Tiger337

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.

It doesn't suggest he lost two games with his glove. It's all about valuation. It means that he has a lot less defensive value (when he's not pitching) than someone that actually plays a position. Do you think that a shortstop and DH with the same exact offensive statistics have the same value to a team?

By most accounts, including his own, he was interested last year.

So Fielder would lose points for his bad defense too. An average first baseman is considered to have 12.5 runs per 162 games fewer runs of value to his team than average fielder across the defensive spectrum. If Fielder was 10 runs below the average first baseman, then he would have a total of 22.5 runs subtracted.

That includes -12 positional adjustment for being a first baseman. So, they expect him to be an average first baseman.

For what it's worth, Kim is projected for 2.4 WAR on FanGraphs. The only Tigers with higher projections are Greene 3.3 and Dingler 2.8

They are too chase prone to my liking, but that's just my aesthetic reaction to changes that have happened in the game over the years and not an informed opinion on whether they would produce better with a different approach.

I think it's OK to make baseball a big part of your life. It is fun following a team and getting emotional about outcomes. In fact, it becomes a lot less interesting if you don't care. The key is balance. Once the game is over, it is healthy to move on. I understand why people get upset and some people are not so good at turning off their emotions, but it's best not to let it affect other parts of your life.

If WAR between 2.1 and 5.4 for 4 consecutive years is useless, then I guess he was useless. The question is whether he is still a plus defender because that's where a lot of the WAR came from and defense can go fast.

Can't draw a walk, can't field, looks like a podcaster, but he sure can hit!

I noticed that too. Hopefully, he is smart enough to make the addjustment if you really can't hit that way in the majors. Either that or he so talented that he is one of the few who can still hit that way.

We make our own amateur speculations instead.

The India Times did say that the Tigers are prepared to make a blockbuster trade for Bichette.

I think there is a near zero chance of Tigers signing Bichette. I just wouldn't avoid signing him because he's blocking Anderson, Lee or even Keith.

Are they really that loaded in the infield? McGonigle is a super prospect who is very close. Rainer is another big time prospect a couple years down the road. Lee and Anderson are interesting, but they aren't guys I'd plan around especially if there was a chance to sign an established star.