Sizing Up The Competition: Chicago White Sox

I would argue that is more indicative of the problems with WAR for the purposes you are employing it.  

yeah, I wouldn't.  Because defense needs to be considered when looking at the overall value of the player. Too many people don't value it.  On top of that, there's more to the game then HR and RBI when talking value.

Defense absolutely has value.  WAR is just a poor tool for measuring it.  

better than any alternative to measuring it, and while it's not perfect, it shouldn't be tossed away as worthless because it makes a player we think is better than he is look not as good as we think he does.

I've watched him a lot and I don't see anything at all special over the last two, three years when comparing him to other 1Bs.  So I absolutely buy the fact that he's just not that good. WAR says he's a role player/low end baromter of a solid starter. That's about right.

You have a bizarre definition of "role player" if 146  XBHs, 254 RBI,  and an OPS north of .800 over the last three years fits that.

I've already explained why I think that he is what he is. And I think it's bizarre people point to RBI as a stat to judge a player by. I don't look at RBI as a stat for judging a player's abilities.  And if a guy is performing the way you said and all he's doing is DHing or playing a very poor 1B, it's not that overwhelming coming from those positions.  If he was doing that as a shortstop or a CF, or a 2B, it'd be different, but for a 1B/DH?

And if he was as good as you're making him out to be, he would have gotten a much better contract than he did this offseason instead of all those numbers you threw out only being worth a 2 year contract (on an AL team).

He's only been worth more than 2.1 WAR ONCE in his whole 11 year career.  He only has a hair over 12 combined WAR for his WHOLE career.  

He's a good player, not a great one.  He's also a good fit for the White Sox and likely to see his power numbers improve in Chicago.  

 

I'm not hyping him, just trying to sober how much you're downplaying him.  And rejecting using WAR to knock a player for his defense, of course.  But I've been vocal about how overplayed that is in other places - suffice to say I'm not a fan.

so you're saying he's a good player and I'm saying he's between between a role player and a solid starter.  How much different do you find these terms? If teams though he was as good as you seem to be thinking he is, he gets a longer and better contract.  The White Sox stretched to get a guy to fill a role, like we did with Hunter, though not as bad as what we did.

Some of us think it's bizarre to use WAR to judge a player.

 

In any case, I don't think LaRoche's defense at first base is all that bad, but even if it is, isn't he going to mostly DH?

 

Bad defense from a DH isn't all that damaging, IMO.

But no one can actually come up with a legitimate alternative to judge a player's overall performance, mostly because no one person can possibly watch enough of every player play their respective positions to get a big enough sample size to gauge where his talent fits in amongst others at same position. And even if they could, there would be bias.

And I imagine Abreu and LaRoche will split 1B/DH.

Apparently a lot since you originally defended the idea from another poster that he was "done".  Looks to me like a pretty good player that should help them.

I didn't understand this post.  Can you explain? Show me what discussion you are referring to. I don't remember saying he was done, even here, even in this discussion,but I've certainly never said he was an above average or better player.

It doesn't need to be rehashed, go back and look at where you entered the Laroche discussion.  It was after Nick pointed out that players that are "done" generally don't average 25+ HRs and an OPS over .800 for the last three years.

I didn't give the guy who said he was done a like, nor did I quote him and say I agree that he's done.

When I jumped in, that was only me talking to Nick about his stats, doesn't mean I actually think he's done. I don;t think he's any kind of difference maker though.

Like most debates, this doesn't have to be one far side or the other far side.  There is middle ground. I think there's a lot more middle ground to debates than we see in debates here. Not done, but not as good as you and Nick and others make him out to be.

I enjoyed the debate, gonna spend time with the Mrs. now,

Nick's point was only to demonstrate he wasn't "done".  Mine was only to demonstrate he's not garbage.

 

He's a pretty good player and precisely the kind of defender at 1B that the metrics are terrible at crediting for what he does well.  He's a good addition for that lineup at a pretty reasonable price.  He'll help them.

Nick's point was only to demonstrate he wasn't "done".  Mine was only to demonstrate he's not garbage.

 

He's a pretty good player and precisely the kind of defender at 1B that the metrics are terrible at crediting for what he does well.  He's a good addition for that lineup at a pretty reasonable price.  He'll help them.

How do you KNOW they aren't crediting him properly for what he does well? Maybe they are crediting him properly for what he does well but that doesn't outweigh the things he doesn't.  Should they only take into account what he does well and ignore the rest?

In any event, you have more than clearly stated your belief the metrics are terrible at evaluations. Unfortunately, you state your belief as fact without providing any alternative form of unbias evaluation to back up your opinion. You believe he's a good, or better, defender than he is and since the metrics disagree it must be the metrics that are wrong or are missing something. So while I truly respect your opinion, in my opinion (even without the metrics) I see a bad defender and the metrics, made by people who evaluate defense for a living, back up what my eyes have told me. 

I never said he was done or that he was garbage.  Being between a role player and a solid starter does not demonstrate done or garbage.  IMO, he won't be a difference maker though, not when taking into account his overall game. He will likely be overpaid though, for what he provides.  

I don't know why the quote appears twice.

I have the Sox as an 80-85win team with the potential to win if Rodon succeeds this year.  Rodon is the wild card to their season.  That  lot of pressure.  I have LaRoche replacing Dunn's production.  Smardijizia is a good player for next year a huge upgrade who will make the rotation a winner especially if Rodon starts out strong.  Robertson is a huge bullpen upgrade and so is Duke but they could use another reliever or two for the middle innings as their pen was really bad last year.  Beckham replaces himself as he was traded last year and is ok defensively but a terrible hitter, and Cabrera is an upgrade with average, on base, and defense over Viciedo but not with power. Cabrera really helps with high on base percentage as the team does not have a lot of guys who get on base real well. overall there were huge strides made but there is 0 depth on this team and they really need Rodon to have a good year to really have a chance to make this year count.  overall their offense is likely to be average as LaRoche replaces Dunn offensively and that was needed as Dunn was done after last year regardless so LaRoche keeps the team from a huge hole but I don't necessarily see a winner here.  again they need depth in all area except starting pitching in case of injuries.