Tiger337

I was wondering why the Tigers needed to drop Lange to make room for Darnell since I thought their 40-man roster was at 39. Then I saw they had signed Jack Little. Harris is wheeling and dealing! Jack Little sounds like a name you come up with a little too fast when you need a fake identity,

Harris is making bold moves already! It's going to be a wild off-season.

Because playing shortstop contributes more value to winning games than playing first base. Similarly playing first base contributes a little more value to winning games than being a dh. What if they all started out at zero (as Echoes suggested) and you added 25 points for being a shortstop and 5 points for being a frst baseman . The designated hitter stays at zero. The next step is to add or subtract points for being a good or bad fielder at your position. Again the designated hitter can not gain or lose any points here. Does this make more sense? You would end up with the same result.

So, do you think the DH should get no points subtracted for his fielding, but it's OK for the first baseman to lose 1.2 points just for being a first baseman? How is that fair? Or is it just the presentation that bothers you? The points that a first baseman loses does not represent defensive runs lost by the first baseman. The first baseman gets positional points subtracted for the same reason a DH gets points subtracted. It's just a way to separate the contribution of a shortstop from a player who plays a less challenging positon. I don't really care about the business side of the game. I use WAR as a back of the napkin way to compare players total contribution to his team. I don't know if they did the positional adjustments exactly right, but if I am comparing two players and one is a shortstop and one is a DH, I need to to give the shortstop credit for playing a position which the DH can't play. The presentation could be better, but I don't think there is a logic error.

Then there was that time Cabrera got drunk in a bar in Florida, got thrown out and later got stopped for drunk driving. Then they had to let it go, because the cops bragged about how they nailed a famous athlete.

Maybe they do it elsewhere, but I don't really see anybody here doing what Edman said. It is mostly posters talking about who they hope he signs or others talking sardonically about how he'll only sign injured pitchers and waiver wire guys.

If he is making decisions based on small samples, then I don't want him!

He always walked too many batters.

What I see more often is people explaining why Harris or Ilitch won't like any player and how no player will want to play for the Tigers so it doen't matter anyway.

They are still the best position player team I have ever seen that stayed together for several years. They could hit, hit for power, field, run and they had personality! Their pitching was not the best, but good enough to win with that team.

Comerica Park would suppress his home runs a bit (which isn't his strength anyway). I don't see why it would hurt his ability to get hits, draw walks, avoid strikeouts which are his strengths. He might lose some doubles, but make up for it in triples. His 110 PA in Comerica don't tell me a lot.

I just looked up Bichette's fielding numbers. They are worse than I thought. They say McGonigle might not stay at shortstop, but Bichette may not either. Bregman has always been the perfect fit for the Tigers, exactly what Harris says he wants. The question, of course, is his age. I suspect his bat will last longer than most because he is all about plate discipline, but his fielding make be gone soon and then if his offense does NOT last, they would get screwed by a 5-year deal.

And you helped me write up the defensive measures!

There were posters freaking out in this forum because the Tigers let their "two best players" go after 2003 - Randall Simon and Juan Acevedo.

yes they can sign now.

Assuming a team has 13 position players on their roster, they could have 5 who play every day plus 8 platoon players.

I think that bigger stronger players are staying at shortstop rather than moving to other positions. It could be that modern strength and agility training allows them to do that. There are also more players playing multiple positions which makes statistical analysis more challenging.

OPS+ is kind of a subset of WAR (except WAR uses wOBA, wRC+ instead). As to which one is better to use, it depends on the question. If you are only interested in offensive contribution, then I would not look at WAR. I would just look at OPS+ or wRC+. If you are interested in comparing the overall value of players at different positions, then WAR is better, because players who contribute more than just hitting need to get credit for that.

No, I am asking that because I don't understand the point you are trying to make. You and Gehringer are both very smart and I am pretty sure you understand that playing a challenging position has value. I understood Echoes point and thought that perhaps that is what you were saying too, but apparently not.

I don't think it's relevant either way, but I think shortstops are closer to first basemen offensively than you think. Average OPS for SS .711 (98 OPS+) Average OPS for 1B .744 (107 OPS+) So, there seems like there would be a lot of overlap and for that group which overlaps or comes close to overlapping, shortstops are a lot more valuable because of the position they play. Of course a 1b who hits .950 gets paid more than a SS who hits .711, but his WAR would be better too, so I don't understand your point.

In the real world, players are drafted and start in the lower minors as shortstops or catchers or the the most challenging position they can handle. Then they get moved to less challenging positions as they move up the ladder. I don't think there is any doubt that a lot more MLB players could play first base competently than play shortstop competently. If a shortstop and first baseman have the same offensive statistics and are both average fielders at their positions, the shortstop is going to make more money in free agency and will bring back more in a trade. He has more value than the first baseman and that's why he gets the higher WAR.

I still say MLB is largely at fault for partnering with gambling organizations. Sure, the pitchers broke the rules and should be banned from the game and punished for whatever cimes they committed. But MLB is sending a very bad message with their hypocrisy. This kind of thing was inevitable.

It was though, in part. If he had taken the Tigers offer last year (which reportedly had two team option years), he would not have had the opportunity to be a free agent again this yrear.

That would be fine. In terms of ranking players which is what I use it for, you would end up with the same result if you added instead of subtracted. The key is you have to have a way of rewarding players for playing more difficult positilons. The subtracting of -17 for a DH is not a logical flaw. It could be argued that it's a presentation flaw though.

WAR is not about many runs a player cost his team. It's about how easy it is to replace a player. If a slick fielding shortstop and a DH with the same offensive statistics both get injured, which one is easier to is easier to replace? If you want to know how many defensive runs a player cost his team based on a stat, you would use something like DRS. You would not use WAR for that.