot be correct, and at least, a little bit question WAR as a stat. 

RBIs are considered to not be indicative of too much, because a hitter isn't in control of the factors that create RBI opportunities. If runners don't get on base ahead of him, he will have less opportunity to drive them in. For a counting stat, RBI doesn't give you as full a story that HRs do, or OBP/SLG.

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, vilehoopster said:

Let me deal with some of the people who question that I question WAR. 

First of all I think you guys that don't understand what WAR is. So many of the factors you talk about that go into WAR are absolutely arbitrary, someone's opinion. Arbitrary - adj - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Whether I runner took 2nd base on Benintendi that an average right fielder would have prevented is totally a conjecture and opinion, completely a guess and assumption. "Well, a RF with a better arm would have held that guy to one base." But how do you know that RF with the better arm would have gotten the jump on the ball that Benintendi got from his experience playing RF? Maybe that other RF would have gotten to the ball half a second later, so his arm would not have mattered. Total conjecture and opinion. The same with base running. Of course guys run faster than Vaughn (and Abreu), but how do you know that this WAR object player might not have been thrown out at 2nd and 3rd, when Vaughn would have stayed at 1st and not run his team out of an inning: arbitrary. 

You are stating that WAR is a stat that absolutely quantifies the value of a player when a large portion of the data that goes into that stat is largely unquantifiable. Defense, running the bases, holding a guy to one less base, etc. ; those type of things are COMPLETELY based on the eye test, conjecture, and opinion, exactly what WAR says it removes. Did you guys ever understand that about WAR? I don't think I'm the one that doesn't understand WAR

 

NEXT - Of course Abreu had a low OBP when he led the AL in RBIs. He was not there to get on base; he was there to put the ball in play, to drive the ball hard, and get people home, which he did better than anyone else in the AL that year. 

It kills me when people say RBIs is "meaningless stat". The goal of the game is to score runs. Bringing in runs is, arguably, the most important stat for a runner: scoring himself and others. RBIs shows who is a clutch hitter and able to get the job. Anyone who says RBIs don't matter, again, is not seeing the forest for the trees. (You're ignoring what's important to make some other minor/ silly point.)  Are you really going to argue that depending on where you bat in the order, that is all that matters for RBIs, and that all players on a team or in the league (leading the AL) are equally good at driving in runs, so who you bat at 3rd or 4th doesn't matter. Let's just have the guy with the best OBP bat 4th, he'll lead the league in RBIs. 

 

Now - back to my main point on WAR, my example. I will admit that Yolmer Sanchez won the Gold Glove at 2nd in 2019. But still be honest with yourself and think: do you really believe that Abreu with 33 hrs and leading the league in RBIs was responsible for only 1.1 more wins for the Sox than Yolmer that year? Do you really believe that is correct and true? You have to be able to see that cannot be correct, and at least, a little bit question WAR as a stat. 

If we are going to speak in absurdity and absolutely, it isn't going to be a real discussion. Yes defense can be just an important as offense.  Hitting a homer can be canceled out by letting a baseball go by you because you don't have range, or not having the arm to throw someone out.  A run is a run, no matter how it is scored, or even prevented.  Your argument would be that a guy like Ozzie Smith was basically worthless because he didn't hit homers and put up RBIs.

[Bob Sacamano]

1 hour ago, vilehoopster said:

Let me deal with some of the people who question that I question WAR. 

First of all I think you guys that don't understand what WAR is. So many of the factors you talk about that go into WAR are absolutely arbitrary, someone's opinion. Arbitrary - adj - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Whether I runner took 2nd base on Benintendi that an average right fielder would have prevented is totally a conjecture and opinion, completely a guess and assumption. "Well, a RF with a better arm would have held that guy to one base." But how do you know that RF with the better arm would have gotten the jump on the ball that Benintendi got from his experience playing RF? Maybe that other RF would have gotten to the ball half a second later, so his arm would not have mattered. Total conjecture and opinion. The same with base running. Of course guys run faster than Vaughn (and Abreu), but how do you know that this WAR object player might not have been thrown out at 2nd and 3rd, when Vaughn would have stayed at 1st and not run his team out of an inning: arbitrary. 

You are stating that WAR is a stat that absolutely quantifies the value of a player when a large portion of the data that goes into that stat is largely unquantifiable. Defense, running the bases, holding a guy to one less base, etc. ; those type of things are COMPLETELY based on the eye test, conjecture, and opinion, exactly what WAR says it removes. Did you guys ever understand that about WAR? I don't think I'm the one that doesn't understand WAR

 

NEXT - Of course Abreu had a low OBP when he led the AL in RBIs. He was not there to get on base; he was there to put the ball in play, to drive the ball hard, and get people home, which he did better than anyone else in the AL that year. 

It kills me when people say RBIs is "meaningless stat". The goal of the game is to score runs. Bringing in runs is, arguably, the most important stat for a runner: scoring himself and others. RBIs shows who is a clutch hitter and able to get the job. Anyone who says RBIs don't matter, again, is not seeing the forest for the trees. (You're ignoring what's important to make some other minor/ silly point.)  Are you really going to argue that depending on where you bat in the order, that is all that matters for RBIs, and that all players on a team or in the league (leading the AL) are equally good at driving in runs, so who you bat at 3rd or 4th doesn't matter. Let's just have the guy with the best OBP bat 4th, he'll lead the league in RBIs. 

 

Now - back to my main point on WAR, my example. I will admit that Yolmer Sanchez won the Gold Glove at 2nd in 2019. But still be honest with yourself and think: do you really believe that Abreu with 33 hrs and leading the league in RBIs was responsible for only 1.1 more wins for the Sox than Yolmer that year? Do you really believe that is correct and true? You have to be able to see that cannot be correct, and at least, a little bit question WAR as a stat. 

What? Lol

[Chicago White Sox]

13 minutes ago, vilehoopster said:

NEXT - Of course Abreu had a low OBP when he led the AL in RBIs. He was not there to get on base; he was there to put the ball in play, to drive the ball hard, and get people home, which he did better than anyone else in the AL that year. 

It kills me when people say RBIs is "meaningless stat". The goal of the game is to score runs. Bringing in runs is, arguably, the most important stat for a runner: scoring himself and others. RBIs shows who is a clutch hitter and able to get the job. Anyone who says RBIs don't matter, again, is not seeing the forest for the trees. (You're ignoring what's important to make some other minor/ silly point.)  Are you really going to argue that depending on where you bat in the order, that is all that matters for RBIs, and that all players on a team or in the league (leading the AL) are equally good at driving in runs, so who you bat at 3rd or 4th doesn't matter. Let's just have the guy with the best OBP bat 4th, he'll lead the league in RBIs. 

Yeah, I literally said “RBI’s is a very meaningless stat without context”.  Where a dude bats in the lineup, who hits in front of him, the park factor of their home field, etc. all play a role in how many RBIs one gets.  wRC+ uses linear weights to assign a run value to each offensive outcome.  It’s purposely intended to strip out context and highlight the offensive value of what a player did on their own merits.  While I agree there is an element of clutchness (or luck) that can lead to better outcomes, the reality is the vast majority of RBI’s require other players to be on base and that isn’t something Jose Abreu had control over in 2019.  How would other comparable hitters fared if put in those same exact situations?

And you say his job is to drive runners in but also say the goal of the game is to simply “score runs”.  You can’t have it both ways.  A low OBP means he’s not setting up the hitters behind him to help drive runs in themselves…you need to look at total run creation like wRC+ does to fully asses the value of a hitter.  It may not be totally perfect, especially if a guy is more clutch than lucky (which is impossible to tell), but it’s completely objective and is probably one of best advanced metrics out there IMO.

[caulfield12]

20 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

If we are going to speak in absurdity and absolutely, it isn't going to be a real discussion. Yes defense can be just an important as offense.  Hitting a homer can be canceled out by letting a baseball go by you because you don't have range, or not having the arm to throw someone out.  A run is a run, no matter how it is scored, or even prevented.  Your argument would be that a guy like Ozzie Smith was basically worthless because he didn't hit homers and put up RBIs.

Bill Mazeroski likes this post...Nellie Fox, too.

[46DidIt]

10 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

If we are going to speak in absurdity and absolutely, it isn't going to be a real discussion. Yes defense can be just an important as offense.  Hitting a homer can be canceled out by letting a baseball go by you because you don't have range, or not having the arm to throw someone out.  A run is a run, no matter how it is scored, or even prevented.  Your argument would be that a guy like Ozzie Smith was basically worthless because he didn't hit homers and put up RBIs.

He wasn’t saying defense doesn’t win or lose games. He was saying the measure of defense itself is flawed, which is a widely held view

[southsider2k5]

2 hours ago, 46DidIt said:

He wasn’t saying defense doesn’t win or lose games. He was saying the measure of defense itself is flawed, which is a widely held view

If the argument is arbitrary, this gets a whole lot easier, as even RBI are arbitrary and flawed, which is a commonly held view, which is what led to more comprehensive analysis to get to things like WAR and RC+.  Not wanting to understanding advanced stats also seems to be a pretty widely held view. 

[Chicago White Sox]

2 hours ago, 46DidIt said:

He wasn’t saying defense doesn’t win or lose games. He was saying the measure of defense itself is flawed, which is a widely held view

And that’s totally fair to some degree, but when his counterargument is using the eye test and applying subjective value to defense based on gut it’s a tough to take his position too seriously.  The concept of WAR makes all the sense in the world, and while not perfect, it’s better than just shooting from the hip like vilehoopster is doing.

[Bob Sacamano]

I've let this post marinate in the wrong thread for too long:

Would be awesome if he flipped the switch his age 27 age season like Max Muncy (another guy who played some 1B who is the same height). I’m not going to hold my breath though.

[46DidIt]

26 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

And that’s totally fair to some degree, but when his counterargument is using the eye test and applying subjective value to defense based on gut it’s a tough to take his position too seriously.  The concept of WAR makes all the sense in the world, and while not perfect, it’s better than just shooting from the hip like vilehoopster is doing.

I don’t believe that is what he is arguing either. He’s saying the defensive statistics used to calculate WAR are themselves based on those things and therefore subjective

[46DidIt]

My own view on WAR is that it does undervalue offensive production at certain positions simply because of the fact more good hitters are put at that particular position. Which is why I proposed the hypothetical:

What if every team played their best players at the same position. Take it further, each team has one of the top thirty players. So like little league, every team’s best player is at SS. Every worst player is in left field. Does that mean the 20th best shortstop is less valuable than the tenth best left fielder?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

31 minutes ago, 46DidIt said:

My own view on WAR is that it does undervalue offensive production at certain positions simply because of the fact more good hitters are put at that particular position. Which is why I proposed the hypothetical:

What if every team played their best players at the same position. Take it further, each team has one of the top thirty players. So like little league, every team’s best player is at SS. Every worst player is in left field. Does that mean the 20th best shortstop is less valuable than the tenth best left fielder?

 

 

This assumes all players are way more interchangeable than they actually are in the description of "best". Yankees best player is probably either Cole or Judge.  You could never play them at SS, otherwise you would destroy your defense, and probably even your offense in the name of Cole.  By playing them in SP and RF, respectively, you maximize their skillset to what a position asks of them best.

[southsider2k5]

49 minutes ago, 46DidIt said:

I don’t believe that is what he is arguing either. He’s saying the defensive statistics used to calculate WAR are themselves based on those things and therefore subjective

Any stat that depends on something else is by definition "subjective".  So when WAR is dimissed, but RBI are held up a statistical foundations, the argument holds no water.

[46DidIt]

24 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

This assumes all players are way more interchangeable than they actually are in the description of "best". Yankees best player is probably either Cole or Judge.  You could never play them at SS, otherwise you would destroy your defense, and probably even your offense in the name of Cole.  By playing them in SP and RF, respectively, you maximize their skillset to what a position asks of them best.

That’s why it’s a hypothetical. Ok say all the best hitters were at DH instead and all the worst at LF and look at offensive WAR alone. Is the twentieth best hitter in the league worth less than the tenth best hitting left fielder simply because left fielders are all below average hitters? That is essentially what WAR is saying.

and bringing up defense in relation to Yolmer and Abreu question, I would posit it would be far easier to replace Yolmer’s defense with a player who would never even sniff the majors in the first place than Abreu’s bat with AAAA player. If someone could hit like Abreu they’d be in majors, whereas you could find countless A ball players who play above average defense.

Not trying to say WAR is worthless. Just saying because above average hitters are typical at firstbase shouldn’t devalue their production as it seems to do. And while I certainly appreciate defense, it’s obviously easily more replaceable than a bat. 

 

[southsider2k5]

11 minutes ago, 46DidIt said:

That’s why it’s a hypothetical. Ok say all the best hitters were at DH instead and all the worst at LF and look at offensive WAR alone. Is the twentieth best hitter in the league worth less than the tenth best hitting left fielder simply because left fielders are all below average hitters? That is essentially what WAR is saying.

and bringing up defense in relation to Yolmer and Abreu question, I would posit it would be far easier to replace Yolmer’s defense with a player who would never even sniff the majors in the first place than Abreu’s bat with AAAA player. If someone could hit like Abreu they’d be in majors, whereas you could find countless A ball players who play above average defense.

Not trying to say WAR is worthless. Just saying because above average hitters are typical at firstbase shouldn’t devalue their production as it seems to do. And while I certainly appreciate defense, it’s obviously easily more replaceable than a bat. 

 

Actually what you did was just make a great argument for player position adjustments, without even knowing it.  I was wondering if you did it on purpose, but apparently not.

[46DidIt]

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Actually what you did was just make a great argument for player position adjustments, without even knowing it.  I was wondering if you did it on purpose, but apparently not.

Ok way to say something without saying while implying I am stupid. And you wondered why I referred to you as a troll

[southsider2k5]

23 minutes ago, 46DidIt said:

Ok way to say something without saying while implying I am stupid. And you wondered why I referred to you as a troll

Well that clears that up.  Thanks.

[46DidIt]

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Well that clears that up.  Thanks.

Clears what up? You didn’t counter any arguments I made 

[46DidIt]

I don’t see why this is hard to comprehend.

I’m arguing first base offensive production is undervalued by WAR because above average major league caliber hitters are more often played there. The value of the bat itself is intrinsic and rare, that’s why they keep them in the lineup. It’s not like you just put a batter at first and they magically become above average major league hitters. 
 

WAR is supposed to be based off value relative to expected typical performance from the minor league player that replaces. Just because teams move guys like Harper to first base and other players who are typically among their team’s best hitters, resulting in above average production being average at that position, doesn’t mean that production is replaceable by minor leaguers.

i never even argued that positional adjustments weren’t valid, only that firstbaseman are undervalued in that system.which was essentially argument hoopster was making. So you are misrepresenting my argument, as is typical for you. How about addressing actual arguments. Then you won’t be a troll

 

[46DidIt]

I would post a lot more often if I didn’t expect to be trolled by certain mods. I’d imagine that may have something to do with why 90% of posts are made by like 20 posters these days. But whatever, you enjoy yourself

[southsider2k5]

2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

And that’s totally fair to some degree, but when his counterargument is using the eye test and applying subjective value to defense based on gut it’s a tough to take his position too seriously.  The concept of WAR makes all the sense in the world, and while not perfect, it’s better than just shooting from the hip like vilehoopster is doing.

It is by far to the best attempt out there to give quality measurements to all aspects of a baseball game, and not just the historic counting statistics.  We have so much more data to look at in 2025, why choose to understand less?  I guess if you want to live the simple life.

[caulfield12]

9 minutes ago, 46DidIt said:

I don’t see why this is hard to comprehend.

I’m arguing first base offensive production is undervalued by WAR because above average major league caliber hitters are more often played there. The value of the bat itself is intrinsic and rare, that’s why they keep them in the lineup. It’s not like you just put a batter at first and they magically become above average major league hitters. 
 

WAR is supposed to be based off value relative to expected typical performance from the minor league player that replaces. Just because teams move guys like Harper to first base and other players who are typically among their team’s best hitters, resulting in above average production being average at that position, doesn’t mean that production is replaceable by minor leaguers.

i never even argued that positional adjustments weren’t valid, only that firstbaseman are undervalued in that system.which was essentially argument hoopster was making. So you are misrepresenting my argument, as is typical for you. How about addressing actual arguments. Then you won’t be a troll

 

But by definition DH and LF are also big bats usually but suffer the worst for defensive short comings in the fWAR system for the inability to play defense period....arguing Benintendi Viciedo Vaughn  in past years for example in LF was/were much more valuable to the Sox than a benign or negative offensive presence.

Or that Pods/Pierre were actually more valuable without huge offensive numbers.

[46DidIt]

 

10 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It is by far to the best attempt out there to give quality measurements to all aspects of a baseball game, and not just the historic counting statistics.  We have so much more data to look at in 2025, why choose to understand less?  I guess if you want to live the simple life.

That can be true while also being true that first baseman are undervalued in it. I find it interesting you say why choose to understand less when that is exactly what you choose to do. Something can be valid while also being unsound, and vice versa Are you aware of that?

[southsider2k5]

15 minutes ago, 46DidIt said:

I don’t see why this is hard to comprehend.

I’m arguing first base offensive production is undervalued by WAR because above average major league caliber hitters are more often played there. The value of the bat itself is intrinsic and rare, that’s why they keep them in the lineup. It’s not like you just put a batter at first and they magically become above average major league hitters. 
 

WAR is supposed to be based off value relative to expected typical performance from the minor league player that replaces. Just because teams move guys like Harper to first base and other players who are typically among their team’s best hitters, resulting in above average production being average at that position, doesn’t mean that production is replaceable by minor leaguers.

i never even argued that positional adjustments weren’t valid, only that firstbaseman are undervalued in that system.which was essentially argument hoopster was making. So you are misrepresenting my argument, as is typical for you. How about addressing actual arguments. Then you won’t be a troll

 

hahaha, ok man.  I guess you really need this.  Here you go.

I think you are WAY over simplifying this.  A 1B's bat isn't "undervalued".  It is placed in an appropriate context of a group of players from the same position.  Then adjustment is made recognizing that both offensive and defensive skills occur at different average amounts in different positions.  By this same argument a 1B's glove would also be "overvalued" because it is much easier to stand out defensively in a position that doesn't provide much defensive value.  The comparison to other positions isn't equal either, because if you took a SS and started playing them at 1B, then they would also see the same positional adjustments and their WAR would adjust accordingly.  You can't just take any minor leaguer and replace them.  That's not what this does.  It's a "replacement" player, not any player out on the street, and that replacement player has it's own definition.