Tiger337

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.

That could be true, although the Tigers being able to sign players to one year contracts because of no baseball in 2027 would probably be more depressing to me than exciting.

That's not something I'd worry about with Bichette, but it would be a consideration with Torres.

Expect might be too strong a word here...I mean expect in the statistical sense: the average of all possible outcomes (projected value) will be worth it.

I think he will. I hope he does, because I fear they won't be able to replace him if he leaves. Getting Flaherty and Torres for one year might be ideal since I expect them both of them to be worth the money next year, but they aren't the types of players I want tied up in long-term deals.

He's a modern day Scott Lusader.

That depends on how long the duration is. If it's one year, then you would have chaos. I am thinking more like four or five years. Assuming a team can still hold a player for the first six years, then they can extend him another four or five years and there aren't a lot of players you really want to keep longer than that. A few superstars maybe, but players aren't staying with their same team throughout their career even the way it is now.

From a fan's standpoint, I love the idea of limited duration contracts. I don't really care how much money a player makes, but I hate seeing a team sign a player to a long-term deal and then having watch the player keep playing years even after he loses all his value.