spinowner

This illustrates part of my problem with WAR. An ideal measure of a player's value should be absolute, not relative. There should be no arbitrarily-defined hypothetical replacement player that is different for each position.

A player's fielding position should carry absolutely no weight when you are evaluating batting. None. A SS contributes more as a fielder than a 1B but it should be accounted for ONLY in terms of fielding, not how he performs as a batter.

This is the problem. The goal should be The Truth, not one sabermetrician's opinion.

Point well taken, but I think (and I would guess Falvine think) that Polanco is the second baseman of the future. Keep him if possible.

Keep in mind that odds are based not on how the oddsmakers think the teams will finish but rather on how the oddsmakers think the bettors will bet.

I think the reason Sano had to go to RF is because the Twins had the misfortune of wanting to trade Plouffe when there was no market whatsoever for third basemen. Plouffe would have been a worse defensive RF than Sano and Sano would have been a worse defensive 3B than Plouffe. So they had to keep Plouffe and play him at 3B hoping that someone would trade a used fungo bat for him. Everyone knew it was short term but it was just one of those unfortunate things.

I would absolutely love to get Archer. But so would 28 other teams. Consequently it's a seller's market and the Rays would have to be blown away by an offer. Falvine are too smart to overpay by the amount needed to get him.

Santana alone is not going to fetch much. He's got one year left on his contract and it's very likely his production is going to drop, possibly precipitously. A rebuilding team is not going to trade for him. A middling team is not going to trade for him. The type of team that will trade for him is a good contending team with weakness at the back of its rotation. Such a team is unlikely to give up an emerging young pitcher like the Twins need. The best option for the Twins would be to include him as a throw-in to boost their return in a trade involving other players.

I am aware of the difference courtesy of Chitown, but I didn't want to use a term that other users may not be aware of. And I'll also say that I'm sure your ridicule parties are actually called training sessions or something like that and take place for the purpose of making moderator actions consistent. Officially, anyway.

No, what matters is if he should or shouldn't have gotten to it. And you can't try to determine that without understanding why he did or didn't get to it. And the fact that it's difficult to accurately and precisely measure a "should or shouldn't" is the source of the problem.

I'm not a sabermetrician. I wish I had the time and skill to be one but I don't. That said, I've never been on board with WAR. Fielding is the most difficult of the four aspects of baseball (the other three being pitching, batting, and base running) to measure. Did an outfielder miss catching a fly ball by one inch because he ran too slowly, because he reacted too slowly, because he misread the ball off the bat, because he took a bad route, because the sun (or artificial lights) affected his vision, because the coach positioned him improperly, because he positioned himself improperly, because his glove was too small, because the ball traveled more slowly due to cold weather, because the ball traveled more rapidly due to hot weather, because he was not 100% healthy, because another nearby fielder spooked him, or some combination of those and myriad other factors? Or was it a fly ball that was played as perfectly as humanly possible but simply wasn't going to be caught? I just think it's impossible to accurately and precisely quantify fielding. The lack of accuracy and lack of precision are compounded when trying to extrapolate fielding metrics into runs saved. And the lack of accuracy and lack of precision are compounded further when trying to extrapolate runs saved into wins and losses. The metrics attempting to quantify the other three aspects are also flawed, less so than fielding, although it depends on which metrics are used. However, there is still the same loss of accuracy and precision when trying to extrapolate those metrics into runs, and from there into wins and losses. So, WAR then. The way I understand it, there are several different formulas, none of which is totally objective, all of which use various imperfect metrics from the four aspects of the game (each of which is affected to some degree by the other three). And it's supposed to determine how many wins a player generates relative to some vague replacement player. While it's a noble goal, I think WAR as it is currently configured is too inaccurate and too imprecise to have much value.

I totally concur, except when my incisive cutting-edge posts get deleted. ;-)

If you have hit over 600 home runs without PED's you should be a first ballot shoo-in. No further discussion.

I disagree with the choice but offer sincere congratulations!

It will create an environment that will make good FA pitchers want to sign with us during future off-seasons.

N.O.No.

Auto correct strikes again!

I think Tonkin will dominate over there, just like in AAA. He's the classic example of a AAAA pitcher. Major league batters can hit a straight 96 fastball. AAA batters can't. He can't get his fastball to move enough to succeed in the majors.

That's still a roster move, the equivalent of a suspension. But we're discussing a technicality here. I don't like the rule in the first place because I don't think strategy should be restricted any further.

How about the other 27 teams?

Save the money. Use it to extend some of our core position players.

Under the rules as currently configured, I agree. However, maybe it would be better to increase by one year the age allowed for international signings. Or decrease by one year the age allowed for Americans.

I'm pretty sure that this would not be allowed. The rules dictate only how the game is played, and when you start involving roster moves I think it is covered by the CBA and has to be approved by the players and by management. I highly doubt either side would go for that. And even if there is a legitimate injury that requires a player to be removed it may not be something that would require DL time.

I actually don't see them making a big splash either signing or trading for a pitcher. Obviously the team needs help but as many have stated so do a lot of other teams and the free agent pool is not particularly large or deep. This doesn't make me optimistic or pessimistic, though. My optimism is regarding the hope that they will loosen the purse strings to lock up some of our young position players.

I also like the idea of deadening the ball. Technically that's not a rule change but it would definitely help. I'll still disagree on the catcher visit limits. And since I'm posting I'll comment that forcing a pitcher to face more than one batter could result in more "injuries". Pull a pitcher after one batter, announce that he has, say, back spasms, and he's day-to-day. And then the next day announce that he has improved overnight and he's ready to go.