2015 Offseason

[witesoxfan]

Matt Kemp has quietly climbed all the way to 23rd overall in MLB OPS.

 

So much for acquiring him super cheaply.

 

Now Ethier and Crawford are different stories.

 

You mean exactly what I was saying last week?

[Dick Allen]

And yet, it appears to have been surprisingly accurate for predicting the 2014 white sox.

Add up everyone on every teams' WAR, and look at those vs, actual standings. It will prove the number, while maybe a nice tool to determine performance, should really be named something else.

[witesoxfan]

Add up everyone on every teams' WAR, and look at those vs, actual standings. It will prove the number, while maybe a nice tool to determine performance, should really be named something else.

 

The name is fine. It implies that a player will produce however many more amount of wins than that of a replacement player based on how productive their performance is on a baseball field in a context neutral setting. The backing of this studies is the millions of plate appearances, defensive plays, and base running outputs in the past 100 years. Given those, they've figured that, in these situations, a player who does x compared to the y of a replacement player will be worth z amount more wins.

 

If the Sox had Mike Trout instead of Dayan Viciedo all year, do you believe it's unreasonable that they'd have a record of 76-75 right now instead of 69-82? Of course not. Adding context into the situation, they could also be 73-78 or 80-71 too along with the same 76-75 that WAR says Mike Trout would add. WAR admittedly does not account for context, but keeping the statistic context neutral allows us to look at the statline in general and give us some basis as to how valuable a certain player truly is.

[Balta1701]

Add up everyone on every teams' WAR, and look at those vs, actual standings. It will prove the number, while maybe a nice tool to determine performance, should really be named something else.

 

That's fWAR plotted against winning percentage. It seems to me like it does a really solid job of splitting the winning teams from the losing teams, drawing a line around 30+ fWAR where you need to get to to even be competitive for a playoff spot, putting teams at the bottom in both, putting teams at the top in both, and giving you 1-2 teams where you say "something really off happened here".

[Dick Allen]

The name is fine. It implies that a player will produce however many more amount of wins than that of a replacement player based on how productive their performance is on a baseball field in a context neutral setting. The backing of this studies is the millions of plate appearances, defensive plays, and base running outputs in the past 100 years. Given those, they've figured that, in these situations, a player who does x compared to the y of a replacement player will be worth z amount more wins.

 

If the Sox had Mike Trout instead of Dayan Viciedo all year, do you believe it's unreasonable that they'd have a record of 76-75 right now instead of 69-82? Of course not. Adding context into the situation, they could also be 73-78 or 80-71 too along with the same 76-75 that WAR says Mike Trout would add. WAR admittedly does not account for context, but keeping the statistic context neutral allows us to look at the statline in general and give us some basis as to how valuable a certain player truly is.

 

 

No other stat is named Wins. It is very logical to think trading a 2 WAR player for a 6 WAR player added 4 wins based on the name. But that isn't necessarily true. Therefore, it is my opinion it is a poorly named number.

 

The other thing is defensive WAR is still very, very debatable, with how it is being determined.

 

And WAR is just based on numbers. Anyone who has done anything will admit people can bring far more or far less or just what their numbers show to the table in just about every line of work.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Then you should add up what every player's WAR has been and compare them to actual standings and it should be chalk.If you are going to say Trout is 6 WAR better than Viciedo, maybe if they were swapped out it would mean 6 more wins, but there is a greater chance it may be 2 or 4 or 5 or maybe even 10. If it doesn't add up for actual results, thinking it will add up for make believe is make believe.

 

No other stat is named Wins. It is very logical to think trading a 2 WAR player for a 6 WAR player added 4 wins based on the name. But that isn't necessarily true. Therefore, it is my opinion it is a poorly named number.

 

No, it should not be chalk but it should be close, as Balta points out above. WAR is context neutral, while real life is context sensitive. No one has ever said anything else.

 

It's also not called wins, it's called wins above replacement. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, saying what I suggested - Trout would be expected to add 7 wins to this team if he replaced a player with a WAR of 0 - is an estimate. Estimates can be used legitimately. What is sure is that WAR suggests Mike Trout is a significantly better baseball player than Dayan Viciedo and that the White Sox would be significantly better with him in the lineup. Whether that's 2, 4, 7, or 10 wins is based on context.

 

I think your basic gripe is that it stands for "wins above replacement," which is more complaining to complain, but the name of it is frankly meaningless - it could be "widgets abound ratchets" or "zoops above zorps," but what it tells us in regards to comparing baseball players is far more important as long as we understand it.

[Eminor3rd]

No other stat is named Wins. It is very logical to think trading a 2 WAR player for a 6 WAR player added 4 wins based on the name. But that isn't necessarily true. Therefore, it is my opinion it is a poorly named number.

 

The other thing is defensive WAR is still very, very debatable, with how it is being determined.

 

And WAR is just based on numbers. Anyone who has done anything will admit people can bring far more or far less or just what their numbers show to the table in just about every line of work.

 

To add to what wite said:

 

1. trading a 2WAR player for a 6WAR player WOULD be adding 4 wins -- on average. However, the average outcome is less likely to occur than one of the entire field of other outcomes. But it is still the MOST likely individual outcome. That it cannot predict the future accurately is completely irrelevant becasue it still succeeds in telling you how much better, on average and measured in wins, the second player is than the first. And that's what you need to know.

 

2. What do you mean no other stat is called 'wins'? Did you forget the stat called 'wins' that has been a primary component of judging pitchers for over 100 years?

[Dick Allen]

No, it should not be chalk but it should be close, as Balta points out above. WAR is context neutral, while real life is context sensitive. No one has ever said anything else.

 

It's also not called wins, it's called wins above replacement. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, saying what I suggested - Trout would be expected to add 7 wins to this team if he replaced a player with a WAR of 0 - is an estimate. Estimates can be used legitimately. What is sure is that WAR suggests Mike Trout is a significantly better baseball player than Dayan Viciedo and that the White Sox would be significantly better with him in the lineup. Whether that's 2, 4, 7, or 10 wins is based on context.

 

I think your basic gripe is that it stands for "wins above replacement," which is more complaining to complain, but the name of it is frankly meaningless - it could be "widgets abound ratchets" or "zoops above zorps," but what it tells us in regards to comparing baseball players is far more important as long as we understand it.

You yourself admitted you have used a guy with 2 WAR taking the win total 2 wins higher. I am not complaining to complain. If a 6 WAR guy isn't 4 wins better than a 2 WAR guy, the stat is poorly named. The name isn't meaningless. It implies and has been used to suggest exactly what I am saying.

 

[Dick Allen]

To add to what wite said:

 

1. trading a 2WAR player for a 6WAR player WOULD be adding 4 wins -- on average. However, the average outcome is less likely to occur than one of the entire field of other outcomes. But it is still the MOST likely individual outcome. That it cannot predict the future accurately is completely irrelevant becasue it still succeeds in telling you how much better, on average and measured in wins, the second player is than the first. And that's what you need to know.

 

2. What do you mean no other stat is called 'wins'? Did you forget the stat called 'wins' that has been a primary component of judging pitchers for over 100 years?

Not for offensive players, and now ironically, the Wins stat for pitchers is meaningless.

 

Also even the saber community isn't so confident in advanced defensive metrics. And that goes into WAR, correct?

 

I used WAR. I post it often. But I am not naive enough to believe it is some uber accurate number. It is a nice number to put everyone on the same line, but there is a little more that goes into winning games than numbers you can put into a formula.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Not for offensive players, and now ironically, the Wins stat for pitchers is meaningless.

 

Also even the saber community isn't so confident in advanced defensive metrics. And that goes into WAR, correct?

 

I used WAR. I post it often. But I am not naive enough to believe it is some uber accurate number. It is a nice number to put everyone on the same line, but there is a little more that goes into winning games than numbers you can put into a formula.

 

I don't think it's so much that the saber community is unconfident in their numbers but it's more along the lines of if they are over/undervaluing it and if they should include other information. Alex Gordon's UZR this year is off the charts. The controversy there lies in the idea that it's because he's been head and shoulders above his peers to this point, not that his defense has improved substantially from this year to last.

 

Either way, as has been said, if a person says substituting a 6 WAR player for a 2 WAR player adds 4 wins, it's an estimate and they should add 4 wins, but won't necessarily do so. The bottomline is it is an estimate and an average. No one has ever said it's perfectly accurate in that aspect, but that it should be fairly close.

[Dick Allen]

I don't think it's so much that the saber community is unconfident in their numbers but it's more along the lines of if they are over/undervaluing it and if they should include other information. Alex Gordon's UZR this year is off the charts. The controversy there lies in the idea that it's because he's been head and shoulders above his peers to this point, not that his defense has improved substantially from this year to last.

 

Either way, as has been said, if a person says substituting a 6 WAR player for a 2 WAR player adds 4 wins, it's an estimate and they should add 4 wins, but won't necessarily do so. The bottomline is it is an estimate and an average. No one has ever said it's perfectly accurate in that aspect, but that it should be fairly close.

Still, if it is close, the actual numbers with the actual teams should be fairly close as well, and I have never seen an actual WAR standings chart. It would be interesting to see.

 

All I can find is predicted standings based on projected WAR, and like those based on gut feeling, or old time stats, some look really accurate, some a little off, and some way off.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Still, if it is close, the actual numbers with the actual teams should be fairly close as well, and I have never seen an actual WAR standings chart. It would be interesting to see.

 

I do agree, and while I don't think it would match exactly (in a 162 game season, you expect those trends to even out, but there are and have been teams out there who really mash the ball and pitch well and find a way to lose a lot of close games and, conversely, there are teams who lose quite a few blow outs but find a way to win a ton of close ballgames and end up winning a lot), I think it would be fairly accurate but with disparity throughout. WAR doesn't account for luck, and even intangible as it is (which drives sabernuts crazy), it's still a huge part of the game.

 

I'm a little tied down, but if I get some time tonight, I can add up the WARs and compare them to the standings. And, if someone gets time before me to do it, all the better.

[Eminor3rd]

I used WAR. I post it often. But I am not naive enough to believe it is some uber accurate number. It is a nice number to put everyone on the same line, but there is a little more that goes into winning games than numbers you can put into a formula.

 

Right, who's arguing otherwise?

[Balta1701]

Not for offensive players, and now ironically, the Wins stat for pitchers is meaningless.

 

Also even the saber community isn't so confident in advanced defensive metrics. And that goes into WAR, correct?

 

I used WAR. I post it often. But I am not naive enough to believe it is some uber accurate number. It is a nice number to put everyone on the same line, but there is a little more that goes into winning games than numbers you can put into a formula.

Let's try it this way.

 

The White Sox are currently close to 20 fWAR. This year, every single team over .500 with a shot at the playoffs has >30 fWAR. Therefore, for the White Sox to even have a shot at being competitive next year, they have to come up with 10+ fWAR next year and then have things go right. For the White Sox to nearly guarantee themselves a playoff spot, they need to be figuring out a way to come up with 20 fWAR beyond what they've produced this year.

 

If they just tried to fill these needs paying fair market value for free agents, with nothing else happening, then we're talking about spending well over $50 million next year beyond what we currently have on payroll to make up that difference, and even then we're counting on the team to over perform rather than underperform.

 

If you go into the numbers maybe there's a few guys who can get better. who knows what Abreu can do if he's in his 2nd year and his manager doesn't try to kill him. Getting rid of Konerko helps some. Maybe Semien and Sanchez have really good years. Garcia is back. Noesi in his 2nd season with Coop as a starter the whole time maybe can add 1-2. But then again, Alexei, Flowers, and Gillaspie might not repeat their seasons.

 

If all we think about is adding a starter like James Shields and a couple bullpen pieces, the only way that pushes us into the playoffs is if other guys step up a whole lot to cover the rest of that gap and we actually get lucky with health/outperform a bit.

 

I'm not using it as predictive, I'm trying to instead figure out what guys might do next year and see where that puts us relative to what we need to reach to even plausibly compete for a playoff spot, and that is a really, really big gap to fill.

 

If you go the other way, we're in the low 20s in fWAR and we're in the low 70s in wins. If we added 10, we might expect that pulls us into the low to mid 80s, so we still need to over perform by a good amount to challenge for the wild car. If we added 20, then that pushes us into the low 90s, which is where we'd need to be to compete for the playoffs.

[chitownsportsfan]

Let's try it this way.

 

The White Sox are currently close to 20 fWAR. This year, every single team over .500 with a shot at the playoffs has >30 fWAR. Therefore, for the White Sox to even have a shot at being competitive next year, they have to come up with 10+ fWAR next year and then have things go right. For the White Sox to nearly guarantee themselves a playoff spot, they need to be figuring out a way to come up with 20 fWAR beyond what they've produced this year.

 

If they just tried to fill these needs paying fair market value for free agents, with nothing else happening, then we're talking about spending well over $50 million next year beyond what we currently have on payroll to make up that difference, and even then we're counting on the team to over perform rather than underperform.

 

If you go into the numbers maybe there's a few guys who can get better. who knows what Abreu can do if he's in his 2nd year and his manager doesn't try to kill him. Getting rid of Konerko helps some. Maybe Semien and Sanchez have really good years. Garcia is back. Noesi in his 2nd season with Coop as a starter the whole time maybe can add 1-2. But then again, Alexei, Flowers, and Gillaspie might not repeat their seasons.

 

If all we think about is adding a starter like James Shields and a couple bullpen pieces, the only way that pushes us into the playoffs is if other guys step up a whole lot to cover the rest of that gap and we actually get lucky with health/outperform a bit.

 

I'm not using it as predictive, I'm trying to instead figure out what guys might do next year and see where that puts us relative to what we need to reach to even plausibly compete for a playoff spot, and that is a really, really big gap to fill.

 

They are gonna have to get more than ~1.5 WAR from DH, LF and RF combined next year to make the playoffs.

 

I think Rodon is probably a 2 WAR starter right there. Add in Noesi for a full season you get another 1 WAR. Improve the bullpen by throwing say 15 million at it. Ok you just got 1 more WAR. So we're left with about 6 WAR (assuming no regression from Jose, Eaton and Ramirez, which is probably unwise) from those 3 positions (at least).

 

Looking at it that way it's not as tall an order. If you think Hahn added about 10 WAR last offseason without spending much hopefully he can repeat that this offseason (with a lot more dough to spend) and you can see the outline of a team that can reasonably expect to win around 84-90 games.

 

The Sox are well positioned IMO but the next step -- from mediocre to good -- is the hardest. Luckily they have a lot of youth (probably a 5 year window with Jose and Sale and Q and Eeaton and Avi all at peaks) and quite a bit of spare payroll to help them get there.

 

[southsider2k5]

You yourself admitted you have used a guy with 2 WAR taking the win total 2 wins higher. I am not complaining to complain. If a 6 WAR guy isn't 4 wins better than a 2 WAR guy, the stat is poorly named. The name isn't meaningless. It implies and has been used to suggest exactly what I am saying.

 

No statistic at all can by applied like you are applying it. Being a .250 hitter, doesn't mean you get a hit every 4th AB. It means on the average, you get a hit every four times to the plate, but that could be a mix of 3-3 and 0-9 to make it a .250 average.

 

When you replace a .250 hitter with a .333 hitter, that doesn't mean you get an extra hit every 12 ABs automatically, just like replacing a 2 WAR player with a 6 WAR player means you automatically get 4 more wins. You still play the games to figure that part out.

 

It is the same with pitching. Replacing a 10 game winner with a 20 game winner doesn't mean you are promised 10 more wins just because the stat is named "wins".

[Balta1701]

Looking at it that way it's not as tall an order. If you think Hahn added about 10 WAR last offseason without spending much hopefully he can repeat that this offseason (with a lot more dough to spend) and you can see the outline of a team that can reasonably expect to win around 84-90 games.

It's worth noting that in the fan graphs world, we're only a couple fWAR ahead of the pace we set for all last season (with 2 weeks still to play), so the biggest difference this year has been underperforming less than last year.

 

I agree there are paths that can get you there...but just look at your list. You're assuming everything goes right just to get close to 30 without a big FA spending spree. That alone is disconcerting and worrisome. Maybe it can happen, but then you have to seriously look at every single guy and ask what the downside risk is as well. Noesi struggles more, Abreu's foot acts up, Rodon doesn't come up until June after a slow start, Sale spends a month on the DL, and Ramirez and Flowers step back a bit, and suddenly we've spent $35 million a year and wound up with a team in the low 70s in wins again.

[chitownsportsfan]

It's worth noting that in the fan graphs world, we're only a couple fWAR ahead of the pace we set for all last season (with 2 weeks still to play), so the biggest difference this year has been underperforming less than last year.

 

I agree there are paths that can get you there...but just look at your list. You're assuming everything goes right just to get close to 30 without a big FA spending spree. That alone is disconcerting and worrisome. Maybe it can happen, but then you have to seriously look at every single guy and ask what the downside risk is as well. Noesi struggles more, Abreu's foot acts up, Rodon doesn't come up until June after a slow start, Sale spends a month on the DL, and Ramirez and Flowers step back a bit, and suddenly we've spent $35 million a year and wound up with a team in the low 70s in wins again.

 

I here ya, even my best OOTP teams that are predicted to win 95 games occasionally struggle to 80. In the real world a team that is projected to win 88 can easily slide down to 77 because of regression and injuries.

 

But, it's now or never for the Sox to "go all in" with this current core. That doesn't mean they need to go trade Tim Anderson and Micah for a 2 WAR LF -- but it does mean it's time to approach the bullpen and the crater positions -- DH, 2B, LF -- as a team that plans on contending.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Let's try it this way.

 

The White Sox are currently close to 20 fWAR. This year, every single team over .500 with a shot at the playoffs has >30 fWAR. Therefore, for the White Sox to even have a shot at being competitive next year, they have to come up with 10+ fWAR next year and then have things go right. For the White Sox to nearly guarantee themselves a playoff spot, they need to be figuring out a way to come up with 20 fWAR beyond what they've produced this year.

 

If they just tried to fill these needs paying fair market value for free agents, with nothing else happening, then we're talking about spending well over $50 million next year beyond what we currently have on payroll to make up that difference, and even then we're counting on the team to over perform rather than underperform.

 

If you go into the numbers maybe there's a few guys who can get better. who knows what Abreu can do if he's in his 2nd year and his manager doesn't try to kill him. Getting rid of Konerko helps some. Maybe Semien and Sanchez have really good years. Garcia is back. Noesi in his 2nd season with Coop as a starter the whole time maybe can add 1-2. But then again, Alexei, Flowers, and Gillaspie might not repeat their seasons.

 

If all we think about is adding a starter like James Shields and a couple bullpen pieces, the only way that pushes us into the playoffs is if other guys step up a whole lot to cover the rest of that gap and we actually get lucky with health/outperform a bit.

 

I'm not using it as predictive, I'm trying to instead figure out what guys might do next year and see where that puts us relative to what we need to reach to even plausibly compete for a playoff spot, and that is a really, really big gap to fill.

 

If you go the other way, we're in the low 20s in fWAR and we're in the low 70s in wins. If we added 10, we might expect that pulls us into the low to mid 80s, so we still need to over perform by a good amount to challenge for the wild car. If we added 20, then that pushes us into the low 90s, which is where we'd need to be to compete for the playoffs.

This is a great example of how WAR can be misused though.

 

Move Danks to the pen, replace him with Rodon, add James Shields for a rotation of Sale-Shields-Quintana-Noesi-Rodon with Danks the #6 spot starter & long man and Bassitt/Rienzo/garbage/etc. pushed back into the 7th starter plus role.

 

Doing the above adds a great number of innings to the rotation. It also swaps out a lot of bad innings that were thrown already with much better innings. Doing this pushes marginal players further back and more out of the picture. It also minimizes the innings the pen has to cover as a whole, and makes roles in the back of the pen (which are designed specifically to win games and protect leads) actually definable and makes it easier for those few really good relievers to achieve within those roles.

 

We don't need more WAR out of the bullpen necessarily, we need less innings out of the bullpen. Adding James Shields and Rodon for example here - how do you quantify the value of that? Adding Shields behind Sale pushes everyone else back and eases their expectations, and swapping Rodon and Danks makes our #5 a nightmare for a lot of teams instead of a festive/dinner party atmosphere. Then the pen improves (theoretically) by Danks being at least a marginal upgrade there and it greatly improves by not having to cover as many innings. And have more quality innings out of the rotation makes it ilkelier that when we go to the pen we are going to our best guys first, rather than going to our s***tier relievers first and hoping they can get the game to our better ones without blowing it first. What's the WAR value there?

 

Also if you become a much better pitching team you can then prioritize defense at a greater level. Suddenly a backup option like Jordan Danks running down balls in the OF and Leury Garcia covering some weaknesses elsewhere, well, they don't seem quite so useless anymore. Now their skillsets matter more because it actually means something to give up a lead-off double when you're protecting a 1-run lead, but when you're down by 3 in the 8th what's the point of putting JorDanks out there and maximizing the defense?

 

I was heartily pooped upon by a couple here for the Headley buy-low idea but I think he could be a great example of how poor the WAR argument may be when using it alone to try to predict extra wins. Add up Chase Headley and James Shields and you're not going to get enough WAR to make this team a contender. But put Connor and Tank in a platoon role, keep Tank out of the field as much as possible, try to keep JorDanks out there in the 8th and 9th innings when the game is tight but we're ahead (especially if we have a flyball/K type of closer), put Headley out there defensively at 3B over Connor and use Connor as the BU 1B as well, also in LF over Tank, etc. Then you pick up all the bullpen perks too. How do you quantify that? In the end you can't really define it in WAR but you've upgraded your defense at 3B, LF, the entire OF in the late innings, you've got a pen that's easier to work with because it's easier to hide struggling players when less innings need to be eaten and more of those innings are funnelled to better players, etc. You're just a lot better at run prevention and you're going to be a lot better in close games too.

 

And actually, go ahead and add a lefty SU guy to that role. What's the WAR of a good lefty SU guy? IMO Shields + Headley + lefty SU guy isn't going to make you a playoff team in the WAR category but you may have enough benefits to do it in reality ot at least maybe you have enough to make the team a buyer in July, and that would be huge.

[Balta1701]

I here ya, even my best OOTP teams that are predicted to win 95 games occasionally struggle to 80. In the real world a team that is projected to win 88 can easily slide down to 77 because of regression and injuries.

 

But, it's now or never for the Sox to "go all in" with this current core. That doesn't mean they need to go trade Tim Anderson and Micah for a 2 WAR LF -- but it does mean it's time to approach the bullpen and the crater positions -- DH, 2B, LF -- as a team that plans on contending.

Take note though, you named 3 lineup positions, the bullpen (at least 2 guys), and then presumably something in the starting rotation as positions that need help (in addition to possibly the bench). So we're talking about at least 5-6 key contributors away.

 

That's not going to happen through only the FA market without a lot of "buy low" luck. We're not going to sign 5-6 free agents for full value to fill those positions, same problem as if you count fWAR.

 

To pull that off and think that you have a team that can contend, we're going to need to have a success on the trade market or do something surprising, and we're going to need big steps forward from guys in the org already.

[chitownsportsfan]

If Avi turns in a 5 WAR season a lot of problems are going to be solved. A lot hinges on him staying healthy and developing into the guy that is +5 runs on the bases, hits 290/345/480, and plays a run neutral RF. That's not quite 5 WAR, more like 3-4, but I think he can get there next season.

 

It's really great that he got to get ~110 PA in at the end of this season. He's working through his post-injury adjustments now instead of next April.

Edited September 17, 2014 by chitownsportsfan

[Balta1701]

If Avi turns in a 5 WAR season a lot of problems are going to be solved. A lot hinges on him staying healthy and developing into the guy that is +5 runs on the bases, hits 290/345/480, and plays a run neutral RF. That's not quite 5 WAR, more like 3-4, but I think he can get there next season.

 

It's really great that he got to get ~110 PA in at the end of this season. He's working through his post-injury adjustments now instead of next April.

Just to note, Avi's been a -0.5 run guy on the bases this year after a + 0.2 base guy last year, and he's on pace to be a -10 guy in RF this year after a -11 guy last year.

 

He'll have to massively improve in all 3 aspects of his game to reach that level.

[The Ultimate Champion]

There's also the culture change effect too, one that stas people are probably never going to consider. How does one player like Robinson Cano in Seattle or James Shields added to the Royals or a player like AJ added to our team in 2005, etc. manage to have such great effects on the club? All the stats people do is add the individual numbers up and say "oh that team was better because such-and-such players performed better, and so-and-so had a career year." But baseball is very much a mental game, a momentum game, a feel type of thing, etc. Going into the season feeling like you're a very good team, having that veteran leadership, having a new identity or a bit of an edge... etc. it's all a factor even if stats people would say that studies have shown it's not.

 

You also want balance all the time, WAR doesn't account for that either, and that's the worst part of it really, because team composition optimized for greatest effectiveness (i.e. total ballgames won) isn't just his WAR + that guy's WAR and so on. You need to be able to win games in as many ways possible. You want to beat teams with SP, with your bullpen, you want to be able to beat them fundamentally, with defense, by forcing them to make plays that your guys can make but their guys can't (bunt to a s***ty fielding P or 3B, hit the ball the other way to the slow corner guy who takes s*** routes to the ball), etc. Win via slugfest, win via smallball and the solo HR (solo HR's are definitely a part of smallball), etc. Make contact, run, hit for average, hit for power, hit in the clutch, move the runner along, bring the guy in on a sacrifice.... all these things work too if you have a team that isn't going to need to score 5+ runs every single game to win. If you can pitch well enough to keep the opposition low enough in the score total then you can force the game to be more finite, you can make the "little things" matter a lot, and you can beat them at their weakpoints. All WAR says is that if you're down 3 wins in the loss column take out that s***ty fast guy in LF and put another high K slowf*** slugger there. Well sure that may help you win more slugfests but it's probably not going to help you run down the baseball or push across a run in a contact situation, it's not going to help you take the extra base and so on so good luck winning close ballgames.

[chitownsportsfan]

Just to note, Avi's been a -0.5 run guy on the bases this year after a + 0.2 base guy last year, and he's on pace to be a -10 guy in RF this year after a -11 guy last year.

 

He'll have to massively improve in all 3 aspects of his game to reach that level.

 

I think with time he'll improve but it was a big blow to have him miss so much dev time this year. I just really hope they keep him in RF and don't jerk him around to LF or some stupid crap like that. As for the baserunning I think it will come with experience.

 

Realistically we can hope for 3 WAR and expect 2 from him next year but in my fantasy land I hope for 5 and get 3.

[BigHurt3515]

When is the next time we get to celebrate winning the division?? It sucks watching these teams all celebrate with the fans. I want that feeling again!!! I don't want mid-august to the end of the year not matter.. Give us something good damn it!!